In the past few months we have discussed the media industries and explained theoretical concepts concerning all sorts of aspects of the creative industries. We have used theories like media convergence, cultural democratisation, spreadability, transnationality, cultural imperialism, lieu d’imagination, active audiences and so on. The danger of analysing the media industries as a whole by using these rather abstract theoretical concepts is that it can lead towards a so-called helicopter view. The abstract scientific analysis then creates a gap between the analysis and the actual media industries and agents working in the media industries. To avoid this danger we have related the abstract concepts in the blogs to clear case studies like Lego world and Dove. This way we tried to make the several concepts more hands on and understandable. Nevertheless the fact that we tried to avoid the helicopter view we did not receive any followers on our blog and we are most probably not influenced the media industries whatsoever with our blogs. Although we have not contacted or notified the various companies that are addressed in our blogs, the company of Dove would probably not be interested in the way that they for instance incorporate the idea of drillability in their True Beauty Campaign. So are these analyses, in which the media industries are seen as texts that can be explained by using theory, only interesting for other scholars or cultural scientists? If this is the case, how is it possible to make research on the media industries more appealing for the media industries themselves and evoke curiosity for non-academically schooled neighbor?
One way for making research on the media industries more appealing is maybe not approaching the media industries as a text that needs to be analysed but instead working more bottom-up by solving problems that are addressed by the media industries themselves. So combine the theoretical part of the research with a practical touch: ask the media industries what they see as problems themselves, instead of only using earlier written texts about the media industries. When a scientist works together with companies to solve problems they can benefit from each other. Sharing knowledge and combine the theory with the practice is a good way to research the media industries. Because both theory and practice are combined, the scientist can give a more broad and realistic point of view. So by not only using theoretical concepts, the helicopter view can be avoided. This can narrow down the cap between the scientists and the agents working in the creative industries. Downside of this way of making research more appealing, can be that it can reduce the critical view of the scientist. Working together this closely could limit the distance between the scientist and the company. The scientist has to keep in mind that he should keep his scientific glasses on, and cannot get too much involved within the company. Because this could lead to research that is not objective and critical anymore.
The importance of a more appealing research in the media industries itself is based on the need to have the media being critiqued. By making the scientific research easier to understand by a wider audience, can generate more critique towards the media from all different segments of the audience. The diversity in the audience makes it possible to review and critique an idea from different points of view and different fields as well and hopefully offers the possibility to come to a nuanced and balanced conclusions. As stated by Sarah Kember and Joanna Zylinska, criticality can save us from being a “creative mania”, a desire-driven chase for originality that naively replicates the very structures and strictures of romantic creation.[1] Critiques enable making distinctions between states of being and encourage envisaging new and better states of being.[2] That is why, providing more approachable research in the media industries should be encouraged, for critique can act as a controlling variable that enables us to monitor both the media and the audience, thus, allowing a deeper understanding for future references. In the words of Isabel Lorey, critique has the potential to initiate a recomposition, the constitution that emerges and results from non-standardized heterogeneous practices, from practices that dare to invent something new.[3] With the emphasis on the heterogeneous practices here, we can once again see the importance of critiques that come from different kind of field and also the audience, for the sake of better improvement of future media industries itself.
It must have become clear by now that a critical attitude is very important, both in research, but towards the media industries in general as well. But we think that it is important that researchers are not only critical of the media industries but are engaged with them as well, in the sense that they know what problems are going on and that the research that they execute might actually contribute something to the media industries. This is of course a very thin line, since, as we said, it brings the danger of becoming too much involved in the media industries and eventually maybe even having an agenda in the media industries. The other side of how the scientific field should evolve according to us, is to be open to a bigger audience and trying to make the results of researches publicly available. Not only in the literal way of making articles openly accessible, but also by for example providing the audience with comprehensible summaries of the research article that are not filled with scientific language and jargon. The audience is then given more possibilities to realize what they are consuming and how those products were made. Knowing what is going on is an important tool to develop a critical attitude and to start critiquing the media industries if and where necessary.
References:
Literature:
– Kember, S. & and Zylinska, J. (2012).‘Remediating Creativity: Performance, Invention, Critique’, in: Life After New Media: Mediation as a Vital Process.Cambridge: The MIT Press
[1] Kember, S. & and Zylinska, J. (2012).‘Remediating Creativity: Performance, Invention, Critique’, in: Life After New Media: Mediation as a Vital Process.Cambridge: The MIT Press: 162
[2] Idem: 184
[3][3] Idem: 184