Module 1 - Task 1b: Professional Communication Technologies

Since starting the course, I have been engaging with social platforms that, beside Blogger, I deal with on a regular day to day basis. Whether it be viewing an embedded YouTube video, an image uploaded via Flickr created by a fellow student or even a link posted to a third party source, these are common practice for today’s users of information technologies. The aforementioned and various other examples are all products of a concept outlined by the first Reader of this module as ‘Web 2.0’

 

“The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web.” – O’Reilly, T. (2006) ‘What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns And Business Models For The Next Generation Of Software’ Page 1.

Tim O’Reilly (often credited as the Father for establishing the notion behind Web 2.0) suggests in the quoted article that the concept of one way communication, or Web 1.0 as it was prior known, has diminished and is no longer the only option available for today’s modern society. An act such as sending a letter or receiving news from a television broadcaster was the only means for a creator and reader to share in information with each other. With Web 2.0 functionality, however, this is not the case. News that would formerly be shared via television, newspaper or radio allowed none or limited interactivity between the host and its audience. Meanwhile, news published via website can be viewed, shared and commented on by readers all within the same frame of each other, in this case a webpage. This relatively new functionality allows for the reader to take a much more active rather than passive role in how information is consumed. The barrier is reduced and suddenly the reader find themselves the creator. Participation within the idea of Web 2.0 not only moves past one way communication but allows for integration between an infinite number of bodies, many examples of which I am going to cover below.

Today, networking within the performing arts industry has never been easier. Whilst viewing other student entries on this particular task, I found Danielle Austen’s blog particularly valuable. She speaks on her experience of starting out in the industry and how her only way of finding out about auditions was by purchasing a copy of the weekly newspaper ‘The Stage’. She also mentions that in order for casting directors or agents to see her work, she would need to send in a video tape or DVD. This is a process that could take a week to reach the recipient as well as however long for them to view and respond to it. This was the only method available to performers prior to tools such as Spotlight, Casting Call Pro and various other online directories being implemented. I have linked her blog post below:

http://danniausten.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/task-1b-what-is-web-20.html

I have been lucky to graduate in a time where the industry has fully embraced Web 2.0 features. Before leaving college I, along with my other peers, had been published in the Spotlight performer directory. The page I would have been featured on in the book would contain my headshot as well as my CV. The physical Spotlight directory has been published annually for many years now but its online features have only been active in recent times. This isn’t to say that previous outlets have been disregarded. The Stage is also still available physically and the act of sending a cover letter, curriculum vitae and headshot to a casting director or agent by post is still often regarded as the best mode of initial contact. Web 2.0 has simply expanded the scope of a performer’s reach in the industry. My personal online Spotlight profile, for example, not only includes the former listed but also additional head shots and moving image content such as my acting and musical theatre showreels. I hadn’t considered prior to tackling task 1a that in fact everything a potential employer could need from me is included located in one place. Of course, when I have written in the past to agencies and casting directors I have known this but when emailing said bodies you are normally requested to attach a jpeg file of your headshot and CV when really all they would need was my spotlight view pin. Everything that could be offered from my attachments could be accessed and more so in one click of a button.

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr could arguably be given credit for its involuntary involvement in shaping how information in the performing arts industry is shared. When Facebook (or ‘Thefacebook’ as it was formerly known) launched in 2004, it was designed as an exclusive student directory for Mark Zuckerberg’s (co-founder of Facebook) peers at Harvard University to share photos and basic information with each other. Within the first month of its launch, it had attracted over half the undergraduates before the site expanded to other local universities, then to others across the United States and Canada. By September 2006, the site was available to everyone worldwide. Today, Facebook has over one billion users. This short history is important in our evaluation as to how professional practice within the performing arts sector has changed. Facebook is just an example but sites such as the aforementioned Twitter, Tumblr, YouTube and various others have enjoyed the same success since the mid-noughties. Because of the vast number of users, information can be exchanged at incredible speed. This is helpful for an industry such as the performing arts, one that operates quickly alone without the use of such technology! An audition, for example, can be brought to a performer’s attention just days before its taking place. It is, of course, expected of a performer to be prepared should they choose to attend. Having resources such as online posts for auditions, embedded tweets from agency and casting director’s websites available make for cheap and easy access in keeping informed. This ever increasing influx of social and professional platforms means improved versatility but, at the same time, much more competitiveness in an already over-saturated market.

