Cocurated Digital Culture Machinima

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01328 byguest on 26 September 2021

ABSTRACT ©2019 ISAST cultural heritage by firms (organizations) holding content, of holding (organizations) firms form by heritage cultural distinctive a as phenomenon the of recognition wthV n Machinima and TwitchTV generic networkingsocial such services as YouTube, Vimeo, technology-mediated environments, including specialist and throughemerged culture has machinimaof experience tive released via a range of online streaming Theservices. - collec mas machini- of thousands of tens been have there [2], Camper be to community the by recognized film, short puter games isinto repurposed a format.new Since the first nized as a genre of appropriation, where content from com- nowrecogwidelyis- arts, digital in and,withinmid-1990s the emerged that practice cultural game-related a is It [1]. gameplay computer 3D of edits and recordings using ated sional and arts digital creator communities. spectives and methods of curatorial practices among profes- important cultural movement, empirically investigating per an as machinima of curation digital in issues pertinent the of some explored has that research summarizes article This of communitymembersandaudienceinteractions. representingshiftsinthetechnologylandscape,network of theartifact, concludes thatcurationisaprocessofcontinuallyevolvinginterpretation andsustainabilitystabilityofculturalcapital.Thearticle cocuration; capturingcontextsthrough expression andcollectivememory; socialproducts,materialized technologies asculturalintermediaries; visualization; social consumption;creativecognitionandexploratory interrelated themesofcuratorialpractice:coevolvingsense-makingand highlights considerably sinceitsemergencein1996.Thearticle Machinima isacreativeculturalmovementthathasevolved around digital“socio-techno-cultural”practicessuchasmachinima. exploreshybridcuratorialpracticesthathavedeveloped This article Cocurated DigitalCulture l a r e n e G with thisissue. See www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/52/2 forsupplementalfilesassociated The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH, U.K. Email: [email protected]. Tracy Harwood (researcher), Institute of Creative Technologies, De Montfort University, Machinima is a form of original creative content, genercontent,creative original of form a is Machinima (“machine-animation-cinema” films) produced and and produced films) (“machine-animation-cinema” Machinima T C A R doi:10.1162/LEON_a_01328 A e l c i t r H y R A TM o o w . There is, however, limited limited however, is, There . d Diary of a of Diary

