Community Building For Cultural Events Of The Physical World

How can the user potentials be activated and how can their participation be facilitated?

»Internet-communities aren’t websites where people meet,
but people
who meet there«
Michael P. Schmidt 2000

Social activities are expected to increasingly move towards the internet. This assumption is based on the new possibilities of the web 2.0. As a consequence this will lead to economic and social changes, increasingly driven by the networked communities (Maurer et. al 2008: 209). Crucial in this regard is an almost revolutionary mindset towards the internet. The technologies can be operated by any layman and every user can join in to produce his own contents independently. The progression from consumerism to »prosumerism« appears to be unstoppable. The user generated content (UGC) which has been developed to this end is the baseline for the web 2.0 and their communities. The consequences do not only affect the commercial sector, but also reach out to cultural non-profit organisations – thus leading to substantial changes. »The young generation grows up with interaction and participation – they will make a cultural institution share their own ideas and furthermore they will want to become active artistically themselves« (Janner 2008: 65).

The subject of »community building for cultural events in a physical (real) world« is gaining more and more impetus with the new conditions of the web 2.0.

An internet-based community is hardly any different from a community in physical space. Both are created by the meeting of people who share the same interests. Furthermore: both communities engage in the development of a network of relations among humans. The special aspect about internet-based communities however is the fact, that the people meet and exchange their ideas in the virtual as well as physical world. An online-community – according to Mühlenbeck/ Skibicki (2007) – is a group of people, who interact socially, i.e. exchange UGC and who share common interests, goals and activities. Furthermore they temporarily visit the same sites, which is mostly virtual. (Mühlenbeck/ Skibicki 2007: 15). Technical communications means also has to be provided to the group, in order to facilitate social interaction.

Jyri Engeström, co-founder of Jaiku, has defined five key principles for the setting up and maintenance of communities: (1) Define Your Object , (2) Define Your Verbs , (3) Make the Objects Shareable , (4) Turn Invitations into Gifts and (5) Charge the Publishers, Not the Spectators .

(1) This is the easy part, but perhaps most important. The social object will be the center of your network.

(2) This means what do you want people to do with your social object. Do you want them to comment? Rate it? Share it? Watch it? Etc. Make sure whatever action they should take is clear and highly visible on the site.

(3) This is almost a no-brainer, but you would be surprised how many sites have not made it easy (or even possible!) to share the object which their site is centered around.

(4) Want your friends to join you on the network? Don’t just spam them with an invite, send them something of value. Jyri mentioned how a purchase of a Skype headset years ago also included a set for a friend. Also, PayPal had originally offered a small amount of money posted to the account of your friends who signed up for the service.

(5) On any network, there are those who are creating and those who are passively consuming the content. You shouldn’t charge the latter, only the former. The people who are actively using the service and are getting value from it in some way are the ones who would be willing to pay for additional features or, in some cases, just to use the service itself

Furthermore the four-tier model by Armstrong and Hagel can be used in this discussion: (1) creation of a member-base by providing free contents and investment in marketing, (2) enhancing participation of members by making them create their own contents and providing attractive contents, (3) loyalty by promoting encounters and relationship-building among members, (4) use for commercial purposes such as advertising and participation fees as well as offering special services.

The »social object« established by Engeström is particularly essential for the success of a virtual community. It has to be created, shared, traded, modified and commented by the users. Such an element is needed by every social network, in order to operate successfully: in the case of YouTube it’s the video, at Flickr it’s the picture, at last.fm it’s the piece of music and at facebook and co. the status of the user. The opportunity to change, to pass on and to comment is of central importance for the social object of a community

The baseline of each internet community is the user generated content (UGC). It is what makes a virtual community come to life. It is the key to participation by members. In terms of sociology participation refers to the involvement of individuals and organisations in decision-making and opinion processes. In order to achieve an activation, the target groups and the world they live in have to be addressed.

Furthermore the opportunity to communicate within a community has to be given to the users, so they can become a community. This however only means that the framework has to be provided, not the content as such. The contents are generated by the community members themselves (UGC). Therefore particularly active users should be recognised for their participation and this should be guaranteed. Otherwise there would be no incentive to participate. These incentives could be perceived as »opportunity to increase attention« in the form of surveys, games, multi-media offers etc.

