(PDF) The construction of Karen Karnak: The multi-author-function. M.A. Thesis

This paper is focused on the changes in authorship which have occurred within the comparatively recent developments of Web 2.0 and the emergence of interactive WikiMedia. The mode of authorship within a Read/Write culture, compared to that of a Read/Only tradition, is that the role of the audience has become merged with the author, and as such, represents new functions and attributes. Modes of multi-authorship, demonstrated in the use of the pseudonyms Alan Smithee and Karen Eliot, represent declarative authors whose names signify multiple origins, whilst concurrently indicating a distinct body of work. The function of these names forms an important context to this study, which forms the preparatory stages of the construction of an experimental mode of multi-authorship utilising WikiMedia technology and the creation of a collective multi-author pseudonym Karen Karnak.

"One of the most important issues brought out by the advent of Wikipedia is the displacement of the traditional model of the encyclopedia, elaborated by specialist teams and based on enlightenment ideas, and its replacement by a new model - a collective and shared venture, produced by a multitude of people who, whether or not they are recognized specialists, collaborate in a joint effort to compile knowledge. Therefore, what comes to be questioned is the authority (ability or merit) of those who produce knowledge. It is no mere coincidence that the words “ author” and “ authority” share etymological roots (from the Latin, auctor). In this vein, the theme of authorship itself merits further discussion, as we search for a better understanding of Wikipedia as a contemporary cultural phenomenon."

The present article is dedicated to the guiding theme of “Collective Authorship” in its diverse contexts and notional meanings. Mapping the intellectual stakes and conceptual propositions of recent scholarship represents one of the main aims of the paper. Focusing on two important junctures, the historical perspective is complemented by a state of the art review covering several disciplinary fields. Finally, I will define two types of authorship: submissive and subversive. Authorship studies are undergoing major changes today, marking the shift from the romantic understanding of the author towards the construction of what I’ve called an authorial ecosystem which, in its turn, can be understood as being part of a larger (and circular) dynamic entity.

http://waikato.researchgateway.ac.nz/ Research Commons at the University of Waikato Copyright Statement: The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). The thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use:    Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person. Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author’s right to be identified as the author of the thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate. You will obtain the author’s permission before publishing any material from the thesis. The construction of Karen Karnak: The multi-author-function A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts Screen and Media Studies at The University of Waikato by Emit Snake-Beings _________ The University of Waikato 2010 ii Abstract This thesis is situated within the comparatively recent developments of Web 2.0 and the emergence of interactive WikiMedia, and explores the mode of authorship within a Read/Write culture compared to that of a Read/Only tradition. The hypothesis of this study is that the role of the audience has become merged with the author, and as such, represents new functions and attributes, distinct from a more conventional concept of authorship, in which the roles of audience and author are more separate. Read/Write and participatory culture, as defined by this study, is focused on collaboration, and includes the influences of D.I.Y. culture, Open-Source practices and the production of text by multiple authors. Multi-authorship presents a re-thinking of several concepts which support the notion of the individual author, since the focus of multiauthorship is not on attribution and ownership of a finished text, but on the continued malleability of a text. Modes of multi-authorship, demonstrated in the use of the pseudonyms Alan Smithee and Karen Eliot, represent declarative authors whose names signify multiple origins, whilst concurrently indicating a distinct body of work. The function of these names form an important context to this study, since primary research involves the construction of an experimental mode of multi-authorship utilising WikiMedia technology and the interaction of thirty nine participants, who are invited to create a body of work under the collective pseudonym Karen Karnak. The data generated by this experiment is analysed using aspects of Mi hel Fou ault s autho -function to identify and determine power structures inherent in the WikiMedia context. The interplay of power structures, including concepts such as identity, ownership and the body of work, affect the resulting mode of authorship and contribute to the construction of Karen Karnak, suggesting further areas of research into the emerging multiauthor. iii iv Acknowledgements This study is indebted to the many ghost-authors who have added invaluable input into the conception of this text, in particular, the thirty nine participants who contributed towards the construction of Karen Karnak. Although these authors were not responsible for the physical act of writing this thesis, for which I take full responsibility, their collaboration in the form of conversation, dialogue and dissemination proved invaluable to the thinking behind this text. A very special thank you goes to my supervisors, Dr. Bevin Yeatman and Dr. Gareth Schott, who skilfully balanced my sense of adventure with some very effective pragmatic guidance, without which this project would never have been completed within the allotted time scale and academic scope. More openminded, yet demanding, supervisors would be difficult to imagine. Gratitude goes to all the screen and media staff who have also assisted me in this project, in particular the proof-reading and advice of Dr. Virginia Pitts during the proposal stage. On a personal note, I acknowledge with gratitude the support of my partner Yolanda Cañardo-Galve, whose tolerance of my long work hours, combined with her active encouragement, valuable insights and conversations, kept me going through the difficult areas of the research. Also I wish to acknowledge the inspiration and emotional support of my family from the old country, Eddy and Eileen Trevett and my sister Jean, for their acceptance and support of my numerous experimental projects over the years, including my name change by deed-poll in 1993. Special thanks for inspiration and/or conversations during this study: Oscar Hidalgo, Francesc Vidal and the Priorat Arts Centre Cataluña, R. G. Shaw, Willa Bone, Joe Citizen, Bartolomé Ferrando, David Serf, Sasha McLaren, K47, v Stephanie Christie, Rrose Sélavy, R. Mutt, Fluxus, Stewart Home, Brian Karnak, Chris Thompson, Carlos Pla, Martin Rumsby, Ed Beings, The OkOk Society, Mark Reeve, David Woodcocks, Circuit47, Dr. Zuban Weeds, Cat Meowl, Brent Withan-N, Dave Normal, The Venting Gallery Melbourne, Paul Trevett, and EE-Monk. Also a special thank you for the financial and logistics support from: Sir Edmund Hillary Scholarship, FAS Masters Scholarship, Wintec Ramp Gallery, Administrator: Carolyn Hanson, Subject librarians: Heather Morrell and Jenny McGhee, Hamilton Community Arts Council, and finally the filmmakers, coorganisers and audience of The Hamilton Underground Film Festival. vi Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ v List of figures ...................................................................................................... ix Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Wiki as a mode of authorship ................................................................. 1 1.2 Read/Only and Read/Write cultures ...................................................... 3 1.2.1 Levels of interactivity ...................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Protection of the mode of authorship ............................................ 6 1.2.3 D.I.Y: Self publishing ........................................................................ 7 1.2.4 Research context: Hamilton Underground Film Festival ................ 9 1.2.5 Open-Source movement ............................................................... 11 1.3 Wikipedia as a multi-author environment ........................................... 12 1.3.1 WikiMedia: An approach to multi-authorship ............................... 13 1.3.2 User structures within the WikiMedia .......................................... 14 1.4 The construction of authorship ............................................................ 16 1.4.1 The multi-author as a construction ............................................... 17 1.4.2 The multi-author-function ............................................................ 19 1.5 Thesis structure .................................................................................... 19 Chapter Two: A review of the (multi) author-function ..................................... 23 2.1 The observation of multi-authorship ................................................... 23 2.1.1 Fou ault s autho -function ............................................................ 26 2.1.2 Declarative author-function .......................................................... 30 2.1.3 Towards multi-authorship ............................................................. 33 2.1.4 Multi-user names: Allen Smithee .................................................. 36 2.1.5 Other multi-user names ................................................................ 37 2.2 Questions asked in this research project ............................................. 40 vii Chapter Three: Methodology ............................................................................. 41 3.1 Summary of secondary research method ............................................. 41 3.2 Primary research methods . ................................................................... 41 3.2.1 Paradigms and attitudes ................................................................ 47 3.2.2 Analysis of primary research data ................................................. 48 3.2.3 The proper name: Karen Karnak .................................................... 48 3.2.4 Functions of the WikiMedia ........................................................... 50 3.2.5 Selection of participants and allocation of usernames ................. 50 3.3 Research procedure .............................................................................. 53 Chapter Four: Karen Karnak case study ............................................................. 57 4.1 First phase of research .......................................................................... 57 4.1.1 Ka e s Blog ................................................................................... 58 4.1.2 The Abduction: I am Karen Karnak ................................................ 60 4.1.3 File upload: An identity begins to form .......................................... 71 4.1.4 The author as simulacra ................................................................. 86 4.1.5 A ti ities i the outside 4.1.6 Findings for first phase of research ................................................ 93 4.2 o ld ...................................................... 91 Second phase of research ....................................................................... 99 4.2.1 K47 ................................................................................................. 101 4.2.2 Findings for second phase of research ......................................... 116 4.3 Karen Karnak is set forth ...................................................................... 118 Chapter Five: Conclusions and further study .................................................... 121 5.1 What are the power structures which influence multi-authorship? .... 122 5.2 The multi-author-function ................................................................... 132 5.3 Further areas of study .......................................................................... 134 5.4 Karen Karnak in the outside world ...................................................... 136 5.5 Final word ............................................................................................. 139 viii Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 141 Appendix A: Contents of DATA DVD Supplementary Material ....................... 151 Appendix B: Supplementary Material .............................................................. 152 Functions of the WikiMedia and screen shots of the environment ............. 152 On-line video editing options ....................................................................... 156 Appendix C: Application for ethical approval, section 8.E ............................... 159 ix x List of figures Figure 1: The diverging directions of the declarative author-function and the multi-author ............................................................................................ 34 Figure 2: Handout given to participants at 6th ADA symposium June 2009 ..... 57 Figure 3: Initial image from the file P_HALL_001.mpg ....................................... 71 Figure 4: Sequence of images from P_HALL_001.mpg ...................................... 72 Figure 5: Video artefacts in frame sequence from P_HALL_001.mpg . .............. 73 Figure 6: Back to nature P_HALL_001.mpg ........................................................ 74 Figure 7: My German Uncle gives a T.V. interview ............................................ 76 Figure 8: A portrait of Karen Karnak ................................................................... 78 Figure 9: Mankind (after Nancy Burson) ............................................................ 81 Figure 10: "no face is" A portrait of Karen Karnak ............................................. 83 Figure 11: Fukuwarai face .................................................................................. 84 Figure 12: Still from: Karen_logo_with_sound_no_face2.mpg ......................... 85 Figure 13: Karnak_t7v.mpg ................................................................................ 87 Figure 14: (Self-reflexive) reflective surface Karenak_t7v.mpg ......................... 89 Figure 15: Sequence of stills from Karnak_t7v.mpg .......................................... 90 Figu e : Offi ial po t ait of Luthe Blissett .................................................... 92 Figure 17: Navigation bar 7th July 09 ............................................................... 100 Figure 18: Industrial union of psychic workers ................................................ 104 Figure 19: Plan_9.jpg posted to the main page on the 5th July 09 .................. 107 Figure 20: A series of stills from the moving image file ALONG_Karnak_333.mpg ............................................................................................................... 109 Figure 21: The mechanics of the site: ALONG_Karnak_333.mpg .................... 110 Figure 22 : Entering into a video clip ALONG_Karnak_333.mpg ...................... 110 Figure 23: Still image Mannequins.jpg 7th July ................................................ 114 Figure 24; Mannequins_face.jpg 7th July ........................................................ 115 Figure 25: Invite to an exhibition of work by Karen Karnak, November 2009 ... 121 Figure 26: The multi-author construction ........................................................ 123 Figure 27: The body of work and identity ........................................................ 124 Figure 28: Ownership and the body of work .................................................... 125 xi Figure 29: Individual and multiple identity ........................................................ 126 Figure 30: Circular flow between body of work, multi-author and identity ..... 127 Figure 31: Outer power structures .................................................................... 128 Figure 32: Validation structures ....................................................................... 130 Figure 33: The influence of copyright ............................................................... 131 Figure 34: Karen Karnak in Alytus ..................................................................... 137 Figure 35: Screen shot logged in as Sysop ........................................................ 152 Figure 36: Screen shot logged in as user ........................................................... 152 Figure 37: User permissions .............................................................................. 153 Figure 38: function tabs .................................................................................... 154 Figure 39: History function of the WikiMedia .................................................. 155 xii Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Wiki as a mode of authorship The mode of authorship associated with the comparatively new technologies of the on-line WikiMedia platform, forms the focus of this study. WikiMedia is part of an emerging trend amongst Web 2.0 applications to facilitate collaboratively produced audio-visual media and enhance the participatory aspect of media production. Whilst Web 2.0 technology, such as Blogger (2010), YouTube (2010), and Flickr (2010), have provided an accessible distribution network for the individual authors of text and audio/visual material, the development of the online Wiki has permitted collaborative multi-author work to be circulated (Ray & Graeff, 2008). These developments are part of a growing trend, which is reflected in the increase of user generated content as a major use of the internet1 and the expansion of collaboratively produced Open-Source production models. These relatively new developments form an emerging context, in which new modes of authorship may circulate that question concepts such as originality, individuality, identity and ownership. The possibility of alternative modes of authorship suggested by the technology of Web 2.0 participatory culture, and the extent to which this affects notions and legal definitions of the author, is the motivating enquiry of this study. This study is not concerned with developing an argument of what authorship is, neither is the aim to create a meta-theory that suggests that new technology and new media will replace concepts of authorship connected with an older form of technology. The aim of this study is to examine a specific context-based mode of 1 Seven out of the top ten traffic ranked sites on the internet have a collaborative or participatory nature. Four of these seven are predominantly composed of user generated content (Alexa, rd 2009) accessed December 3 2009. 1 authorship through the construction of a multi-author environment and to observe how internal and external power structures assert an influence over the resultant mode of authorship. The WikiMedia is web-based Open-Source software, which is an adaptation of the WikiWiki2 originally designed by Ward Cunningham to provide fast editing of web pages. The Wiki allows users the potential to contribute and edit web-page content, which are then distributed through the Wiki site. This permits the viewer an added function of authorship, combined with the power to instantly publish work to a potentially large audience via the internet. Through the functions of the Wiki the viewer possesses two progressive functions as an author: to participate in the body of work, through the creation of new text, which can be published directly without the intervention of publishing houses or gatekeepers; and secondly, to collaborate with any number of authors to produce collectively written and edited work. This second mode of authorship, which cannot be attributed to a definitive single author, forms the basis of multiauthorship, as used in this study. The mode of multi-autho ship offe ed the WikiMedia has the effe t of de- e phasisi g the e t al ole of i di idual autho ship : a process which focuses on the intrinsic mutability of the text, rather than ownership of a finished work (Ray & Graeff, 2008, p. 39). The inherent instability of the text relates to the potential for further manipulation and participation by any number of contributors, which is brought to the surface through the functions of the WikiMedia. The concept of a finished work is also challenged through this process and further questions the focus on ownership. The WikiMedia, through its functions, encourages a convergence of the roles of author and audience and the promotion of participatory culture. This has been 2 WikiWiki comes from the Hawaiian word Wiki meaning quick. The first Wiki was made for the Portland Pattern Repository in 1995 (Wiki, 2002). 2 achieved through increased access to the means of production of media and, as such, arguably represents a new form of authorship. 1.2 Read/Only and Read/Write cultures Individual authorship and participatory based multi-authorship suggests two distinct and concurrent approaches to authorship. Lawrence Lessig describes this as originating in the differences between Read/Only (R/O) and Read/Write (R/W) culture (2009, p. 28). In Read/Write cultures a text remains malleable and perpetually allows for adaptation by participants. A Read/Only culture, in contrast, functions to created finished texts which are governed by copyright, individual ownership and transmission of culture from an author distinct from its audience. Read/Only media can be related to a transmission view of communication, which presupposes that there is a distinct division between producer and audience, and that audiences are passive agents in the relationship (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). The transmission model stresses the flow of information from a single source and reduces emphasis on information flow between the receptive audience members. This model facilitates a view of communication as a commodity, in which the transferral of information between producer and audience represents a shift i o e ship status , one that is unidirectional in its flow (Fornas, Klein, Ladendorf, Sunden & Sveningsson, 2002, p. 25). The division of production and reception elements of media, engendered by a Read/Only culture, depend on a sharp distinction between the roles of the audience and the author (Holmes, 2005, pp. 53-54). Although the user, as a hybrid of audience and author, is the contemporary term used to define Web 2.0 influenced multi-authorship, this terminology has generally been avoided. Here the aim is not to describe universal changes in authorship, but to construct a specific mode of authorship, utilising the 3 technology of the WikiMedia, which is based within a specific context of participatory culture. This strategy is informed by David Holmes, who is critical of a trend he identifies within academic studies, one of presenting interactive media as a distinct second age of media which, in some way, offers humanity an e a ipatio f o the t a ies of oad ast edia , pp. 20-43, 50- 54). The view taken in this study is that Read/Only and Read/Write cultures exist concurrently and form what Lessig identifies as a hybrid economy comprising both sharing and ownership economies (2009). The differences in participatory potential between R/O and R/W modes of authorship can be examined in more detail using a gradated system to look at the different levels of interaction which occur in each media type. The higher levels of interaction will indicate the closer assimilation of the roles of audience and author, whilst a low participatory potential, indicated by a lower level of interactivity, will determine media in which the roles of audience and author are distinct. 1.2.1 Levels of interactivity Although Web 2.0 is designed with interactivity as a core function, interactivity is not necessarily exclusively the domain of Web 2.0, nor does interactivity exist solely because of Web 2.0. A form of interactivity can be seen in most types of media including pre-Web 2.0 models of communication. Jens F. Jensen (1998) has identified four types of interactivity: transmissional, consultational, conversational, and registrational interactivity as described below. Transmissional interactivity, the lowest level of interactivity, is the ability of users to select from predetermined and continuous streams of transmissions, such as may occur within traditional broadcast media or any continuous streaming transmission. Transmissional interactivity can also be found in web-based continually streaming media although the web medium is more suited to file download, and consultational interactivity, than to transmissional interactivity. 4 Consultational interactivity is the interactive ability to request certain texts; this is seen in broadcast-on-demand channels and the viewing of static web pages which use hyperlinks to allow viewer choices. This form of interaction is typical of pre-Web 2.0 internet audience engagement and is examined in literature under the subject of hypertext. Basic Web 2.0 applications allow conversational interactivity, which is the interactive ability of users to produce and distribute texts into a central system. Conversational interactivity can be seen in media which allow interactivity between users, but restrict communication channels outside of the proprietary software. Social networking software, such as Facebook, YouTube and MySpace, allow interaction and communication between users whilst denying access to users email addresses, which could be used to communicate directly peer-topeer. Registrational interactivity is the facility to respond directly to the activities of other producers of texts without the mediation of a centralised system. Registrational interactivity is the promised potential of Web 2.0 applications to provide many-to-many communications in a decentralised environment (Jensen, 1998: cited in Fornas et al., 2002, pp. 24-25). This level of interaction, in its pure form, is arguably non-obtainable, since all media involves some form of mediation between participants. Although the internet in general offers an added level of interactivity, through its ability to allow content requests, it is not until Web 2.0 is used that the higher levels of conversational and registrational interactivity become the core mode of communication. Web 2.0 is more overt in offering these added levels of interactivity, whilst an examination of the functions of the broadcast model of media will reveal that dialogue and dissemination is a potential for all media (Fornas et al., 2002, p. 27). 5 The distinction between Read/Write and Read/Only culture offers a way to look at authorship which makes a distinction between levels of interaction but avoids using a technological determinant. Read/Write, or participatory, culture, indicates a context for multi-authorship that is comprised of social structures (such as legal power structures surrounding authorship), which delimit the participatory potential of media and the modes of authorship made available. 1.2.2 Protection of the mode of authorship The mode of authorship within a Read/Only culture is biased towards the attribution of ownership, which is enforced through copyright. The emergence of collaborative authorship, on the other hand, has been supported through the development of alternative systems of legal protection, such as the GNU General Public License or GPL (GNU, 2009), developed in 1985 by Richard Stallman and mainly used for Open-Source software, and the Creative Commons licensing system, founded by the Center for the Study of the Public Domain3 in 2001. Copyright protects the rights of ownership for the Read/Only author, whilst a distinct feature of the Creative Commons licensing system is that it can be used to ensure that a work remains in the public domain and is not co-opted into individual and private ownership. This is achieved through a system of allo a es g a ted to the ie e of the o k to dist i ute, e i , t eak, a d uild upo the o k Creative Commons, 2009b). The alternative systems of copyright presented by Creative Commons are more suited to the mode of multiauthorship made possible by the WikiMedia. Part of the background of Web 2.0 participatory cultures and the mode of authorship they facilitate, is informed by movements such as D.I.Y. culture and the Open-Source movement, which share some of the same features of multi-authorship. The following sections 1.2.3 to 1.2.5 provide further contexts in which interactive modes of authorship are 3 Founded under the guidance of Lawrence Lessig (Center for the Study of the Public Domain, 2009). 6 enacted through participatory culture and a convergence of the roles of author and audience. 1.2.3 D.I.Y: Self publishing D.I.Y., do it yourself , culture is an informal ethos which describes an attitude to media and culture that is focused on the production of localised media content, usually within a community context. D.I.Y. cultures are open and participatory: an anyone-can-do-it approach to media production which openly recognises the authorship potential of all participants. A definition of D.I.Y. culture can be constructed through an examination of one of its major defining artefacts - the zine. A zine is an amateur printed publication, usually a compilation of the work of various participants, which presents a highly subjective and personalised viewpoint around a common thematic motif (Duncombe, 1997). A popular format comprises of multi-authors who also function as a distribution network and, in the case of highly participatory cultures, the actual audience themselves. Some of the norms of D.I.Y. publications, as described above, have found their way into the Web 2.0 and act as a atal st i fu the lu i g the disti tio s et ee autho a d audie e (Bell, 2001, p. 165) 4. In common with the Open-Source movement the gift economy is an intrinsic aspect of D.I.Y. culture involving the free exchange of information or media between producers creating an extended network in which participants also function as audience. Multiple authors who fu tio as ea h othe s audie es are part of the format adopted by the Hamilton Underground Film Festival, in which a DVD compilation of the work finds its main avenue of circulation through the participating filmmakers. The context of the Hamilton Underground Film Festival is described 4 The Burning man festival in Nevada, USA, is a D.I.Y. festival which has a policy of zero audience, i.e. every person attending the event must contribute to the creation of the event: http://www.burningman.com. 7 in the next section of this chapter, since it becomes the source of participants for the case study in Chapter Four. The zine follows a tradition of self-publishing which can be traced to the earliest era of mechanical printing by the Gutenberg press (Ladendorf, 2002, pp. 113114) and follows a participatory use of media designed to stimulate discussion and interaction. Stephen Duncombe (1997) sees the zine as being the predecessor to self-publishing in Web 2.0 blog culture5, presenting a small scale media production, participatory in nature, and in which textual interaction occurs many-to-many in decentralised orbits (Duncombe, 1997: cited in Ladendorf, 2002, p. 113; Bell, 2001, p. 165). Zine and blogs share the same anyone-can-do-it production values which empower self-publishing as a valid alternative mode of authorship. There is also a disti t o eal e t of e pe tise p ese t ithi the p odu tio alues of the zine, and an ethos of open accessibility, which invites participation (Barry, 2006, p. 179). The Blog format of interaction between multi-authors forms part of the multi-authorship construction, which is facilitated by the researcher in the Karen Karnak case study in Chapter Four. D.I.Y. culture can be viewed as a pre-Web 2.0 prototype for participatory cultures, in its de-centralised production of media artefacts distributed between participants via an informal distribution network. This has been assimilated into the many aspects of Web 2.0- ased pa ti ipato ultu e. D.I.Y. s e phasis o participation and interaction is concurrent with many forms of participatory edia i hi h i te a ti e flo , as a p o ess, is o side ed use s to be as important as the content. The form of the media is the chosen expression of a group of users who share a specialised, but openly available, knowledge of the rules and means of participation (Barry, 1996, p. 139). 5 The blog, a public-personal diary which is published on the internet, was one of the first popular uses of Web 2.0 as an interactive environment. 8 From the attitudes expressed in the D.I.Y. movement other collaborative participatory cultures have emerged, such as the Open-Source software movement, which has become an effective multi-author production system through the development of processes of collaboration. One of the definitions of Open-Source collaboration, supplied by the Open-Source Initiative (2009b), is that the o k ust allo odifi atio s a d de i ed o ks : a e ui e e t of participation and adaptation of the work, which runs contrary to the aims of intellectual property laws to protect the work from alteration from the individual autho s o igi al i te tio . In addition to the Open-Source movement, the D.I.Y. ethos can be found in other participatory cultures which have arisen through a similar increased access to authoring means and tools. 1.2.4 Research context: Hamilton Underground Film Festival The increase in availability of widely affordable digital cameras and editing software, along with the increased occurrence of home computers, has resulted in a D.I.Y. movement of filmmakers, which have inspired, and been inspired by, books such as $30 film school Dea , a d Mike Figgis Digital Filmmaking (2007). This increase in participatory digital filmmaking has resulted in an emergence of locally produced content and the organisation of screenings based on increased access to this relatively new media form. The backdrop of participatory culture, which forms the context of multiauthorship, has been informed by my own experiences with low-budget filmmaking and filmmakers who have participated in the Hamilton Underground Film Festival (HUFF, 2009), for which I serve as the principle organiser. The festival has provided access to an extensive contact list of active low-budget digital filmmakers, which has been compiled over the four years during which the festival has run. Participants in the HUFF film festival have been selected from this email list to take part in an experiment in constructed authorship described in Chapter Four of this study. 