- - cultural heritage. as value its realize professionalcreatorcommunitiestoand contentboth amongcurationin skillsets andcompetencies online spaces hold a wealth of information that requires argues, new [5] Dale Yet, as [3,4]. arts media new preserve and document approachescollect, present,developmentthatof institutional limited to due least not is This galleries. and museumscuratorscontemporary art with associated media professional by preservation hoc ad and limited only with materials, to access unsustainable and unstable presaging takedowns over time, with original works then lost in the the in lost then works original with time, over takedowns to subject and blocked becomes participants community upgraded,content that permissiblyis created and shared by periodically are algorithms As censure: algorithmic to ject terially infringed. Game assets may nonetheless become sub intellectual property of the game publisher has not been ma- has repurposed game-based assets for nonfinancial gain,the artist an contentby original when example,For structures. corporate and limitations technological current within [9] authenticity and ownership copyright, of boundaries tests tion is embedded within communities of practice [8], which solvable thateasily cura- given challenge, not an is This ers. stakehold minded culturally from intervention little with rithms and moderators employed by platforms (corporates), is organizationally determined through search-related algo- sional practice. The preservation andcuration of machinima profes and social personal, as curation of importance the of recognition a growing been has there [7], 2021 by traffic mates suggest reachwill around 3.3 zettabytes annual global esti some which information, online in growth the With preservation. digital for prepared are Europe within veyed Fresa [6] reports only around half of cultural institutions sur phenomena such as the machinima movement. For example, cultural significant represents which servers, corporate on contentcuration the of the with held howdeal onsensusto con policy formalized no is there artifacts, digital erated user-gen of value heritage the of recognition the Despite Digi ta l Cu l rat ion P ion LEONARDO, Vol. 52,No.2, pp.123–127, 2019 ract i c e s ------123 corporate ether to the creator and the community. Who owns first-person shooter). These do, however, now represent vast the content, what the role of the platform is and how the as- bodies of work comprising tens of thousands of artifacts, sets as evolutionary creative works in these environments are although only some have generated “mass interactivity.” In viewed remain unclear. recognizing the value of power users, i.e. those who gener- Within the literature, the research focus on curation has ate significant numbers of followers through regular content been on professional, personal and hybrid practices. Digital posts, platform owners within the technological ecosystem, curation is a broad term that encompasses traditional roles such as Apple and YouTube, now enable customers to make of coordinating, organizing, managing and presenting digi- playlists of personally curated audiovisual preferences widely tal content with technical data management skills, with em- available, in turn influencing social behavior and creative phasis depending on the lens through which it is viewed as practice. The use of playlists such as audio has an interesting practice. For example, in the domain of informatics, among history within broadcast media studies as a means of “ma- professional archivists good practice in digital curation has terializing expression” that reflects the collective memory of long been identified through a framework that involves pro- listeners [24,25], thereby situating playlists as social products ducers, users and archivists in an approach that manages of the communities in which they are experienced. These content through its lifecycle [10]. This approach, however, is kinds of facilities may be one way in which corporate entities not easily applied to phenomena such as machinima: Viewed influence digital curation; however, their role is ultimately through a cultural lens, this type of content is held across destructive in supporting the preservation of the cultural multiple platforms, with no clear system of categorization heritage entrusted to the platforms by communities of prac- applied by creative producers and curators, and no formal- tice, the artists and creatives who generate the content. ized corporate understanding of the roles of stakeholders in preserving and providing access to cultural heritage. Emer- Cultural Intermediation gent tools and practices include crowdsourcing, storytelling Davis et al. [26] propose that creativity in relation to the and learning systems [11], yet there has been little explora- generation of machinima may be the result of distributed tion of concepts of curation in the context of online cultural exploratory visualization, based on creative cognition across practices such as machinima. a community of practice that includes the technologies in which it is situated [27]. This suggests that the community Personal Practices of Curation has a role as cultural intermediary [28], where value is added Despite its low-quality production values, Bardzell [12] sug- to the curation of machinima works through processes of gests that recognition of digital creativity in multimedia selection and choice of technologies, i.e. intermediation [29]. amateur practice, such as machinima, is the consequence of Thus the mass use of streaming services becomes a mediator shared discourse. The discourse around machinima, medi- and moderator of curatorial practices online. While Watkins ated through the complex ecology of technologies, has re- et al. [30], building on the work of Belk [31], reflect on the na- sulted in a mass phenomenon that has become culturally ture of collections in digital realms, suggesting self-curation significant not just because of what it is but also because of is a central part of developing individual identity and public how it is generated and distributed [13]. Personal practices persona, Morris [32] and Smith Maguire and Matthews [33] involve disparate resources reflecting the complexity of the argue that the automated processes used by streaming chan- ever-expanding technological ecosystem and idiosyncratic nels facilitate curation and tastemaking. This highlights the choices of users [14]. For example, machinima may include transformational roles technologies (corporates) may play as content from multiple games platforms within creative a service that offers a means to both organize and showcase works. Referring to technological determinism, Bardzell [15] content [34,35]. Morris [36] positions these roles as “infome- draws on Benjamin [16], McLuhan [17] and Ellul’s [18] views diation,” highlighting the nature of processes based on the that technology changes the experience and meaning of art often automated analyses of large quantities of data within and thereby the nature of culture. There is little discernible systems that “spit out” content based on popularity, relevance structure, however, to formation and viewing of collections or importance. Yet, fundamentally, it is individuals and com- of contemporary user-generated content by communities be- munities that shape taste through their consumption prac- yond individual member metadata tagging and search using tices of which, increasingly, digital curation activities are a an array of social bookmarking tools [19–21]. Moreover, as part [37]. Corporates do not produce content—without cre- Kluszczynski [22] intimates, the type of creative practices ators there would be no content—yet they actively moderate employed challenge traditional views of an author, replac- cultural production of communities. ing them with a notion of “dispersed-authorship,” where creativity is an interactive process negotiated between artist Social Digital Curation and audience [23]. Within machinima where appropriation is the central creative practice, using computer games as the creative matrix Corporate Influence on Digital Curation from which original works emerge [38], there is a deeper The pockets of thematic aggregated content have only really level of discourse embedded in the creative structures. This been synthesized and exploited through commercially oper- is associated with gaming cultures akin to what Shifman ated platforms such as MachinimaTM and TwitchTV, which [39] identifies as the foremost participatory culture visible may facilitate organization by specific game or genre (e.g. on social networking platforms such as YouTube, i.e. the ac-