A closer user connection can be achieved by emotional components such as an extended user portrayal via profiles. A further incentive for members not to leave the community, is the disclosure of the member’s experiences, as well as the online status. Other ways to encourage participation in the community are furthermore: promoting the exchange among users, searching potential users on other platforms, making users committed by offering benefits and extras, as well as networking online and offline.

First experiments with communities have been accomplished in the field of arts and culture: virtual collections can be composed in the registration area »MyCollection« in the Smithsonian American Art Museum. They can then be retrieved and viewed randomly. The Tate Gallery invites visitors to up-load portrait pictures in the »Flickr« group set up independently for this very purpose. They will be shown on the website of the Tate Gallery in rotational sequence. With the assistance of experts the social object »art« – in the form of works of art and self-made pictures – is turned into the focus of the community. Activities related to the social object have also been defined and the exchange of information and communication between users has been advanced and made easier. Particularly the use of already existing platforms may lead to problems in regards to technical realisation. Unfortunately there are no survey figures available on those projects. The connection to an increase or decrease in visitor numbers would have been particularly interesting and helpful.

Because of the multi-faceted nature of the arts and cultural world, many social objects in this regard have not been cast effectively. An internet community that focuses on the social object »dance« is dance-tech.net. It boasts quite a successful development on the peripheral topic of dancing. Now it has already more than 1.200 members. Users can announce their events publicly. They can upload videos and pictures as well as make contacts and connections to other experts. The membership numbers of dance-tech.net do not compete with the numbers of visitors of internationally renowned museums. But this definitely must not be seen as a sign of failure. Especially the active participation of almost all members must be stressed at this point. Notwithstanding the co-founder Marlon Barrios Solano continually generates attractive content by including numerous interviews with in part well-known experts from the dancing scene. These contents attract more and more users. An interview with the choreographer William Forsythe for example led to 200 new member on one day only. Furthermore Solano has entered into various co-operations, particularly into media partnerships with organisations that have created a profile with his on-line community. In reply to the question of how he achieved this multitude in participation he simply said: »Just do it!«.

Solano also works as a consultant for the Dance Films Association in New York. They have done likewise and started an online community. The registration and membership however is not free of charge (starting at $25 per annum). The association offers a multitude of benefits to their members to compensate for this charge: e.g. invitation to openings, receptions and dance film labs, discounted entry tickets and screenings, previous announcement of screenings and workshops as well as support for independent projects. Additionally each member is being given the opportunity to curate in part the programme for the »Dance on Camera«-Tour. Registered users can furthermore view video-streams of events by the DFA. The community has been able to acquire more than 1000 members. The comprehensive opportunities to participate and the drastic increase in the number of members suggest that the effort of community building has been profitable for the association.

The biggest media art festival in the German-speaking world – the „transmediale” – tries to set up a similar community particularly addressing the last festival. However opportunities for comprehensive user participation do not exist. Besides there appears to be a lack of planning at this point. Users do neither experience involvement nor is there a social object, that they can shape, pass or comment on. Registered users also lack the opportunity to communicate, such that social interaction cannot take place. Only a personal diary for planning the festival can be created and saved or tags be added to individual articles. Again no figures are available on the usage. Therefore it cannot be rated as either success or failure. At this point criticism should be expressed on the procedures and realisation of the prospective community.

Organisations in the German-speaking world appear to be generally less willing to establish their own communities similar to the Smithsonian American Art Museum or the Dance Films Association. Already existing platforms for social networking are used instead, in an attempt to make and maintain friends or connections. The direct participation in a specific event or the direct link to an organisation must at this point be viewed critically. The connections that can be established via external offers are rather loose. The increasing number of members of the aforementioned online communities however speaks for growth of independent virtual communities. Moreover the question arises, if the participation can be transferred into the physical world in order to achieve an improved interaction between art and humans. In this sense: »Successful knowledge transfer involves neither computers nor documents but rather interactions between people« (T. H. Davenport)

Jadwiga Müller, May 2009

Resources

Armstrong, Arthur/ Hagel, John (1997): Net Gain: Expanding Markets Through Virtual Communities. Harvard Business School Press.