9 The Hamilton Underground Film Festival embraces a D.I.Y. production ethos in various areas of its operations, encouraging digital film from a wide range of formats including low-fi digital stills camera and mobile phone movies. There is also a mixing of levels of achievement from professional artists and filmmakers, with some measure of international success6, to local young amateurs making a first film. This pepper-pot approach7 acts towards an encouragement of open participation, as does the mixing of production formats and qualities. The film categories accepted by the festival are also kept as inclusive as possible and the resultant compilation DVD, which is sent to every successful entrant, represents an eclectic collation of films from experimental to documentary and drama. My active role in the facilitation of the Hamilton Underground Film Festival, as well as my participation in creating content for the festival, is indicative of the positioning of the researcher as participant within this study. The power structures associated with my role as researcher become an important and influential aspect of the mode of authorship which is constructed in Chapter Four. The implications of the role of the researcher are examined in more detail in the methodology sections of Chapter Three. The Hamilton Underground Film Festival, and its inclusion as part of the context of this study, provides access to an established participatory production culture, in which the role of audience and author are less defined and become interchangeable through the common goal of small scale media production. 6 David Blyth (Director of Angel Mine (1978) and Transfigured Nights (2007) Di e to s talk at HUFF09), Jed Town (Initiator of Foetus (re)productions and contributor in HUFF08), Eve Gorden and Sam Hamilton (Parasitical Fantasy Band: Live cinema event at HUFF08) and Michelle Saville (Betty Banned Sweets (2008) shown at 63rd Edinburgh International Film Festival, U.K.), 7 A term usually used in town planning involving the placing of low-budget state housing amongst more affluent houses. 10 1.2.5 Open-Source movement The Open-Source movement is an example of collaborative production in which multiple authors participate in the pursuit of a common goal: usually the construction of free software. The Open-Source ethos describes a successful strategy for the organisation and motivation of voluntary participants. OpenSource systems of production represent a relatively new phenomenon which can be applied to a multitude of production areas: including writing, both creative and technical, and Open-Source digital video. There are intrinsic motivations for individuals to participate in Open-Source collaborations which relate to the social and the personal and the Open-Source ethos, which is concerned with building a community that regards cooperation as important (Muffatto, 2006, pp. 59-63). Open-Source collaboration operates within a gift economy, in common with D.I.Y. cultures, using as a currency the gifting of knowledge between participants which naturally occurs during collaboration towards commonly identified goals (Muffatto, 2006, pp. 60-63). The community building aspect of open-source systems is central to many Web 2.0 applications, as it presents a regulative force amongst a vast potential of possibilities, motivating constructive behaviour and continuity between projects and providing an on-going sustainability. The empowerment which participation provides in the construction of participatory communities can be seen as being fully exploited by Web 2.0 in motivating participation in collaborative projects. Within this study, the Open-Source movement is seen as part of a proposed trend of production communities, formed around technological contexts, which have allowed greater participation in media production. 1.3 Wikipedia as a multi-author environment The development of the Wikipedia, as a platform for interactive participatory media production, is an important exponent within the developmental history of 11 Web 2.0 applications (McNichol, 2007). Wikipedia is currently ranked as the seventh most visited site on the World Wide Web, with a reported eight to nine percent of global web traffic (Alexa, 2009). Wikipedia was launched by Jimmy Wales in early 2001 and was instrumental in defining the concept of Web 2.0, which was coined by Ti O ‘eill three years later to define many of the principles and functions of user generated content. Wikipedia had by then established within its guiding principles an efficient process of sustaining user participation (Saaed, Wagner, Stocker & Dösinger, 2007, pp. 85-88). The process of Open-Source policy making is an effective part of the Web 2.0, given that the users themselves can participate in forming a consensus around the most effective ways the resource can be utilised. As the longest running exponent of Web 2.0 participatory content, Wikipedia can be sourced, at least in this capacity, as a reliable and mature developer of policy regarding the management of open access community-based participatory research. As part of the process to create the participatory nature of Wikipedia, there is an on-going development of guiding principles, which are formulated from olla o ati e do u e tatio of good p a ti e a d th ough the p o ess of reaching consensus that policy and documentation accurately reflects the propagation of sustainable practice (Wikipedia, 2009a). In addition to this on-going source of policy there is also the board of Wikipedia which meets to discuss the implications of the community driven policies. However, it is important to note, in terms of identifying power structures within the Wikipedia, that the founder Jimmy Wales retains the ultimate control over policies, especially those concerning copyright, legal or technical issues. He also has powers to override any decision made by either board members or the Wikipedia community (Wikipedia, 2009a). 12 Community is described by WikiMedia as a collective concurrence which occurs as a fu tio of utual i te est a d pa ti ipatio WikiMedia, c). This community-function is an integral quality of Web 2.0 applications, exploiting a strong motivation which drives users to construct content for the perceived common benefits of a participatory and interactive culture. In extension to content-generation, participation is seen as the means in which participatory culture can be promoted, propagated and disseminated in much the same way that D.I.Y. culture participants see their own small contribution as part of a larger community. The context in which authorship occurs has a determining factor over the mode of authorship which is permitted. By looking at the inherent power structures of the Wikipedia an idea of the function of multi-authorship can be attained. In the case of Wikipedia the power structures which influence the mode of authorship are evident in the creation of Open-Source policy, the various roles of participants and the decision making processes which are used. 1.3.1 WikiMedia: An approach to multi-authorship Wikipedia is based on the Open-Source WikiMedia software, which is a protected public domain work made available through the Creative Commons licensing system8. The Open-Source files can be downloaded from the WikiMedia site and, with a moderate level of knowledge of databases and server configurations, set up onto a private web server or a host server. This allows the administrator increased control over configuration options, as well as flexible access to the archive of add-on applications, which have been developed by the Open-Source community and offer extended functions. 8 The license Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported is recommended for free, public domain cultural works (Creative Commons Licenses, 2009). Users are free to use, remix and adapt, and, copy and share, under the conditions that the source code is attributed to WikiMedia and the work remains within the public domain. 13 The Open-Source nature of the WikiMedia enables a decentralised approach to the deployment of this Web 2.0 application: an aspect of this new media which can be compared to Read/Only media, which constrains media production to a centralised environment (Birdsall, 2007). The power structures of the WikiMedia, in the form of allocations of user privileges, are an influence on the mode of multi-authorship which is permitted circulation. These structures and the allocation of user privileges are described below, since they form an important context within which multi-authorship occurs in Chapter Four. 1.3.2 User structures within the WikiMedia The WikiMedia comprises of various layers of control which are designed to maintain a sustainable balance between the encouragement of participation and the restriction of individual domination over the multi-author environment. This system of control is maintained in the WikiMedia through the distribution of users into various roles which retain certain user privileges:    User (auto-confirmed, registered, or anonymous) Bureaucrat Sysop The three stages of user: auto-confirmed, registered and anonymous, refer to the privileges which can be assigned to: users who are logged in and have a confirmed email account under the address supplied (registered); users who have logged in but have not supplied an email address but are none-the less auto-confirmed; and anonymous users who have not logged in, but are tracked by an I.P. address (Internet Protocol) through which they can be traced. The tracing of the I.P. address offers the administrator of the WikiMedia the ability to prohibit editing access to a potentially malicious user. These three stages of user demonstrate the levels of verification of identity and the associated powers which can be attributed to each participatory state. 14 There are various privileges which can be assigned the above user categories. For example, the right to edit unlocked pages can be assigned to users who have provided a confirmed email address but denied to any user who has logged in without providing a confirmed email address. In addition to this, specific users can be restricted viewing rights to certain pages which are deemed important to either security or administration of the site. Control over these restrictions can be useful in the design of a WikiMedia as a research tool that may, for example, require users to verify an email address: allowing ethical consent to be obtained before users are permitted to participate. In addition to these user categories the administration can also restrict the creation of new accounts, enabling selective participation to invited users only. The range of variations of privileges assigned to user categories means that the WikiMedia is a versatile research tool, which can allocate a wide range of allowances or restrictions to participants. This can be useful where ethical considerations may entail removing a user contribution or the disabling of editing rights for a particular user. This validation and verification process which can be applied to users, means that the levels of all-inclusive participation can be accurately adjusted to the needs of administration for accountability, reliability, or security of the WikiMedia. The advanced facilities of the WikiMedia are controlled by the Bureaucrat, which is a high level user who can adapt parameters of the WikiMedia functioning and assign privileges to users. Above this position in the power hierarchy is the Sysop, who, in addition to the rights assigned Bureaucrats, retains the power to assign o e o e i di idual use s ights as Bureaucrats. The role of the Sysop, as a person who retains overall control of the design of the WikiMedia site, the allocation of the power structures, and the person responsible for the installation of the site, can be compared to the role of publisher. 15 In addition to the on-site users and administrators there is the open-source community which surrounds the development of WikiMedia applications. These external developers ultimately control functionality of the WikiMedia through providing support in terms of updates and improvements in the WikiMedia files and in creating new extensions which can be added onto the basic WikiMedia site to allow new modes of interaction (WikiMedia, 2009c). The control of authorship within the WikiMedia is through the use of power structures and processes, which contribute to creating the desired mode of authorship. 1.4 The construction of authorship Part of the hypothesis of this study is that authorship is not a natural process but a complex and manufactured procedure, which has been designed to fulfil a specific role. The mode of authorship is determined by the function of authorship which is, in turn, shaped by the surrounding contexts and power structures within which it occurs. For example, traditional authorship functions as a signifier of ownership (Jaszi & Woodmansee, 1994: Rose, 1993: Woodmansee, 1984), whereas multi-authorship draws focus on the malleability of the text to encourage participation. 1.4.1 The multi-author as a construction The Hollywood director Alan Smithee represents a mode of authorship which is concurrently individual and multiple, since the name functions as a signifier of individual ownership, as well as a construction which functions to allow disownership. Alan Smithee is a pseudonym administrated by the Directors Guild of America, which can be used by any director who wants to disown a film due to lack of control of creative vision during the production process. The book Directed by Allen Smithee9 (2001), and further research, revealed the extent of 9 There are several available spellings of the name Alan Smithee, including Allen Smithee and Allan Smithee: multiple spellings is an identifying feature of the director. 16 the number of participants who had contributed to the generation of Alan “ ithee s od of o k10. The term body of work has an incongruous resonance when applied to the noncorporeal author Alan Smithee. Jeremy Braddock and Stephen Hock (Eds.) (2001) argue that the name Alan Smithee functions in the same manner as any other auteur: to create a sense of coherent creative vision across a disparate body of work (pp. 154-155). However, part of this sense of cohesion, as argued by Braddock et al., can be attributed to the deceptive element of the Alan Smithee name, which in most part passed as a signifier of an actual person until the movie An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn made the function of the name public in 1997. The mode of multi-authorship offered by Alan Smithee, post 1997, draws parallels with the WikiMedia mode of authorship: multiple authors contributing to a collective body of work; and an intertextual meshing of multiple sources which combine to create an arguably coherent body of work. However, there are certain differences, for example Ala “ ithee s o k etai s a est i ti e copyright, is not part of the public domain, and although his body of work is collectively made, individual works are not made available for further remixes, alterations or re-edits by participatory directors. A further difference is that the name Alan Smithee, which functions as a device of dis-ownership of the work carries a negative connotation, suggesting that the work is not that of an auteur, but of other artistically inferior controlling agents. The mode of authorship presented by Alan Smithee, and other multi-use names discussed in Chapter Two, is described within this study as pseudononymous authorship11. In Chapter Four this mode of authorship is combined with some of the potentials offered by WikiMedia to construct a pseudononymous multi10 The Internet Movie Database lists 71 different directors who have used the name Alan Smithee and 14 scriptwriters. 11 Anonymous authorship in which a pseudonym is used in place of the author. 17 author called Karen Karnak, through which multiple participants collaborate in generating a body of work under a collective pseudonym. The Smithee mode of authorship is the strategy I have employed of negating the i di idual autho s o upatio of the e t al ole of autho ship. This mode of multi-authorship is highly suited to the WikiMedia context of the study, since the name of the pseudononymous author becomes a signifier for multiple origins and collaborations rather than an individual origin of a fixed text. Although the Alan Smithee mode of authorship is an influence in the construction of multi-authorship, authorship debates and auteur theories which relate directly to filmmaking form a less significant component of the theoretical framework within the scope of this study. This is mainly due to time and scale limitations but also because the Web 2.0 WikiMedia platform, with its origins in participatory open-source culture and the production of small scale digital media, is outside of the scope of theories of the auteur, which are biased by a broadcast model of production. 1.4.2 The multi-author-function Underpinning the discussion in this chapter has been the paradigm that authorship is a construction which is informed and shaped by the context in which it appears. This will lead, in Chapter Two, to the formation of a theoretical f a e o k, usi g Fou ault s autho -function, to examine the space which surrounds the mode of multi-authorship within the focus and context of participatory culture and the WikiMedia application. The intention of this focus is to construct a multi-author environment, using a WikiMedia application, to examine the points of conflict and intersection occurring between a multi-author mode of discourse with the contextual power structures surrounding and entwined within the WikiMedia environment. 18 Fou ault s autho -function forms part of a useful theoretical framework, which is used in Chapter Four and Five to analyse data produced by participants within the constructed WikiMedia environment. The author-function provides a means of observing multi-authorship within the specific context of the WikiMedia, revealing in Chapters Four and Five the effect that these power structures exert on the permitted mode of authorship. 1.5 Thesis structure In Chapter Two a theoretical framework is identified from a combination of Fou ault s autho -function, the declarative function of the author and an examination of the context of previous multi-user names and pseudononymous modes of authorship. The theoretical framework is developed throughout Chapter Two tracing a pathway from the paternalistic claims of the individual author, theories which can be used to decentralise the individual author as the central focus of authorship, and onwards to precedents in which the author can be seen as a signifier of multiple origins and finally to an examination of previous multi-author names and functions. Chapter Two utilises the author-function of Michel Foucault (1926-1984) as the main process in negating the individual author as the central focus of authorship. The author-function also acts to emphasise the structures which surround the author as being responsible for the formation of authorship as a function. The primary theoretical framework of the author-function is applied, in Chapter Two, to precedents of authorship which are explicitly designed to fulfil a particular function: such as the declarative author and certain pseudononymous declarative authorships, such as Alan Smithee. This focus on the decentralisation of the author is extended in the examination of the multi-author named Karen Eliot, who, unlike Alan Smithee prior to 1997, is a declarative author explicitly comprised of multiple origins. The academic 19 trajectory of Chapter Two is aimed at creating a series of precedents, combined ith Fou ault s autho -function, which assemble a theoretical framework which forms the basis of the construction of Karen Karnak: the multi-author name, which participants are invited to use to collaborate in the production of a body of work, as examined in Chapters Four and Five. Underlining Chapter Two is the idea that authorship is a construction designed to fulfil a function and that power structures which surround authorship are responsible for that design. This hypothesis has bearing on the positioning of the researcher, since the academic structure as well as the administrative roles of the researcher in administrating the WikiMedia, places the researcher as an active participant in the construction process. This positioning of the researcher is examined in Chapter Three, the methodology chapter, along with research methods and paradigms used within this study. The positioning of the researcher, as a participant within the Hamilton Underground Film Festival, the context of the study, as well as being the designer and initiator of the multiauthor name Karen Karnak, is further examined in Chapter Three, along with a discussion on different methodological approaches which position the researcher within the research environment. The approach to authorship adopted by the experiment in Chapter Four is to create a mode of pseudononymous authorship which evokes an individual named author, who also, through their known avatar12 status, concurrently signifies multiple authors. The mode of authorship presented by Karen Karnak, in Chapter Four, occupies a volatile position which is situated between the individual and the multiple. The aim of this volatile positioning is to observe how and where the mode of multi-authorship in distorted and fractured by the influences of surrounding power structures: inherent in the WikiMedia and the roles of the researcher and administrator of the environment. 12 The avatar-author is a term used in this study to distinguish a declarative authorship and a pseudononymous authorship in which the named author is presented as a signifier of multiple origins. 20 The points of intersection between the power structures generated by the WikiMedia, the researcher / participant relationship and other external forces, as discussed in Chapter Four and Chapter Five, indicate some of the process involved in the construction of multi-authorship. These processes comprise of interlocking concepts such as the idea that a sense of coherence is implied over the multi-authored text, the view of the body of work as a unity, the forces of ownership and attribution, and identity as it relates to both the individual and an author which signifies multiple origins. In Chapter Five the findings from the Karen Karnak experiment are discussed and identified as areas for further research outside of the scope of this study. 21 22 Chapter Two: A review of the (multi) author-function 2.1 The observation of multi-authorship In this chapter a trajectory is traced between the paternalistic metaphor of the individual author towards views of authorship which decentralise the creator as the focus of authorship and allow the view of a text as a signifier of multiple origins and multi-authorship. The paternalistic metaphor relates to the implicit link between the author and the text and also functions as an expression of ownership. The word plagiarism has its roots in the Latin term for kidnapping (McLeod, 2001, p. 39), demonstrating the extent in which ownership of a text is compared to a link as indisputable as biological parenting. In the paternalistic do i a e o e the te t is u etapho the autho s uestio a le, and implied as a natural . This li kage elies o the consequence of writing (Allen, 2000, p. otio s of paternity, of authority, of filiation (sic) – fathership, ownership, giving birth, fa ilial po e th ough hi h the autho is alidated do i a t so ial st u tu es of po e Alle , the e p essio of , p. 71). In the paternalistic metaphor the power structure of the family is evoked to enable the discourse of author as owner to be circulated. This function of the author as owner is expressed by Daniel Defoe (1659—1731), who said in 1710: A ook is a Autho s P ope t , tis the hild of his i e tio s, the brat of his Brain; if he sells his property, it then becomes the right of the pu hase ; if ot, tis as u h his o as his wife and children are his own (Defoe: cited in McLeod, 2001, p. 22; Rose, 1993, p. 39). 23 The above quote of Defoe functions to promote a strong sense of ownership and an intrinsic connection between the author and the text which traces the emergence of copyright. The context from which the quote was taken being a speech by Defoe in support of legal recognition of authorship in an age when the printing press was allowing unregulated plagiarism of texts and large scale pirating of the works of authors. The paternalistic metaphor, as a signifier of the author s o e ship, generates a divide between the author and audience: a positioning which contrasts with the convergence of roles promoted in Web 2.0 architecture. The paternalistic view is a concept which grew out of the emerging technology of the printing press. As noted by Corynne McSherry, the technology of production and distribution plays a distinctive role in the shaping of the mode of authorship: In the primarily oral culture of medieval and early modern Europe, writing was still conceived as a collaborative process, wherein the writer was a craftsman working with papermakers, proofreaders and booksellers to reproduce knowledge (2001, p. 39). With the emergence of the printing press, which slowly overtook the oral society of the medieval period, the author was required to fulfil a different set of functions (McSherry, 2001, pp. 25-68). The function of the author as signifier of a distinct owner of a text is dependent on the ability of technology to record, copy and assign a text attributable to a specific author. The distinction between the reciting of a poem by memory, the composition of an oral text which could be subject to alteration in every short circulation, and the fixture and exact copying of a text, which the technology of the printing press allowed, brought the processes of attribution to the foreground of authorship (Rose, 1993, pp. 3-4). The fixture of the text, through the technology of printing, is distinct from a participatory culture, either the oral traditions or Web 2.0, in which the text is 24 maintained in a malleable state, and therefore devoid of a finished state which could be attributed to a definitive author. ‘ola d Ba thes essa , Image – music – text (1977), first published in 1967, proposes the death of the author, i.e. Barthes places an emphasis on the reception of the text, negating the romantic claims of authorship and emphasising the production of meaning which language and the audience create ( . Ba thes a gu e t ontrasts the romantic view of authorship, as depicted by Defoe, as being the indisputable origin of a text, instead attributing reception and language as important factors and defocusing the author as the primary origin of the meaning generated from a text. Although Barthes focuses on the reception of the text he also suggests that the audience takes on an authorial role in the generation of meaning. This implies a form of convergence between the roles of author and audience also experienced in Web 2.0 architecture. However, Barthes fo us o e eptio a d audie e does ot take into account the contextual influences which a new form of authorship is subject to and, therefore, does not provide an appropriate theoretical framework for this study. However, one useful aspect of Barthes stud is that of looking at authorship as a deliberate construction, rather than as a natural and inevitable process. This constructivist approach can evade the over emphasis on text, audience or author through an examination of the power structures, and surrounding contexts of authorship, responsible for the specific construction of the mode of authorship. Mi hel Fou ault s autho - fu tio as des i ed i his essa What is an Author (1977) is a response to Ba thes theo . The author-function questions the natural assumption connecting author and text and focuses on the contextual power structures which surround the construction of authorship. Although limited in scope to an examination of the author-functions surrounding the written word, Fou ault s essa p o ides a adapta le a d p ag ati 25 approach to examine the e pt spa e left the autho s disappea a e (1977, p. 121) and provides useful tools for examining the functions which operate in the space between the author and the text. Text, in the context of this study, is used to indicate discourses generated from any medium including audio-visual material. The theo eti al f a e o k p o ided Fou ault s autho -function promotes the underpinning theory that considers authorship as a construction and a system of att i utio eated a se ies of p e ise a d o ple p o edu es , p. 131). This has many parallels with Web 2.0 creation of user profiles, avatars and pseudonyms under which much of web content is produced, and with the construction of the avatar-author which represents a signification of the origins of content which is distanced from that circulated by the author (Shields, 2003). The shift of emphasis away from the individual author, through the use of Fou ault s autho -function, allows focus on the interconnectedness of Web 2.0 media, where multiple sources, intertextuality and multiple-authorship transcend the boundaries traditionally associated with author and audience. 2.1.1 Foucault s author-function The autho fu tio is tied to the legal a d i stitutio al s ste s that circumscribe, determine, and articulate the realm of discourses; it does not operate in a uniform manner in all discourses, at all times, and in any given culture; it is not defined by the spontaneous attribution of a text to its creator, but through a series of precise and complex procedures; it does not refer, purely and simply , to an actual individual insofar as it simultaneously gives rise to a variety of egos and to a series of subjective positions that individuals of any class can come to occupy (Foucault, 1977, pp. 130-131). The following characteristics of the author-function have been identified as important to this study: 26 Autho ship is suppo ted po e st u tu es: The autho -function is tied to the legal and institutional systems that circumscribe, determine, and articulate the realm of discourses (Foucault, 1977, p. 130). Therefore, the context in which the authorship occurs consists of power structures which determine the form authorship takes, defined in this study as the mode of authorship. This is particularly useful in the study of new modes of authorship made possible through the WikiMedia, since, as demonstrated in Chapter One, the WikiMedia is comprised of multiple levels of interaction between administrators, users and external power structures such as copyright and the Open-Source movement. The context-based aspect of the author-function suggests that this theoretical framework is more suited to an interpretative methodology, which is focused on the context of the study rather than a universalist approach, which aims to create meta-theory which can be applied to all contexts. The implications of using a context-based approach are discussed more fully in the Methodology Chapter Three of this thesis. The author-function allows the individual author to be decentralised from authorship through an examination of the complex procedures of attribution: the author-function is ot fo ed spo ta eousl th ough the si ple att i utio of a dis ou se to a i di idual but through the multiple levels of the power structures in which authorship occurs (Foucault, 1977, p. 127). This allows a movement away from the individual author and towards the multi-author through the recognition that attribution is part of the processes designated to the author by contextual power structures. The gatekeeper function is discussed by Foucault where he describes the process of attribution of authorship of religious texts used by Saint Jerome in his De Viris Illustribus (Jerome, 1912). Consistency across a singular discourse is achieved 27 th ough a fu tio of the autho that se es to eut alise the o t adi tio s that a e fou d i a se ies of te t Fou ault, , p. . “ai t Je o e 420 AD), the patron saint of li a ia s, as o side ed, i the - s, the p odu e of the authe ti a d autho itati e Lati te t of the Catholi Chu h (Catholic on-line. 2009) and as such represented a dominant power structure in the construction of authorship. Fou ault uses “ai t Je o e s p o esses of att i utio of autho ship to eate a correlation with contemporary author functions: a complex process in which the text is verified and authenticated within the constraints and agendas of institutions. This is also described by Barrett in the gatekeeper function of publishing houses and art galleries. The gatekeeper function ensures that the work has a particular validity, is of an accepted and consistent quality, is coherent with work of a similar content and does ot of o k Ba ett, , p. o t adi t the ai od . This allows, through a complex system of gatekeepers and authenticators, a limitation of the discourses circulated to the e te t that the author also constitutes a principle of unity in writi g “ai t Jerome: cited in Foucault, 1977, p. 128). The author function provides authenticity and validation of a text through the assertion that behind the layers of multiple subjectivities there is a singular voice which is that of the author. The gatekeeper function is connected with the coherency of the oeuvre, or body of work of the author, and provides a delimiting container for the circulation of discourse. The gatekeeper function of authorship is related to the WikiMedia structures in Chapters Four and Five, where the delimitation of discourse occurs in both the content of the multi-author environment as well in the mode of authorship circulated. In the case of the multi-author experiment in Chapter Four, the gatekeeper function actively censors certain contributions to be made from the multi-author if the work is seen as an infringement of ethical guidelines set out 28 by the academic power structure within which the research is situated. In this way multi-authorship is delimited to allow only certain content to become part of the body of work attributed to Karen Karnak. Within this study the author-function acts to suppress multiple voices and subjective positions, which are inherent in the act of writing: It [the author-function] does not refer, purely and simply, to an actual individual insofar as it simultaneously gives rise to a variety of egos and to a series of subjective positions that individuals of any class can come to occupy (Foucault, 1977, p. 131). Withi Fou ault s o te t of study it is the function of the author to disperse the plu alit of egos , p. hi h e ists ithi a si gle te t and therefore allow attribution of an individual author. Within the context of the WikiMedia this function has two uses: to allow the multi-author (Karen Karnak) to signify multiple origins and authors, whilst concurrently allowing the text to be attributed to a unified production process which is also signified by the name Karen Karnak. Fou ault s ohe e e function also suggests that all texts which are attributed an author hold the potential as a signifier of multiple origins: All discourse that suppo ts this autho fu tio is ha a te ised this plu alit of egos , pp. 129-130). The author-function acts as an agent to dispel multiple claims to the text, reducing the potential number of declared authors and adding a unity to the text or series of texts contained within the body of work of the particular author. This function allows an examination of disparate works to observe a cohesion which is generated by the author-fu tio , dispelli g the variety of egos a d u if i g a series of subjective positions under the name of a single author (Foucault, 1977, pp. 130-131). 