Loading...

Media Studies

The following is a radio piece and accompanying paper I created for my class in “Creative DIY Cultures & Participatory Learning” on the state of DIY and pirate radio broadcasting, particularly as it exists in large urban areas like NYC. It explores the history and motivations for DIY broadcasting, examines the migration of DIY broadcasters from the airwaves to the internet, and what effect the recent passage of the Local Community Radio Act (LCRA) might have on the future of microbroadcasting.
NOTE: The audio portion of this piece isn’t quite “ready for prime time” quite yet. The audio quality still needs to be cleaned up especially for the Skype interviews, and portions of the VO re-recorded. I offer it here not as a finished production, but as a reference and companion to the paper. A ‘finished’ version will be completed in the new year.

click to play.  TRT ~33 mins 

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

We Want the Airwaves: An Investigation Into DIY Broadcasting

Introduction

Radio began as a DIY endeavor, invented by amateurs and tinkerers – the hackers of the late 19th and early 20th century. The Radio Act of 1927 allowed the government to privilege certain groups, particularly the radio corporations, in the allocation of the radio spectrum, and effectively locked the amateurs out.  Since that time, unlicensed broadcasters – or pirates – have roamed the airwaves and tried to elude the FCC. Through a series of interviews, this 33 minute “broadcast” looks at some of the motivations of these radio hackers – why they started doing it, and why they stopped. It also takes a critical look at the recently passed Local Community Radio Act (LCRA) – legislation which intends to open the airwaves to broadcasters under 100 watts, but may not be able to accommodate broadcasters in the largest urban areas. Finally, the migration of many microbroadcasters from the airwaves to the Internet is examined, particularly how this move allows for broadcasts to proliferate, but may not serve the public in exactly the same way the traditional radio medium is able to.  It concludes that there still is much more work to be done towards equitable distribution of the airwaves, and that while Internet radio may be able to meet the needs of certain communities, its very distribution methods indicate a much different audience than would be served by local radio. [continue reading this post...]

Share

{ 0 comments }

Why Internet Radio Isn’t Radio

by tomtenney on April 8, 2011

I love Internet radio, I really do. As someone who has recently discovered a love for playing with sound, Internet radio has offered me opportunities that would have been unheard of for someone like me 20 years ago.  Massive distribution at such a cheap cost has opened doors to countless artists interested in exploring  But I wonder if “Internet Radio” isn’t something of a misnomer. I recently encountered Helen Thorington’s excellent article discussing radio as a medium for art and it’s evolution into the networked world.  As I read, I began to notice parallels between the kinds of work she observed being created on the ‘Networked Performance’ blog, and the early days of electronic music – particularly where she says,

work was being produced by a growing generation of programming-capable artists, artistically minded engineers, architects, academics and others – many of whom did not identify as artists – all repurposing objects from the everyday world, embedding unfamiliar functions in them.

This sounds a lot like what was happening in the early days of synth or computer music – when music was being made not only by musicians and composers, but by the programmers and engineers themselves – and also strongly echoes Lev Manovich’s ideas on ‘programmer as artist.’  But I digress.

Where Thorington lost me a bit was in her argument that the Internet is simply the next phase in the evolution of radio art.  To this I would counter that, while both have their merits and the ability to distribute similar kinds of work, radio transmission is an entirely different virtual space than the Internet, with not only different physical qualities and protocols, but also very different in how it is are situated culturally and economically. When the Local Community Radio Act passed back in January, a friend of mine and I were discussing it and he said something like “honestly, I don’t know why anyone would want to use the airwaves anymore when they could have an Internet radio station more easily and cheaply.” This started me thinking about the differences between the 2 media, and off the top of my head I can identify at least 5 reasons someone would want to use radio instead of the Internet as a virtual space for art:

1. Historical weight. Radio is a comparitively older medium, and the one that a rich history including 2 world wars and has been used not only for entertainment, but for military operations, propaganda dissemination, education, and art. Not that the Internet hasn’t been used for all those things, but the radio airwaves have a much longer legacy of these kinds of communication – thus adding to its (what I call) historical weight (which some may call nostalgia).