124 Harwood, Cocurated Digital Culture

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01328 by guest on 26 September 2021 tive transmission and memetic re-creation of content that highlight the ways in which the artistic work challenges is often made using computer games. It comprises the the- traditional curatorial practices associated with exhibition matically re-created works of others, representing systems of artifacts. While literature highlights the emergence of of knowledge that are constantly shifting as new works are hybrid forms of curation that are evident in this context, it incorporated and new understandings negotiated between does not go far enough in exploring the nuances of the roles community members [40]. It implies that shared meaning of different stakeholders in bringing the work to the fore. is dynamically coevolving as new artifacts are curated and Six interrelated themes have been identified in this research membership of the community changes (new members join, through analysis of machinima works and interviews with existing members leave). Thus, it is the social consumption creators and curators: coevolving sensemaking and social of curated content and channels that develop cultural capital consumption; creative cognition and exploratory visualiza- [41,42]. The processes of social digital curation add value for tion; technologies as cultural intermediary; social products, communities of interest and practice not only by organizing materialized expression and collective memory; capturing knowledge for followers [43] but also by facilitating access contexts through cocuration; and sustainability and stability and developing evaluation and critique that may ultimately of cultural capital. These are now discussed. lead to new forms of creativity [44–47]. MachinimaTM has, for example, generated a global following of millions through its Machinima Challenges to Traditional Curatorial Practices channel partnering strategies, where “partners” (individual Machinima is as much about the creative process, as a kind curators) specialize in genres of machinima based on specific of virtual performance enacted with video games, as it is the game engines or performative styles that they target to their finished artifacts (machinimas) themselves. Research high- own audiences. lights this as a rapidly evolving process, involving interactions between the creators and the community of practice Legitimizing Social Curation Practices in making meaning [54,55]. Uniquely unlike other forms of Within museums and galleries, while the social construc- visual culture, machinima is not necessarily a linear form tions of emergent phenomena may be the subject of contem- of creativity—storytelling does not emerge in a sequential porary exhibitions [48], the presentation of artifacts tends manner but is enacted through participation in the creative to reflect monological curatorial practices more typically processes that involves the community. Indeed storytelling associated with fine and high art. This contradicts both the may not issue through the creative processes of one artist creative practice of user-generated content and communal but could emerge through the curation of multiple works by consumption of the work. That said, as Beiguelman [49] in- many artists creating machinima from a game genre or single timates, digital preservation of user-generated content within game context. Thus, the sense of exploration through visu- professionally curated archives interrupts and possibly “cor- alization is central to the practice of creation and curation. rupts” the memory of the social construction of the work by Moreover, the process of creativity is mediated through a the community, leading to future misrepresentation. This has complex ecology of technologies including computer games, led to the emergence of cocuration as a hybrid, interactive ap- editing software, social media and streaming platforms and proach involving communities, curators and audiences using is moderated by a community of practice interconnected crowdsourced information and social metadata to build rigor throughout the processes of creation, dissemination, cura- and relevance into networked resources [50,51]. Cocuration tion and consumption. In this way, the works are the product goes beyond content, access and storage models traditionally of a techno-sociocultural movement, which supports collec- used but is unlikely to capture the “essence” or contextual- tive memory of contextualized consumption experiences. ized specifics of digital works incorporating community-led Automated algorithms online may provide search capability sensemaking. The nature of the machinima creative environ- through metadata tagging that enables interaction between ment is such that works generated by individuals are often creators and community. Currently, however, they do not fa- “remixed” or redistributed using customized channels to cilitate the appropriate preservation of collectively generated reflect meaning that is idiosyncratically imposed through and curated creative works, nor are they used overtly as tools systems of acquisition and recommendation (collecting, or- for capturing cultural heritage. The challenge this creative ganizing, exhibiting), irrespective of emphasis on taxonomic context presents to professional curators is not trivial, inso- or aesthetic qualities [52] or indeed the source game. Thus, far as it becomes necessary to reflect the creative evolution there is a constant tension between artistic and commercial of works in order to make sense of them, as highlighted by goals in presenting and preserving creative works online [53] Laforet [56]. that is hard to capture. Despite this, professional curators re- The interactions between the creator, technologies and main instrumental in the process of legitimizing the cultural audience are essential components of the consumption ex- production of communities of practice. perience [57]. These are complex characteristics that chal- In exploring the contentions and gaps highlighted my re- lenge curatorial practices, because exhibition of the artifact search examined how cocuration including historical, con- without contextualizing either the roles of technology in textual and community-based (encompassing taxonomic mediating the experience or interpretations of community and aesthetic values), influences the cultural development actions in building meaning of the work misses the point of machinima in both on- and offline contexts. Findings of its creation. Thus cocuration goes some way to capturing