29 In the action of attribution of an individual author to a text the coherence function is activated and the work becomes part of a conception of the body of work as a unified work of a single author. In addition, the naming of an author, which is the central function of attribution, also activates a declarative authorfunction, which negates the claims of multiple authors to the text, even to the extent of disassociation of the physical writers of that text, as can be seen in the declarative author-function. 2.1.2 Declarative author-function It is only through performing the declarative part of authorship that one can figure oneself as an author or enable a work to a ti ate Fou ault s autho -fu tio Lo e, , p. 45). The de la ati e o po e t of the p o ess of autho ship is he e the autho s name is linked directly and visibly with the text, either through titles or credits or any other form of signalling and is an essential part of attribution. An anonymous text cannot call upon the author function and enable its functions to be of use, as an author must be declared, even if fictitious. The declarative author is connected to the concept that an author is a function rather than an individual being, since the declared author can be attributed a text written by another or multiple individuals to allow functionality of the text to occur. The declarative function can take the work of an anonymous or collective authorship and presents the text as the work of a single author. The declarative function is a form of plagia is a d app op iatio the ghost-writer[s] Lo e, , p. ag ee e t of the work of . It is a consensual attribution of the text to a non-active author which is required to fulfil the role of the text. However, as connected as it is to plagiarism, it is a recognised and legitimate part of the se ue e of p o esses e k o as autho ship Love, 2002, p. 46), even if the declared author has made no physical contribution to the work. 30 The declarative function is a vital part of authorship often performed at the end of the production process and in which the text is attributed to the proper name of the author (Love, 2002, p. 45). It is connected to the gatekeeper functions of authorship, in that the declarative author dispels the multiple egos of the ghost writers and assigns validity and authority to the text. The declarative author function is common practice among politicians, who employ specialist researchers to write speeches and press releases, which appear under the name of the more public endorser. The e a ple gi e i Lo e s Attributing Authorship (2002) is that of United States p eside t Cli to s de la ati e autho ship of a ook o a e elatio s hi h as to appear under his name, although written by a Harvard professor Christopher F. Edley junior (Love, 2002, pp. 36-37). Clinto s ai ole i the p o ess of authorship seems to have been to validate the ideas presented, attaching his name so that the work might perform its political function more effectively (Love, 2002, p. 37). As well as being seen as a form of sponsorship, the re-contextualisation of a text into a new attribution of authorship within a new oeuvre, or body of work, repositions the text to become a different work, since it is situated amongst the other work of the new author (Love, 2002, p. 44-46). This is an author- function which allows the re-authorship of material to occur potentially instantaneously, a useful function in the design of a multi-author environment in which each piece of work is affected by the concept of the body of work as a unified discourse. The declarative author function is a legitimised, i.e. validated at the highest le els of so iet , fo of att i utio i utual ag ee e t a d i etu fo pa hi h the ghost autho s fu tio e t Lo e, , p. 183). In the case of declarative and ghost writing functions of authorship the connection between o eso o k a d owning the work can therefore be seen as a blurred 31 distinction. The information that ownership can take a preference over physical authorship reveals the tight relationship between the concepts of authorship as it relates to ownership: Authorship and ownership are extensively bound up with each other to the point that authorship cannot logically exist in the absence of the concept of ownership (McLeod, 2001, p. 15). This describes authorship as being a by-product of ownership and as the form that authorship takes being directed by the agenda of providing copyright control through ownership. With ownership playing the primary role in the author-function, capital, in a Marxist sense, is ultimately attributed as the author, as a declarative authorship, where attribution is placed on the employer of one or more creative ghost writers. This is further suggested by Foucault: It is a voluntary obliteration of the self that does not require representation in books because it takes place in the everyday existence of the writer (1977, p. 117). The property aspect of the author function, in that texts a e o je ts of app op iatio Fou ault, 1977, p. 124) seems to be able to override an authorial link as strong as the paternal metaphor. The question whether authorship can be traced to capital as the overall origin of its source is outside of the limits of this study, however, it is interesting to note that creative and intellectual property, using a declarative author function, is entrenched within the production p o esses of the ultu al i dust ies. I Co Be a d Edel a s o k o fil features of the autho fu tio pe so s : e M “he s i te p etatio of p odu tio , she suggests o e of the hi h e phasise[d] the work of individual eati e individuals who invest of themselves in the making of the p odu t M “he , , p. 10; Edelman, 1979, p. 57). Edelman identifies the 32 commodity form of creation as a function of the author (Edelman, 1979, pp. 3767) in which the capital-author is based in the economic power structures which circumvent the creation of the text. I Edel a s p opositio , the ask of the su je t Edel a , apital assu es , p. 57). This is supported by McSherry ho ide tifies op ight as the alidatio of apital; to be an author then was to be an owner, copyright confirmed authorial status (2001, p. 41). The reduction of the multi-author into a singular entity is a thematic motif of Fou ault s author-function, which promotes an underpinning theory that o side s autho ship as a o st u tio a d a s ste of att i utio se ies of p e ise a d o ple p o edu es Fou ault, eated a , p. 131). 2.1.3 Towards multi-authorship The declarative author, in its ability to separate the physical production process from the attribution process, is used as a starting point for the design of the multi-author mode of authorship. The declarative author is the named author of a text which has been constructed by singular or multiple anonymous authors who are not attributed authorship. In practice this is a form of multipleauthorship, in which a singular declarative author and a number of unattributed ghost ite s ollaborate to construct the text. However, it is a form of multi- authorship which is moving towards the reinforcement of the author as an individual origin who has singular ownership of the text (see Figure 1 below). In the design of a research environment in which the individualist aspect of authorship can be challenged, aspects of the declarative author-function have been reversed so that the named declarative author is a pseudonym rather than a real person. In this sense the declarative author becomes the non-material ghost-writer of the multiple authors who contribute to the body of work. The multiple-authors work collectively under a virtual pseudonym, which is a mode of authorship enacted by Alan Smithee and Karen Eliot examined in section 2.1.4 33 and 2.1.5 of this chapter, and which stands as a place holder for the declarative author. The avatar multi-author13 occupies a similar space to the declarative author when placed on a sliding scale which polarises singular authorship and multiauthorship (see Figure 1 below). The avatar, although appearing as a singular author, is emerging towards the direction of multi-authorship in the construction of the text due to the non-materiality of the author and the signification of multiple origins. The declarative author is a multi-author production structure which is emerging towards an individualistic mode of authorship due to the obscuration of the construction process: leading to the dispelling of multiple origins. Figure 1: The diverging directions of the declarative author-function and the multi-author (source: Author). 13 The term avatar is occasionally used in this study to describe a pseudononymous authorship within the context of the virtual space of Web 2.0. 34 The sliding scale between multiple authors and singular authors is a reductionist model used for the purposes of illustration of the similarities and directions of divergence between the declarative author and the avatar author, since both forms of authorship contain elements of the singular and the multiple. In many respects the avatar fulfils the role of author, a named entity, an organisation or corporation, which stands in place of a human author. We may evoke this avatar author when speaking about the latest MGM film or, more often, as Mark Rose points out, in Authors and Owners (1993), the authorial function is often filled by the sta (1993, p. 1: cited in Love, 2002, p. 41), the star being the recognisable public face of the production, which occupies the position of author. Often the process of attribution of a declarative author is a hidden process which reinforces the singular nature of authorship, and obscures the contributions of the ghost-writers. In the case of the avatar-author the non-materiality of the declared author is made known and the collaborative nature of this mode of authorship is emphasised. The off-line identities of contributors, in the context of this study, are kept hidden behind an additional set of pseudononymous usernames, due to ethical considerations used to protect the participants from potential harm. The multi-user avatar evokes a mode of authorship, which is at the outer limits of the author-function, driven there through the design of the project in an attempt to reveal the underpinnings of the author-function and the idea that the author is not exclusively the tangible individual but a space which can be inhabited by a variety of egos and (to) a series of subjective positions that individuals of any class can come to occupy (Foucault, 1977, p. 131). The avatar multi-author is a mode of authorship easily facilitated by the transient and indeterminable nature of identity within the Web 2.0 environment. This is 35 combined with the ease in which collaboration can occur across the disparate spaces and in the creation of a multi-user avatar, which can occupy the space of declarative author. The multi-user avatar mode of authorship is a little used mode of authorship which has its origins in pre-Web 2.0, certain forms of which have been endorsed the Di e to s Guild of A e i a DGA , al eit o e tl , i the fo of the avatar multi-author Allen Smithee. 2.1.4 Multi-user names: Allen Smithee The name Allen Smithee, as discussed in Chapter One, functions as a declarative author, obscuring the source of the text, whilst allowing the author-function to operate in the circulation of the discourses of individual origins, ownership and the formation of identity through a body of work. The body of work produced by Allen Smithee contributes to the materiality of the author, who until 1997, when his avatar status was publically revealed, was considered to be a rather low key ut p olifi p odu e of B g ade Holl ood o ies (Saper, 2001, pp. 29-40). A useful form of interpretive analysis is used by Jeremy Braddock in looking at the collectively produced works of Allen Smithee. The mode of authorship incorporated by Allan Smithee is very similar to that of Karen Karnak, as discussed in Chapter Four, which has multiple-users who collectively produce a body of work attributed to a pseudonym or avatar. Braddock uses a hermeneutic approach in using an auteurist theoretical framework to ask the question of where Smithee, the presumed auteur, places himself in the work (Braddock, 2001, p. 153). Braddock initially looks at the Directors Guild of America Basic Agreement of 1996; the document which is used to decide whether a director can apply for the use of the name Allen Smithee. The following passage used by Braddock is identical to the DGA Basic Agreement of 2006-2008 which is quoted below: 36 The di e to s fu tio is to o t i ute to all of the eati e elements of a film and to participate in molding and integrating them into one cohesive dramatic and aesthetic whole (DGA, 2008: Braddock, 2001, p. 154). As Braddock observes, the passage reads as surprisingly familiar to a section fo Fou ault s autho -function, i the a o e ase e a ed as the di e to s fu tio . This di e to -fu tio is to i pose a u if i g o ohesi e shape to the o k, just as Fou ault a gues that the autho s fu tio is to alidate the te t in terms of subjectivity, providing a coherent line of consciousness which unifies the work. This is an aspect of the author-function which enables the dispelling of a plurality of egos in place of the coherent work of a singular author (Foucault, 1977, pp. 130-131). This is a function which, as Braddock argues, can be activated sufficiently by both a legitimate director or through the attribution of the declarative author Allan Smithee (2001, pp. 154-155), or, by extension, a similar mode of authorship: Karen Karnak. 2.1.5 Other multi-user names The name Karen Eliot was initiated by Stewart Home, in the early nineteen eighties, as a multiple-use a tist a e to de o atise the sta s ste a d question the concept of the individual artist (Saper, 2001, pp. 42-43). The description of the function of the multi-user name from the Stuart Home website provides an insight into the aims of the Karen Eliot name, which functions as an indeterminate identity: Ka e Eliot is a a e that efe s to a individual human being who can be anyone. The name is fixed, the people using it a e 't Home, 1999). This view of identity is evident in the origins of Karen Eliot which Home describes as a social constructed identity: 37 Karen Eliot was not born, s/he was materialised from social forces, constructed as a means of entering the shifting terrain that circumscribes the 'individual' and society (Home, 1999). The shifting terrain which Home mentions above can be interpreted as the play of power which shapes concepts of the individual and which can be applied to the power structures which shape the author-fu tio . Ho e s st ateg of usi g a virtual author in which to examine the play of power which circumscribes the concept of the individual can be compared to the research environment of the Karen Karnak project (Chapter Four), in which, a similar multi-use name is used to examine the functions of the author. Home supports the hypothesis that the multi-use author is a vehicle suitable for an examination of the power structures which shape and define the concepts of authorship. Ho e s i te tio is to: create a situation for which no one in particular is responsible and to practically examine western philosophical notions of identity, individuality, originality, value and truth (1999). These philosophical notions, identity, individuality and originality, are central paradigms within which the author-function, and authorship in general, operates. In the operation of a multi-user name, such as Karen Eliot, Home is attempting to remove the author as an individual origin, since the name is one which can be used by anyone and therefore, from the outset, represents in the proper name, what Foucault calls a plurality of egos. The function of identity in the multi-use name is both a refusal of a fixed identity, due to the disparate entities which operate the name, as well as the enforced consolidation of the plurality of egos into a singular form, enclosed within the function of the name. This is seemingly paradoxical since the name of the author Karen Eliot simultaneously functions to disperse the multitudes of users by invoking the author-function, whilst at the same time, since the author does not hold value, 38 as Home suggests, as a valid and enclosed entity, the name simultaneously functions as a signifier of multiple entities. The deciding factor between the simultaneous states of singular or multiple seems to be whether one is aware of the name as representing a multitude of users or as a single individual author. However, even with the knowledge that the name is a pseudonym under which several people collaborate, the function of the author as a singular origin can still override this information, generating over time a perception of coherence through the body of work and inviting similar work to be contributed by other users. The primary function of the multiple name, the multi-author, is not to identify a single origin of a text, through which attribution is then made possible, but to deny the possibility of attribution through a complex system of subterfuge and dissipation of origins across multiple identities and participants. It does not name, as names usually do, any one particular body and the history that body has come to assume. Rather, the name is dissipated across many bodies, it resides nowhere, in a place between bodies, above bodies (Eliot, 2002). The function of the Karen Eliot name, suggested above, expresses a focus of authorship which is not centred in the individual, but in the contextual surroundings in which the authorship occurs. The Karen Eliot name shares many common aims with the construction of the Karen Karnak name, however, there are power structures connected with the environment which surrounds Karen Karnak, as discussed in Chapter Four, which have an effect in shaping these aims. The research environment in which Karen Karnak evolves differs to the situation, des i ed Ho e, i hi h no one in particular is responsible (1999) and it is these contextual influences which have an effect is shaping the particular authorfunctions which Karen Karnak is required to fulfil. 39 2.2 Questions asked in this research project In response to the discussions of the previous two chapters the following questions have been formulated as a focus for the experiment in collaborative multi-authorship, which occurs within a WikiMedia environment in Chapter Four:  What power structures affect the multi-author environment?  How do these power structures, implicit in the environment which surrounds the author, delimit and shape the permitted mode of authorship?  How does the body of work, produced by the multi-author, interact with the avatar-author?  What are the functions of the multi-author? These questions form the basis of the examination of multi-authorship throughout this study, in which a situation is constructed to reveal the functions of the multi-author. This results in the generation of further questions, as discussed in Chapter Five, which would need to be situated within a study of larger scope. As such, this study acts as a pilot for a larger scale work, which would be necessary to address the field of multi-authorship in more detail. 40 Chapter Three: Methodology 3.1 Summary of secondary research method. The study began with the hypothesis that the mode of authorship within the context of Web 2.0 differs to that of media in which the author and audience are maintained as more separate roles. The contexts in which this study is situated, as described in Chapter One, are the production cultures and ethos of participatory culture: the open-source movement; the influence of the Hamilton Underground Film Festival, a local14 community from which participants are invited for the multi-author production of digital media; and a selection of precedents illustrating the multi-author and pseudononymous author as a mode of authorship, which influences the construction of authorship in Chapter Four. I Chapte T o Fou ault s autho -function is introduced as a way of looking at authorship through the contextual power structures, which delimit the mode of authorship. The author-function has been combined with features of the declarative author and the avatar-author to define a collaborative multiauthorship which operates under a common pseudonym. Precedents for this mode of authorship are also discussed in Chapter Two, in the sections on Alan Smithee and Karen Eliot: setting the scene for the proposed construction of Karen Karnak as a vehicle for a discussion of the multi-author-function, in Chapters Four and Five. 3.2 Primary research methods. The primary research consists of the construction of a WikiMedia site, in which invited participants collaborate in the making of digital media. All participants 14 local, not in a geographical sense, but as a signifier of a specific context which may be bound by community, purpose or affiliation. 41 collaborate to produce a body of work which is attributed to a collective pseudonym, standing in place of the author, so that the author-function can be examined within the context of Web 2.0 multi-authorship15. The creation of this virtual author, an authorial placeholder for the multiple origins of the source material for the digital media, draws parallels with the ethodologies of a pa ti ipato a d o st u ti ist i st u tio al desig in that, the researcher is using a form of intervention in the field of research to provide a context for study (Willis & Jost, 2007, pp. 271-274). The design of the WikiMedia site is a crucial aspect of the primary research, since this provides the context within which the specific author-function can be observed, as a context-based research-construction, in which the multi-author-function is observed in action. In the design of this environment there is a disse i atio of k o ledge i st u tio al ele e t, a hi h a ises f o the spe ifi and unique mode of authorship which the environment promotes (Willis & Jost, 2007, pp. 271-274). In this sense the researcher is a participant through the construction of the experimental environment and the initiation of the Karen Karnak name. The use of the WikiMedia platform as a research tool is particularly suited to the technique of participant observation, as the application records a history of all changes made to the collectively produced content, including a log of participant user name and timestamp. Participant observation, within a qualitative methodology, is used to develop understanding, usually associated with understanding another culture in ethnographical studies (Silverman, 2005, p. 111). In the context of this study, participant observation is used to develop understanding of the multi-author-function, when applied to the particular situation and context provided by the constructed multi-author environment. As a research tool for examining the author-function within a multi-author environment, the observation of the action of participants, may also provide some insights into the practices of collaborative digital media making. The 15 The author-function within the context of participatory culture is often termed as the multiauthor-function. 42 automatic logging process of the WikiMedia can be a helpful feature for the researcher, although, a condensed form of field notes, which record my ongoing impressions and interpretations, may occasionally relate more poignantly to power structures connected with the position of the researcher and administrator of the WikiMedia. These field notes, known as the research journal or personal research diary, have been used to record semi-personal impressions and concerns of the researcher, and offer insights into the involvement of the researcher in power structures which influence the resulting mode of authorship. Since many of the participants have been selected from the mailing list of the Hamilton Underground Film Festival, of which I am the principle facilitator, and a participant in the role of filmmaker, my active presence in the field of research is already well established. My participation in creating a context, in addition to my design of the WikiMedia environment, places the researcher within the field as a participant-researcher. Within my multiple roles as researcher, administrator and pa ti ipa t I a o s iousl assu i g a a ti e positio of pa ti ipa t as o se e a o di g to Gold s lassifi atio of eth og aphi pa ti ipa t o se e roles (Bryman, 2001, pp. 289-310). A participant as observer means that the other participants are aware of my role as researcher, but that I am also seen as a participant in the field of research. The construction of the Karen Karnak pseudonym as a platform for collaborative work, a name which holds the potential for (mis-) representation of a living person, and an individual author, comes from a theoretical perspective of social o st u ti is hi h assu es that people eate so ial ealities th ough individual and collective a tio s Charmaz, 2006, p. 189). I this se se a eal author is being socially and collectively constructed through the creation of a body of work attributed to the collective pseudonym. Throughout the research the participants will be encouraged to create and present work attributed to the name Karen Karnak outside of the experimental 43 WikiMedia site. This may be internet posts on blogs sites, digital media which has been re-authored as belonging to Karen Karnak, writings o appea a es at external events. The strategy to blur the edges between the experimental field and the contextual fields of the study, a tactic which seems to go against traditional positivist research norms of limiting variables, is used here to more fully immerse the research field within a social context16. These events which exist outside of the semi-controlled environment of the WikiMedia can also be taken into account during the analysis of the author-function, the purpose being the generation and/or understanding of theory within a social context. Traditionally, the role of method is to create a distance between the researcher and the field of research. This is an influence of a positivist paradigm, which is concerned with the generation of universals and objective knowledge, which can be applied to a wide variety of situations, and is less focused on local or context situated knowledge (Clough & Nutbrown, 2002, p. 27). Hermeneutic study is a research tool focused on understanding in context, and views knowledge as situated towards a subjectivity which is based within complex contextual issues, of which the researcher is an active component. Hermeneutics does not, however, necessarily entirely abandon method as a tool, which can provide analysis, but this is usually within an interpretivist paradigm (Willis & Jost, 2007, pp. 104-107). 16 By the end of the study Karen Karnak had been invited to appear at several events including: a five minute presentation at the 6th Aotearoa Digital Arts Network Symposium (ADA) at Victoria University, Wellington 26th June 2009 on the subject of digital-critical-matter; the international th Upstage festival 090909 on the 9 September 2009, in which a performance using several Karen Karnak avatars was given on-line; Karen Karnak also entered several digital films into the Hamilton Underground Film Festival in October 2009; and there was an exhibition of Karen th Ka ak s audio-visual work at The Ramp Gallery, Wintec institute in Hamilton, New Zealand on 5 rd - 23 November 2009. The significance of these outside events are discussed in Chapter Five, sections 5 and 5.4. 44 Within this study I am using a methodology to further develop a theoretical framework with the objective of generating increased understanding of a new17 mode of authorship. My objectives and motivations are separated from participants within the field. This becomes apparent in Chapter Four where the academic power structures of the researcher exert an influence on the mode of autho ship a d the pu lished o te t of Ka e Ka ak s o k. Since the researcher is also a participant, methodologies which allow a closer association of the researcher with the object of study have been selectively utilised to allow a blurring of the boundary between researcher and the researched. The positioning of the researcher is thus affected by the contextual nature of the research, in which my interventions within the field of study are made visible and become a component of the academic process. This is distinct from a methodology driven by positivist paradigms, which would emphasise the separation between the researcher and the object of study to produce findings of a universalist nature. In the design of the multi-author environment, and the initiation of a multi-use avatar, the research methodology is related to a practice-based research, a practical action, or a creative practice, which functions, as Estelle Barrett states, i the p odu tio of k o ledge : creating, through arts practice, a subjective pe so all situated k o ledge (Barrett, 2007b, pp. 1-13). However, rather than following a performative model, in which my own practice is situated as the central focus of the research, a self-study (which) places individual researchers at the e t e of thei o e ui es (McNiff, & Whitehead, 2006, p. 11), the research is placed within the context of a community of practitioners: a multiple author-function shaped by the contextual forces of the Web 2.0 architecture, and the collaborative interactions of the participant, as influenced by the actions 17 Ne i the se se that Fou ault s autho -function was not written with the concept of blurred audience-author boundaries which are indicative of Web 2.0 architecture. 45 of the researcher. This methodology is more akin to participatory action research, i hi h the esea he is see as pa t of the situatio the a e i estigati g , positioning the researcher as an insider amongst the other practitioners (McNiff, & Whitehead, 2006, p. 8). The positioning of the researcher as being part of the research field is distinctive of a tio esea h hi h is value laden (McNiff, & Whitehead, 2006, p. 23). “o ial s ie tists te d to sta d outside of a situatio a d ask What are those people doing over there? How do we understand and e plai hat the a e doi g? This ki d of esea h is ofte alled spectator research, and is usually outsider research. Action researchers, however, are insider researchers. They see themselves as part of the situation they are investigating (McNiff, & Whitehead, 2006, p. 8). Action research is a methodology which was originally devised for the development of educational practices in which teaching practices were evaluated by the same teacher-researchers, who were engaged in the practices themselves (Dick, 2006, p. 441). Since there was no other way of practitioners conducting research which involved their own interventions, within the field of practice, this paradigm of contextual self-study was established. This methodology was extended to other fields of research, including participatory action research, which focuses on collaborative projects, in which, the researcher and participants are both situated within the field of research. This practice of placing the researcher within the field of study means that action research is a ethodolog of i side esea h. Action research focuses on the development of existing theoretical frameworks, which are developed through several feedback-loops of research. Whilst forming part of the influence for my methodology, this mode of action research is not the exclusive directive agent of this study, which, whilst blurring the boundaries of 46 researcher and participant, retains a separation provided by predetermined methodology and the existence of a theoretical framework. This framework is developed and retained by the researcher for analytical purposes in Chapter Four and Five. 3.2.1 Paradigms and attitudes The underpinning paradigm of the research project is based within interpretative and constructivist paradigms in that, the mode of authorship is considered a social construct. The social constructivist nature emphasises that practices are not separate from the practitioners (McNiff, & Whitehead, 2006, p. 10). This application of theory to a context-based situation applies an interpretive pa adig , hi h allo s fo i dete i a athe tha seeks ausalit a d give(s) priority to showing patterns and connections rather than [exclusively] li ea easo i g Charmaz, 2006, p. 126). Research, in which context is an important factor, generally follows a qualitative hermeneutic methodology, of which philosophical hermeneutics is most suited to the development of theory and understanding within a defined context (Willis & Jost, 2007, p. 104; Smith, 1989, p. 106). The application of locally generated knowledge does not necessarily entail a alidatio pe spe ti e indicative of positivist and post-positivist paradigms, but is focused on developing theory and understanding with reference to the contextual differences (Willis, 2007, p. 104; Smith, 1989, p. 106). The influence that context plays upon knowledge, including the influencing contexts of the researcher and their power relations with the participants of research, is a visi le pa t of the ethod of stud i o te t which aims towards developing understanding without necessarily applying an underpinning foundationalist or universalist paradigm (Willis, 2007, pp. 104-105). The contextual power relations imposed by the researcher, in the design of the research project, situates the researcher within the field and is part of the recognition of the complex social and theoretical context of the field of study (Savenye & Robinson, 1997, p. 1177; Willis, 2007, p. 264). 