Artifacts of my past and of the future

I took my son down to visit his grandparents for a few days, and took the chance to finally venture up into their loft to retrieve enough boxes from my childhood to fill the back of my car (and once opened, most of the living space in the house). Besides bringing back a lot of old memories, it’s also sparked some thoughts on how influences and memories are evolving so rapidly as online storage becomes cheaper, online marketplaces have opened up buying and selling, and what we are (in terms of music, books, films, etc) is able to be scrobbled, tagged, logged and interrogated.

For example, I recently wrote about a sci-fi book I’d finished on one of the many sharing sites, and claimed that I didn’t really get into science fiction when I was young, and it was only really in my mid and late 20s I started reading Gibson, Doctorow, Clarke, Strauss etc.

Turns out I was mistaken, as a box full of ‘teen fiction’ sci fi books have proven, along with the obvious omission of the Warhammer 40,000 manual and about 5 years worth of White Dwarf magazines from the hallowed halls of Games Workshop, depicting all kinds of Space Marines.

Some of the toys recovered from my parents...

Just some of the recovered treasure. The high heeled shoe isn't mine, by the way!

Will my son have any memories to re-discover?

It’s a fairly safe bet that in the next couple of years my son is probably not going to be receiving many more print books, as most of what he’ll read is likely to be electronic. Certainly by the time he reaches his early teens, which was the peak for me in terms of accumulating books and magazines, things will have changed a heck of a lot. So everything he reads can be tracked and logged by retailers or by him.

What will it be like having his entire literary history at his searchable disposal? Is there something he’ll miss out on in finding an old box sealed up by me at the age of 11, and opening it 20 years later to find some of the books I’d loved but forgotten?

The loss of ‘mythic scarcity’?

I was pretty fortunate as a child in that my parents and grandparents were able to indulge me in a lot of the interests and hobbies I had. But even then, there were certain toys and gadgets that weren’t obtainable even despite my constant pestering – which is the cause of a lot of adult collections of pop culture and toys.

But online marketplaces for everything from books to comics to toys means that it’s easy to see how quickly they depreciate (rivalling new cars in price drops), and suddenly everything becomes attainable fairly quickly. How will that change his desires, buying habits, and that sense of achievement when 20 years later you actually do own a mint condition Millenium Falcon in the orignal box, or the mint copy of Street Fighter Collection on the Sega Saturn?

Is there a value in having something to strive and desire as a child which isn’t readily available 6 months later on eBay?

Am I selling my own memories too soon?

As I’ve switched to a more digital existence for all my entertainment, I’ve been selling off a lot of stuff. Generally it makes sense that someone else might benefit from books I’ll never re-read, or magazines for things I no longer have interest in, and I’m still keeping a selection of my most valued possessions for myself, and the most reasured objects I want to pass onto my son.

But I can’t help wondering if I’ll regret it at some point in the distant future. I combine the hoarding tendecy of a neurotic squirrel with the cataloguing habits of a particularly obsessive librarian, and that’s taken a long time to overcome in digitising my music, and accepting that most books will now reside on a Kindle or similar device, rather than being displayed on a shelf to possibly impress visitors.

Whereas the author Umberto Eco apparently has a massive library of books he has yet to read, mine are all queued up in wish lists and notepad files for a time when I have the money and space to actually read them – is there the same impetus as having a print copy sat accusingly on the shelf nearby?

Beautiful visions of a past future:

One thing I do know is that it’s fascinating reading all sorts of encyclopedias and factual books from my childhood on space and computing, and seeing what visions of the future existed in the 1980s (and the 1970s in some of the books I must have inherited from other family members). It’s quite poignant given the final flight of the space shuttle programme so recently, and also thinking about the time and context they were written in.

I’m sat with a phone that packs more technology that a moon mission, I do business via the internet and communicate via videochat. Hybrid cars are increasingly common, commercial spaceflights are an evermore practical proposition in my lifetime, and robots are now picking my shopping from warehouse shelves and are starting to be used for household chores.

Robot at the British Library Science Fiction Exhibition

One of the robots at the British Library's Science Fiction exhibition

Still, whatever happens, there’s one reassuring thing – if I do change my mind about letting any of my childhood artifacts be sold – I can always buy someone else’s online with just a couple of clicks. Which is handy, considering I now have a bag full of articulated Action Force figures in 3 parts as the rubber connecting them has perished, and there’s the sad sight of a small army in pieces spread across the floor beyond practical repair.

Now if only I could go back in time and prevent my parents giving away my huge collection of original Star Wars toys I’d be able to stop worrying about a nest egg for my old age…

There really is nothing new in Web 2.0

It’s been said before, but having chatted with some of my readers, and having been unable to quickly find a previous online example, I though it’s worth restating: There’s nothing new in Web 2.0.

And by that, I mean there’s nothing new about the facilities Web 2.0 offers. And now for some examples:

Tagging: Every time you’ve labeled anything in your life, you’ve tagged it. Putting your bills in a folder, putting a sticker on your homemade chutney, or creating a mixtape of songs. If only we’d called it labeling, rather than tagging, I’d have saved myself a few hours of explaining. And a Folksonomy is just what happens when information is structured by people labeling it.