2. Sound – The sound of a radio transmission is MUCH different than sound on the Internet. While the latter has an (annoyingly) near-perfect tone, radio always sounds imperfect to me… always somewhat static infused, always reminding us that we are hearing a signal through the noise.

3. Experience – How we experience the two mediums is also wildly different. Radio can be listened to while working, driving, lying in bed. Granted, podcasts can too, but for me radio has a much more ‘sudden,’ ‘live’ or maybe ‘accidental’ quality to it. By that I mean that podcasts imply intent on the part of the listener, i.e. listeners have to search it, download it.. so obviously it must be something that they act with intent towards as part of the act of listening. What I love about radio is that you can “happen upon” a station and hear something you weren’t expecting. This may be the most salient difference, in my opinion.  The reason TV is still TV even though the underlying technology has changed radically, is that the experience isn’t radically different (with a few obvious exceptions.. the remote control e.g.).   We still sit on our asses on the couch, eat chips and passively consume.   When we watch a TV show on our phone, we never say we’re ‘watching TV.’

4. Community – Even simply by virtue of the fact that most radio only covers a limited geographical radius, it implies a geographical community which is obviated when something is broadcast to the entire world on the Internet.  One of the reasons I think the Local Community Radio Act is so important is because it is broadcast to such a narrow audience.   This limitation will force the programming to be relevant to a geographical community and (hopefully) encourage people to think socially and politically on a more local level than they are used to.

5. Cultural/economic implications – Far more people in the world have a radio (or access to a radio) than have the Internet, which has still only penetrated less than a third of the world population. I was recently looking at documentation of a “radio piece” done at Uniondocs a few years ago called Chorus of Refuge, which was “a sound installation that transmits the stories of six refugees, living in different cities across the U.S. to six radios.”  The voices are broadcast simultaneously and synced up so the overall effect is that of a chorus, or symphony of voices.  The reason they used radio as a medium is because radio is how many in the refugee communities get their news and information, and certainly is more prevalent than the Internet in Third World countries.

The Chorus of Refuge piece  brought up a lot of questions for me about the medium of radio, and specifically about how they used it in this piece. For example, they never really mention where the broadcasts in the installation were originating (or how they synced them up) which made me wonder if they just had some transmitter in the back room that was only broadcasting to the building. If so, then is it really radio? I mean, I know they were using radios (the objects), but is it Radio (the medium, which includes all those things I listed above) or only representing radio?

I don’t have any answers here about the future of radio, or whether it’s a better or worse medium than the Internet.  I only think that it’s important to make the distinction between the two and be able to untangle this kind of confluence of mediums.  Convergence is exciting, but in order for us to understand it and use each convergent medium in the most beneficial way, we must be able to understand what makes each unique.

Share

{ 0 comments }

Cybernetics in Art and the Myth of the Cyborg Artist

by tomtenney on December 29, 2010

This is the final paper written for my ‘Media Studies: Ideas’ class at The New School, Fall 2010.


Today’s artist – like Donna Haraway’s cyborg feminist – moves beyond both traditional limitations and modernist ideas about art, and enters into a hypermediated relationship with society and technology in which technological methods and mediated collaboration across networks are common.  Art has always been a carrier of cultural information.  Cybernetics as a theory of communication has been influential in the arts, as both metaphor and model for the process of artistic creation. Understanding how art and artists are influenced by Norbert Wiener’s cybernetic theory and Haraway’s cyborg theory – and in some cases how certain artists are claiming to actually “become” cyborgs – requires us to look at how Wiener and Haraway’s theories differ, as well as to delve a bit into art’s long relationship with technology and the larger artistic traditions out of which today’s artists have emerged.