47 3.2.2 Analysis of primary research data Analysis of data taken in the form of field notes and WikiMedia logs will focus on the areas in which practice can transform or contribute understanding of the existing theoretical framework. The method of analysis is to use a hermeneutic approach of study in-context to enhance or extend the theoretical framework of Mi hel Fou ault s autho -function. The aim of this is to examine the affect of power structures which shape the functions of the multi-author, delimit discourses, and affect the body of work produced by the multi-author. Hermeneutics is concerned with the development of understanding of theories within local knowledge or study within context, a context which, in this case, can be seen as constructed both within and outside of the designated areas of the research project. The analysis of research will follow a qualitative methodology producing an interpretive understanding of the implications of multi-author environments acting as a pilot study for possible further investigation of this emerging creative practice. As implied in the choice and application of theoretical framework Fou ault s autho -function, a form of discourse analysis will also be employed in the examination of findings. This will focus on the power structures and influences which affect the mode of authorship and delimit and adapt the circulation of discourse. The form of discourse analysis used in the study is a research tool implied in the use of the author-function, which focuses on the contextual environments and power structures which surround the author, as discussed in Chapters One and Two. 3.2.3 The proper name: Karen Karnak After the avatar-author concept had been developed, my original intention was to use the name Brian Karnak, since I had used that pseudonym in a series of weekly broadcasts on Hamilton Community Radio between March 2006 and September 2008 (Hamilton Community Radio, 2006). The Brian Karnak radio 48 shows involved the use of multiple sound sources, which were overlapped and superimposed, in a free flowing composition which lasted between one and one and a half hours of airtime. The shows were improvised and often involved the broadcast of recordings which I had not had time to previously hear, since, a multi-layered approach was used and each show comprised several hours of simultaneously played sound recordings. In this way the semi-random, and occasionally intuitive, juxtaposition of voices and music formed a complex narrative, surprisingly coherence in the generated meanings. Brian Karnak, over the space of two years, came to represent, for me and a small number of regular listeners, the unexpected coherence which can be generated by multiple sound sources. The drawback with using the name Brian Karnak on an internet based research project was that a Google search for Brian Karnak brought up a direct connection of his name with my own, via the community radio website. The name Karen Karnak was chosen to disassociate myself, as both researcher and individual participator, and as a strategy to promote participation through the negation of a perceived single owner of Ka e s o k. A i itial Google e sea h fo Karen Karnak revealed only one website, in which the two words accidentally appeared together in a list of suggested ute kitten names, since then the list has grown to link 459 web pages on a Google search18, in which Karen Karnak is either the author or subject. The choice of the name Karen is also in reference to Karen Eliot, a multi-user name initiated by Stuart Home, as discussed in Chapters One and Two. 18 th Dated 14 August 2009. 1,800 web pages referenced in February 2010. The original cute kitten names website: http://www.catwebsite.org/kitten-names.htm, in which an alphabetical list accidentally arranged Karen with Karnak. 49 3.2.4 Functions of the WikiMedia The WikiMedia, as a research tool, operates as an interactive questionnaire composed of open ended questions, in which the administrator can guide the topic as well as identify individual contributors with specific lines of text. In addition to the basic features there is also a vast array of third party extensions which can offer more advanced capabilities including the ability to upload files into a directory on the site. These files, which can include photos, moving image and sound files, are accessible to designated users who may download or view the images or else use them to enrich their own text entries through embedding images within the wiki s log st le editable pages. The upload feature can allow a simple form of file sharing and multi-media collaboration, which can interconnect texts and images across users and generate the perception of Intertextuality and communal ownership of content, which is vital for sustainable collaboration within a community context. In the case of moving images these files can be shared and edited through external programs and then uploaded back to the site in a new format and with added content. In this way simple, open-source, digital media can be constructed involving multiple collaborators. The use of external applications relies on additional levels of technological literacy amongst the users, excluding some users from participation. A more effective method is to include an on-line video editing application which all users can access. For various reasons discussed in the analysis of data sections in Chapter Four, a suitable on-line video editing application, which was compatible with the WikiMedia, was not available at the time of this study. 3.2.5 Selection of participants and allocation of usernames The participants were selected via an invitation email using the contacts list from the Hamilton Underground Film Festival, of which I am the principle organiser. The Hamilton Underground Film Festival is a yearly event, which is in its fourth 50 year, and email addresses have been collected over the past events from both audience and participating filmmakers. Between the 1st and 13th of May 2009 over 400 invitation emails were sent out to addresses from the contact list. By the beginning of the experiment there were around thirty, and towards the end thirty nine, consenting participants who were given usernames and passwords to login to the WikiMedia. The allocation of a single username, for all participants to use as a common login, offers the ideal method for the promotion of multi-authorship, since the distinction between individuals is less pronounced. However, this presented the researcher with several administration concerns, which had to be addressed. This concern began in the application for ethical consent, in which provisions had to be made to: allow for defamatory, pornographic, racist, copyrighted or otherwise unethical material to be removed by myself as facilitator-researcher a d that persistently offending participants will be removed from access [to the e pe i e t (see Appendix C: Application for ethical approval, section 8.E: Procedures in which participants will be involved). The allocation of a collective login-username would put participants at risk and deny the possibility of removing offending participants from access to the site. In addition to ethical concerns, the potential for destruction of data by a careless or malicious user could be curtailed through the use of individual usernames, since the WikiMedia offe s a u do fu tio for individual user entries, and any destructive action could therefore be reversed in this way. These concerns are at the administration level of the research project since all users eventually contribute to produce work under the single declarative avatar author, Karen Karnak. The addressing of this administration concern was deemed necessary for the successful running of the project and in later collection and analysis of data, where individual users can be isolated. Despite these concerns it was decided that a single login name representing a truer mode of multi- 51 authorship would also be added, and six of the participants were allocated the username login KarenKarnak, with the same password. In regards to the author-function, the above administration concerns represent the power structure which surrounds authorship and dictates the circulation of discourses. The autho fu tio is to ha a te ise the e iste e, i ulatio , a d operation of certain discourses ithi a so iet Fou ault, , p. 124). The discourse that is circulated here, present in the administrative decisions, concerns the mode of authorship which is permitted, as well as, the positioning of the author and subject which the discourse allows individuals to occupy (Barrett, 2007). The power structure which is operated by the administrator of the WikiMedia, intrinsic in the practice of dividing up users into individual identifiable usernames, occupies the same space as publishers and distribution networks in the control of circulation of discourse. This control takes the form of a series of gatekeeper functions to delimit this discourse within, what administration sees as acceptable boundaries, the containment of identity to an individual username being one of these acceptable boundaries for the secure operation of the WikiMedia. This has implications, which are discussed later in this study, concerning the reemergence of origins, identity, and individuality, concepts which the design of the research tool attempts to redress within the wider concepts of multiauthorship. As researcher with sole ad i ist ati e ights ithi the e site (see Appendix C: Application for ethical approval, section 8.E) the gatekeeper component of the author-function is still present, but an attempt has been made to balance allowed freedoms and administration / publisher based control with the inclusion of the six participant multi-user login known simply as username karenkarnak or KK. As discussed in this chapter, the research follows a methodology which positions the researcher as an active element within the field of research. The researcher 52 is an active participant in terms of: construction of the multi-author environment; the administration of the WikiMedia site; participation in the circulation of the mode of authorship; as well as participation in the contextual environment of the field of research. These multiple roles have implications, which are discussed in the next chapter, in the analysis of the discourse and the eventual mode of authorship, which is permitted circulation through the interaction of multiple levels of power represented by the various roles of the researcher. 3.3 Research procedure In the next section, Chapter Four, thirty nine participants, invited from the contact list of the Hamilton Underground Film Festival, collaborate on the production of a body of work attributed to the pseudonym Karen Karnak; a name which has been created specifically for this study. The experiment occurred between the 13th May 2009 and 7th August 2009. The participants were both national and international in origin, with around fifty per cent from New Zealand, reflecting the policy and history of the Hamilton Underground Film Festival and its participating filmmakers. The participants interacted within a WikiMedia website, posted on a private server, which required a login name and password provided by the researcher. The off-line identity of each verified participant was protected by the use of a researcher allocated login name, which was used to track the collaborations of individual participants and act as a safeguard if destructive or unethical behaviour was detected. The login name also created anonymity between participants, so that the collective pseudonym of the constructed author became the dominant focus of identification for the participants. The exception to the use of individual login names was the collective login name KarenKarnak, which comprised of six participants. The KarenKarnak login acted as a comparative 53 sample, which more closely resembled multi-authorship, but represented a greater risk in terms of security of the research environment. The aim of the experiment was to experience close hand the workings of the multi-author within the specific context of the WikiMedia, creating a participatory culture in which the surrounding power structures could be observed through their influence on the resultant mode of authorship. Fou ault s author-function was used in interpreting the situations in which multi-authorship was influenced by power structures to circulate a delimited authorship discourse. The points at which multi-authorship is shaped and distorted by certain influences were used to generate data by firstly identifying power structures and secondly to suggest attributes and functions of these contextual influences. The research was divided into two phases: the first to identify themes and conceptual motifs through a series of self-generated open-questions, arising fo the pa ti ipa t s e plo ations and interactions with the WikiMedia environment and interaction with the postings of other participants. The second phase was driven from prompts and questions generated by the researcher, which emerged as the experiment proceeded and themes began to be identified. The first phase ran between 13th May and June 8th, whilst the second ran from 8th June until the 7th August 2009. The two phases were convenient for the organisation of data presented in this thesis, but also because each phase represented a difference in the major participants who were involved in the research. In the first phase participation was dominated by the login name KarenKarnak, comprised of six individual participants, with occasional participation from other users, whilst in the second phase a new user named Karnak47 or K47 emerged as a significant generator of data. 54 In the initial stages of research the participants were encouraged to use the Kaltura on-line video editing application within the WikiMedia site. After a short period of time it became apparent that Kaltura was not functioning for most of the participants because of technical reasons. The application did not provide a log of edits, stating who had edited what and in addition was unable to provide a download of specific edits. After the initial stages the use of Kaltura was discontinued and participants were encouraged to post audio-visual material o to Ka e Ka ak s log page. 55 56 Chapter Four: Karen Karnak case study Figure 2: Handout given to participants at 6th ADA symposium June 2009 (Source: Karnak, 2009). 4.1 First phase of research The first phase of the experiment ran between the 13th May and June 8th 2009. This section of the research was the open ended questioning of preliminary research designed to assess the field and formulate questions or tasks based on those findings. I a al si g the e t ies to Ka e s Blog, at that ti e k o as Ka e s ideo editi g jou al , the following section examines interactions between users and administration to identify the effect that power structures have on the mode of authorship, the levels of interaction which are occurring, and to identify themes which resonate with the functions of the author. 57 4.1.1 Karen s Blog The first entries dated 19th and 20th May are texts originating from user KK, the multi-user login, and refer to an edit on the Kaltura on-line video editing application. There was an image from television, Japanese TV I think, It was like a signal which reached me faintly across the airwaves but then it was gone, snatched away by some copyright control, I could not grasp it, It was not real>>admin note: sorry Karen I had to remove that video it was copyright material-even though it was on YouTube (users KK and Karenkarnakadmin). This initial post, which has been added to by an administration note, describes the disappearance of a YouTube video clip from the clips library of Kaltura which the user KK had added and was then removed the same day by the Sysop. The reason given was that the clip was potentially copyright material from a commercial Japanese television channel. Within this interaction there is a display of the power structure which lies underneath the Wiki platform and which can be evoked at any point where there is a conflict of ethos or ethical standpoint. In this respect the Wiki platform does not differ from the gatekeeper function which is operated by print-based publishers and is part of the author-function to control the mode of discourse circulated. Part of the reason for this conflict of copyright, suggested in the above posting on the blog page, is that Kaltura has a built-in search engine which can connect to YouTube to import material before the content has been viewed or correctly identified. This is not in keeping with the Creative Commons (CC) licensing which the WikiMedia supports and is partly due to the amount of copyright material that is available on YouTube which does not meet the CC licence. On reflection, the removal of the material was perhaps not necessary, since there are two levels of authorisation above that of the administrator of the WikiMedia: that of the Kaltura and the YouTube organisation which have in effect validated the use of the material. 58 The second entry dated 20th May 2009 describes a situation in which the multiuser login KK has experienced a contradictory moment in which another participant has edited the video content by adding a video clip in Kaltura. This is reflected in the posting: I must have been working in a near dream state – unconscious efforts which I cannot remember,, other elements I have no idea where they came from – Am I cheating myself? Cheating on myself, self (Karnak, 2009). This comment draws on the theme of identity as both a singular and multiple faceted phenomenon, made apparent by the multiple-user aspect of the KK login username. Unfortunately, since the Kaltura application is not equipped to keep a log of edits and did not permit downloads of edit drafts or the finished movie, it is difficult to ascertain whether these comments are constructed or related to an actual situation, since it may be that user KK is exploiting the ambiguities of the multi-author environment and is relating to two edits which they themselves had made. In the first few attempts at collaboration with the Kaltura application it was found that the lack of communication between participants created a frustrating experience often resulting in what seemed to be a battle zone fluctuating between individualised edits rather than a collective edit. After the initial edits described above, the use of the Kaltura application became minimal and did not result in either production of usable data or a suitable method in which a collaborative digital video could be produced. The lack of participation and interaction with the Kaltura application can be seen as a result of technical limitations, such as the reported failure of the application to operate with the generally slow connection bandwidth available to New Zealand participants, coupled with the lack of feedback and communication facilities offered by the Kaltura application. This discontinuation of the Kaltura application as a means for on-line video editing is discussed in the Appendix: B section of this thesis. 59 The introduction of the theme of multiple identities existing in the levels of consciousness contained within the single multi-author name is the beginnings of a recurring theme which is centred on the function of identity, continued in the following sections: 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. 4.1.2 The Abduction: I am Karen Karnak The blog entry dated 21st Ma , ep odu ed elo , is a ad i ist ato s post of a text received from the email address karenkarnak@gmail.com which was another area of administrative concern. Shortly after the invitation emails were sent out a reply came from the above address stating that they themselves e e Ka e Ka ak ith the th eate i g o ds I a ith e . Afte a Ka e Ka ak... do t pla ief pa i , I de ided that the chances of emailing someone with the real name Karen Karnak were very slim and that the experiment had not reached the potentially unethical stage of accidentally using the real name of a living person. This is the first appearance of the recurring ph ase I a Ka ak a d a Ka e e see as a atte pt at disputi g the ad i ist atio ole of the researcher in controlling, shaping and delimiting the entity of Karen Karnak as well as the emergence of the singular author attempting to dominate the multiple-author. The emergence of a singular author, in the multi-author environment, is equivalent to the dispelling of the plurality of egos, which Foucault describes as the coherency author-function (1977, p. 130). Prevention of a singular author emerging from the multi-author environment is a function of the power structures inherent in the WikiMedia. The above struggle for the possession of the identity of Karen Karnak reflects the i itial uestio o the use edita le page A out Ka e Ka ak hi h p o pted users to post entries under the theme who is Karen Karnak? This question was used between 13th May and the 10th June 2009 after which this approach was 60 considered, by myself as researcher, as an ineffectual strategy for examining online identity. This line of questioning tended to bias a search for a singular entity of fixed identity which stood for the origins of the work rather than the amorphous indeterminable nature of a multi-author under whose name work is collectively created. The question was better framed using a subtractive logic: who is ’t Kare Kar ak, reflecting the indeterminate nature of the identity. (See Figure 2 e a e all Ka e Ka ak . The setting up of a gmail account is a simple procedure and on reflection this was something which I had neglected to consider during the earlier stages of creating the Karen Karnak avatar. My first impressions were that this user had stolen the on-line identity of the research project and as such now had control over a major part of the avatar. Later I realised that the action was in keeping with the strategy of allowing a balance between the control of the environment and the freedom for the participants to explore the territory and generate data in this way. I had to accept that I did not own the Karen Karnak avatar any more than any other individual in the field of study and that to do so was detrimental to the sustainability of the multi-author environment. An entry in my personal research journal dated 21st May 09 reflects the concern at the time of the posting: Who is Karen Karnak? What is this creature? I am beginning to scare myself. Frankenstein, you know. R G Shaw [Hamilton painter with whom I had discussed the project several times] told me that opening the door to allow that many entities to possess the name of Karen Karnak, well there is bound to be the odd demon ‘esea he s Jou al . The above journal entry illustrates the administrative concerns of the researcher of becoming the responsible party for unlimited forms of mischief and even legal problems which could potentially fall on the researcher. By allowing potentially anyone to use the name of Karen Karnak as the declarative author of their work 61 there is a minefield of ethical problems which could occur. This is a particular problem if someone, not necessarily one of the participants, takes possession of an email account which effectively authorises their on-line identity as the real Karen Karnak above the authority of participants and researcher. The ability of an email address as a validation device demonstrates the volatile nature of on-line identities in which the simple procedure of setting up an email account, which is free of charge and takes only several minutes, can function as a claim on the ownership of an identity. This is further illustrated in the purchase of domain names which provide a greater claim to on-line identity than an email account. I responded to the action of the participant by setting up the email account Karnakkaren@gmail.com (since Karenkarnak@gmail.com had already been claimed) and engaged in an exchange of text which resulted in a long poem sent by the person claiming to be Karen Karnak via the email exchange. This text was revealed to be a plagiarised excerpt from the on-line work of an American writer, the poem entitled The Abduction (Kunitz, 1985) (Hence the title of this section and the use of the word abduction to describe the appropriation of text): Some things I do not profess to understand, perhaps not wanting to, including whatever it was they did with you or you with them that timeless summer day when you stumbled out of the wood, distracted, with your white blouse torn and a bloodstain on your skirt. "Do you believe?" you asked. Between us, through the years, we pieced enough together to make the story real: how you encountered on the path a pack of sleek, grey hounds, trailed by a dumbshow retinue 62 in leather shrouds; and how you were led, through leafy ways, into the presence of a royal stag, flaming in his chestnut coat, who kneeled on a swale of moss before you; and how you were borne aloft in triumph through the green, stretched on his rack of budding horn, till suddenly you found yourself alone in a trampled clearing (Kunitz, 1985). The above poem describes a mysterious and seemingly supernatural encounter with the forces of nature in which the protagonist is abducted from the familiar human world into an indeterminate state. Rather than the text of the poem, it is the title, The Abduction, which suggests the content of the communication. The above poem appeared to have been cut and pasted into the body of the email sent by Karen Karnak, and since the name of the author was not included the presumption was that the poem had been written by the participant. In these early stages of the research I was particularly sensitive to the concerns of copyright, since an infringement could lead to the site account being suspended and, therefore, jeopardise the research. Therefore I put several lines of the poem into the Google search engine and discovered that the source of the poem was a e site hi h had pu lished se e al of Ku itz s poe s. This e ha ge et ee researcher and participant reveals something of the power structure which circulates in the Web 2.0 environment and which separates the researcher and the participants. The behaviour of the participant can be seen as resisting the perceived control of the multi-author environment and the direction that the identity of the avatar precedes in relation to the control of the body of work. The Abduction can be seen as relating to the appropriation by the researcher of the identity of Karen Karnak as well as the threat that an on-line identity can be easily appropriated through simple measures such as the setting up of an email account as a validating procedure. The aim of the research is to prevent the 63 abduction of the multi-author environment by individual users or an over controlling administration. This requires a balancing of power structures and the adopting of strategies which work towards negating the recurring individualistic aspects of the author-fu tio , as e ide t i the late ph ase, I a Ka ak , hilst p o oti g the u sta le a d easil utated Ka e ultiple atu e of authorship. Useful data is generated as the unstable multiple-author degrades to the dominance of the individual, thus revealing the discourse of power which the author-function circulates. The app op iatio of te t a autho is pa t of Fou ault s autho -function and describes a process in which ownership of a text is conveyed to the author through the processes of attribution (Foucault, 1977, p. 124). In the case described above, the re-authorship of the plagiarised text lacked the authorisation, which is necessary before ownership can be conveyed. At this point I searched for a process which could be used to re-author the poem to eliminate the copyright problems which would result if the poem was posted on the WikiMedia in its original form. I decided that this interaction, although occurring outside of the WikiMedia, was still within the designated research e io e t, hi h i ludes the gaps and fault lines a ou d hi h the autho - function operates (Foucault, 1977, p. 121). Applying the cut-up techniques of the American writer William S. Burroughs, as described in his spoken word sound recording Nothing here now but the recordings (1981), I used an on-line cut-up application called the Linguistic Masticator19 to scramble the individual words of the text into a new configuration a d posted the esults o Ka e s log 19 st May 2009). The Linguistic Masticator (Ovni-code, 2001) divides up the text into component words and scrambles the order until the intensions of the original author are obscured. This form of textual de o st u tio is des i ed Willia “. Bu oughs as a atte pt to ut, shift, ta gle o t ol lines of o ds Bu oughs, . This te h i ue a e applied to the st u tu es of po e of attribution surrounding the author-function. 64 On and how stag, flaming Through another you wind. What with thrumming outside On lives swivel of real: How hounds, trailed the even garden. You led, and for asked. Between the flares that blouse world; The night wood, you faces were my wind. What the blouse stag, Flaming out - shifting pack I swivel dumbshow rack How you window on real (Karnak, 2009; Kunitz, 1985). The cut-up process isolated the source material of the text, the words which had been carefully selected by the poet, and rearranged the order of the words to create new connections, new meanings and contexts which had not been intended by the author. However, since the selection of words, chosen by the poet are still present this work remains connected to the author Kunitz, with an additional authorship by Karen Karnak, in this case myself acting as participant within the delimitation of discourse enforced by administrative constraints. The above text, poetry status pending, has also been re-formatted by myself to divide the text into stanzas, adding capitalisation and omitting what appears to be type errors. This is the basic work of a publisher s editor. The use of random assemblages reveal some of the conceptual origins of Karen Karnak, complex narratives from multiple sources, typical of the sound experiments of the declarative avatar-author Brian Karnak, described in section 3.2.3 of this thesis. The interaction between myself, as researcher, and a participant of the research highlights a positioning of the researcher as both observer and participator within the field of study. This positioning has been described in the methodology section of this thesis, in which the researcher is partially situated within the field 65 of study. This is inherent in my initialisation of the multi-author environment as well as my involvement in the contextual influences of the Hamilton Underground Film Festival, from which many of the participants were selected. The issues of copyright are again expressed in this interaction in which plagiarised work is re-authored through the functions of the power structure, in this case posted via the interventions of the administration / researcher / participant role. This power structure is part of the author-function which operates within the context of the WikiMedia environment. There is also the theme of the volatile nature of identity which surfaces with the claiming of validating tools such as email addresses which work towards authentication of a claim to the identity of Karen Karnak. Withi the a o e i te a tio e titled I a Ka e Ka ak , the e a e e ealed some of the mechanics of the power and control which underpin the operation of the author-function: a resurgence of ownership and individuality which rises to claim any unattended media production, such as decontextualised words. This can be seen as indicative of the prevalent power of the author-function which automatically attributes media with ownership. The theme of identity appears in a posting on the 22 nd of May 2009 by multiusername KK in which they describe the dilemmas of on-line identity expressed in user profiles and the reflection which passes between states of being: Forgotten who i am. Look up my profile. Again. Memory in the mirror. Will this reflection work? The posture and pose i see in the street and the junkmail. I forget again and re-learn the customs of the other/another. Shadows pass over the canvas of my imagined identity. Sell F. (Karnak, 2009). 