Social networking: Every time you’ve been introduced to someone via a friend, or found yourself chatting to someone you’ve stood next to at a concert, or at the football, you’ve networked socially. Facebook and Myspace are the internet equivalents of your local pub, or the reading group at the local library.

Blogging: Diaries. Fanzines. The family newsletter tucked inside Christmas cards. Newspaper columns.

Crowdsourcing: Happened hundreds of years ago. Sticking up a ‘Wanted’ poster and offering a bounty was crowdsourcing people to catch a criminal.

Social news aggregators (e.g. Digg): Just recording online the same opinions you’d get chatting around the office coffee machine/smoking area.

Word of Mouth, Buzz, Social Media Marketing: When your pipe sprung a leak last night, and you came into work and asked your friend if they knew a good plumber – that’s Word of Mouth. Buzz is just getting lots of people talking and recommending. And social media marketing is just using the new online gathering places.

I did lie earlier.

There is one new thing about all Web 2.0 technology which radically changes everything we know. It’s made it so much easier to do all these things, that the amount of people involved, and the effects, have been amplified 100s, 1000s or even millions of times. It’s always happened. But now it’s happening on a global scale, and in a way that can change the fortunes of businesses.

A step towards furthering The Long Tail

As I said previously, the excellent Long Tail theory implies how major media companies will continue to co-exist with the long tail of prosumers, but doesn’t justify their continued existence.

That posed me with enough of a problem to email the author (and Wired Editor-in-Chief) Chris Anderson, who inspired me to continue with a thoughtful response. And to discuss the concept further with fellow blogger Dave Cushman from Faster Future.

Although I see major media companies forced to adapt to become agents for content creators, rather than creators themselves, there are some good reasons why we need these big players to continue, rather than fading away, or choosing to plug-in unpaid user generated content rather than backing artists with significant funding.

One major reason is Context. As much as we want increasingly more personal relevance from our niche entertainment, we still want to be indentifiable to larger groups. Tagging yourself with your favourite films on a site like Facebook is an art in itself, as you move between common signposts (Star Wars, Titanic, etc), and more obscure arthouse or indie movies. As much as the watercooler discussions about the latest hits have diminished, they’ve migrated to online debates on forums and message boards, and the cult of celebrity is as strong as ever.

Much of the current crop of user generated content is also based upon these reference points, whether it’s a mash-up of famous films (my favourite, here), a parody, or fan fiction based upon these titles. It can be much easier to gain popularity for an unknown prosumer by referencing these common cultural signposts than to begin with totally original material. How many film fans wouldn’t recognise the sound of a lightsaber being drawn in Star Wars?

Another main reason is Inspiration. Whilst the likes of Speilberg, Lucas, Cameron or Kubrick made interesting student films and could doubtless do wonders with the technology available to home users at the moment, there are still differences in what becomes available when you have several million or more to spend. And while OK Go can inspire a certain time of fan film for Youtube, there are doubtless many amateur filmmakers who aspire to making Schindlers List, or 2001.

The final of the trio of reasons in Financial Aspiration, often sidestepped in studies which proclaim prosumers just do it for the love of it and the recognition.
Many people do co-create and share to exchange knowledge and ideas, and to simply get their voice out there. Any audience they receive is valued and appreciated, and they fit their creative sides around their day jobs.

But that isn’t the total picture. Many amateur musicians, film makers and writers would give various body parts to ‘make it’ in ever bigger arenas. Partly for financial reward, and partly because, if you strive to do something better, it takes more time and effort. And the demands of a 9-5 job might not stop you from achieving your dream, but they complicate it immensely. Lauded indie directors such as Kevin Smith and Richard Linklater made their names with tiny budgets but certainly didn’t hide from major studios when they got the chance. Partly the old methods of film distribution made it a neccessity, but partly it meant they could get paid, use studio lots, and get access to a whole world of professional film casts and employees.

Writing, making music, or making movies isn’t easy. There are those who are naturally talented, and there are more resources than ever online to help guide aspiring talent. But in order to reach a reasonable level of quality takes time and practice, especially to hit that level consistently. If hopeful artists can’t aspire to paid employment then there is no opportunity for university, for example, which gives many people the time and space to find their voice, or for any further training, without indulgent and wealthy parents.

Artistic endeavour has always been interlinked with financial reward, since the first wandering minstrel received a meal and a pint of ale for producing entertainment.

I’d be very interested to hear how these ideas stand up, especially as I fully intend to use them the next time I hear the cry that big companies are now dead, or that we can cull all our paid staff because users will just churn out endless reams of content without any input. So as ever I welcome all comments and feedback, good or bad. Whatever happens, it’s an interesting time, especially for someone who works for a major media company 9-5.30pm at www.motorcyclenews.com, runs a publication which aspires to make money at www.disposablemedia.co.uk, and blogs purely to have a voice. Three sides of the same coin…