In this paper, I will argue that artists calling themselves “cyborg artists” represent only a small fraction of the ways in which cybernetics has infiltrated art and ideas about art. I also hope to demonstrate that, in fact, their work often isn’t cybernetic at all, if we adhere to Norbert Wiener’s definition.  The “artist as cyborg,” I will contend, can refer not only to the materiality of the forms used to create art (i.e. machines and/or new media technology) but also to an aesthetic which is modeled on the core principles of cybernetics: negative feedback used within a system to achieve a goal.  Soraya Murray calls this “Cybernated Aesthetics,” and in her analysis of Korean artist Lee Bul, explains that “while [Bul is] calling upon an array of technologies that include (but are not limited to) media arts, [her works] are nevertheless fully engaged with cybernated life.” (Murray 47) This is a perceptual shift away from thinking of “cyborg art” exclusively as those that utilize new media technology, and towards a more holistic theory that situates art in Wiener’s more inclusive theory of cybernetics. [continue reading this post...]

Share

{ 0 comments }

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Blip.tv video.

References:
Barbie Dolls, Love Story, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, KC & The Sunshine Band, Jaws, Queen (the band), Barry Manilow, Pong, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Google, Woody Woodpecker, Altered States, True Red, Run Lola Run, The Shining, Dead Alive, The Six Million Dollar Man, ET, The Elephant Man, One Got Fat, The Wolfman, Age of Turbulance, An American Werewolf in London, Physical Aspects of Puberty, Olga’s House of Shame, Carrie, 70′s Bic Commercial, 60′s Wilkinson Sword Commercial, Frankenstein, La Belle et La Bete.

& special nods to Todd Haynes & Bruce Conner

Share

{ 0 comments }

‘Without’ – a photo/sound story

by tomtenney on October 21, 2010

A short digital story told with photos and sound, created for my Media Practices: Concepts class.  Starring Ashleigh Nankivell, and featuring a “plundered” audio collage entitled “No Place Like Home” by Martin Williams.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Blip.tv video.
Share

{ 0 comments }

Written as midterm assignment for Media Studies:Ideas

In their 1988 book, Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman posit a theory of “systemic propaganda” in which the mass media control content in order to serve the ends of the dominant elite.  The ingredients of this model are five “filters” used to censor content, which consist of concentrated media ownership, advertising, government news sourcing, flak, and anticommunism.  The cultural and technological landscape in which this theory arose is vastly different than today’s, which is characterized by interactive technologies that allow everyday citizens to manipulate media in ways that were impossible 22 years ago.   At the same time, interactive technologies pose their own set of challenges to the open distribution of news and other media content.   The strengthening of copyright laws benefitting corporate media creators, as well as governmental restrictions on technology, have created a situation in which government is still in control of the creation and distribution of content. Additionally, corporate media producers have engaged in practices of aggressively persecuting fans and citizen producers over intellectual property rights – forcing fan websites to be shut down, and litigating against consumers who share and remix media.

How do changing copyright laws and a participatory media landscape impact the fitters theorized by Chomsky two decades ago? To try to answer this, I will look specifically at Chomsky’s ideas of media ownership and examine how they may be challenged by contemporary media practices.  I will examine not only the concept of content ownership, but also ownership of the media companies themselves and try to discern how interactive media both challenges Chomsky’s theory, as well as how it has created an environment in which new censorship filters have emerged, and whether it’s possible for old economic models to survive in the digital age.

[continue reading this post...]

Share

{ 1 comment }

Final Radio Piece: “Off the Grid”

by tomtenney on July 30, 2010

This is the final piece for my Radio Narratives class, a ten minute audio art/umentary entitled “Off the Grid,”  which profiles (to use the term loosely), three of my favorite art stars: Don Eng, John King, and Walter Gambin.  Special thanks to Reverend Jen for providing some miraculous VO which pulled everything together for me in my hour of need.   As always, I recommend listening with a good set of headphones. Comments and criticism are encouraged.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.


Share

{ 0 comments }