66 The sig atu e at the e d of the te t “ell F. e eals, th ough the pla of o ds, the inherent commodification which accompanies the construct of the individual author; the author-function which treats text as o je ts of app op iatio (Foucault,1977, p. 124) and as such subject to ownership. The use of the commodity referenced signature forms a self-reflexive statement referring to the i stigatio of copyright law (which) egi s ith a i estigatio of who is speaki g (McSherry, 2001, p. 10; Waldron, 1993; Boyle, 1996; Rotstein, 1993). The above writer, Sell F., speaks with the voice of the system of commodification, where self intersects with ownership and is synonymous with the construction of identity. Sell F. s posti g on the 22nd May demonstrates a process in which identity, in common with authorship, is a negotiated construct between the self and the reflection of the self from a validating surface, either a form of media, an on-line profile or the customs and culture which act to validate the self. Identity is a complex subject, and to be engaged fully is outside of the scope of this study. According to Stuart Hall the concept of identity is in a state of flux, within the social sciences, shifting away from an essentialist view (which sees identity as integral, originary and unified) a d to a ds a o ept of ide tit ot sig al that sta le o e of the self , p. hi h does ). The essentialist view defines identity as a self-contained (integral) and coherent (unified) structure in which originary function and attribution of ownership may be applied. This shift according to Hall, is towards a social constructivist view, in which identities are not unified, a d e e si gula , ut ultipl o st u ted a oss different, often intersecting and antagonistic, discourses, practices and positions [...] and a e o sta tl i the p o ess of ha ge a d t a sfo atio , p. . The ability to visualise a single author across a wide disparate body of work is used in the attribution of material and the process of building up the image of a body of work which defines the author. This perceived unity originates from an essentialist view of identity and is described by Foucault as part of the author67 function in which the autho is defi ed as a e tai field of o eptual o theo eti al ohe e e (1977, p. 1 . Fou ault s e a i atio of the process of attribution of religious texts used by Saint Jerome20 in his De Viris Illustribus further describes how consistency across a singular discourse is achieved through a fu tio of the autho that se es to eut alise the o t adi tio s that a e fou d i a se ies of te t Fou ault, , p. 128). The indisputable connection between the author and the body of work, in terms of identity, follows an essentialist paradigm. This shifting paradigm of identity describes a trajectory which is evident in the above Sell F. posting of the 22nd May, which describes the shifts of identity which occur each time a different reflective medium is used. This posting highlights the differences between the technologies of the on-line profile, the mirror, the ediated i ages of the self, hi h a e ought a d sold i advertising, and the efle ti e i age f o ju k ail a d the pai te s canvas. Within this posting Karen Karnak is reflecting upon the ability of media to influence identity through an extension of the self image each time a different medium is used. The ability of simple media, such as mirrors and the user profiles, to perform reflective and self-informing tasks coincides with the writings of Marshall McLuhan, in which he describes media as providing an extension to the physical, e tal a d so ial fu tio s of hu a s. M Luha s defi itio of edia i ludes machines and objects, such as the wheel and the mirror, as providing extensions to the basic functions of the senses and allowing new social functions to exist as a result of media uses (2001). This view can be very useful in providing insights into the functions of distinct forms of media, such as the WikiMedia environment as contrasted to the broadcast forms of media and is indicated here as an additional direction for future study. 20 Saint Jerome (331 -420 AD), the patron saint of li a ia s, as o side ed, i the s, the p odu e of the authe ti a d autho itati e Lati te t of the Catholi Chu h Catholi o -line. 2009) 68 The complexities of the connections between identity and ownership are further compounded in the 24th May posting in which user Karnak01 selects a line from the cut-up poem of 22nd May and reposts the selected phrase: You led, and for asked. Between the flares that blouse world; The night wood (Karnak01, 2009; Karnak, 2009; Kunitz, 1985). You will notice that I have added a new reference to the above text which has now a third author; username Karnak01. This is to draw attention to the difference in the modes of authorship between multi-user login Karenkarnak and the individual user login Karnak01. As the text moves across modes of authorship the origin of the text becomes tenuous, however, it is still possible to find the source of the words through an internet search due to the uniqueness of the selection of the above fourteen words, which can still be traced to the original on-line poem. In a further post of the text on 26th May 2009, by multi-user KK, the link to the on-line origin becomes less certain and an internet search does not provide such an obvious link to the original writer: You faces were my wind. What the blouse stag (Karnak, 2009). In this case the nine words above have been reduced to the appearance of a single author, reflected in the referencing of the multi-user avatar Karen Karnak. This play with the nature of plagiarism and attribution is intended to illustrate the reductive nature of the author-function to attribute a single author over a more complex process of degrees of authorship: levels of attribution, which require the sharing of ownership; and copyright over a vast range of owners. For e a ple, does the all ights ese ed oti e o the e site o tai i g Kunitz s poem extend to the use of the component words, common words which can be 69 found in any dictionary, or does the ownership lie with the generated meaning which arises from the selection and placement of the words, in such a way as to create an ordering according to the conventions of poetry? In the above posting Karen Karnak has created, what could be called, an original phrase, a combination of words which could not be found in the originating text – i.e. the louse stag - and is therefore within the criteria of attribution of authorship. This technique can be applied to the aim of collaboratively making digital media in which all postings are viewed as the raw source material of an assemblage which incorporates the work of multiple users-authors. This process of using the components from an original text for a new recontextualised set of meanings is a function which re-authors existing media into a new attribution. This a standard practice of appropriation art, a form of collage which reassembles component meanings into a different order and combines disparate media content to bring a new set of meanings from the original elements. In addition to the re-authoring function there is the potential of Karen Karnak, due to the avatar status, to de-author material through a process which removes the original attribution and adds a pseudononymous author obscured behind a multitude of possible users. Whether the de-authoring function can be sustained is in doubt since the prevalence of the author-function is towards discourse which enables a system of ownership to operate. The tendency of attribution is to target the singular author when confronted with a complex layering of multi-authors, and, where an author is not found the author-function operates in the higher layers of power, that of the publisher. This can be seen in Web 2.0 when a quote is attributed to Wikipedia rather than the possible multitude of contributors which have produced the text. It is the declarative author-function which is operating and informing the process of attribution. 70 4.1.3 File upload: An identity begins to form. The first uploaded files to the site were on the 23rd May 2009 by user KarenKarnak222. The first of the two files, both in mp3 format, contains an atmospheric field recording made in what appears to be the streets of Bilbao, Spain, from the content and filename: 12_02_09-bilbao_manifa%2Bobras.mp3. The second file is of a Spanish voice reading out the random numbers during a game of bingo and was subsequently used in the video presentation taken to the 6th Aotearoa Digital Arts Symposium on the 28 June 2009 (ADA, 2009). The two files uploaded by user KarenKarnak222 provide an insight into the geographical spread of the participants and the range of languages eventually spoken by Karen Karnak. Figure 3: Initial image from the file P_HALL_001.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). A file uploaded on 26th May 2009 by multi-user KarenKarnak entitled P_Hall_001.mpg is a moving image file which presents a coherent style, although abrasive, through the use of a soundscape synchronised with the moving images. 71 The video clip begins with a round border screen with a single eye looking wildly around the perimeter (see Figure 3 above). The integrated soundscape of P_HALL_001.mpg is a technology evoking collision of noise-ridden low-fi crackles and distortion resolving in a slowed down primal scream which builds as the clip progresses. The black bordered image of the eye opens into a blurred and frantically moving image which suggests the e e s point-of-view shot (see Figure 4 below). Figure 4: Sequence of images from P_HALL_001.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). The o ds hola , “pa ish fo Hello, appears briefly on the screen (see Figure 4 a o e a ti g as a t a sitio al poi t et ee the ie of the e e a d the e e s point of view. The image then deteriorates into a visual representation of the distorted soundtrack, as a series of distorted video artefacts appear, drawing attention to the medium of the digital technology and the border between image 72 representation and technology (see Figure 5 below). Figure 5: Video artefacts in frame sequence from P_HALL_001.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). This upload can be seen as a continuation of the theme of identity through technology which the Self F. posting of 22nd May introduced. The theme is expanded to include the mediation of technology involved in consciousness, suggested by the eye, presumably from Karen Karnak, looking at the framing, which technology has placed with the digital distortion, and further drawing attention to the medium of technology as creating both consciousness and identity through the creation of the body of work. The e e s f a ti o e e ts i o se i g the ou ded pe i ete , eated the framing, focuses on the enclosure, which isolates the fragmented body part. The perimeter, which the eye observes, can be seen as the influence of the technology of the WikiMedia, which imposes a delimited discourse due to the mediation of interaction between the isolated aspects (i.e. the separate participants) of Karen Karnak. 73 Figure 6: Back to nature P_HALL_001.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). Towards the end of P_HALL_001 an image of trees and nature appears behind the digital distortion, Figure 6 above, suggesting a clearing of vision from the original point-of-view shot into an arrival of consciousness. The P_HALL_001 file, although sourced from one participant and therefore not in itself necessarily collaborative, signals the initiation of a technique in which a series of uploaded digital video files by each user could be incorporated into either one larger work or a series of short vignettes, which illustrate various aspects of the Karnak persona. In time, with enough short films created in this way, a more collaborative mash-up could be made to integrate disparate elements into a single work. The questions which arise from this technique are as follow. Is this work truly collaborative in a creative, decision making, sense? Does this process reflect a multi-user mode of authorship? What are the levels of interaction occurring between users as the work is created? According to the levels of interaction categorised by Jens F. Jensen it appears that conversational interactivity, the interactive ability of users to produce and distribute texts into a central system, is the mode of interaction occurring here in 74 the upload of P_HALL_001. The level of interactivity that represents the full potential of Web 2.0 architecture is registrational interactivity, which is the ability to respond directly to the activities of other producers of texts. This can be responses through the editing, adding to, and adaptation of a othe s te t (Jensen, 1998: cited in Fornas, Klein, Ladendorf, Sunden & Sveningsson, 2002, pp. 24-25). Two still images uploaded on the 26th May by user KarenKarnak111 reintroduce the theme of copyright, since they are still images taken of a television set with the face of a well known German painter and performance artist. This was a concern for the Sysop of the Wiki site since these images would not comply with the Creative Commons license if they are part of a television broadcast from a o e ial o pa . The aptio M Ge a U le gi es a TV i te ie , supplied by the participant, offers some indication of familiar ownership, but since the photograph of the face is on a television set the ownership of the image, and its copyright status, becomes doubtful. To be able to present the images here, within an academic study, and to be able to attribute the images to Karen Karnak, free from copyright concerns, I have added to the image by obscuring the original face, adding another layer of authorship to the image (Figure 7). This additional level of authorship is an overt and visible alteration of the original image, just as the image itself has already gone through several layers of authorship before reaching the WikiMedia site. The origin of the image is the German performance artist, Joseph Beuys, presumably related to Karen Karnak, although indicated through ownership as the uncle of user KarenKarnak111. The image has been taken via the video camera of the television company, broadcast into the private living room of, presumably, the niece (or nephew), who has then recorded the image on a stills camera, complete with the context of the room surrounding the television set. 75 The stage of authorship, which publishes the image in this thesis, requires that the artist is obscured, since its image may be subject to copyright control. Instead, we have the surroundings of the artist, complete with video transmission artefacts, the screen of the television set and the surrounding room of the niece or nephew: the actual artist, the supposed subject, has been shifted as the central focus of the portrait. Figure 7: My German Uncle gives a T.V. interview (Source: Karnak, 2009). Ironically, this particular German artist was well known because of his ubiquitous hat, a trademark which persists in the absence of the face and functions as a signifier of a specific identity. If Karen Karnak was to be given an image which identifies her as a specific and distinct entity the adaptation of this particular posting provides an insight into the kinds of non-facial strategies which could be utilised. If, as M “he lai s, copyright was born at an intersection between censorship and the regulation of piracy (2001, p. 42; Goldstein, 1992; Kaplan, 76 1967), does the censored image, such as that above, taken from the confines of a private house fall into the realm of copyright law? With the removal of the central subject, I believe, the image has been altered sufficiently to fall outside of copyright law. The next question is whether the image has been successfully deauthored to fall outside of the realms of ownership, since user KarenKarnak111 is pseudononymous and the declarative author Karen Karnak, to whom is attributed the body of work, is a non-material avatar. This re-authoring of material, which has been executed on behalf of the concerns of the administrator / researcher role, is an example of the gate-keeper aspect of the author-function to delimit the boundaries of discourse and by extension to shape discourse into a desirable form. The attribution of the image to Karen Karnak displays the function of the author to reduce the multiple to the singular, suggesting that the i age is o lo ge My German U le gi es a T.V. i te ie , which relates to the origins of the image, but, rather, is a signifier of the processes which necessarily render an image into an acceptable and publishable form. The re-authoring function, in the case of the Karen Karnak mode of authorship, is complex, since the reduction of the multiple authors to the singular name of Karen Karnak also functions to diversify the attribution of origins. The single image, when attributed to Karen Karnak, evokes a multitude of participants, a ti g ith a e e se flo to that of Fou ault s autho -function21. 21 The cohesion which is generated by the author-fu tio , dispelli g the a iet of egos a d u if i g a se ies of subjective positions u de the a e of a si gle autho Foucault, 1977, pp. 130-131). 77 Figure 8: A portrait of Karen Karnak (Source: Karnak, 2009). The masking of the face not only obscures the identity but also acts as a deauthoring of the original portrait which allows any number of entities to inhabit the image. The image (Figure 8) also acts as a signifier of the trajectory, as discussed above through the work of Stuart Hall, which identity describes as it moves between the originating essentialist view point and that of the indeterminate and constructivist viewpoint. The subject of the photograph has shifted from a signifier of a singular recognisable identity, to a description of a series of complex processes, resulting in an image which could be anyone. The above image can be substituted as the subject in the following quote, from Fou ault s autho -function: It does not refer, purely and simply, to an actual individual insofar as it simultaneously gives rise to a variety of egos and to a series of subjective positions that individuals of any class can come to occupy (1977, p. 131). The unified and essentialist identity is that which dispels the possibilities of the image to represent a plurality of egos, offe i g a e a t oo di ate to the sta le 78 o e of the self Hall, 0, p. 17). The social constructivist view of identity runs contra to the author-function, which relies on an essentialist view of identity to attribute authorship and therefore ownership. The use of this photograph as a portrait of Karen Karnak suggests a re-reading of the author-function outside of the essentialist viewpoint, something which appears to be a developing theme in the analysis of the WikiMedia content. The above upload is the first image to depict a whole face. Subsequent images such as the P_hall_001.mpg file which shows a single eye and TEETH_mpeg4.mp4 posted on the 6th of June show the face as a series of fragmented and isolated components. This is in accord with the idea that Karen Karnak cannot be isolated as a singular entity, other than the non-material avatar-author which the pseudononymous mode of authorship strives to project. The fragmentation of the face can be seen as an illustration of the collaborative processes in which disparate interactions can be combined to form a complete body of work of the avatar author Karen Karnak. Here the avatar author begins to interact with the declarative author-function in creating the illusion that there is a single author responsible for the work, signifying that the search for attribution can be stopped at the level of avatar rather than continued on to the publisher level. If the avatar is given personification in a name, then why not in a face? The denial of face, shown in the German Uncle image (Figure 8 above), is a truer portrait of Karen Karnak, since it leaves a space for any number of entities to inhabit, a negation of the author-fu tio to dispel the plu alit of egos (Foucault, 1977, p. 130). The process of re-authoring a face to act as that of Karen Karnak could be achieved through a unique assemblage of components in the same manner that the poetry text was reassembled to create something new and original. An example of the construction of a new, original face from a multitude of sources 79 a e see i Na Bu so s o posite po t ait of Mankind, a photograph allegedly composited from the statistical proportions of the wo ld s populatio s. Craig Saper proposes that Bu so s image functions as a portrait of the real Allen Smithee, who is the avatar-author created by the Di e to s Guild of A e i a (DGA) as a named author in place of a director who wishes to remain anonymous , p. . To e e Bu so s po t ait of a ki d, ith its pale facial colour, is a composite of Caucasian and Japanese-Asian features which, through the notable exclusion of darker skin colours, represents the economically dominant races. This is further supported by its gender specific (male) appearance. This forms a portrait of power rather than mankind. In extension, it is the power structures of the DGA which allows the nebulous identity of Allen Smithee to function as a declarative author; a plagiarist construction, which is fed by the consent of disempowered directors. The appropriation, represented by Allen Smithee, is used to illustrate a system of attribution which Saper describes as artificial auteurism, in which, multiple script writers, script doctors and assorted technical personnel are reduced to a singular declarative auteur. This can be related directly to the tendency of the author-function to reduce the multiauthor into the singular. 80 Figure 9: Mankind (after Nancy Burson) (Source: Karnak, 2009). “i e Bu so s i age is est i ted op ight issues, I ha e hose ot to display the image in its original form, but have instead allowed the image to be re-authored by Karen Karnak (the researcher operating under the user name Karenkarnakadmin) in a similar manner to other re-authored images describe above. The new image (Figure 9), ased o Bu so s o igi al o ept, is a attempt to create another view of mankind which suggests the construction of form and identity which occurs due to the affects of power structures, such as copyright, origin and identity. The image has been deliberately obscured to allow identity a multitude of possibilities. The technique of appropriating a face which represents everyone (at least of the ale ge de , see i Bu so s o igi al i age, is si ila , i a oida e of the signification of the specific, to that of the masked image, My German Uncle, used to represent anyone. In both cases it is the appropriation of an open image as a 81 portrait of a specific personality, such as the avatar Karen Karnak or Allen Smithee. An open image is one which has not completed a process of dispersal of the multiple egos which Foucault identifies in a text (1977, p. 130). The name Allen Smithee, when used as a declarative author, uses the authorfunction which endows a work with a certain cultural status and value, i.e. a film which has been directed rather than simply made. At the same time, the authorfunction also endows the idea of "author" with a certain cultural status and value. The author-function not only forms the work, but it also constitutes the author of that work, the "rational being that we call author" (Bawarshi, 2000, p. 337; Foucault, 1994, p. 347) without which the work cannot function. In the interactions of the multi-author and the declarative modes of authorship, there is a conflict in the joint roles of researcher and Sysop of the WikiMedia. The researcher requires a multi-author environment which is not abducted by a single declarative author mode, whereas the Sysop, as administrator of the WikiMedia requires a form of attribution concrete enough to prevent the attribution of the work to the owner and administrator of the site, such as happens if a publisher omits the name of the author. This conflict reveals the indeterminate and unstable nature of the multi-author, a state which is circumvented by the force of the author-function to delimit the mode of authorship and to circulate a habitual framing of authorship which excludes modes of authorship based on different conceptual backdrops. The posting of a faceless silhouette on 1st of June 2009 (Figure 10 below) was a deliberate intervention by the administrative Sysop Karenkarnakadmin to direct the flow of the research to examine not the author but the space which surrounds the author, the space examined by Foucault, bringing the question of whether a face is indicative of identity into the foreground. The captio o fa e is suggests the possi ilit that the la k of e og isa le fa e is the defi i g 82 feature of the avatar-author and that identity is operating in a different mode than that of the singular individual suggested by a face. Figure 10: "no face is" A portrait of Karen Karnak (Source: karnak, 2009). I am reminded of a cardboard cut-out photog aphe s p op, an embodiment, defined by the outlined character into which anyone could stand and momentarily become Karen Karnak. This represents the author, not as a determinable and natural identity, but as a function which surrounds the indeterminate author and provides an environment which can be occupied by any number of diverse identities. 83 Figure 11: Fukuwarai face (Source: Public domain, http://openclipart.org/media/files/Anonymous/7128). The faceless image also represents the Fukuwarai Face (Figure 11), a Japanese hild e s ga e i hi h ele e ts of a fa e a e pi ed li dfolded on to the empty face template. In the case of Karen Karnak the pieces of the game have been misplaced and the Karnak Fukuwarai face is frozen in the initial undefined state. In the context of the Fukuwarai metaphor: the game, in which the features are defined, is that of the processes of attribution, which slowly piece together the identity of the author through the construction of the body of work. The above image of Karen Karnak as a Fukuwarai, drawn from an interpretation of Figure 10 and Figure 11, represents the framework which surrounds the author, described by Foucault as the power discourse which is circulated by the author-function (Foucault, 1977, pp. 127-131). This image emerges as a volatile and unstable device which, lacking a fixed identity, will be attributed, just as an unclaimed or author-less text will be appropriated through the flow of discourse activated by the author-function. This appropriation of the unclaimed text, the faceless frame, is the same journey which the Abduction text, described above, travelled to be attributed to Karen Karnak. The frame image uploaded 1 st June was very quickly abducted by the face of the German Uncle and the composite 84 image was uploaded by the multi-user Karenkarnak on the 10th June as a moving image file. Figure 12: Still from moving image file: Karen_logo_with_sound_no_face2.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). The above image, Figure 12, represents the attribution of the individual author as central to the author-function which encompasses the complex procedures of authorship. A final touch has been added by the researcher in the obscuration of the identity of the German Uncle since this may infringe on copyright. The fragmentation of the features by the administration process of avoiding copyright issues adds a further level of authorship to suggest the possibilities of multiple identities: a visual reference to an identikit of interchangeable facial elements commonly associated with the (judicial) search for a responsible party. A note should be made here of the transgressive qualities of the portrait of Karen Karnak which appears to be uncontained within the allocated gender role which the name signifies. This signifies that the mode of identity of Karen Karnak does not subscribe to the essentialist viewpoint but a social constructivist viewpoint in which gender, amongst other identifying traits, is not fixed and essential to the being but constructed and therefore changeable. 85 4.1.4 The author as simulacra The moving image file uploaded by user KK on the 2 nd of June Karnak_t7v.mpg, sub-titled t? ep ese ts a i te a tio ith the suggested fo s of ide tit utilising My German Uncle and the no face is files to present a moving image collage which incorporates several levels of media. The still image shown below is a composite of media forms including a television news format, presented by the horizontal blue titling feature and the radio shoe logo which has been taken from the WikiMedia site, and the Web 2.0 represented by the blog text superimposed over the television screen. In addition to this I have added, in my role of administrator of the WikiMedia site, a masking of the identity of My German Uncle which allows the eyes and hat to be visible. The connotations of imagery generated by this masking process, intended to avoid the implications of copyright infringements by printing an image taken from a commercial television broadcast, provide fertile ground for an examination of the power structures which surround the protection of ownership and identity, and suggest further areas of study into discourses of power connected with the suppression and expression of identity, discussed in the conclusions chapter section 5.3 of this thesis. 86 Figure 13: Karnak_t7v.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). The image of the television set, from which My German Uncle stares, Figure 13 uploaded 2nd June 2009 from user KK, creates a self-reflexive mode of address which echoes the previous posting of 22 nd Ma , sig ed “ell F. (Section 4.1.2). The Sell F. posting describes the uses of various media as an agent in the reflection and generation of the self-image and also as an extension of the self in respect to the various media used. The Sell F. posting of 22nd May equates media such as user profiles, a painted canvas and a mirror as being reflective surfaces which contribute in the generation of identity. In a continuation of this theme, in Figure 13 above, the identity of Karen Karnak can be seen generated through the reflective surfaces of the two television screens, the internal screen formed by the still photograph uploaded by user KarenKarnak111 and the external captioned screen added by user KarenKarnak. The portrait of Karen Karnak, in this composite image, represents a fleeting image which has been frozen between the reflections of two media-mirrors, a reflection of a reflection, of which the original source has departed or, in the case of Karen Karnak, did not exist in the first instance. 87 It is possible to develop a reading of this image which is suggestive of the simulacra described by Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007) as examined by David Holmes (2005, pp. 36- . The p e essio of the si ula a des i es fou phases of representation which can be related to the representations of Karen Karnak involved in this research.  The image is the efle tio of a asi ealit . This is a si ple po t ait of the author, perhaps a profile photograph of the participant responsible for the posting.  The i age asks a d pe e ts a asi ealit . A pseudo is used the individual participant and a profile photograph adapted or appropriated to hide the identity of the participant. Another example is the portrait of a declarative author printed on the cover of a book which was written by several ghost writers.  The i age asks the a se e of a asi ealit . The po t ait of the declarative author is appropriated from the image of another person, My German Uncle becomes Karen Karnak who in return is comprised of ghost writers, the participants who contribute the work.  The i age ea s o elation to reality whatsoever; it is its own pure si ula u . The ide tit of Ka e Ka ak is de i ed a e a i atio of her work. We can understand the character of the author by observing the voice which is present in the work. In addition to this, Karen Karnak, a pseudonym which represents multiple voices and a plurality of egos is created through the work and at the same time generates the cohesion, through the author-function, necessary to define the disparate postings as the work of a singular author. (Baudrillard: cited in Holmes, 2005, pp. 36-38). 88 The fourth phase of the precession of simulacra , described above, illustrates the interdependence of the author and body of work. The author functions, according to Foucault, as a force of coherence which holds together an arguably dispa ate od of o k hi h e o es k o , o e the ou se of the autho s collected works, as the oeuvre (Foucault, 1977, pp. 131-136). Foucault describes a process, called the discursive author-function, in which the name of the author can become attached to a particular subject or discipline of which they are considered to be the founder and that subsequent work in that field can also become attributed, in some respects, to the founding author (Foucault, 1977, pp. 115-120). The oeuvre, in return, becomes the defining parameter which forms the perceived identity of the author, that is, a polished and reflective surface which creates, what is considered, a clear image of the author as a singular origin of the work. Figure 14: (Self-reflexive) reflective surface Karenak_t7v.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). The ability of media to generate a reflective surface which informs us of the autho s ide tit a e see i the a o e Figure 14 (Karnak_t7v.mpg posted on 2nd June 2009 by user KK), which depicts the faceless Karnak back-grounded by a screen which suggests consciousness, represented in the form of the eye, an instrument of sight, now seen filling the previously empty space of the autho s 89 face. We see ourselves through the reflections generated by the media. Karen Karnak, in the above image, is depicted as becoming sentient through the actions of the media: the image representing the author as simulacra, a placeholder for an absent origin. Figure 15: Sequence of stills from Karnak_t7v.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). The Karnak_t7v.mpg posting, Figure 15, represents an expressionistic view of how it feels to be Karen Karnak. The autobiographical aspects, as evident in the self-reflexive imagery, describe an emergence of consciousness from behind the layers of screen. The video artefacts, present in the central deteriorated image shown in the above sequence of stills, are evidence of a technique of re-filming of an image from a screen. This is more evident in a viewing of the original moving image file, the play of pixels across the screen are indicative of the interaction between camera lens and video screen suggesting an image that is re-filmed and re-appropriated from an originating screen source. This originating source exists solely on the screen and does not refer back to an actual physical object. This is due to the multi-layers of power structure which operate to delimit the discourse of the WikiMedia, my own role as administrator, acting as an intermediary between participants and legal structures, which has obscured the source material due to concerns over copyright. In the same manner, the author Karen Karnak, in her seemingly self-reflexive expression, is allowing the image of the avatar-author to reflect between layers of media-screen until, as the reflections increase and gather force across multiple layers of media, the avatarauthor begins to generate a subjective positioning which evokes the authorfunction in its ability to present a unified body of work which can be attributed as originating from the avatar author Karen Karnak. 