I spoke previously about my Spotlight profile as a means for viewers to access my professional credentials. An online profile such as this or indeed any other page containing information produced by a user (including this blog) is subject to a term Reader One calls ‘remixable data and transformations’.

“A traditional (and for our present purposes, necessarily simplified) model of production would see the producer as an individual or organization which transforms raw materials into a finished product according to an existing blueprint, recipe, or other model. The assembled product is complete and finished and ideally represents the best outcome possible given the producer’s current knowledge and skills… However, it is immediately evident that this model no longer applies in produsage environments. Here, the outcomes of the produsage process are no longer discrete product versions, but rather rapidly evolving revisions of existing content, released for public view and further update immediately upon revision.” – Bruns, A. (2007) ‘Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation’ Page 3.

The sizeable quotes above demonstrate Bruns’ idea as to how the relationship between producer and consumer has evolved with the presence of Web 2.0 platforms. In the article between these two quotes, Bruns mentions that products such as music CD’s are produced and put before the consumer before the latter have had a chance to form an opinion. Whatever that opinion of the product, it cannot change the product itself. However, Web 2.0 technology gives birth to the notion that Bruns refers to as ‘produsage’, the idea that a producer and consumer work in tandem to create improvements and that a product is never finished. This is a concept that I can relate to heavily within my professional practice. As a performer working on stage, your work output constantly changes. That objective within an acting scene, the voice or movement quality utilised in singing and dance respectively. Until that first audience sits to watch your performance, the performer has complete reign to experiment and discover how best to inform their performance. The beauty of theatre as opposed to a filmed performance is that even after the first showing is over, the director and cast can gauge the audience’s opinion on the work and use this critique to help improve and inform future performances. In relation to using Web 2.0, I have on occasion sent a CV to a casting director to receive constructive criticism in return on how to improve said item e.g. the inclusion of my Spotlight pin. This would seem like a fairly obvious and vital piece of information to include for marketing myself. Even after graduating it would take time for my naivety about the industry’s use of Web 2.0 to pass and realise how heavily the industry invests and relies on it.

“Teachers are probably the most vulnerable group in danger from violations of boundary crossing between one’s personal and professional lives” – Kuehn, L. (2010) ‘Getting into Trouble on Facebook’ Page 86.

Naturally, with all its feats there are inevitably some disadvantages. In my first year of training at college, I worked weekends as an assisting drama tutor at a local stage school. Anyone who has worked in a pastoral role around children will know that it is required to have a Disclosure and Barring Service (formerly known as a Criminal Records Bureau) check. I remember my employer sitting me down to discuss the process of applying to then turn to my online presence. At the time, my only experience with social media platforms had been MySpace and Facebook, the latter of which I had only used for a little over a year. I was not a frequent user of the site, as is the same now. I was unsure as to how my online profiles would come into play when teaching children. These sites had yet to be developed for mobile use in the form of apps and smartphones were still a luxury, unlike today. This meant that children were unlikely to be in possession of such technology and that only their parents would be capable of accessing such data. It then dawned on me before my employer had to mention that this was exactly the reason for me to monitor my activities, because of the parents. It is natural curiosity for a parent to want to know and be concerned for who their child is spending time with in their absence. Features on Facebook such as the ‘tagging’ of photos mean that a friend can post a photo I feature in to my profile and the same photo will automatically be shared to everyone else I am connected to on the site. It can be imagined how this puts me in a position of risk should a parent choose to search my profiles. There is, of course, certain precautions I can take to ensure that the content on my profile is controlled but I think it crucially comes down to a more immediate thought; do I want my content to impact my reputation as a professional? ‘Netiquette’ is the term outlined in Reader One, how the professional perceives and composes themselves and what ethical considerations need to be taken on such an open and public forum.

To end, I believe Web 2.0 ultimately serves for a more positive purpose than negative. Resources are readily available to the user should they choose to search for it and, whilst not always reliable, will place them in a better stead than previously. The act of trying shows promise, a thirst for knowledge. This search could potentially teach more than what the user initially set out to look for. A casting director, for example, perusing a performer’s Spotlight profile to find a showreel that convinces them this performer is right for the starring role of their new play being produced, or the anxious parent, comforted by the fact that all relevant information regarding their child’s teacher can be found online. It is in some ways a frightening but all the while reassuring prospect. The concept will only continue to grow and I can only imagine that users will continue to welcome and be open to whatever new modes of interactivity as they are developed.