Web 2.0- Don't you love it when you can't see breakdowns on Spotlight?
I've been diving back in and have been thinking a lot about the Web 2.0 theory, and in particular, participation and ethics.
I've never particularly been one for social media. Yes I have facebook, but only a comparatively small amount of friends. Instagram too, but the vapidity of posts often drive me away from it. Twitter is one I had always struggled with, but is actually going to be the focus of this post. I have had twitter for upwards of 10 years, however I have only properly started using it since turning professional.
What has always struck me about it is the nature of duality the platforms have. I think we can divide Web 2.0 into clear groups. There are the groups that are used for productivity, discussion and the betterment of learning and business experiences. These would be platforms like Skype (that we use), Linked In etc. Even Wikipedia is a publicly collaborated forum and that has led to a vast expanse of knowledge available entirely for free at our fingertips. I would agree with the theory of Martin Weller (2011) in that I think such platforms are key to engaging a 21st century audience in productive activity.
We have, however, a very contrasting group of platforms in twitter, facebook, instagram and the old haunts of myspace, bebo and more. When first created, and for seemingly a fair amount of time after that, I'd agree that these platforms went along with Feenberg and Bakardjieva's (2004) theory that social media was an extremely levelling place, where we could interchange ideas on the same, level platform, and that those ideas would hold equal value next to every single other idea, thought or opinion, and that they'd be discussed, dissected and analysed in the same way.
In the limited Skype interaction I've had with this group, that's exactly what the experience has been. When I've been talking to Laura, or discussing the course with my family and friends, that's what I've got. It's been a symbiotic sharing of ideas and creative reflections that have been treated with the utmost respect throughout.
Unfortunately, modern social media no longer works this way. the equalising nature of everyone having a platform has caused the rise of false information, unpleasantness and even hate.
Relating this to my practice, social media used irresponsibly can have a severe impact upon a person's mental health and self-esteem. Too often have I seen cast announcements posted when I thought I was still in with a chance of a role. I see parts being cast that I didn't even know were available. It brings in to light the ethics of it. Should casting directors and producers have an obligation to inform actors of casting decisions before the cast is publicly announced? Is it right for CDs, Agents and producers to so clearly have so called 'favourites' that they're always pictured with or working with?
I think Kuehn's 2012 article about getting into trouble on facebook poses some great points about those in perceived positions of power on social media. Is it right for producers/directors etc to follow some of their cast and engage with them on social media and not others? Do they have an ethical responsibility to act fairly and equally? Or because, technically, it's their private page- do they have to abide by any rules or 'netiquette'; at all? How about if a director unfollows some members of a cast and not others? Is this something that we could now consider to be extremely unethical in today's Web 2.0 world?
Another huge ethical consideration is the 'intra-social' platform the industry uses for job applications, the 'linked in' of the acting world if you will- Spotlight. There has been a lot of discussion lately about the access and availability of breakdowns on spotlight. Spotlight charges every actor approx £145 per year to be listed on there, and it's where 90% of jobs get posted. Agents don't pay anything to be on there, and casting directors only pay a fee per breakdown they post. However, CDs can set privacy levels on their breakdowns, meaning they can essentially filter out anyone who doesn't have a top agent, or any agent at all. I find this to be extremely troubling, as the accessibility that Ullrich (2008) talks about is essentially null and void for some people, through something that my be no fault of their own. Surely if two people are paying for what is advertised as the same service, they should receive the same things?
I think we all owe it to each other and to ourselves to use social media responsibly. I carefully curate my profiles to ensure no offence or large controversy is brought upon myself. I would encourage you to engage responsibly with social media. To treat each other with respect, to use it creatively to further your practice, but not at the detriment of others. Our industry gatekeepers have a huge responsibility to ensure that they are remaining fair to all those who pay their money for spotlight profiles, London rent, dance classes and everything else. For the most part, they're great, but when something slips, it can be a huge blow to someone out there. I have seen some strides in the right direction again, but we all need to be a part of that positive movement. Let me know your thoughts on this long ramble!