90 4.1.5 Acti ities in the outside orld During the preliminary research two Wikipedia pages were constructed: one for Karen Karnak (Wikipedia, 2009f) and the other for the Hamilton Underground Film Festival (Wikipedia, 2009h), which was presented as being the context of the Karen Karnak project. The Karen Karnak page was linked to another existing Wikipedia page which described multi-user pseudonyms including Karen Eliot, Luther Blissett, Allen Smithee (Wikipedia, 2009g), and Stuart Home whose name is linked with several multi-user pseudonyms. The Hamilton Underground Film Festival was also linked to other underground film festivals around the world. The links, which were also made available on the research WikiMedia, form a visible extended context and a reciprocal gateway through which potential interaction may occur. The construction of the Wikipedia page for Karen Karnak, which has since been updated by others in the past few months, acts as both a validation of the name of the avatar-author as well as evidence of its lack of authenticity. A form of validation occurs in the Google search engine rankings for Karen Karnak, of which the Wikipedia site ranks highest, and also in the combined web profile that Karnak receives through links and references to the Wikipedia information. However, the Wikipedia page also openly states that Karen Karnak is not a real author but an experiment in authorship which reveals that there are multipleusers behind the identity. One of the strategies utilised by the creators of the multi-use name Luther Blissett was to operate the name disguised as either the pseudonym of a single person or as a proper name relating to a real person 22. The highly constructed nature of the portrait of Luther Blissett was created by Andrea Alberti and Edi Bianco in 1994, as a composite of several photos, from 22 The period of Blissett s operation was between 1994 and 1999. The multi-author nature of the name was a closely guarded secret by the participants and an in-joke for knowing observers. This use of the name was continued for five years until Blissett had acquired enough of a profile to attract mass media attention (BBC News, 1999), through which some of the motivations behind the creation of the name, and the processes of multi-authorship, was revealed as a public Seppuku: a ritualised mass suicide (http://www.lutherblissett.net/index_en.html). 91 the sa d s, of th ee uncles and one auntie (Wu Ming Foundation, 2009). The roughly collaged edges and colour tinted features, nonetheless has the appearance of a real person, who may possibly exist (Figure 16 below). Figure 16: Official portrait of Luther Blissett (Source: Alberti & Bianco, 1994). The use of subterfuge is a feature of Alan Smithee, whose name is presented by the DGA as a real director and it is a prerequisite of the director, who wishes to use the name of Alan Smithee, that publicity around the authenticity of the name is avoided. In the keeping of the secret there is retention of the power which is expressed by the proper-name in the author-function. The failings of the multi-use author is through the revelation that the named author does not exist as an individual person, which is the reason why the name Alen Smithee was discontinued by the DGA in 1999 after the release of the film An Alan Smithee film : Burn Hollywood Burn (1997), which debated the di e to s rights to final cut of a movie and legal issues between the DGA and Tony Kaye in 1998 brought publicity to the DGA s use of the name Alan Smithee (Saper, 2001, p.43). 92 Due to the research aspect of the Karen Karnak project, this strategy, of attempting to present a name as a proper name or as a real person, cannot be followed in all cases. This is a limitation on the potential results of the experiment since the use of the name is documented, in this thesis, and in the descriptions of the project displayed on the WikiMedia site. The gender difference between the researcher and the avatar author is another factor in preventing a successful subterfuge, in person, such as may have occurred at the Aotearoa Digital Arts Symposium, when Karen Karnak was invited to present a five minute paper (ADA, 2009). 4.1.6 Findings for first phase of research During this first phase of research the majority of participation was from the username KarenKarnak, (also known as KK) which is a multi-user name incorporating six participants who work under the same user-name. At this stage it is not possible to determine how many of the participants within this single username collaborated in the project, although, one line of thought is that participation, through membership, in the collective identity can be considered as important as the physical act of contribution of media, since multi-authorship, in part, relies on the removal of the individual as a potential object of attribution. In comparison with user KK the level of participation from the other users who have individual login usernames is far below that of the Karenkarnak username. The KK login represents an approximately six fold increase in participation over individual login names.     Ka e s Blog: 19 edits by 32 individual usernames Ka e s Blog: 27 edits from username KarenKarnak Upload page: 13 files uploaded from 32 individual usernames Upload page: 10 files from username KK) These statistics can be combined to show: 93   32 total edits by a potential of 32 usernames 37 total edits by 6 users in the collective KK username An average of one edit per individual username and an average of 6.16 edits for each of the six KK participants demonstrating that participants under the collective KK username contributed six times more in number of total edits during the period 13th May to 8th June 2009. One reason for the disproportionate levels of participation, when comparing the two modes of username distribution, may include the level of power which anonymous participation allows in terms of removing the user from an immediate system of attribution present in the username log. The participant collaborating under an individual username can be identified and attributed authorship of their postings through the history function of the WikiMedia, which records a log of all activity and is accessible by all viewers of the WikiMedia. This feature is useful in the collection of statistics concerning participation but may have an effect on the levels of participation, since a form of ownership is evident in the logging process. Another reason may be the exclusion of participation through the levels of knowledge required to operate the technology. My impression was that, although many of the participants were initially enthusiastic in being part of the project, the level of specialised knowledge required to participate via the WikiMedia technology appeared to be beyond that of many of the participants. Outside of the Karen Karnak multiple login name there were sixteen of the thirty three individual usernames which failed to contribute any form of media. The above statistics, when these sixteen users are taken into account, can be adjusted thus:   32 edits by 16 individual usernames 16 non-participating individual usernames 94  37 edits by 6 users in the collective KK username This data can be used to adjust the ratio of participation between the two modes of username allocation to calculate an average of 2 edits between actively participating individual usernames and an average of 6.16 edits per six users in the KK collective username. This adjustment in statistics would mean that the ratio of participation was 3:1 in favour of the collective KK username, demonstrating that non-participation after signing up for the experiment accounted for just under half of the participants. In response to an email, sent to the participants, enquiring if there were any questions on how to operate the site, I received feedback via an email from user Karnak04 who reported that the Wiki site was too confusing. They suggested that some instructions could be given by the Sysop to direct users into more productive outcomes. They stated that ou spe d ti e looki g athe tha o t i uti g a d that: Personally if I (and others) received a newsletter update of what Karenkarnak had been up to, what to look at that is new, this would help me/us to know, follow my/our being Karenkarnak. Also this would help me/us, guiding me/us towards where I/we would like to interact (Karnak04). My original aim at this point in the research was to merge the twenty four individual usernames with the multi-user name of KarenKarnak which already consisted of six participants. In my role as researcher, since I had already noticed that the levels of participation were far higher in the multi-username, this merger may have increased participation at the small cost of the ability to isolate users for the sake of analysis. The merger would also mean that each participant was genuinely represented by the collective name of the avatar-author. Feedback from Karnak04, given in a second email over the proposal to merge user login names, began a concern by administration over security of the site: 95 Indeed, if everyone [h]as the very same login in name and password, you might have no mean[s] to lo k so eo e s possible destructive input. It would be wise to create a path with possibly a third personal password, linked with a data page accessible to you, so that at one click you can block all input from the person (Karnak04). The concerns of the above email, the abduction episode, as well as the potential for copyright material being posted, had left me worried about the consequences of unrestrained participation, which would have pleased the researcher part of my role but not the WikiMedia administration role. A compromise was finally struck between having two groups of participants; a small six user group under the collective login and the bulk of participants, for security reasons, isolated as individual usernames. User Karnak04 also communicated via email that a Yahoo group be set up so that participants could communicate directly with each other rather than through the mediation of the WikiMedia. My initial response was that I agreed to the idea as presenting a way of breaking down communication barriers between pa ti ipa ts a d allo i g the i te a tio to e te the outside o ld, e o d the research environment. The use of an email group would decentralise the project and allow the level of interactivity to increase from conversational interactivity, which is the interactive ability of users to distribute texts into a central system (Jensen, 1998: cited in Fornas et al., 2002, pp. 24-25) to registrational interactivity which allows direct interaction between participants without a mediating central system. Within the WikiMedia the administrator is the only person who has the ability to communicate to all of the participants directly. The participants are reliant on the WikiMedia as their sole form of communication between themselves and other participants. This form of interactivity, described by Jens F. Jensen is called 96 conversational interactivity, since all communication flows through a centralised node of interaction. The use of a collective of participants who could also function as administrators would allow a more informed directing of the project, with increased interactivity and communication between the participants which would be closer to the potentials of Web 2.0 interactivity. However, in my role as researcher and administrator the potentials for loss of data and unethical behaviour would be heightened as control over the project was diminished to a collective functioning. Also, since some of the interaction would occur outside of the research environment this data would be lost, so, although presenting a less centralised and more interactive environment the centralised aspect of the WikiMedia as a research environment would be sacrificed. This administrative dilemma highlights the power structures which exist in Web 2.0 in which esea he s a d pu lishe s age das ou te a t the possi ilities a d pote tials of increased interaction. The establishment of a Yahoo email group was finally initiated on the 14th July 20009, towards the end of the experiment. An email was sent to all thirty eight23 participants of whom only five joined the group. My own experience of joining the group revealed that this particular group entailed a lengthy process which required a Yahoo login, excluding many participants. Although the promise of the email group was an increase in the type and level of interaction between participants, the propriety nature of the Yahoo service acted as a delimiter to that particular discourse. In addition to this, my role as researcher acted to the detriment of this form of increased interactivity, since to do so would mean a decrease in the centralised nature of the research, which would be necessary, in some respects, for the generation of data. In this situation the discourse imposed by the researcher runs contra to that of multi-authorship, for the researcher to allow increased levels of interaction to include registrational interactivity 23 At the end of the experiment there were Thirty Nine participants 97 (Jensen, 1998: cited in Fornas et al., 2002, pp. 24-25), without the mediation of a centralised structure, would diminish the possibilities of data production. In addition to the above themes, identified in phase one of the research, there are the processes of the researcher which also shape the perception of the work through the processes of interpretation and analysis. The following researcher generated themes can be identified below:  The construction of a process, by the researcher, of re-authoring the contributed work of users so that a body of work can be constructed.  The emerging paradigm that the multi-author can be unified to operate with the author-function in creating a coherent body of work through the identification of common themes.  The construction of the body of work through identification of common themes which run through the work and allow an auteur-style view of multi-authorship.  The identification of self-reflexive themes and the perception that the work contains a collective autobiographical profile of the multi-author and therefore constructs an auteur view of the body of work.  The emerging allusion that multi-authorship can be constructed to engage the functions of the author, allowing an auteur-style view of the work, therefore in extension, authorship can be challenged as a signifier of an individual origin and coherency in the work as originating in the intentions of the author. 98 The processes of the researcher, mentioned above, contribute to the construction of a situation in which the work of Karen Karnak can be viewed as a unified whole even to the extent that an auteur view of the work can identify self- efle i e ele e ts hi h elate to the pe ei ed i e e pe ie es of multi-authorship. The construction of a body of work, the content of which can e elated a k to the de la ati e o igi s, is i fo ed Fou ault s e a i atio of the author-function. Foucault describes a similar situation in the use of the p ope a e i the dis u si e autho -fu tio (Foucault, 1977, pp. 131-136). The use of the proper name of the author, when applied to a body of work, according to Foucault, functions as a signifier that the body of work is unique and unified, and represents a singular whole, just as the proper name of the author signifies a singular and unique whole. 4.2 Second phase of research The second phase of research occurred 8th June until the 7th August 2009. The second phase differs to the first phase, in that the researcher issued more direct instructions to the participants. This was motivated by a low participation rate, particularly since over half of the participants had so far failed to interact with the site. Influenced by the feedback from one of these non-participating participants, Karnak04, as described above, the researcher issued an email issi e o the th June 09. The function of the missive was to give technical instruction and to direct the activities of participants. The additional technical instructions were given based on the presumption that the levels of technical knowledge, needed to collaborate in the WikiMedia, were above that of many of the participants. In the email were several screen shots which showed participants how to login and the process of editing pages. The screen shot below, Figure 17, shows a link to the Edit this page hi h as eated to list the a ious lo atio s of pa ti ipato pages. 99 th Figure 17: Navigation bar 7 July 09 (Source: Karnak, 2009). The navigation bar was simplified during the second phase changing the name of the blog page from Kare ’s Video Jour al to Kare ’s writte jour al since it was presumed that some of the participants may not have had access to video editing facilities and that a written journal may facilitate the writing of a collective script which could later be interpreted into moving image (Figure 17). It was also presumed that the lack of centralised creative direction was another reason for the lack of participation, and that, based on the feedback from user Karnak04, a centralised directive may allow the more reticent users a means of participation. POINT OF VIEW We never see her face, but we see what she sees: A point of view shot of her activities, her surroundings; objects of creation – perhaps writing a letter or an entry in a journal. There can be the occasional hand but apart from that she could be anybody – we hear her words and voice, although it may be someone else speaking for her- There is a personal dear-diary atmosphere 100 although, f o ho s poi t of iew it may be difficult to tell (KarenKarnakadmin, 2009). The aim of the above point of view directive, issued on the 8th June, was to request participants to focus on the environmental surroundings of Karen Karnak and to prompt for postings which would address the author-function. The above missive predates the change in focus of the research from describing who Karen Karnak is, the o igi al di e ti e suggested i the use edita le page A out Ka e Ka ak , to What does Ka e “ee? , the uestio added to the page administration on the 10th June. A second missive entitled the simple instructions was sent on the 7th July 09. This missive gave suggestions for the various areas of collaboration including video, written text and uploading of still images. The navigation bar, as displayed above in Figure 17, was changed again at the ti e of the se o d issi e to Kare ’s Blog since this was more suited to the creation of a multi-authored identity using the medium of the Blog as a selfreflexive pseudo-personal discourse. This is a continuation of the self-reflexive theme, introduced in the early stages of research, in which the author is seen through the mirror of their body of work. The word Blog was also chosen to incorporate the open-pa ti ipato atu e of o e of We . s ost idesp ead and popular applications. 4.2.1 K47 The second phase brought a new participant who contacted me via email with a e uest to joi the esea h ith the fa ilia o ds I a Ka e . This as a immediate point of administration concern, considering the abduction episodes described above. The email address of this user, which utilised the name Karen, was not known to me and the origin of the contact was presumably through the 101 Karen Karnak Wikipedia web page, which included a link to the Hamilton Underground Film Festival where my email address was locatable. This was one of five users who I had not known previously, in a situation outside of the research environment, the other usernames being: Karenkarnak222, karenkarnak23, karnak07 and karnak555b. Due to administration concerns over control of users, and since this user was of unknown origin, instead of allocating the user with the multi-user login, which would have been my intention given the high participation rates of user KK, I allocated the individual username Karnak47 abbreviated here as K47. The content from K47, although an individual user, contained references to wider movements and issues from outside the research environment. Some of the material posted by K47 could possibly have originated from several authors or a collective authorship. Certainly there are references to movements and large scale organisations and some of the postings use the voice of these institutions, speaking as a collective subjectivity, as can be seen in the 28 th of June posting described below. The postings of K47 included references to other multi-user names and a direct quote from a short story by Stuart Home. Stuart Home is the name most associated with Luther Blissett, Karen Eliot and Smile magazine which are multiauthors as discussed in Chapter Two sections 2.1.4 and 2.1.5. User K47 showed evidence of enhanced interactivity in the creation of new pages for the WikiMedia. This behaviour was unique to this user, indicating a more advanced understanding of the technical issues of the WikiMedia. These advanced interactions included the formatting of othe pa ti ipa t s posti gs a d the i lusio of a o te ts page fo the Ka e s Blog page; a format subsequently followed by other users, thus, changing the form of the page. 102 User K47 also added content to the discussion section of the main page adding a p oposed a t st ike to the di e ti es of the esea h on the 2nd of August. The art strike is another reference to the work of Stuart Home and the Neoist movement. The discussion section of the main page is designed for users to debate over the policy, content or direction of the WikiMedia. This is part of the structure of the WikiMedia which aims at lessening the divide between users and administration, allowing all users participation in the organisation of structures and part of the way conflicts between users can be resolved. K s pa ti ipatio o e ed a ti ities hi h utilised highe le els of use ship i the form of open-source organisation of data made available by Web 2.0 architecture as well as influencing other participants over the direction of the research. Levels of usership is a concept used by Espen J. Aarseth to describe users interaction with different levels of technological empowerment (Aarseth, 1997, pp. 173-177). The user, according to Aarseth, is an ambiguous term which can operate at various levels between author and reader. Within the WikiMedia a more author-orientated level of usership is to interact with the programming and operational aspects of the site, since manipulation of policy is one of these higher levels of usership. Proceeding from the above comments of user Karnak04, over the lack of technical help as a cause for non-interaction, user K47 demonstrates the identification of power within Web 2.0 as a technical issue, with the enhanced technical knowledge relating to the contextual issues of power and control of the author-function. Within the WikiMedia site technological knowledge translates as power, although, as can be seen below the ultimate power lies in the allocation of user privileges which the Sysop controls. 103 Figure 18: Industrial union of psychic workers (Source: Karnak, 2009). The above image, Figure 18, was uploaded to the site by user K47 on the 28th Ju e . O the sa e da use K posted the i age i to Ka e s Blog page under a date heading of 12th June 2009. The retrospective posting of the image was accompanied with a new page which K47 had added to the WikiMedia entitled Towards an Industrial Union of Psychic Workers which was linked via the Blog entry. The posting by K47, quoted in part below, is a complex text to interpret, since its levels of reference to other work are dense and often playful. 104 In organising as psychic workers we can identify the industries in which psychic workers currently are mainly employed as those of Entertainment and the Military. Psychic warfare has always been an integral and primary part of the military industry and this is why cultural production and propaganda are areas where we must create workers power and control (K47). The above section of the text posted by K47 forms a fragment of an intricate web of references which permeate the full text posting. A full interpretation of the text would be beyond the scope of this study due to its references to Situationism, the art strike proposed by the Neoist movement and the paradigm of recognising media from entertainment sources as a form of psychic warfare. However, it is evident that this posting of K47 demonstrates an original and developed discourse which continues on several separate websites, such as http://www.alytusbiennial.com, http://iww.org/, http://antisystemic.org/ and the Stewart Home society website all of which have appropriated the name Karen Karnak for either blog entries or as listed contributors. The 12th June posting of K47 above, uses the plural mode of address and in content and language the text suggests that it represents the consenting voice of a multitude of people. This is a common mode of address in political campaigns and can be seen as a strategy of assuming a wide support in the ideas presented. The ate ial i o po ates the st le of a a ifestos of the ea l a ifesto , su h as the Dada or Futurist s, a ousi g to e of oi e flo s f o the te t. The text also incorporates highly specialised knowledge which suggests that it has been written for a select group of audience who possess this knowledge. For those readers who have not acquired the specialised knowledge, necessary to understand the text, the effect is alienating. For example the text below, part of the K47 created page entitled Towards an Industrial Union of Psychic Workers, describes a level of detail and specialised knowledge, which, for the uninformed, borders on the absurdist. 105 The IWW “ u e i al s ste of o ga isi g i dust ial u io s is more than a means of communication – it is a memory system and an ordering of semantic space – an ontology and toplogy. It is the situation of proletarianisation opposed to bourgeois systems such as the Semantic Web and the Dewey Decimal System (K47). The feeling from reading this post is that, as audience, we have stumbled midflow into a complex set of communications between high ranking officials in an unknowable organisation, which is somehow central to the control of our existence. The feeling, brought across by the obscure references and level of detail, is that we can never understand nor belong to this mysterious group, which nevertheless continues to broadcast its absurdist missive, which incorporates collective voicing and a universalist perspective. In the text below posted by K47 on the 28th June there is reference to John Dee, the astrologer to Queen Elizabeth the first, and his particular form of mysticism Enochian Magick which is combined with the voicing of the IWW: an international workers union. The IWW structure currently goes from 100 to 600 and we therefore can theorise 000 and 700 as its limits. In proposing 700/007 we are also putting Proletarian organisation as the ulti ate iti ue of Joh Dee s E ochian system of Hermetic Magick (K47). It is the collective voicing and mode of address of this text which suggests that K47 is not an individual identity but a multiple-use name through which speaks through a multitude of voices. The use of the IWW organisation (International World Workers) through which K47 speaks, adds validity to an otherwise esoteric text. The categorising of psychic workers under a code 700/007 is a reference to Joh Dee s ha it of sig i g his spy reports with the image of two eyes bracketed by a larger seven (007). John Dee was considered to be the prototype of the international spy as opied Ia Fle i g s ha a te psychic worker for the English monarchy (Clulee, 1988). 106 : James Bond), a th Figure 19: Plan_9.jpg posted to the main page on the 5 July 09 (Source: Karnak, 2009). On the 5th July K47 posted the above image, Figure 19, advertising an external event on the main page of the WikiMedia site, above the description of the project which outlines the research process. The content of the image presents a conglomeration of political worke s u io s a d o ga isatio s i the psychic industries and a proposed meeting of participants in the astral plane. Many of the organisations presented have websites which can be authenticated, offering a form of validity to the proposed discourse. The call to action by K47, by initiating a new direction for the research environment, indicates a high level of interactivity and usership which interacts with the administration levels of the WikiMedia. As Sysop of the site I was concerned that the research process would be sidelined to the new project proposed by user K47. I enforced the ultimate rights of the publisher as gatekeeper and moved the item to a lower page in the hierarchy and locked the main page against further editing. The restriction of editing rights, and the over-power of the Sysop, displays the control of discourse; 107 the limiting of circulated discourses which is a feature of the environment of control responsible for the formation of the author-function. In a multi-user environment where research was not involved, the sharing of the directives and policies, which control the use of the name Karen Karnak, amongst the participants, would be a desirable practice which would allow the participants access to higher levels of interaction than those of this particular WikiMedia. Within the WikiMedia there exist demands from the necessities of research which delimit the modes and content of discourse enforced via the hie a hi al st u tu e of assig ed use s p i ileges. The Sysop of the site, when operating under the demands of the researcher as seen above, retains the ultimate power to allow or disallow the user full access to the interactive functions of the WikiMedia. Within the WikiMedia the functions of the user are shaped by the needs of the web publisher. This can be related to the form which the author-function assumes and via this the circulation of discourse allowed by the power structures which circumvent the author in a multi-author environment. Attentive observation of the space left e pt the autho s disappearance, Foucault insists, can tell us a great deal about the odes of i ulatio , alo isatio , att i utio and appropriation of discourse (Foucault, 1977, p. 137: cited in McSherry, 2001, p. 10). In this sense it is not so much a case of abduction of the Karen Karnak name by participants which represents the appropriation of discourse, described above, but, of the power structures represented by the Sysop and the researcher which delimits the modes of circulation, which respectively control attribution and appropriation of discourse. During the second phase of the research the users KarenKarnak (abbreviated to KK) and K47 became the prime participants in the project. A video file posted on 108 the 15th June by user KK called along_karnak_333.mpg integrates the WikiMedia site into the imagery. A faint image of an eye is superimposed over each shot of a sped-up interaction with the mechanics, represented in the policy and research information pages, of the website (Figure 20). Figure 20: A series of stills from the moving image file ALONG_Karnak_333.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). The video screen capture of a user interacting with the WikiMedia site, shown in the above sequence of images, Figure 20, passes rapidly over the various postings on the site, with a mouse arrow rapidly navigating through the pages. The superimposed image of an eye taken from an enlargement of the My German Uncle posting looks on impassively. The eye can be interpreted several ways to signify the consciousness or the identity of Karen Karnak, as seen through the body of the work. The eye can also represent that someone is watching the interactions with the site, suggesting either the eye of an audience, the researcher, or perhaps some other layer of power which is sensed behind the surface level of the website. The video posting suggests, through the use of the eye, that there is another layer behind the surface of the site, a unified consciousness that is behind every interaction of the participant. 109 Figure 21: The mechanics of the site: ALONG_Karnak_333.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). The still image above, Figure 21, shows the use of the WikiMedia site s navigation hyperlinks in the moving image file ALONG_Karnak_333.mpg, posted 15th June 2009. The surface of the screen acts as a reflective surface depicting both object and subject, suggesting a self-reflexive media in which the author and the work are layered together within the media. Figure 22 : Entering into a video clip ALONG_Karnak_333.mpg (Source: Karnak, 2009). 