creativity 2.0: creativity has never really been a democratic process

[sophiaserpentia]

I learned a lot, about myself and the nature of fandom, from the great WoW RealIDFail controversy of last week.

Being a fan of just about anything will generally get you a lot of grief, and so people learn in public not to mention that they are a fan. Unless you're talking about sports fans -- which makes me think that scorning fans is yet another secret form of misogyny, peppered with our society's general scorn for intelligence. I think this is part of why, whenever the producers or writers of an entertainment franchise do something that ignites fan controversy, discussion within the fan base isn't so much between opponents & supporters, as it is between opponents and people making fun of opponents.

But I got to thinking about the notion of being "emotionally invested" in something. A fan is someone who has made a significant emotional investment, not to mention a significant financial investment as well, in an entertainment franchise. That's not to mention the contribution they make to the community -- fan art, fan fic, etc., the glue which binds fans together and keeps them spending money -- and their enthusiastic free publicity for the franchise: word-of-mouth and viral marketing which advertisers dream of (because it means customers doing their job for them).

However, fans are not usually seen by the producers and creators as being co-investors at all. From the other perspective, the "investors" are the creative talent and the ones who sign the checkbooks at production time. This leaves fans in an incredibly vulnerable position: they are investors who have no real say in the decisions that are made.

This may be a large part of why so many people's relationship with a fandom, a very personal and intense experience, often quite literally a formative part of their lives, more often than not ends with sadness or disappointment. Fans make what is for them a huge investment in something in which they have no real say; the only vote they get is to stop consuming.

As a writer I can see how the flip-side might become somewhat harrowing; if you listen to fans *too* much, if you deliver only what they want, you might feel too constrained and feel as though you've had to sell your artistic integrity.

Before RealIDFail I would likely have sided with the writer 100%. But as I've said before, the meaning of a creative work is essentially the response intended to be provoked in the reader/listener/viewer. The writer or musician or developer does not develop subsequent works in a vacuum, especially at the point when there is a large, vibrant, active fan community. (So was Stephen King saying in Misery that he felt hobbled by his fan base?)

I'm not sure what I'm saying here in terms of how much an artist or developer owes to the fan community, I'm just... thinking about this and seeing if there's a dialog to be had about it. How much of a say do fans have? How much say should they have? Will artistic quality or meaningfulness suffer or improve if fans are allowed greater access and influence? There's a perception that an artist who caters too openly to fans will create inferior content -- is there any truth to this?

Comments

part one

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I addressed some of your first points above:
http://sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com/921843.html?thread=8585459#t8585459

I don't want it to sound like I dismiss the meanings that people read into things that were not intended by the artist. I just don't think they should be tangled up with the artist's original meaning. It's quite fascinating to me actually when large numbers of people see something in a work of art that the artist didn't (consciously) intend. A work of art, once published, gathers a cultural artifact in orbit around it.

I'm just wary of that added meaning drowning out what the author or artist originally meant to say. This is especially important in the case of artworks which convey dissent; it's all too often that the dominant culture misses the dissenting aspects of a work of art in favor of a "safer" interpretation.

Re: part one

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

But what about the case of something like an MMO, in which the whole POINT is for the viewers to interact with it and add meaning?

Re: part one

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, so far, to date, there isn't really that much interaction between the user and WoW content. For example, there are no branches in the quest line, a la "choose your own adventure." Except in RP, which is sadly neglected in WoW, you don't get to make the choices your character would.

Hopefully some future version of WoW, or some next-generation MMO, will implement more quest-line choice. I read that Guild Wars 2 will have something of this sort: when you roll your character you define certain things about them, like their alignment and beliefs, and this determines how NPCs interact with them, what quests become available, etc.

Re: part one

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I like the idea of games not where you set your alignment save as a starting point, but one where your choices and actions move you in one direction or another. A little bit of the faction reputation concept, combined with some moral-influence type responses from the game.

Re: part one

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I've seen MMO's compared to theme parks. It's not quite as passive as reading a book or watching a movie, but it's not entirely as interactive as many might prefer. It's more like having a closely scripted experience.

Re: part one

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the mechanism by which meaning becomes entangled with the artist's intent is a by-product of "one-true" thinking. The fact that so many of us can't conceive of multiple ideas being equally right and equally valid, has led to to statements of personal interpretation carrying a very false sense of being backed up by the "authority" of the creator, regardless of the creators intent or how closely our ideas are aligned with that of the creator. The idea that meaning has to come from an authoritative source is ridiculous. And ultimately demeaning.

