Control/Freedom- a symbyotic relationship?

This morning we had a class debate over author control and the empowerment of the media, and what a huge issue this is in interactive theory. My perspective, although it is an obviously big issue in interactive theory, is that it seems to invoke only one way of thinking about control- that it is bad. This might not be the case, but judging from all the material I've seen so far, that idea seems to seep through. That bothers me, becuase I think sometimes control can be a good thing. It's all about balance.

[ At this point my post was saved, and I incorporate the point I was going to make below in my section- 'Talk with Ellie Rees' ]


Guest Speaker: Ellie Rees - influential points from lecture

'Context is what makes art, art, and non-art, non-art'
'Context is everthing'
'Fine art depends on the artists intentions'
'Ellie Rees likes to control the way her work is presented because to change it's context changes it's meaning'


Talk with Ellie Rees
I've just been talking to Ellie Rees about her perspective on the project, and discovered it was quite refreshing to re-cap over everything theoretical I've been learning with someone who doesn't know much about it. My motivation for having a chat with her came mainly from something she said in class, about wanting to have control over the way her work was seen, and it being for the reason that if it was seen in a different way, it will change the meaning(to a point at least). I found this an intelligent perspective on the issue of control.

As I said earlier, it seems that alot of what I'm reading and hearing is geared towards an argument on whether freedom exists in new media or whether all is controlled because of it's set boundaries. I still personally think that all forms of old or new media has a degree of freedom, in the sense that the user/reader/viewer/lurker has control over their own thoughts and emotional response to the piece. Art, film, installation ect can always try and provoke certain responses, but the user always has the end say on how they react emotionally. To get back to the point, most of what I'm reading and hearing seems to stem from an idea that being controlled is a bad thing, but I don't buy into that. I think that boundaries exist for a reason, and what Ellie Rees said about her work exemplifies my point. She creates art pieces that have meaning, and she NEEDS some control over the way people view them, in order for the pieces to be true to themselves, much in the same way that the audience needs some control over their own perspectives and emotional reactions. When she tries to control the context of her pieces, she is trying to create a truer, better experience for her audience. With interactive media, I think the same can be said, to take for example a website, control exists in the from of boundaries and the author decision on where the buttons to be pressed will be, and freedom exists in the users ability to decide what order to view the pages. Yes, this freedom is a limited one, but it is for the purpose that what they are reading belongs not to them, but to the author. In a way the idea of freedom/control in new media both contradicts AND supports Barthes ideas on the death of the author. It supports it because the user is becoming the prosumer/protagonist and therefore the text/object belongs to them as an individual, but also contradicts it because it has boundaries that are set by the author/creator that allow the author/creator to still be able to claim some part of the object/text as 'theirs'.

To clarify my opinion on the control/freedom issue, I would say that yes, there is a big issue there, and yes, both arguments are valid, but I don't see it as an issue that needs any sort of resolution, and I don't side with either perspective. I think that in order for interactive media to be the most effective that it can be, 'control' needs to be a shared privilege between both the author and the audience. When either side gets too much control, it can be detrimental to either the audiences 'right(?)' to freedom, and the authors 'right(?)' to lay claim to their work.

To bring my argument out a little bit away from the world of interactive media, I would like to consider shock art. It is created by an artist who tries to provoke certain reactions in the audience. Is this really taking away the audiences freedom of emotional/mental interaction, or is it a necessary 'evil' in order to let the meaning of the pieces apparent? To a degree, people EXPECT an art work to have a meaning, part of the challenge of looking at some pieces is to identify it, and read what the author is saying, does this mean that that the shock artist is invading their thoughts by invoking a certain reaction? No. The reaction is part of the work. The artist can have an idea of the reaction they want to provoke, but free will is part of the human spirit, and their will always be individuals that react in an unexpected way, and while this is true, it cannot be said that the shock artist has total control. I think that different 'pieces', and 'medias' should all be judged on their own merits, as each type has a difference balance of power between author and user control, and this can be integral and often beneficial to both. So to me the keyword in this issue is BALANCE. It is true that in certain situations the author can impose such rigid control and manipulate mediums to try and mentally engage the user to thinking the way that they do, and that this can result in a bad thing (e.g, Hitler and propaganda in the war), but it is unfair to say that just because some individuals misuse media, that ALL media has hidden control. Context and meaning should always be taken into account, but generally speaking, I think that BALANCE OF CONTROL BETWEEN THE AUTHOR AND AUDIENCE will always come through as a positive thing.

So, to get back to my discussion with Ellie Rees, she heard what I was saying, and asked me about my ideas for the project, and basically helped me by letting me discuss my thoughts on control and clarify them in my mind, and suggested that I look at using installation to teach people that don't know much about interactive theory or interactive media about these issues, and about my own thoughts. I thought this was pretty similar to my existing idea of having an installation that explores freedom and control, and think that would be a good underpinning 'aim' for the piece. I also talked about my idea of having a screen based puzzle piece that needs mental attention to figure out how to proceed, and she pointed out I would need to make a motivation for the user apparent, something I have already noted by that idea to consider at a later point if I pursue it. Also she got me thinking that I will need to decide how 'challenging' I want the piece to be.

Basically Ellie Rees got me thinking that I have lots of idea already, and a lot of research, and that to progress I need to start making decisions so I can develop in certain areas, which I will start to do as planned at the end of the week. (Oh, she also reminded me the video artist I wanted to research earlier in the project but could not remember the name of is called Tony Oursler)

I am now very aware that the idea of control, and my thoughts of balance between author and user is a big issue for me when thinking about interactive media, and I think that I can definitely come up with alot more ideas related to this theme before I settle on one to develop.