Harwood, Cocurated Digital Culture 125

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01328 by guest on 26 September 2021 interactions between creator and audience. Yet this does not in this community and technology-mediated context within fully recognize the roles of technology in shaping the au- gallery spaces is contested, not least because machinima has dience experience, because it implies merely a dyadic ex- a materialized life that can be linked to computer games and change process. For example, within the gallery context, games cultures as well as the creator-technology-audience there appear to be three distinct approaches to exhibit- interactions described. It is therefore continually evolving, ing work: “artist/curator,” “curator/audience” or curator- intimating the need for new approaches to digital curation mediated “artist/audience.” This contradicts comments made in such contexts. by Belk [58] and Watkins et al. [59] about how technology- mediated curation across a community builds cultural iden- Conclusion tity. The machinima context is clearly multidimensional, Curatorial practices associated with machinima and its de- where exchanges take place between numerous participants, velopment within a community of practice need to consider each of whom advances understanding through their inter- the breadth of engagement with the creative genre. Recently, actions. Therefore, curation of the work is likely to be a con- this includes emerging “let’s play” formats as well as histori- tinually evolving interpretation of the artifact, representing cized digital arts artifacts and practices. Part of the challenge shifts in the technology landscape, network of community in preserving machinima is likely to be the future availability members and audience interactions. of the technologies [63] that enable the work to be situated This is reflective of Kluszczynski’s [60] view that mean- as cultural heritage, i.e. social networking and streaming ing is a “never-ending process,” because “interactive work platforms, computer game versions (software) and interface is largely modified in the course of the reception” by an hardware used by creators. Unfortunately, the rapid develop- audience through a process of “active interpretation” [61]. ment of commercially focused streaming services, with auto- It implies the role of curator is to assist in the “navigation” mated algorithms that remove content without consideration through the pathways of interpretation of works [62], rather of the cultural heritage it represents, is likely to damage the than presenting a definitive exhibition of “completed” works emerging digital arts sector, which focuses increasingly on consumed through a (more traditional) contemplative mode. interactivity as a means of representation and interpretation. This is an emergent area of research interest, which in some Thus, in closing, this research calls for engagement in the respects depends on the definition of an artwork—a debate preservation of cultural phenomena such as machinima by beyond the scope of this paper. That said, this research high- the range of stakeholders identified: corporates, games pub- lights the curatorial practices that have variously been used lishers, professional (museum/gallery) and amateur curators to situate the work within digital art cultures. Cultural capital and creators.