So, in my opinion, an author stating (and, unfortunately beyond the creator's control, the difference between the two being undertood) "this work means this" as opposed to "my intention in creating this was to convey X" directly contributes to the process which smothers dissent.

I think I get what you are saying. Yes it is bad - very bad - that the authority to determine meaning can be stripped away from a person and their labor of love is presented as something else (with the underlying implication that this new interperetation is what they meant) by the authority of a dominant culture, or a rabid unified fanbase, or anything else. I can get the idea that since the way culture works means that some group someone somewhere is going to try to impose a "THE meaning" that creators and those who are invested in how a different meaning would shape the world around them might want to fight tooth and nail to say, "no that is not it."

Just ultimately, to break out of the pattern where meaning relies on an outside authority (which wouldn't be done without the underlying idealogy that some people are better, more correct, or more equal than others) we have to abandon the idea that ANYONE has the right to dictate what something means.

Re: part one

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Okay, I see your point. I imagine, for example, the creators of Sesame Street complaining about the way in which the gay community has made icons of Bert and Ernie. To my knowledge they haven't really, but I'm just using that as an example of a way in which an original creator might stifle dissent by insisting that their intended meaning is the only possible valid one.

I was thinking about this a bit during the commute home and I think maybe I need to articulate my thoughts on this with a bit more precision.

In the old model ('creativity 1.0') an artist, musician, author, etc. creates a work of art. She or he had certain things in mind (whether consciously or unconsciously -- it gets complex when you throw Surrealism into the mix) and this is what I would say is the 'meaning' of the work. Quite often there is a degree of dissent intended; it is that communication of dissent that was foremost in my mind when I adopted this notion of what a work means.

Once the creative work is published it enters the culture, where if it becomes popular a culture forms around it. There can be quite a bit of meaning expressed by the members of the fan culture -- and I want to be absolutely clear on this -- and it is just as valid as creative expression. It's distinct, but valid. Sometimes the cultural meaning conveys more dissent than the original (Bert & Ernie) but more commonly it conveys less. More commonly a creative work has to be protected *from* the culture industry.

What I'm describing as 'creativity 2.0' is a kind of new thing where artists have continual interaction with fans, and often even exposure to works of fan art, to the extent where it may be difficult or impossible to discern artist's intended meaning.

I think, too, that a work of art is distinct from an entertainment franchise... (*goes to add 'culture industry' to the tags*)

Re: part one

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I think in some ways we are communicating on different levels here. Something close to the debate between practical activism vs. radical ideology.

I agree that it is entirely possible that retaining control of the "meaning" of dissenting art and symbolism for a time may be a step that is needed to get us to the place where we can dump this whole idea that meaning needs to be controlled. Just we need to be mindful or else we end up reinforcing the patterns of oppression - including those times we happen to change the particulars for some people.

On the other hand, reality carries more meaning than words, and putting something out there with the only "message" attached being "you may not dictate how anyone else uses this" is pretty damned powerful.

Perhaps enough of both need to go on for things to come together?

As far as creativity 2.0 goes, I guess the fairest answer I can think of to your concerns involves a sort of reciprocity. The more an artist wants to dictate meaning in an on-going creative dialogue, the more they would be obliged to use the stories/language/symbols/etc that elicit that particular meaning/reaction in the fans. Basically letting outside influences have more say in the how's of how the message is gotten across. Because really, the only way to demand that your message be gotten across in your (uhm, by your, I'm meaning the artist, not you specifically) voice, is to say your voice is the correct one. Unless you limit your co-creation pool to a small number of very like minded people, it may be possible to hold on to the message or the voice. To demand both is not collaboration. It is a dictatorship.

I guess the flip side would be altering your message to gain popularity. That is the entertainment franchise, which is about profit, no matter how much they try to disguise it as art or message.

Re: part one

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

I guess I should add that a collaboration where any side feels forced to stay isn't really a collaboration. In a world free of marketers at least, a creator is under no obligation to cater message or voice to what anyone else wants to hear. And fans need to realize this. An emotional involvement does not create obligation. Whether in personal relationships or creative ones.

So no one owes their fans more of the same.

Giving the fans what they want whether you are feeling it or not would be lack of reciprocity with the mob dictating instead of the creator.