'It's nice to be important, but far more important to be nice'- John Templeton
I've never particularly been one for social media. Yes I have facebook, but only a comparatively small amount of friends. Instagram too, but the vapidity of posts often drive me away from it. Twitter is one I had always struggled with, but is actually going to be the focus of this post. I have had twitter for upwards of 10 years, however I have only properly started using it since turning professional.
What has always struck me about it is the nature of duality the platforms have. I think we can divide Web 2.0 into clear groups. There are the groups that are used for productivity, discussion and the betterment of learning and business experiences. These would be platforms like Skype (that we use), Linked In etc. Even Wikipedia is a publicly collaborated forum and that has led to a vast expanse of knowledge available entirely for free at our fingertips. I would agree with the theory of Martin Weller (2011) in that I think such platforms are key to engaging a 21st century audience in productive activity.
We have, however, a very contrasting group of platforms in twitter, facebook, instagram and the old haunts of myspace, bebo and more. When first created, and for seemingly a fair amount of time after that, I'd agree that these platforms went along with Feenberg and Bakardjieva's (2004) theory that social media was an extremely levelling place, where we could interchange ideas on the same, level platform, and that those ideas would hold equal value next to every single other idea, thought or opinion, and that they'd be discussed, dissected and analysed in the same way.
In the limited Skype interaction I've had with this group, that's exactly what the experience has been. When I've been talking to Laura, or discussing the course with my family and friends, that's what I've got. It's been a symbiotic sharing of ideas and creative reflections that have been treated with the utmost respect throughout.
Unfortunately, modern social media no longer works this way. the equalising nature of everyone having a platform has caused the rise of false information, unpleasantness and even hate.
Relating this to my practice, social media used irresponsibly can have a severe impact upon a person's mental health and self-esteem. Too often have I seen cast announcements posted when I thought I was still in with a chance of a role. I see parts being cast that I didn't even know were available. It brings in to light the ethics of it. Should casting directors and producers have an obligation to inform actors of casting decisions before the cast is publicly announced? Is it right for CDs, Agents and producers to so clearly have so called 'favourites' that they're always pictured with or working with?
I think Kuehn's 2012 article about getting into trouble on facebook poses some great points about those in perceived positions of power on social media. Is it right for producers/directors etc to follow some of their cast and engage with them on social media and not others? Do they have an ethical responsibility to act fairly and equally? Or because, technically, it's their private page- do they have to abide by any rules or 'netiquette'; at all? How about if a director unfollows some members of a cast and not others? Is this something that we could now consider to be extremely unethical in today's Web 2.0 world?
Another huge ethical consideration is the 'intra-social' platform the industry uses for job applications, the 'linked in' of the acting world if you will- Spotlight. There has been a lot of discussion lately about the access and availability of breakdowns on spotlight. Spotlight charges every actor approx £145 per year to be listed on there, and it's where 90% of jobs get posted. Agents don't pay anything to be on there, and casting directors only pay a fee per breakdown they post. However, CDs can set privacy levels on their breakdowns, meaning they can essentially filter out anyone who doesn't have a top agent, or any agent at all. I find this to be extremely troubling, as the accessibility that Ullrich (2008) talks about is essentially null and void for some people, through something that my be no fault of their own. Surely if two people are paying for what is advertised as the same service, they should receive the same things?
I think we all owe it to each other and to ourselves to use social media responsibly. I carefully curate my profiles to ensure no offence or large controversy is brought upon myself. I would encourage you to engage responsibly with social media. To treat each other with respect, to use it creatively to further your practice, but not at the detriment of others. Our industry gatekeepers have a huge responsibility to ensure that they are remaining fair to all those who pay their money for spotlight profiles, London rent, dance classes and everything else. For the most part, they're great, but when something slips, it can be a huge blow to someone out there. I have seen some strides in the right direction again, but we all need to be a part of that positive movement. Let me know your thoughts on this long ramble!
'It's nice to be important, but far more important to be nice'- John Templeton
Comments
Post a Comment