110 As the video clip, ALONG_Karnak_333.mpg (Figure 22), progresses the eye remains constant but the surface imagery zooms into what appears to be the P_hall_001.mpg video file posted on the 26th May, the clip depicting an outside location. If the representation of the eye is used as a signifier of the consciousness of the author, the clip suggests a process in which Karen Karnak, as manifested through the body of the work, follows a progression from the pages of the WikiMedia to a form of consciousness which is independent of the containment of the research project. A othe i te p etatio is that of the ghost i the a hi e , a o ept ade popula the ite A thu Koestle i his 1967 book of the same name: a representation of Karen Karnak as a spirit which inhabits the pages of the WikiMedia, or, in less esoterically driven terms; a coherent line of consciousness which unifies the work. This is a process of the author-function which enables the dispelling of a plurality of egos in place of a coherent work of the singular author (Foucault, 1977, pp. 130-131). As the research progressed I began to notice that more of the content was beginning to fit into the concepts contained in the author-function. The analysis of themes from phase one, displayed above, comprise many of the aspects which are embedded into the author-function and of which authorship in general is comprised. I quote from an entry in my research diary below, dated 28 th June 2009: I wonder whether the view of an underlining consciousness is a valid interpretation of the video posting [along_karnak_333.mpg]. I observe the interactions of the participants. Are they consciously producing work which illustrates the working of the authorfunction, or is the interpretation of this a by product of the theoretical framework being superimposed over the content of the field by myself as researcher. (Resea he s field notes, 28th June 2009) The above field notes express a possible concern over the use of the theoretical framework to extend the concepts of the author-function and impose an 111 interpretation over the content generated by participants. The notes also reflect the possibility that certain participants, notably in the KK username are internalising the aims of the research and reflecting an understanding of the author-function into their work by using the theoretical framework as material for their contributions. Within the research tool of participant observation, the role of the researcher to seek verification of a theoretical framework through observation of participant behaviour is an accepted practice and in stronger forms of participatory research, participants, through their interactions with the questions posed by the researcher, assume a partial role as researcher (Savenye & Robinson, 1997, p. 1177: cited in Willis & Jost, 2007, pp. 207-208). In this sense some of the participants, particularly in the postings of username KK, are reflecting on the design of the project, via the information sheet contained on the site and the emailed missives, and beginning to reflect the concepts which are contained in the author-function. As I stepped back from participation in the research field, and observed the postings from within the role of researcher, I began to notice that participants within the KK username were beginning to assume the role of Karen Karnak as the declarative author. This represented an emerging consciousness, as seen in the along_karnak_333.mpg posting, and an underlining unity which is the function of the author in dispelling the multiple egos and entities which production of a text offers for attribution. The above work, and several other works such as the 20 th and 22nd of May blog postings, present a self-reflexive commentary of the process of the avatar Karen Karnak to become an author through the creation of work. In the case of the participants producing work, which is illustrative of the above process, the selfreflexive qualities illustrate the emersion of the participants in the declarative authorship process; the avatar Karen Karnak is becoming the visible and 112 declarative author of the work of many authors obscured through the design of the research environment. This effect is most noticeable in the KK username, comprising six participants who remain anonymous behind the single declarative author. At this point in the research I began to view the postings as true expressions of Karen Karnak. It is as if the process is an interview with the emerging author in which each posting displays an insight into the author-function through a visual language. If the aims of the research process are being reached, and the environment has become truly multi-authored under the name of Karen Karnak, then it is possible to interpret the postings as being attributed to a single author; a coherent body of work which has a consistent style and underlining base of expression. This form of interpretation is used by Jeremy Braddock in looking at the collectively produced works of Allen Smithee, the multi-user pseudonym used and validated by the Directors Guild of America. Braddock asks the question of where Smithee, the auteur, places himself in the work (Braddock, 2001, p. 153). The di e to s fu tio fu tio i ope ates i a si ila oldi g a d i teg ati g the ode to Fou ault s autho - eati e ele e ts of the o k i to o e ohesi e u ity (DGA, 2008: Braddock, 2001, p. 154). Foucault argues that the autho s fu tio is to alidate the te t i te s of su je ti it and generate a coherent trajectory of consciousness which unifies the work and dispels the plurality of egos which possesses equal rights to claim the work (Foucault, 1977, pp. 130-131). This is a function that Braddock claims can be activated equally by both a legitimate director or through the attribution of the declarative author-function (Braddock, 2001, pp. 154-155). In observing the following postings by user KK the above perspectives have been utilised to ask the question, where does Karen Karnak place herself in her work? 113 Does the work contain unifying themes which suggest the author-function can operate within the realm of the avatar-author? Figure 23: Still image Mannequins.jpg 7th July (Source: Karnak, 2009). The posting by user KK on the 7th July, Figure 23, continues with the self-reflexive theme in which a mannequin, stripped of facial identity, is shown looking at a reflection of itself in a shop window. This posting interacts with several other postings in a continuation of the theme of identity, as depicted in the selfreflexive postings and, in a tangential way, the signatory of the 22nd May posting, Sell F., since the mannequin sees the reflection of itself in the shop window, the commercial environment providing a reflected self image for the mannequin. Mannequins.jpg contains many of the hallmarks of a work by Karen Karnak since there is again the self-reflexivity and a reflection on the processes of authorship as intersecting the concepts of identity and ownership. The mannequin, stripped bare of its defining features, finds a validation of its identity through the reflective surface of the border between desire, located in the external environment beyond the shop window, and the displayed commodity. The validation of the identity of the author lies in the ownership of the work through 114 a reflection of the author which is in turn validated by the cohesive link to its origin. In this work Karen is reflecting on the process of attribution, a central aim of which is the assignment of ownership. There is a distinctly Foucauldean aspect to the work by removing the face from the figure, or by selecting a situation in which the face has been obscured, since the focus falls on the surroundings, the functions of the author which allow us to observe the surrounding power structures which form the mode of authorship. Figure 24; Mannequins_face.jpg 7th July (Source: Karnak, 2009). 115 This theme of the author-function is continued in the above image in the addition of the written sign which adds a dimension of the legal and institutional systems that circumscribe, determine, and articulate the realm of discourses (Foucault, 1977, p. 130); the system of control which determines the contents of the reflective surface which validates the author through publication and gate-keeper functions. In a continuation of the Foucauldean theme the mannequin is depicted as a neutral entity, a blank space around which the clothing and accessories, signifying the legal and institutional systems that control attribution, form the identity of the author within the delimited discourse made available and/or restricted by off-the-peg tailoring. Off-the-peg functions, here, as a metaphor for the permitted mode of authorship. 4.2.2 Findings for second phase of research Within the second phase of research K47 became the highest participating i di idual use ith a total of page edits o pa ed to a total of edits fo the KarenKarnak multi-user login.     56 page edits for user K47 144 divided between six participants in the KarenKarnak username 24 page edits per user. User K47 made 2.3 more page edits than each of the six users in KarenKarnak username The participation of user K47 was for less than half of the time of the other users which, if the statistics were adjusted for this fact, the level of participation was 4.6 times that of collective username KK. This demonstrates that K47 was a oti ated pa ti ipa t a d it is e pe ted that a e a i atio of this use s postings will reveal the uses and functions to which this user put the site and give an indication of their motivations. 116 In comparing the differences between the postings of users KK and K47 it seems that the identification of Karen Karnak as a unified author does not operate in the presence of individualised login names such as K47. The coherent function seems dependant on the prerequisite that multiple users are contained under a single username, such as the user KK. This is a vital aspect of the research which, because of administration concerns over potential damage to the WikiMedia, has allocated the use of a majority of individual usernames. I ega ds to i te a tio ith the o te t of othe use s, depi ted i Je se s conversational interactivity, the interactive ability of users to distribute texts into a central system (Jensen, 1998: cited in Fornas et al., 2002, pp. 24-25), the K47 user displayed a similar level of interaction as other users. However, there was a tendency with K47 of using the WikiMedia space to disseminate ideas which had no direct connection with the other content postings but instead focused on connections with the body of work of other multi-user names such as Karen Eliot and Luther Blissett. K47, in comparison with other users, more directly addressed the ideas and questions which other multi-user names have generated. One of the u i ue featu es of K s i te a tio ith the site as the i eased registrational interactivity, which was demonstrated in the addition of comments to the discussion pages of the WikiMedia, and a contribution to the control systems which surround the Wiki environment. Except for this limited interaction with the administrational side of the WikiMedia, the postings of K47 were reminiscent of a transmissional mode of media, where dialogue and interaction with the research themes, either suggested by administration or by other users, were sidelined to the dissemination of what appeared to be the broadcast of an individualist agenda. This individualist nature of K47 may be an appearance created because of the allocation of a single username rather than the multi-use login name, or that the 117 interactions of K47 was more focused on multi-user names outside of the research environment. Ironically, the postings of K47 seemed less coherent, as a single authored body of work, than the combined work of the other individual usernames, including multi-author login KK which comprised six users under the one username. This may be because of the late arrival of the user K47 into the experiment and, therefore, had less time to interact with the formation of a body of work. There also remains the possibility that the postings made by KK were in fact the work of one active participant with the other five participants remaining largely inactive, since there is no way in the WikiMedia logs of discovering the levels of participation offered by each user with the single KK username. Conversely, the work of K47, although an individual username, may have been shared by more than one participant, a possibility borne by the admission of user KarenKarnak333c that they had passed on their username to a friend to assist in posting content. Since the majority of participation within the WikiMedia rarely exceeded the registrational le el, the e is a uestio of hethe eal olla o atio e ists o if the users are demonstrating a transmissional mode of media more intent on disse i atio tha dialogue Fo as et al., 2002, pp. 24-27). However, this can be viewed as a failure of the WikiMedia to provide the full potentials of multiauthorship which has been delimited by the demands of the role of researcher, as described below, and the administrator in preserving the security of the site through the allocation of individual username discussed above. 4.3 Karen Karnak is set forth The end of the experiment was signalled by a posti g o Ka e s log o the August 2009, made by the researcher username Karenkarnakadmin, which 118 th expresses some of the conflict which was felt between the demands of research and the multi-author environment: The experiment has ended - now the real work can begin Karen is set free from the theoretical framework The cage which contained her soul There is no collaboration, there is no division, only existence, set forth... The above posting describes the end of the experiment as a beginning of the real work of the multi-author. This suggests that the WikiMedia environment was a hindrance to the full potential of multi-author and that the desires and demands of the researcher acted to delimit the circulation of multi-author discourse. The restriction of interaction between participants by the researcher, in the design of the environment, delimited the available levels of interaction to that of conversational interactivity. In this sense the theoretical framework, as a signifier of the general research directive, acted as a cage to the functions of Karen Karnak, projecting a centralised mode of interaction which contradicted the requirements of the mode of multi-authorship. This denied the full promise of the potential of Web 2.0 architecture in allowing registrational interactivity which is a decentralised ability to communicate directly between users. Further restrictions on the mode of multi-authorship included the allocation of individual usernames, a security requirement of the role of Sysop or administrator, which changed the mode of interaction in the environment to a more individualist approach. Is the division represented by the individual a prerequisite to the idea of collaboration? Collaboration implies that there is a division between users. In terms of generating data within the WikiMedia, the individual login names were a prerequisite of detecting collaborations between individual participants. Therefore, there is no more collaboration since the division of users within the identity of Karen Karnak, outside of the logging of interactions by the WikiMedia, is no longer enforced by the research 119 environment. Without this division there is only existence into which Karen Karnak has now been set forth. 120 Chapter Five: Conclusions and further study Figure 25: Invite to an exhibition of work by Karen Karnak, November 2009 (Source: Karnak, 2009). This chapter has been loosely structured in relation to the research questions asked in section 2.2 of this thesis:  What power structures affect the multi-author environment?  How do these power structures, implicit in the environment which surrounds the author, delimit and shape the permitted mode of authorship?  How does the body of work, produced by the multi-author, interact with the avatar-author?  What are the functions of the multi-author? Since the formulation of the questions, back in Chapter Two Section 2.2, concepts, such as the body of work, identity and ownership, have become increasingly viewed as power structures, since their ability to influence the mode 121 of authorship is similar to that of the power structures of the researcher, the Sysop and the research environment. For this reason these questions (with the exception of what are the functions of the multi-author?) have been addressed under the following single heading: 5.1 What are the power structures which influence multiauthorship? The points at which multi-authorship fails24 has provided the most interesting and useful data, since these points indicate the processes in which concepts connected with Fou ault s autho -function reassert their sphere of power over the mode of authorship. This a e elated to Fou ault s st ateg of o se atio alo g the gaps a d fault li es of authorship to determine the power structures which the author-function serves (1977, p. 121), the fault lines being the points where multi-authorship fails. The concepts which authorship comprises, as shown in the following diagrams, can be viewed as part of the power structure which affects the mode of authorship. 24 The name of the author fails to signify the multiple and becomes part of the author-function 122 Figure 26: The multi-author construction (Source: Author). The above Figure 26 is an illustration of the interconnectedness and interdependence of concepts involved in the eventual mode of multi-authorship constructed in this study. For ease of presentation this diagram has been broken down into a series of smaller diagrams below. 123 Figure 27: The body of work and identity (Source: Author). Figure 27, above, displays the conceptual influences within the mode of authorship which resulted in Chapter Four. The central concepts, discussed below, are: the relationship between ownership and the body of work; the indeterminate zone between the multi-author, the individual author and identity; and the relationship between the body of work and the identity of the multi-author. This leads to a discussion of the outer power structures and the influence of copyright on the mode of authorship. 124 Figure 28: Ownership and the body of work (Source: Author). In the above diagram, Figure 28, ownership can be seen to connect predominantly with the body of work. This represents the way in which the author-function operates to serve the function of ownership, through the processes of attribution, to create a coherent and unified containment zone, known as the body of work, for the allocation of ownership. Ownership is the end result of attribution through which copyright can be evoked as a means of further solidifying the connection between author and the body of work. In the case of a work attributed to Karen Karnak, ownership has a function of erasing the disparate origins and allowing the collective work to be seen as a coherent unity. This declarative function is necessary for the formation of a body of work, since it is the adhesive which unifies the authorial process. The problem occurs when we ask who owns the body of work of Karen Karnak? Is it the researcher who owns the work, since the body of work was produced within a research environment? The answer depends on the continuation of events outside of this study, some of which have already occurred (see section 5.4: Karen Karnak in the outside world, as well as, the supplementary DATA-DVD: Films: Karen Karnak is set forth and Kare Kar ak’s C.V.). These events are outside of the control of the researcher and therefore cannot be attributed to a centralised cause or origin, therefore negating the WikiMedia research e io e t as the sole p o ess of p odu i g Ka e Ka ak s od of o k. 125 The multi-author challenges the concept of ownership as part of the authorfunction through a re-definition of its associated concepts. For example, identity is challenged as a signifier of a single source of a text, through the construction of an author of indeterminate identity: both multiple and individual. Through this the concept of originality is altered as an indisputable foundation for the ownership of a text, since the origins of a text by Karen Karnak evokes multiple origins. Origins and ownership are the central focus of the author-function, whereas the disruption of essentialist concepts of identity and the malleability of text form the focus of the multi-author-function, within the particular manifestation found in this study. Through the combined questioning of the elements of the author-function the central purpose of the author-function, proprietary ownership, is ultimately brought into question, since its existence is related to the maintenance of a specific concept of identity, which is shown to lack universalist application due to their indeterminate nature within the findings of this study. This is not to say that the attribution of ownership is universally erroneous but that as a meta-function, in connection with non-essentialist forms of identity, its effectiveness can be shown to be inconsistent. Figure 29: Individual and multiple identity (Source: Author). Figure 29 displays the indeterminate zone between the individual author, the multi-author and identity. The interaction between these concepts has presented various possibilities, throughout this study, of potential identities of Karen Karnak. This is seen in the interplay between identity and Karen Karnak as both individual author and multi-author and is discussed in section 4.1.3. Starting 126 at Figure 7 in Chapter Four, as the identity of Karen Karnak emerges through the upload of a series of images of various universal self portraits (they could be anyone). This presents a portrait of the author as an open image, which has not o pleted Fou ault s process of dispersal of the multiple egos, which are inherent in a text (1977, p. 130). This self portrait, which is open to adaption and appropriation by the multiple participants, who together constitute Karen Karnak, forms a strong theme throughout the body of work produced in Chapter Four and illustrates the interplay of the individual, the multi-author, identity and the body of work as an indeterminate, multi-faceted construction open to temporary possession by Foucault s ultiple egos. Figure 30: Circular flow between body of work, multi-author and identity (Source: Author). The body of work, in absence of a physical author, forms the constructed identity of the avatar-author and simultaneously evokes the multiple and single author. A body of work implies a single origin or process, which gives the impression of coherence across disparate voices through the dispelling of multiple origins. However, the body of work attributed to Karen Karnak indicates a collection of work which has come from multiple authors, signifying a view of identity which is comprised of multiple personalities, multiple egos and indeterminate boundaries. This is echoed in the theme of the self portraits produced in Figure 7 to Figure 12 of Chapter Four and the possessing voices of disparate media which strive to reflect Karen Karnak in the Sell F. Postings on the 22 May 2009 (section 4.1.2 The Abduction: I am Karen Karnak). 127 In the case of the avatar-author Karen Karnak, the body of work is the visible manifestation of the author, which in turn, generates the identity of the avatar. This circular flow, shown in the above Figure 30, is devoid of a singular origin and does not possess a beginning or end, but perpetually generates coherence for both the identity of the author and the collective body of work. This circular flow has been discussed in section 4.1.4 of this thesis, usi g Baud illa d s idea of the simulacra and suggesting that the author and the perception of a body of work are equally images of the unreal - a reflection of a reflection. The multi-author presents a challenge to the concepts of identity and the body of work, in that, both concepts are rendered as signifiers of multiple outcomes, and therefore, unable to function in the precise and excluding manner of attribution, which dispels multiple claims to a text or series of texts and attributes a single author/owner. Figure 31: Outer power structures (Source: Author). 128 The space which surrounds the multi-author is shown in Figure 31, in which the power structures of the Sysop, the researcher and legal domains are shown as sub-headings of the validation structures of the author. The Sysop represents the administrative influences on the mode of authorship as discussed in Chapter Four, in which the technical dimension of the WikiMedia and the administrative concerns impact on both content and mode of authorship. Technical concerns were centred on the preservation of data and the curtailment of potentially destructive actions by any of the thirty nine participants. The technical limitations of the WikiMedia, particularly in its limited level of interaction due to centralised communication between participants, were connected to the power structures of both the Sysop and the researcher. The actions of the Sysop, and the various roles of the researcher, are the main conduits through which external power structures are allowed an influence over the mode, and content, of authorship. The external power structures are those of academic purpose, legal power structures and the associated validation structures, responsible for many of the decisions made by the researcher concerning the enforcement of security issues, copyright, and the preservation of data. These decisions were responsible for the implication of a centralised communication structure, which restricted participants to interaction with each other through the mediation of the WikiMedia site. The research environment was designed and maintained in the above manner, in pa t, due to the esea he s concern to generate data through the centralised facilities provided by the WikiMedia site. The limited scope of the study, which was focused primarily on interaction within the WikiMedia site, was a major factor in the delimiting of the levels of participant interaction, i.e. the participants were denied many-to-many interactions except through the mediation of the Wiki, affecting the mode of authorship which was permitted circulation. 129 Figure 32: Validation structures (Source: Author). The flow of power from the validation power structures, including legal aspects, to the researcher to the Sysop and the research environment, Figure 32, influenced the mode of authorship through requirements of data collection and the enactment of ethical guidelines, as discussed in Chapter Three and Four sections: 3.2.5 and 4.1.2 (also see Appendix C: Application for ethical approval, section 8.E, Procedures in which participants will be involved). The validation power structure includes a gatekeeper function which ensures, through the authority of the Sysop, that content is delimited to fulfil the required functions. This power structure was responsible for adapting much of the data to eliminate potential copyright problems. This is the influence of the legal power structures to maintain ethical academic action and to protect copyright holders against infringement of their intellectual property. 130 Figure 33: The influence of copyright (Source: Author). The esea he s de isio to adapt rather than censor copyright material was made to preserve the function of multi-authorship, which renders a text in a perpetually malleable state. The adaptation of data, occurring through the intervention of this power structure, actively changes the body of work, which in turn, forms the identity of the multi-author. In Chapter Four the role of the validation power structures: the Sysop; the researcher; and the preservation of existing copyright, exerted the greatest influence on both the content included in the body of work and the resulting identity of Karen Karnak. Figure 33 shows the flow of power from the legal power structures, via the researcher and the Sysop and into copyright, where it is enforced. A flow of power directly from the legal power structures to copyright is not shown, since this channel was not used directly by the legal structures, but via the ethical considerations of the academic environment (see Appendix C: Application for ethical approval, section 8.E, Procedures in which participants will be involved). The influence of copyright can be seen, in Figure 33, extending into the multiauthor environment and interacting with the body of work attributed to Karen Karnak. This represents the interventions by the researcher in adapting the postings to avoid copyright infringement. These actions are discussed in sections: 131 4.1.2 – the adaptation of the Kunitz poem The Abduction (1985); section 4.1.3 and the adaptation of the image of My German Uncle, seen on television (Figure 7and Figure 8 ; the adaptatio of Na Bu so s Mankind (Figure 9) which influenced the self portrait of Karen Karnak No face is (Figure 10); and the subsequent self portraits of Karen Karnak in Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 23 and Figure 24 as discussed in section 4.2.1. Overall, the effect of copyright was at the root of the major influences that power structures exerted on the body of work of Karen Karnak. This created a visible identity for the author through the various self portraits, which were influenced by the actions of the Sysop to avoid copyright infringement. The series of self portraits posted by participants, as discussed in section 4.1.3 of this study, were the most coherent work produced by Karen Karnak in terms of conceptual themes and motifs. These portraits provided data on the concept of indeterminate identities, a central theme of the multi-author-function. For this reason Figure 33 has been rotated to display identity as the horizontal reference point around which the connected concepts are located. 5.2 The multi-author-function One of the functions of the multi-author is to contribute to the sustainability of participatory culture through the creation of a Read/Write culture, which is not dominated by the restraints and delimitations of individual and proprietary ownership. This can be achieved through the following means: the Creative Commons licensing system, which generates a body of work open to adaptation or; through a construction of identity which does not evoke a single origin, and therefore a single owner, but instead suggests that a text has multiple origins which cannot be reduced to a single commodity. Read/Write culture is a decentralised means of production, interaction and communication, which allows many to many registrational interactivity (Jensen, 1998). Whilst the WikiMedia does facilitate Read/Write culture, there has been a tendency of the 132 technology, and the particular actions of this researcher, to centralise interaction. This suggests that Web 2.0 technology, and the research environment, has delimited multi-authorship and that the Karen Karnak experiment needs a more decentralised environment to transform the authorfunction into the multi-author-function. Conversely, another function of the multi-author, within the mode of authorship presented in Chapter Four, is to suggest the idea that a body of text can be read as a coherent and unified object regardless of its multiple origins. The disentanglement of the author from the text suggests that coherence is a function of the reception of the text, and that multi-authorship can also be as effective in dispelling multiple egos, a function usually associated with the author-function. In the case of the multi-author, a declarative author-function can operate regardless of the fact that the named author is a simulacrum. Therefore, a work by Karen Karnak operates to signify a singular origin which is a result of a specific construction, rather than an individual human entity. Within this study the Karen Karnak name functions in a similar manner to the Alan Smithee name, by signifying the processes of the surrounding power structure within a specific construction of authorship25. This means that Karen Karnak, although comprising of multiple authors, is bound by recognition of the processes involved to conform to the author-function, since her name functions to dispel other processes of production and other authorship constructions as being the origins of the work. A Karen Karnak work is not the same as a work by Alan Smithee and represents a process which comprises different power structures to a Smithee work. This study forms the power structure which encapsulates Karen Karnak as a coherent entity, just as the DGA incorporates the name Allen Smithee, in spite of multiple spellings of the name. 25 In the case of Alla “ ithee this is the DGA s Di e to s Guide of A e i a o st u tio of the specific Alan Smithee authorship to operate the director-function as previously discussed in Chapter Two and Chapter Four, sections: 2.1.4, 4.1.3. and 4.1.5 133 With the i lusio of Ka e Ka ak s a ti ities outside of this stud , the ability of the multi-author to concurrently signify multiple and single origins is a result of the indeterminate state of identity, which is a central aspect of the multi-authorfunction. This function is in contrast with that of the author-function, which operates to provide a mode of identity which is beyond dispute, is essentialist and fixed, therefore, allowing fulfilment of the role of attribution and ownership. This is true of other multi-authorships which have recognised and therefore centralised origins, through the processes of documentation. For example, the name Stuart Home is often linked to that of the multi-authors Luther Blissett and Karen Eliot, although their specific origins have not been substantiated nor attributed to an individual person. 5.3 Further areas of study This study began with the construction of authorship using a theoretical framework, which focused on the contextual power structures as indicating the forces which influence the author-functions. The construction of identity is one of these power structures which I feel could benefit from further research, since this concept has impacted frequently with the mode of multi-authorship constructed within this study. This can be observed in the subject matter of posti gs i Ka e Ka ak s log a d the i dete i ate i te o e tio et ee the multi-author and the perceived body of work. Further areas of study are suggested in the portrait of Karen Karnak, which was presented in the series of faceless and semi-revealed images. This was due to the influence of the power structures, represented by the researcher, in acting to suppress unacceptable identities (see sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 of this thesis). This line of study could include an examination of discourses of power connected with the suppression of identity, and in particular, where suppression becomes a recognisable feature of identity. 134 The construction of authorship can be related to the construction of social identity and the enforced distinction between the individual and the multiple. The construction of identity, and the allocation of disparate identities within a coherent subjectivity, suggests potential for areas of future research. As a practitioner in creative arts the Karen Karnak vehicle has provided me with a new way to look at my own work as a filmmaker, including an exhibition at a local gallery space26 in which I have re-edited my own body of work (films I have made between the years 1991 to 2009) under the indeterminate identity of Karen Karnak. Insights gained from this experience, in terms of a distancing from the creative process offer areas for future research. The prolific contributions by the multi-user login name KK in Chapter Four, as well as that from the indeterminate identity of user K47, have already lead me into thoughts about the existence of one-person-movements and other pseudononymous authorships in which a single individual operates under a collection of multiple identities and a wide range of voices. This is a reverse situation of Karen Karnak, a single author who publishes under a variety of pseudonyms as a strategy of further examining the author / multi-author function. This too is connected with the construction and manipulation of identity and offers a further field of research into the creative liberation brought about by the use of multiple identities. The author as simulacra is suggested as a further research topic, in which the focus could be on a more in-depth examination of the connection between the multi-author and the body of work. To look more closely at multi-authorship it is necessary to move away from the restrictive and delimiting effects of the WikiMedia and the power structures 26 Karen Karnak Incarnate: The [in]complete moving image works of Karen Karnak 1991-2009. The Ramp Gallery, 5th November 2009, Wintec Media Arts educational facility, Hamilton, New Zealand. 