Co-Creative Media

The article this paper summarizes was created in order to discuss the use of “co-creative” media in education. In order to help explain co-creativity the author uses digital storytelling as an example and highlights its use as a tool for analyzing culture.

Immediately, the paper tries to define what is “co-creative” media. As described in the article, “ co-creative media provides a tool for describing the ways in which participatory media are facilitated by people and organizations, not just technology.” I feel if this explanation provides more of an idea what co-creative media can be used for rather than what it is. In defining the term, I would have to assume that co-creative media entails media that can be interacted with an in-part produced with active impression and feedback from the viewer. I base this definition of another quote in the passage on co-creativity. In the article, the author Christina Spurgeon says that co-creative media is “digital storytelling as an action research platform for investigating participatory new media culture.” The key word in this seems to be “participatory, as the rest of the paper talks about participatory media and the “participatory gap” between creators and viewers being a concern.

    Later in the article, Spurgeon reveals that “the underlying purpose of digital storytelling is to facilitate social participation in the process of building community-based capacity for the end-user engagement in digital media production.” I interpreted this as creators being able to get higher level and more instantaneous amount of feedback from their audience.The author listed Youtube as a good example. It makes sense that, because of this, Spurgeon cites that co-creative media is often defined as “training in content creation”. This would be good point in justifying its use as tool of education as long as the feedback is constructive.

Stating digital storytelling as a “social movement,” Sprunger goes on to explain how digital storytelling has become a worldwide practice, though more common in North America due to their advantage in starting the trend. The author cites as source that lists the four types of institutions most likely to utilize these programs are those based on “education, community, cultural and miscellaneous others (including public broadcasters, companies, and consultancies). It is from there that she begins to note the number of understated factors in this type of media. The first being that “institutional context of production shapes the content, purpose and outcomes,” where more or less draws attention to how user-generated content tailors more to its audience. The second is “the role of experts and expert knowledge play in negotiating the participation gap.” Sprunger states that the role of the professional in contemporary media is open to change. A comparison to this is to imagine the use of professional directors on Youtube.

The paper continues on to explain participatory media’s connection co-creativity. Media relying on such interventions as those highlighted earlier give a good depiction of social relations in the process. Spurgeon believes that the term “co-creative media” is useful in analyzing this as it serves as a tool in evaluating the role of “organizations, experts and technology.” Before closing, Spurgeon also notes that co-creative media’s role in culture has yet to be explored and how this also opens the gate for analysis of digital storytelling.