Janner, Karin (2008): Das Internet in der Kommunikationspolitik von Kultureinrichtungen – neue Ideen und Best-Practice-Beispiele. URL: http://kulturmarketingblog.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/diplomarbeit-karinjanner-das-internet-in-der-kommunikationspolitik-von-kultureinrichtungen.pdf

Maurer, Tina/ Alpar, Paul/ Noll, Patrick (2008): Nutzertypen junger Erwachsener in sozialen Online-Netzwerken in Deutschland. IN: Alpar, Paul/ Blaschke, Steffen (Hrsg.): Web 2.0 – eine empirische Bestandsaufnahme. Wiesbaden: Vieweg+Teubner | GWV Fachverlage GmbH.

Mühlenbeck, Frank/ Skibicki, Klemens (2007): Verkaufsweg Social Commerce. Blogs, Podcasts, Communities – Wie man mit Web 2.0 Marketing Geld verdient. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.

Perez, Sarah (2009): Building Sites Around Social Objects (Live from Web 2.0). URL: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/building_sites_around_social_objects_live_from_web.php

Online-Community dance-tech: http://dance-tech.net/

Dance Films Associations, Inc: http://www.dancefilmsassn.org/

Media art festival transmediale: http://www.transmediale.de

Join in and share what you are being offered

Joining in… Joining in…. Join in and share what you are being offered

Participatory Artworks – Approaches to the digital culture as target group

Statement: the perception offer determines the strategy

Excursions into the history of art

_Reception as participation

The constitutive role of the (art) observer can be identified and defined for each aesthetic experience on the basis of the works reception of Marcel Duchamps. According to him the element of participation accomplishes the constitution of a work of art only with the reception thereof. John Cage makes the dimensions of effects of technical media become the central work tool of art. They make the participating and constituting role of the recipient into the central working tool with a new form of creativity and a new definition of the term work. Cage accomplished his compositions for radios with the use of technical media at the beginning of the fifties. Cage is known to be the first one who used random processes to create a creative act. In pieces like »Imaginary Landscape No. 4« (1951) he determined the parameters of his musical score after »I Ging«. They were but instructions for the operation of the radio. The sounds of the radio stations received brought the randomness in a relation to the uniqueness of the respective performance.

From participation to interaction

The next step in the progression from participating to interactive elements in art is found in a new form of art production, which lets the recipient interact with the work of art. This interaction can also pertain to the optical form, sound or text. In the course of this the work of art becomes a type of collaborative process, where the artist and various recipients take part in by means of an object, a context of a situation or a technical medium. Instead of a finished work, an open sphere of activity is being created by the participants. They interact among each other within the given confines. The interaction is such that it becomes the central factor of the aesthetic experience and dissolves borderlines between authors, participants and audience. At this point the concept of the “happening” by Allan Kaprow, can be referred to as representative example.

_Change of meaning of interactivity

In comparison of the sixties to the nineties there has been a change of meaning of interactivity, that is closely connected to a shift of the key motives for the application of art and media. In the sixties the effects of art and media were aligned by a combination of ideological objectives with technical means. The social and cultural utopia was the deliverable of a desired future function of the media, which was hoped to trigger off social change. Activity art as well as the political movements in the sixties had a downright critical attitude towards technology, this relationship however reverses during the nineties. The media technology establishes itself as key motive, which is adequate to the perception of a world increasingly mediated by media. The present day opportunities to interact are closely tied to the electronic media. They are determined by the technology of the interfaces and the rules of the software.

conclusion: the media art has established the participation of the observer in the creation of an art of work as an interactivity between observer and work of art, in the sense of mutually taking influence

_media hype = participation hype?

