A response to Lexicon's thoughts

I thought I'd try and discuss Lexicon's thoughts in some way that might be more discursive between the three of us, rather than in a dialogue. But i don't want to go all wiki (not sure that's what the brain trust is really about?) so thought blog might be best. Maybe you'd like to join?

"when TV began to have more than one channel, that the consumer could change channels to form their own bricollage"
This empowerment isn't offered by multi-channel TV, but is facilitated by the arrival of PVRs/ Sky+ etc. The proliferation of content and the empowerment offered to audiences who can create their own schedules could be construed as a form of bricolage, however it's important to recognise that (currently) this is still part of the apparatus of the powerful. Traditional forms of ownership problematise the notion of this technological development as truly empowering to audiences. (I recognise that Google's ownership of YouTube is not necessarily 'traditional ownership').
Perhaps the projected convergence of internet and TV, as well as the PVRs, offer the opportunity for bricolage and empowerment that could truly be a 'threat' to the dominance of traditional media institutions and ideologies.

Do you read the comments under Youtube videos ever? All these people seem to be more used to giving opinions than forming them. In one way it is great that it is so quick and populistic, empowering to the people, instinctive. In another it makes me nervous because these opinions are formed with less and less rationale, context or careful argument.
Apparently there is little research done into the nature or discourse of the comments on YouTube. I feel that the empowerment is vital but also could be construed as an illusion of empowerment: the apparatus behind these tools for collaboration are of course part of the greater corporate apparatus (google etc). I am also uneasy about these discoursesm uninformed as they are by context or developed argument.

This proliferation of creativity - something that our mate Benjamin was fighting for all those years ago seems more like an end than a beginning. His idea was that it would give people power but it just seems to leave people less empowered whilst actually being more and more coopted in to the system. We are in the Matrix. People subconciously create whilst the suppliers of the means just watch what they are producing and sell it back to them.
Hmmm. Let's take this part by part. There is an undoubted proliferation of creativity. To what extent is this creativity productive? Or is the point of creativity to not be productive (and thus to step outside of the means of production)? So maybe I should instead question: to what extent is this creativity expressive/ important/ actually creative? I agree that this form creativity is not necessarily a form of power: the discourse is that of diversion rather than subversion.

The Matrix was, of course, the construction of a multinational corporation.

Some other thoughts: to what extent is the future of creativity corporately sponsored? To what extent is there an alternative space for subversive, empowered, liberated creativity? As Girls Aloud sang, "It's the sound of the underground." The alternative is incorporated.

If twitter is a monologue, how can we make this a dialogue/ 'multilogue'? Go on; you know you want to.