135 associated with centralised interaction. As a mode of authorship Karen Karnak permits the potentials for a view of identity, which is radically decentred, allowing a freer and more rapid exchange of ideas and enhanced creativity27 and collective development of media, of which the Open-Source movement is testament. A way of attempting this would be if a higher level of interaction was utilised within the creation of policy and the direction of research, using a methodology more closely aligned to participatory action research to allow participants more involvement with a decentralised research process. Within a decentralised multi-author environment, where text becomes malleable, discourse too is less concerned with the maintenance of existing power structures and cultural monopolies and offers increased potentials for social change, which may have far reaching consequences beyond the scope of this study. 5.4 Karen Karnak in the outside world Although the abduction of Karen Karnak, as a name representing multiauthorship, was a cause for researcher concerns throughout the project, at the end of the WikiMedia experiment it appears the researcher, through the control of the authorship environment, has succeeded in a form of abduction, through the enforced centralisation of the Karen Karnak environment. However, this is a temporary outcome, since beyond this study the name Karen Karnak can no longer be regulated by the researcher, therefore, anyone who wishes to use the Karen Karnak name as an author will be free to do so. Since the identity may be assumed by anyone both inside and outside the research environment, the function of the multi-author is to encourage participation in the construction of the collective identity of Karen Karnak through a body of work, meaning that appropriation of the work by the 27 Creativity could be framed within a proposed study which focuses on the artist-function and the role of art within a larger power-based discourse. 136 researcher is of as little consequence as the assumption of the identity of Karnak, which occurs with each participation. This study can be seen as an incubation environment for the further work of the Karen Karnak multi-author, and possible as one origin of the name amongst a potential multitude. In the period of time after the Karen Karnak experiment ended the name has been used in the Alytus Art Strike conference in southern Lithuanian from August 18th to 24th 2009 (Kernak, 2009)28. The art strike is a project connected with Stuart Home and the Neoism movement, in which Karen Eliot, a multi-author name, was developed to explore the concept of the individual artist (Home, 1999), see section 2.1.5 of this thesis. 28 The city of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, was designated European Capital of Culture 2009 by th th the European Union. In response the city of Alytus hosted the Art Strike Biennial 18 -24 August 2009. 137 Figure 34: Karen Karnak in Alytus (Source: Kernak, 2009). In reference, perhaps, to the various spellings of the name Allan / Alan / Allen Smithee, the name Karen Karnak has been additionally spelt as Karen Kernak, adding a further layer of indeterminacy to the identity of the multi-author (Figure 34 above) (Kernak, 2009). From the theme of the graphics the work is most likely connected to user K47, however, the text in Lithuanian, once again, adds a dimension of indeterminacy to the identity of Karen Kernak, which echoes the universalist portrait of the author drawn in the German Uncle series of postings in Chapter Four. The placement of the Karen Kernak name amongst those of Karen Eliot and Stuart Home adds a sense of validation to the multi-author, which is beyond that 138 of the enclosed and centralised environment of the WikiMedia. The misspelling of the Karnak name adds to the multiple nature of the mode of identity. Multiple spellings of the Karnak name were continued in the Hamilton Underground Film Festival 2009 DVD, which features five video works attributed to Karen Kernak, building on the theme of mistaken and, therefore indeterminate identity as a positive trait (HUFF, 2009). The function of the multiauthor is to question the concept of identity as relating to a fixed and determinable individual. Further documentation of Karen Karnak in the outside world is available in Appendix A: DATA DVD offering Supplementary Material, under the Karen Kar ak’s C.V. menu. 5.5 Final word The mode of authorship circulated by Karen Karnak and other multi-authors represents a useful tool for identifying power structures and concepts which tend to fit seamlessly within a dominant discourse of authorship. Karen Karnak has allowed the edges of this construction to become visible through creating a gap, or space, between concepts such as identity and the body of work. This has allowed indeterminacy a place amongst seamless certainties and, as such, generates questions about the nature and functions of these concepts. One important research outcome from this study has been this questioning function of the multi-author, a placeholder which has suggested fault lines in the construction of authorship. 139 140 Bibliography Aarseth, E. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. ADA (2009). 6th Aotearoa digital arts symposium. Retrieved Sept 25th, 2009, from http://symposium09.aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/ Alberti, A., & Bianco, E. (1994). Portrait of Luther Blissett, Creative Commons licence attribution-sharealike 2.5. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://www.wumingfoundation.com/italiano/biografia.htm Alexa. (2009). Alexa top 500 global sites. Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http://www.alexa.com/topsites Allen, G. (2000). Intertextuality: The new critical idiom. London: Routledge. Anwar Us Saaed, A., Wagner, C., Stocker, A., & Dösinger, G. (2007). The three pilla s of o po ate We . : A odel fo defi itio . I Proceedings of IMEDIA ’07 a d I-SEMANTICS ’07: September 5-7, 2007 (pp. 85-92). Graz, Austria: I-Know Papers. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist Trans.). M. Holquist. (Ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky Trans.). Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press. Bakker, P., & Sádaba, C. (2008). The impact of the internet on users. In L. Kung, G.R. Picard, & R. Towse (Eds.), The internet and the mass media (pp. 86101). London: Sage. Barrett, E., & Bolt B. (Eds.), (2007) Practice as research : Approaches to creative arts enquiry. London: I. B. Tauris. Ba ett, E. . Fou ault s hat is a autho : To a ds a iti al dis ou se of practice as research. In E. Barrett & B. Bolt (Eds.), (2007) Practice as research: approaches to creative arts enquiry (pp. 135-146). London: I. B. Tauris. Barrett, E. (2007b). Introduction: Art as the production of knowledge. In E. Barrett & B. Bolt (Eds.), (2007) Practice as research: approaches to creative arts enquiry (pp. 1-13). London: I. B. Tauris. 141 Barry, A. (1996) Who gets to play; art access and the margin. In J. Dovey (Ed.), Fractal dreams (pp. 136-153). London: Lawrence & Wishart. Barry, A. (2006). On interactivity. In R. Hassan & J. Thomas (Eds.), The new media theory reader (pp. 163-187). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Barthes, R. (1977). Image – music - text (S. Heath Trans.). London: Fontana. Bawarshi, A. (2000). The Genre Function. College English, 62(3), 335 -360. BBC News. (1999). Sport: Football - Luther Blisset - anarchist hero. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/football/293678.stm Beckett, S. (1974). Texts for nothing. London: Calder & Boyars. Bell, D. (2001). An introduction to cybercultures. London: Routledge. Bennett, V. (2009). People like us. Retrieved May 23, 2009, from http://www.peoplelikeus.org/ Birdsall, W. F. (2007). Web 2.0 as a social movement. Webology, 4(2), article 40. Retrieved September 17, 2009, from http://www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/a40.html Blogger. (2010). Push button publishing. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from http://www.blogger.com/ Booth, W. C. (1961). The rhetoric of fiction. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Boyle, J. (1996). Shamans, software, and spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Boyle, J. (1997). A politics of intellectual property: Environmentalism for the net. Duke Law Journal, 47(1), 87-116. B addo k, J. . “ ithee s i o po atio . I J. B addo k & S. Hock (Eds.), Directed by Allen Smithee (pp. 143-173). Minesota: University of Minesota Press. Brennen, J. (2006). Access for all. Chronicles of philanthropy, 18(18), 111-116. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burke, S. (1992). The death and return of the author: Criticism and subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Burroughs, W. S. (1981). Nothing here now but the recordings. [Spoken word sound recording- Long Player]. London: Industrial Records. 142 Catholic on-line. (2009). Saint Jerome: Saints and angels. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://www.catholic.org Center for the Study of the Public Domain. (2009). Center for the Study of the Public Domain. Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/ Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Clough, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2002). A stude t’s guide to Sage. ethodolog . London: Clulee, N. H. (1988). John Dee's natural philosophy: Between science and religion. London: Routledge. Creative Commons Licenses. (2009). Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 New Zealand. Retrieved August 23, 2009, from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/nz/ Creative Commons. (2009b). Choose and apply a CC license: Home – Creative Commons. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/choose_and_apply_a_cc_licence Danaher, G., Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2000). Understanding Foucault. St Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Dean, M. (2003). $30 film school. Boston: Muska & Lipman Publishing. DGA. (2008). 2006-2008 Creative Rights Handbook - DGA Basic Agreement, Article 7. Retrieved August 26, 2009 from http://www.dga.org/contracts/ba2005-finalpdfs/09-ba2005-7.pdf Dick, B. (2006). Action research literature 2004-2006: Themes and trends. Action research, 4(439), 439-458. Duncombe, S. (1997). Notes from the underground: Zines and the politics of alternative culture. London and New York: Verso. Duran Duran. (2009). Falling down video mash-up challenge. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from http://www.duranduranonline.com/fallingdown/ Edelman, B. (1979). Ownership of the image: Elements for a Marxist theory of law (E. Kingdom, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Eliot, K. (2002). Karen Eliot @ everything2.com. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from http://everything2.com/title/Karen+Eliot 143 Figgis, M. (2007). Digital filmmaking. New York: Faber and Faber Inc. Fornas, J., Klein, K., Ladendorf, M., Sunden, J., & Sveningsson, M. (2002). Digital borderlands: Cultural studies of identity and interactivity on the internet. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Foucault, M. (1977). What is an author? (D. Bouchard, Trans.). In D. Bouchard (Ed.), Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essay and interviews (pp. 113-139). New York: Cornell University Press. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock. Fisk, J. (1987).Television culture. New York: Routledge. Flickr. (2010). Photo sharing. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from http://www.flickr.com/ Gennette, G. (1982). Figures of literary discourse (A. Sheridan Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. GNU. (2009). GNU General Public License. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html Goldstein, P. (1992). Copyright, patent, trademark and related state doctrines. NY: Foundation Press. Go2web20. (2009). Web 2.0 Tools and Applications. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.go2web20.net/ Hall, S. (2000). Who needs identity? In P. Du Gay, J. Evans, & P. Redman (Eds.), Identity: A reader (pp. 15-30). London: Sage. Hamilton Community Radio. (2006). Off the planet, Brian Karnak. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.communityradio.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145838887 Hayles, K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Ha e stei , H. . Wikipedia fou de eje ts his ig o e all ules a t a i new online project ( Larry Sanger launches Citizendium). Computerworld, 41(14). Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/287771/ Hertel, G., & Niedner, S., & Hermann, S. (2003). Motivation of software developers in the open source projects: An internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux Kernel. Research Policy, 32(7), 1159-1177. 144 Home, S. (1999). Multiple name short entry. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/sp/eliot.htm HUFF. (2009). The Hamilton underground film festival. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from http://circuit47.com/huff/ Jaszi, P., & Woodmansee, M. (1994). On the author effect: Recovering collectivity. In P. Jaszi, & M. Woodmansee (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 15-28). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory culture. London: Routledge. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. New York: New York University Press. Jensen, J. F. (1998). Interactivity: Tracking a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review, 19(1), 185-204. Jerome, St. (1912). De Viris Illustribus. New York: General Theological Seminary. Jonze, S. (Director).(1999). Being John Malkovich [Motion picture]. Canada: Gramercy Pictures. Kaplan, B. (1967). An unhurried view of copyright. New York: Columbia University Press. Kernak, K. (2009). Art Strike Biennial. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from http://www.alytusbiennial.com/index.php/karen-karnak Kung, L., Picard, G. R., & Towse, R. (Eds.). (2008). The internet and the mass media. London: Sage. Kunitz, S. (1985). The abduction. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/19249 Ladendorf, M. (2002). Cyberzines: Irony and parody as strategies in a feminist sphere. In J. Fornas, K. Klein, M. Ladendorf, J. Sunden, & M. Sveningsson (Eds.), Digital borderlands: Cultural studies of identity and interactivity on the internet (pp. 112-145). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Lakhani, K. R., & Mcafee, A. P. (2007). Wikipedia (A). Retrieved May 19, 2009, from http://courseware.hbs.edu/public/cases/wikipedia/ Lakhani, K. R., & Wolf R. (2001). Does free software mean free labor?: Characteristics of participants in open source communities, Boston Consulting Group survey report, Boston, MA. 145 Lakhani, K. R., & Von Hippel, E. (2002). How open source software works: Free user-to-user assistance. Cambridge, USA: MIT Sloan school of management. Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: The Penguin Press. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York: The Penguin Press. Love, H. (2002). Attributing authorship: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mashable: The social media guide. (2009). YouTube remixer – online video editing for YouTube. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from http://mashable.com/2007/06/16/youtube-remixer/ McKay, G. (1998). DIY culture: Party and protest in nineties Britain. London: Verso. McLeod, K. (2001). Owning culture -authorship, ownership, and intellectual property law. New York: Peter Lang. McLuhan, M. (2001). Understanding media: The extensions of man. London: Routledge. McNichol, Tom. (March 2007). Building a Wiki world. Business 2.0, 8(2), 102. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about Action Research. London: Sage. McSherry, C. (2001). Who owns academic work? - Battling for control of intellectual property. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mellor, N. (1998). Notes from a method. Educational Action Research, 6(3), 453470. Muffatto, M. (2006). Open source: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Imperial College Press. Newman, J. (1995). The ballistic bard: Postcolonial fictions. New York: Arnold. Ne Tee Vee. . YouTu e s disappoi ti g e editi g tools. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from http://newteevee.com/2007/06/17/youtube-remixer/ Open source initiative. (2009a). Licenses by name: Open source initiative. Retrieved 28 July 2009, from http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical 146 Open source initiative. (2009b). Open source definition; Open source initiative. Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http://opensource.org/docs/osd Ovni-code (2001). Linguistic masticator. (on-line Web 2.0 application). Retrieved August 13, 2009, from http://www.circuit47.com Panoramio. (2009). Panoramio: Photos of the world. Retrieved May 23 2009, from http://www.panoramio.com/ Pink, D. H. (2005, March). The book stops here. Wired. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html Ray, A., & Graeff, E. (2008).Reviewing the author-function in the Age of Wikipedia. In C. Eisner & M. Vicinus (Eds.), Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism (pp. 39-47). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Rose, M. (1993). Authors and owners: The invention of copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rotstein, R. (1993). Beyond metaphor: Copyright infringement and the fiction of the work. Chicago–Kent Law Review, 68(2), 725-804. Saper, C. (2001). Artificial auteurism and the political economy of the Allen Smithee case. In J. Braddock & S. Hock (Eds.). Directed by Allen Smithee (pp. 29-50). Minnesota: USA: University of Minnesota Press. Savenye, W., & Robinson, R. (1997). Qualitative research issues and methods: An introduction for educational technologists. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 11711195). New York: Macmillian. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Shields, R. (2003). The virtual. London: Routledge. Shirky, C. (2003). Economics & culture, media & community, Open-Source: A group is its own worst enemy. Santa Clara, USA: O ‘eill e e gi g technology conference. Shukaitis, S., & Biddle, E. (2009). Never art / work! Retrieved October 2, 2009, from http://www.alytusbiennial.com/index.php/news/283-never-artwork Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage. 147 Smith, J. (1989). The nature of social and educational inquiry: Empiricism versus interpretation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Stewart, S. (1991). Crimes of writing: Problems in the containment of representation. New York: Oxford University Press. Stone, B., & Helft, M. (2009 April 26). In developing countries, web grows without profit. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com Turbulence. (2006). D.I.Y. or DIE: an upgrade! New York, Turbulence and Rhizome Net Art Exhibition. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.turbulence.org/diyordie/ Waldron, J. (1993). From authors to copiers: Individual rights and social values in intellectual property. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68, 841-887. Wiki. (2002). What is Wiki. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki WikiMedia. (2009). Welcome to WikiMedia.org. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.WikiMedia.org/wiki/WikiMedia WikiMedia. (2009b). Extension: VideoWiki. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.WikiMedia.org/wiki/Extension:VideoWiki WikiMedia. (2009c). The Wikipedia community. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Community Wikipedia. (2009). Wikipedia: About – Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About Wikipedia. (2009a). Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Wikipedia. (2009b). Category: Wikipedia behavioural guidelines. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_behavioral_guidelines Wikipedia. (2009c). What Wikipedia is not. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Wikipedia. (2009d). History of Wikipedia. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia Wikipedia. (2009e). Wikipedia power structure. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Power_structure 148 Wikipedia. (2009f). Karen Karnak. Retrieved September 25th, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Karnak Wikipedia. (2009g). Multi-use name. Retrieved September 25th, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-use_name Wikipedia. (2009h). Hamilton underground film festival. Retrieved September 25th, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Underground_Film_Festival,_New _Zealand Willis, W. J., & Jost, M. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. London: Sage. YouTube. (2010). YouTube –broadcast yourself. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from http://www.youtube.com YouTube. (2009A). YouTube –broadcast yourself: Test tube. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from http://www.youtube.com/testtube Woodmansee, M. (1984). The genius and the copyright: economic and legal o ditio s of the e e ge e of the autho . Eighteenth-Century Studies, 17(4), 425-448. Wu Ming Foundation. (2009). Wu ming foundation: Who we are and what we do. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/biography.html 149 150 Appendix A: Contents of DATA DVD Supplementary Material Insert the DATA DVD into a DVD-ROM reader on a standard computer. Open the disk and select the file a ed “TA‘T HE‘E.ht l . Use the face image to navigate, rolling the mouse over the image and clicking once to display sub-menus. Firefox is recommended for viewing with flash player 7 (or over) plugin installed and the font size/zoom set to normal. If the image appears broken please set the zoom/font size to a lower setting. Content menu Avatar (Forehead): Photo gallery from Upstage Festival 090909, Screen shots of performance, The faces of Karen Karnak. Portraits and images of Karen Karnak from WikiMedia and UpStage 090909 performance WikiMedia (her Right eye): Kare ’s Blog te t a d i ages, Video + all uploaded files ZIP 400MB, Uploads still image gallery. Films (her Left eye): Selected Wiki-Films by Karen Karnak, Karen Karnak is set forth. Exhibition (Nose): Full list of exhibitions and events. Karen Karnak s C.V. (Mouth): The body of work creates the author, Karen Karnak incarnate, The many faces. 151 Appendix B: Supplementary Material Functions of the WikiMedia: Including screen shots The WikiMedia site allows a complex system of to be allocated to different levels of participants ranging from the user to the Sysop. The level of allocated privilege determines the content of the site as the allowed functions of the site vary with each user type. Figure 35: Screen shot logged in as Sysop (Source: Author). The above screen shot shows the function tabs at the top of each page which are visible when logged in as Sysop, this can be compared with the screen shot below which shows the functions available to the user. Figure 36: Screen shot logged in as user (Source: Author). 152 The above screen shot depicts the main page from the WikiMedia site when logged in as user. The ability to protect the page from editing, and more importantly to enable editing of a protected page are not available to the user. However, as seen below, the user can view the source code of the page. Figure 37: User permissions (Source: Author). As sho a o e the use a also set a at h o the page, to e se t a e ail if the page has been edited. The access to the source code can allow a user familiarity with the syntax of the Wiki mark-up language which uses symbols su h as == a d to add titles and links to other pages. Images can also be inserted into the body of the text through knowledge of the correct syntax. Wiki mark-up is a common language which is used across the Wiki platforms. It is identical to the method of writing and altering the pages of Wikipedia and bears a passing resemblance to a simplified HTML mark-up, the basic layout language of the majority of websites on the internet. The advanced editing of the WikiMedia pages involves a reasonable level of highly specialised knowledge which can involve the investment of several hours of patience, perseverance and experimentation with the mark-up language. 153 Figure 38: function tabs (Source: Author). Above can be seen an unprotected page as seen by a logged in user, in this case the page shown is the main page which was left unprotected by the Sysop until user K47 attempted to divert the direction of the research environment by adapting the content. This event is described in detail in the second phase of research in the following chapter. The above screen shot shows the discussion, edit, history and move function tabs available to users. These function tabs allow the user to edit the contents of each page or add items to the discussion page in which the Wiki policy is collectively formed. The history tab allows any user to view the edit logs of each page which show updates and changes of content, this feature is illustrated below. The move function allows a page to be renamed with links to the old page name automatically redirected to the new content. The move function is potentially the most powerful feature available to users, since this can allow interaction with the structure of the site. The additional function tabs available to the Sysop are to delete pages and p ote t pages f o editi g use s a d to add a at h to a page, a fu tio which automatically sends an email to the Sysop every time a page is edited by a user. The additional Sysop function to protect pages from user edits allows a static nature to be attached to aspects of the site which can function as policy and directives for users to follow. The main page of the WikiMedia introduces the themes of the research and shapes the interactions of users. The ability to protect pages from edits, along with the ability to create and delete usernames for participants form the main additional powers that the Sysop possesses over the user. In this particular WikiMedia I have set the configuration 154 so that only the Sysop can create new accounts. This is so that, as researcher, I can manage the accounts of participants and retain some control over the suspected identity of users. Since an individual user can also share their username with other unknown participants this level of control is not absolute. Figure 39: History function of the WikiMedia (Source: Author). The history tab, shown above, is particularly useful for researchers in identifying the dates and forms of collaborations and the participants responsible for the postings. These logs are referred to throughout Chapter Four. Kaltura on-line video editing technology Within the Media wiki developer community there are additional extensions which allow a more sophisticated, and user friendly mode of collaboration in which media files can be edited on-line. One of these extensions is the Kaltura video editing extension which can be embedded into a WikiMedia page. The Kaltura widget (the name for a web-gadget) allows the user to upload video clips 155 or import them from another user generated content site such as flickr, which is predominantly still image based, or YouTube, which hosts a vast archive of user generated moving image files. This procedure builds on the popularity of existing user generated content sites and provides users with a familiar knowledge base from which to start the process of collaboration. The video editing options provided by Kaltura when placed on the WikiMedia are very basic and highly dependent on users available bandwidth and internet connection speed, however, it provides an alternative to simple video file sharing via uploads to the WikiMedia and may appeal to a different grouping of users than those who are familiar with editing video on their own home computers. On-line video editing options There are, at the time of writing, a very small selection of on-line video editors available through which the Karen Karnak research project could be realised. YouTu e, o e of the e s la gest use ge e ated o te t sites, sta ted i and is currently the third highest visited website, attracting an estimated twenty percent of the overall traffic of the internet (Alexa, 2009). YouTube developed an o li e ash up editi g tool i pa t e ship ith Ado e hi h as eleased i June 2007. The online video editing application, which could be used to create mash-ups of videos hosted on the YouTube site, was unfortunately discontinued shortly after its release (New Tee Vee, 2007). As a solution for the Karen Karnak research project involving multi-authorship YouTube offers easy access for moving image material; allowing users to upload and share material rapidly through the personalised user accounts styled as personalised television channels. However, the individualised nature of YouTube, in which users are segregated into individual channels with separated login accounts based on email address, and the lack of abilities for the user to adapt the environment to the extent that the WikiMedia allows, would be a drawback to the collection of results. 156 From a web-based search of contemporary Web 2.0 applications mainly using the comprehensive go2web20 (2009) site which displays a searchable database of Web 2.0 applications over sixty video applications are listed. The search can be restricted to video editing tools which lists GorillaSpot, jaycut, Stupeflix, FixMyMovie, TubeChop all of which are capable of online video editing. The popular Jaycut editing system offers advanced video editing capabilities but is restricted in that users must upload files to the jaycut site before editing can occur. None of the online video editing systems can be added to the WikiMedia or installed on any other site: a serious restriction on allowing a decentralised solution to the collaborative film process. The only semi-decentralised option, o e hi h a e added to a othe se e s site is Kaltu a; the o l e t u de the available search limiters: Collaboration, create, group, video, on the go2web20 site (go2web20, 2009). In a search under the available third party applications available for Wiki-based online video editing, which are listed in the Media Wiki help pages, reveals that there are several extensions to allow displaying of pre-edited videos but only one online editing application: VideoWiki authored by Kaltura (WikiMedia, 2009b). There is a distinct lack of choice in online video editing applications which are compatible with the WikiMedia; are, therefore, open source and have come from the collaborative environment which typifies the Web 2.0. This may be due to the costs involved in bandwidth consumption from online video editing, a major concern with YouTube which is reported by the New York Times in April 2009 as costing Google, its owners, $(US) 360 million dollars in 2008 and is destined to lose an estimated $(US)470 million dollars (Stone & Helft, 2009). These costs are a possible limiting factor on the popularity and spread of online video editing capabilities. The video editing options provided by Kaltura when placed on the WikiMedia are very basic and highly dependent on users available bandwidth and internet 157 connection speed since with slower connections Kaltura does not function at all. Although Kaltura provides an alternative to simple video file sharing via uploads to the WikiMedia and may appeal to a different grouping of users than those who are familiar with editing video on their own home computers, the lack of logging facilities means that different edits cannot be compared, nor can user interaction be noted. Therefore the Kaltura application, although embedded into the WikiMedia site, did not fulfil the promise of effective on-line video editing, was underused due to connection problems and did not generate the same bulk of usable data that the WikiMedia site produced in its in-built logging system. 158 Appendix C: Application for ethical approval HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE APPLICATION FOR ETHICAL APPROVAL Section 8.E: Procedures in which participants will be involved. The participants will collaborate on an audio/visual work under the collective name of Karen Karnak: a fictitious name created for the purposes of this study. Within the collaborative project the participants will be invited to submit original or non-copyrighted audio-visual material of a maximum 120mb for any one file (approximately 5 minutes of audiovisual content). A sheet outlining technical guidelines for access and download, file size and file types will be given to each pe so . The pass o d fo a ess ill e se t to ea h pa ti ipa t s e ail add ess and this will require a response from their email address before the account is activated and identity verified. Further, a template offering the creative guidelines will be available online within the WikiMedia site. The audiovisual files will be uploaded to a collective and open source WikiMedia database that I have already established. Participants will be able to withdraw their name up to the finalisation of the project in August 2009, but can only withdraw any of their content until such time that another participant downloads part or all of it. As administrator I have the ability to monitor downloads and will accept withdrawal of any content that has not been downloaded. A participant can withdraw from the collective process, but, if their files have been downloaded, then these will remain part of the creative commons. The participant will be made aware of this each time a file is uploaded. These image and sound files, covered by the Creative Commons licence, will allow work to be constructed collaboratively and 159 shared amongst the participants, including the researcher in the role of administrator and participant. The work will be open for each participant to download, edit, alter and upload back onto the same WikiMedia site. All consent and copyright issues will be addressed before the project begins with participants reminded of the CC license with each interaction. It is imperative that all participants are aware of, and consent to, the Creative Commons licence (Creative Commons licence Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 New Zealand at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/nz/) before editing and alterations begin. This requirement will be included both in the information sheet and in the consent form. An added clause described in both information sheet and consent form will allow for defamatory, pornographic, racist, copyrighted or otherwise unethical material to be removed by myself as facilitator-researcher, as I will have sole administrative rights within the website. 160

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The construction of Karen Karnak: The multi-author-function. M.A. Thesis

The construction of Karen Karnak: The multi-author-function. M.A. Thesis

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS