A study on webcam communities and their characteristics in terms of the relation between 'actor' and 'viewer'

Introduction

“No One knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity.”[1]

In 1948 a book was published under the title ‘1984’. Written by George Orwell and set in the future of its time, this piece of literature sets up a utopian world of control and observation. Although his book will not form a base for my study, even back then he was able to recognize the human curiosity and nature of voyeurism/observation. Too see without being seen yourself, is an urban wish of mankind that can be related to religion: God the all-knowing, who can see behind the truth and observe what is invisible to the obvious eye. “You are not alone”, words that call on both comfort and discomfort, especially in an inhuman, unknown realm such as cyberspace. The protagonist of the book, Winston, feels the eyes of Big Brother on him all the time: In corridors, on posters, coins or cigarette packets. Each day, at the end of the Two Minutes Hate session directed at Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, all Party workers return to a state of calm when Big Brother appears on the giant telescreen, illustrating the near-hypnotic hold he exercises over the masses.

To be able to observe involves the concept of power control, for the person that is observing as well as the person that is being is observed. As one has the possibility to direct the other, on both sides. On elaborating this thought and concept I came into contact with webcams: observational devices on the internet.

One can compare the intriguingness of this with cinema: the compelling nature of it is the possibility to identify with the characters on screen, or be compelled by the story in a form of recognition. Webcams and the internet are set on immediacy. The feeling of watching in the very second that something happens makes one believe to be taking part or being a part of the action recorded by the camera.

The first considered webcam is the “The Trojan coffee machine” (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/coffee/coffee.html). Built up out of pure laziness, students of Cambridge University set up a camera in there community room to observe if the coffee pot was empty or not. In 1996 Jennifer Ringley became the star of online community by commercializing her everyday life on the web. There are others like her: people that found out that with a camera and a normal everyday life (that isn’t much different from everybody else’s) your can rise to fame….and what’s more important make a quick dime. Nowadays we are simultaneously performance artist and viewer of a never ending show. But what is it that lies behind the fascination of the spectator? And how can one define the interaction between the viewer and the actor (assuming there is an interaction of course)? Can one speak of participation and if so in what sense? And what is also important: what is the role of the actor?

In his text “The webcam subculture and the digital enclosure” Marc Andrejevic quotes Douglas Kellner who states: “ordinary citizens and activists themselves (…) become political actors and communicators, to reproduce and disseminate information, and to participate in debates and struggles, thus helping to realize Gramsci’s dictum that anyone could be a public intellectual”[2] where as he himself writes the following: “They are not so much participating, in the progressive sense of collective self-determinism, as they are working by submitting to interactive monitoring”[3]

            These two quotes and texts from which they are derived gave me the initial idea and outline concept for this paper. Whilst searching the web I stumbled across a wide range of observational possibilities such as: the jennicam, http://www.arjenvangent.com/webcam.asp, http://personalweb.about.com , www.myboringlife.com and so on.

                        The initial aim of this paper is to define the participational nature of webcam communities and I intend to do so on two levels: Firstly, with fundamental help of Shenja van der Graafs master thesis: “My face is never was. Exploring the textual construction of the celebrity – Productive intersections of the actor, institutions and audiences”[4] I shall take a closer look at how one can define the role of the viewer and the actor in a webcam community. Then, by embedding this thesis into the theories of Levy’s ‘collective mind’ and Jenkins definition of participatory culture I will attempt to investigate in what way we can here speak of participation. This will be constant enlighten of examples I have found on the internet.

                        Lastly, in an summered conclusion I will hopefully brought the reader and this paper one step closer to answer the initial question upon which this writing is based:

In terms of none-pornographic webcams on the internet can one speak of the relation between viewer and actor as participator-labourer?

Towards a definition – The ‘viewer’ and the ‘actor’

“Hmm... so in a way, maybe webcams are a humanizing force on the net (when not used for porn)? To make it a warmer place, to enable connecting and identifying with one another? Maybe I was a little harsh on webcam culture - or maybe I'm just buying into the sentimentalism... ? I'll have to revisit this later.“[5]

                        As can be seen from the introduction I have and will refer to the two interacting parties on either side of the camera as the ‘viewer’ and the ‘actor’. This part of my paper is dedicated to the question as to why I have chosen to do so as well as to define the actor and the viewer in there roles as labourer and participator, and thereby come closer to a definition of webcam interaction.