So far so good. We can thus assume that more than a hundred years of art history are sufficient to establish a general understanding and wide acceptance of participation within the arts. If we look at Charlie Gere’ and his derivation theory of digital culture, it will be obvious that a comprehensive expansion of the digital technologies will affect all spheres of production and society. Furthermore our ways of perception and activity options will change. Entirely in the sense of McLuhan: specific cultural contexts influence the values and beliefs that determine behavioural patterns. After Marshall McLuhan’s media theories, such physical and psychic behavioural role-playing has been examined in relation to media and how media, as extensions of human behaviour, affect our environment and our interactions.

But what will happen, if within the target group „digital culture“ a type of perception establishes that is in the first place passive ? In an electronically networked world – especially with the hype of the so-called media – a type of interaction has evolved which primarily takes place in front of the computer, i.e. in a sitting position. Where on your festivals and events are the representatives of a postulated digital culture ?

What are the relevant connotations of a digital bohemian world, a digital culture or interface culture ?

• user-created contents
• subjective scope of experience
• networking/ network communication
• secondary real-time experience

But are those the typical parameters for an activation of our target group ? The question is: how can a general trend within the medial world be transformed into a real involvement and connection to cultural offers ? What needs to be done so that our offers are perceived actively, not just as information or web-based announcement, but as being directly present and available on site. What steps are needed to stimulate a direct participation in the offers ? The participating offers that make the visitors join in have to be reviewed and adjusted depending on the respective perceptive offer. How can we achieve the new thinking together ? In what way can we come together and organise events like CYNETART, which is a source of fun and radiating happiness for the new generation of the digital world ?

Preconditions:

1. If we talk about art and art works we have to seriously consider the users with their specific conditions of life and perception.
2. Certain perceptive occasions (cultural events) aren’t pieces of work as such. They rather have to be declared or perceived as works of art. They have to be sensed and assessed.

Art cannot be determined in terms of essentialism, i.e. within itself, but only by someone, who regards it as part of a symbolisation process. To this end we have established our festivals and events. Art (conceptions) can only be determined within art (conceptions). Only someone who knows what he considers art can get answers to the question about art or get into problems with art.

From the above I conclude the requirement to communicate the respective philosophies of the organising committees/curators to the outside world. Furthermore the understanding of the offered occasion to perceive (art) has to be made clear.

We always talk about art in a preconceived and biased way due to our own art concept ort he one known to us. And these concepts are usually formed imperceptibly in the course of the respective subject-specific socialisation. Within this process we make prototype experiences with perceptive offers, which are presented as works of art and which we have learned to regard as art at the time of the respective experience.

The term defining art and work cannot be fixed to timeless characteristics, but must be related to attitudes that stem from socialisation, prototype experiences, expectations and assessments. The more uniform their socialisation (digital culture), the more uniform will be their expectations and experiences. Therefore the cultural and participating offers (occasions to perceive) should feature material compositions that correspond to these expectations and experiences. The participants in the art process should be led to the assumption that the conception is the result of specific works/project characteristics.

Maybe borrowings taken from the happening, fluxus or concept art help you there. These avant-gardes of modernism have continued to dematerialise the work (of art) going as far as staged/acted processes or even pure playing with ideas. Theory and practice enter a generally changed relationship to each other. The work (of art) has lost its complacent self-sufficiency. It has to be brought to the frame of its baseline theories in order to realise the semantic and aesthetic message of art production. Therefore the work (of art) is dropped from its special position as autonomous work of art and becomes the moment of comprehensive reflection. This work necessitates a recipient, who uses it as a starting point for reflective perception and then produces separate and individual work realisations from it. The character of such work means in the first place to document a production and reception process at significant points or in a remarkable condition.

The subject takes the place of the object. The subject constructs objects by its perspective and its figurative attempts. Seeing and not the figured objects, the presentation mode and not the presented, the expression and not the objective connection dominate.

Conclusion: web 2.0 marketing-strategies and work-intrinsic participation offers cannot be held apart. In terms of their characteristics they are comparable. Especially with the early involvement of our potential audience in the production process of the festival or a specific project or the stimulation for the reception process by special offers of mediation.

on the future of participatory media
building sites around social objects

The objective: long-term involvement in activities of TMA especially special projects. What is the social object of TMA Hellerau?

Thomas Dumke, Mai 2009