Acknowledgment 9 Deborah Turnbull Tillman and Mari Velonaki, “Curating: A Dis- ruptive Technique for Disruptive Technologies,” Proceedings of ISEA Research reported on was funded by AHRC (reference AH/L014203/1). 2015: 21st International Symposium on Electronic Art (Vancouver, 2015). References and Notes 10 See Digital Curation Centre’s Curation Lifecycle Model: www.dcc .ac.uk/resources/curation-lifecycle-model (accessed 6 June 2015). 1 Paul Marino, 3D Game-Based Filmmaking: The Art of Machinima 11 See e.g. Dale [5]. (New York: Paraglyph Press, 2004). 12 Jeffery Bardzell, “Creativity in Amateur Multi-Media: Popular Cul- 2 The Rangers, Diary of a Camper (1996): www.youtube.com ture, Critical Theory and HCI,” Human Technology 3, No. 1, 12–33 /watch?v=uSGZOuD3kCU (accessed 4 June 2015). (2007). 3 Christiane Paul, “The Myth of Immateriality: Presenting and Pre- 13 Lev Manovich, “After Effects, or Velvet Revolution in Modern Cul- serving New Media,” in O. Grau, ed., MediaArtHistories (Cambridge, ture, Part 1,” unpublished manuscript (2006): www.manovich.net MA: MIT Press, 2007) pp. 251–274. (accessed 5 June 2015). 4 B. Martin, “Should Videogames Be Viewed as Art?” in A. Clarke and 14 Joyce Kasman Valenza, Brenda L. Boyer and Della Curtis, “Social G. Mitchell, eds., Videogames and Art, 2nd Ed. (London: Intellect, Media Curation Platforms,” Library Technology Reports 50, No. 7, 2014) pp. 345–356. 60–65 (2014). 5 Stephen Dale, “Content Curation: The Future of Relevance,”Business 15 Bardzell [12]. Information Review, Nos. 3/4 (2014) pp. 199–205. 16 Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduc- 6 Antonella Fresa, “Digital Cultural Heritage Roadmap for Preser- tion, H. Zohn, trans., in H. Arendt, ed., Walter Benjamin: Essays and vation,” International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 8 Reflections (New York: Schocken Books, 1968 [1936]) pp. 217–252. (2014) pp. 107–123. 17 Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, 7 Cisco, “Cisco Visual Networking Index: forecast and methodology, Critical edition [Monograph], W.T. Gordon, ed. (Corte Madera, CA: 2016–2021”: www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service Gingko Press, 2003 [1964]). -provider/visual-networking-index-vni/complete-white-paper -c11-481360.html (accessed 14 November 2018). 18 Jacques Ellul, “On the Aims of a Philosophy of Technology,” in R.C. Scharff and V. Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology: The Techno- 8 E.A. Shanken, “Historicizing Art and Technology: Forging a Method logical Condition (Maldon, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003 [1964]) and Firing a Canon,” in Grau [3] pp. 43–70. pp. 182–186.

126 Harwood, Cocurated Digital Culture

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01328 by guest on 26 September 2021 19 Jenny Colvin, “Social Bookmarking: A Tool for Shared Resource 42 Jakub Macek, “More Than a Desire for Text: Online Participation Building,” Music Reference Services Quarterly 11, No. 2, 153–156 and the Social Curation of Content,” Convergence 19, No. 3 (2013). (2008). 43 Panos Constantopoulos et al., “DCC&U: An Extended Digital Cura- 20 Debora Lui, “Public Curation and Private Collection: The Produc- tion Lifecycle Model,” The International Journal of Digital Curation tion of Knowledge on Pinterest.com,” Critical Studies in Media Com- 1, No. 4, 34–45 (2009). munication 32, No. 2, 1529–5036 (2015). 44 Jenkins [38]. 21 Lassi A. Liikkanen and Antti Salovaara, “Music on YouTube: User 45 Bardzell [12]. Engagement with Traditional, User-Appropriated and Derivative Videos,” Computers in Human Behavior 50 (2015) pp. 108–124, doi: 46 Paul Mihailidis and James N. Cohen, “Exploring Curation as a Core 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.067. Competency in Digital and Media Literacy Education,” Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2 (2013) pp. 1–23. 22 Ryszard Waldemar Kluszczynski, “From Film to Interactive Art: Transformations in Media Arts,” in Grau [3] pp. 207–228. 47 Rivki Gadot and Ilya Levin, “Networked Learning Based on Digi- tal Curation,” Proceedings of European Conference on Social Media 23 Kluszczynski [22] p. 220. (University of Brighton, UK, 2014). 24 Andrew Crisell, An Introductory History of British Broadcasting 48 See K. Dixon, “Participate: Designing with User-Generated Con- (London: Routledge, 2002). tent”: www.artmuseumteaching.com/2012/06/01/participate-de signing-with-user-generated-content (accessed 14 August 2015), and 25 Motti Neiger, Oren Meyers and Eyal Zandberg, “Tuned to the Na- Deborah Turnbull and Matthew Connell, “Prototyping Places: The tion’s Mood: Popular Music as a Mnemonic Cultural Objective,” Museum,” in L. Candy and E. Edmonds, eds., Interacting: Art, Re- Media, Culture & Society 33, No. 7, 971–987 (2011). search and the Creative Practitioner (Faringdon, Oxon, U.K.: Libri 26 Nicholas Davis et al., “Distributed Creative Cognition in Digital Publishing, 2011) on participation in museums. Filmmaking,” Proceedings of 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and 49 Giselle Beiguelman, “Aesthetics of the Digital Ruins and the Future Cognition (Atlanta, 2011) pp. 41–50. of Art Conservation,” Proceedings of ISEAS2015: 21st International 27 Andruid Kerne and Eunyee Koh, “Representing Collections as Com- Symposium on Electronic Art (Vancouver, 2015). positions to Support Distributed Creative Cognition and Situated 50 Daragh Byrne and Aisling Kelliher, “Identifying Community Re- Creative Learning,” New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 13, sources Using Data Mining, Crowdsourcing, and Networked Co- No. 2, 135–162 (2007). Curation,” Proceedings of ISEAS2015: 21st International Symposium on Electronic Art (Vancouver, 2015). 28 Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1984). 51 Beryl Graham and Sarah Cook, Rethinking Curating: Art after New Media (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010). 29 Devon Powers, “Intermediaries and Intermediation,” in A. Bennett and S. Waksman, eds., The Sage Handbook of Popular Music (Thou- 52 Belk [31]. sand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015) pp. 120–134. 53 Julian Stallabrass, Internet Art: The Online Clash of Culture and Com- 30 Rebecca D. Watkins, Abigail Sellen and Sian E. Lindley, “Digital Col- merce (London: Tate Publishing, 2003). lections and Digital Collecting Practices,” Proceedings of ACM CHI 54 Manovich [13]. (Korea, 2015). 55 Kluszczynski [22]. 31 Russell Belk, “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Con- sumer Research 15, No. 2, 139–168 (1988) and “Extended Self in a 56 Anne Laforet, “Preservation of Net Art in Museums,” in A. Bent- Digital World,” Journal of Consumer Research 40, No. 3, 477–500 kowska-Kafel and H. Gardiner, eds., Digital Visual Culture: Theory (2013). and Practice (London: Intellect Ltd, 2009) pp. 110–114. 32 Jeremy W. Morris, “Curation by Code: Infomediaries and the Data 57 For example, see Ernest Edmonds, Zafer Bilda and Lizzie Muller, Mining of Taste,” European Journal of Cultural Studies 18, Nos. 4–5, “Artist, Evaluator and Curator: Three Viewpoints on Interactive Art, 446–463 (2015). Evaluation and Audience Experience,” Digital Creativity 20, No. 3, 141–151 (2009). 33 Jennifer Smith Maguire and Julian Matthews, “Are We All Cultural Intermediaries Now? An Introduction to Cultural Intermediaries in 58 Belk [31]. Context,” European Journal of Cultural Studies 15 (2012) pp. 551–562. 59 Watkins et al. [30]. 34 John Durham Peters, “The Oldness of New Media,” 22nd Annual B. 60 Kluszczynski [22] p. 291. Aubrey Fisher Memorial Lecture, Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 2008. 61 Roy Ascott, “From Appearance to Apparition: Communication and Culture in the Cybersphere,” Leonardo Electronic Almanac 1, No. 2 35 Mark Andrejevic, “ ‘Free Lunch’ in the Digital Era: Organization Is (October 1993). the New Content,” in V. Manzerolle and L McGuigan, eds., The Au- dience Commodity in a Digital Age: Revisiting a Critical Theory of 62 Espen J. Aarseth, Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature (Bal- Commercial Media (New York: Peter Lang, 2013) pp. 25–30. timore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1997). 63 Shanken [8]. 36 Morris [32] p. 453. 37 Dale [5]. Manuscript received 5 October 2015. 38 H. Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York: New York Univ. Press, 2006). 39 Limor Shifman, “An Anatomy of a YouTube Meme,” New Media & Tracy Harwood is professor of digital culture at the Insti- Society 14, No. 2, 187–203 (2011). tute of Creative Technologies, De Montfort University, where 40 Jonathan L. Zittrain, “Reflections on Internet Culture,” Journal of she manages the Usability Lab. Her research focuses on con- Visual Culture 13 (2014) pp. 388–394. sumer behavior and technology in emerging contexts, including 41 Jenkins [38]. e-communities/tribes, digital arts and e-commerce interfaces.

Harwood, Cocurated Digital Culture 127

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/leon_a_01328 by guest on 26 September 2021