The ‘actor’ – The ‘labourer’

                        First off it is safe to say that webcams are considered fascinating, on both behalf’s. The only difficult thing is to explain why. In 1996 Jennifer Ringley became an absolute Cult figure of the American online community. Everybody who had a computer and internet access could follow her everyday life at her home: Jenni, sleeping, Jenni reading, Jenni playing with her cat, Jenni answering her emails or Jenni not at home. A normal, quite achievable everyday life, yet still 1.5 million internet users, at times, thought it compelling to watch. For full access, fans even payed 15 US dollars a year.[6] Then you get the Jennicam in frames per minute, for the rest it meant Jennicam in 15 minute frames.

                        She herself once stated on an interview that the camera had made her into an honest person, because nothing is concealed. But being on the internet has also made her a famous person, with jobs ranging from TV-shows, radio interviews, nude photo’s and so forth.[7]

                        What can we learn from Jenni’s webcam activities? That a webcam and a normal life (with no special content) can make you pretty popular, pretty fast. It also makes you aware of the fact that these people present there lives on the world wide web and therefore use the world as one giant stage to present and act ‘themselves’. In doing so they present themselves to society as a product, they literally sell themselves: “Nowadays, actors literally ‘belong to the people’, because they are providers of other people’s entertainment; at the same time their expressions are taken and interpreted by audiences”[8]

                        In the case of webcams it is irrelevant then if the individuals (or none individuals) earn money through their webcam presence. As soon as the camera is turned on they ‘act’ they do things, they are aware of the presence of the camera and subconsciously (or not) go about there everyday lives with the camera in the room. The camera will also be inclined to give us only its point of view, the whole scene is staged: Hence the term actor for the person (or people) in front of the webcam.

                        Above I have already started to classify in what terms on can here speak of the actor as labourer. Let’s look at the most straight forward first. People who charge money for you to be able to look at them, are labourers, it is how they earn their money. The sell themselves for the entertainment of others, a labourer with exhibitionistic qualities you might say. But what about those that do not charge money but present there lives on the web for others, ‘for themselves’ as they might say. For instance the family van Gent, who on there website http://www.arjenvangent.com/webcam.asp might enlighten this subject matter.

                        This is a couple that has moved together, gotten a child and documented the whole process of the relationship on the web free of charge. The details in which this webpage is built up is quite amazing, it has also been online for four years so the amount of information that has already been stored is of course tremendous. In their guestbook people can leave comments on and over the site, quite often it is used to promote their own web pages.

                        In her paragraph on the ‘Productive Production, Receptive production and the Actor as Site’ Shenja van der Graaf writes about how an actor constructs his identity and foremost describes what his ‘product’ is made up of as such: the public persona, the star and the private persona.[9]

                        Now in terms of webcam communities, the factor of the constructed identity is of importance. An ‘actor’ of a webcam is able to construct all three of these characteristics of a personified product. Let’s take a look at the two examples I have in terms of the actor as Laborer.

                        Jenni constructs her public persona through her website and TV shows; in fact it is what she bases her whole success on, claiming that she is a public person showing her real self at all times. Yet this ‘openness’ is also a form of construction. Always aware of the camera’s she knows when and how to act open, questions arise as to whether she would still act as ‘openly normal’ if they were turned off (which they are now). Her Star qualities lie within her marketing concept, for she is by no means longer a simple college girl, but a product of value, who knows very well how to earn money with herself and advertise herself well. In webcam communities the public and the private person melt together as one (at least on screen), for that is after all what webcams are about: showing the ‘real thing’, making your personal life consciously public.

                        In terms of the family van Gent, who we have not yet clearly defined as laborers, we can state the following. The Public personalities as seen on screen are also constructed. They are fully aware of the fact that people view there site and comment on that as well as on how there pictures look, self consciously photographing themselves at just the right moments:

                        [10]

As far as there stardom goes, they have obviously self risen to a form of popularity. One only has to view the guest book, with 284 entries, thus maybe one cannot speak of stardom in the original sense, but they defiantly have their own popularity in there own group, and assume that there are people reading the site, as one can gather from there personally written texts. 

            As stated above, within a webcam community, personal and public persona melt together as one, in reference to this webcam space I find it quite relevant. Arjen van Gents personal life, is his marketing strategy. He does not sell anything or earn money with his website, but he is fully aware of viewers. His pictures and pieces of writing are directed towards people who should read the page, so he generally assumes they do. You also find a lot of comments concerning the layout and design plus idea of the site in general from which he wishes to here an opinion from people who visit the site. And exactly here is the point in which the actor (although not receiving money) becomes a laborer.

            The site is constructed ‘for the people’ everything is written for others to let others know what there doing. People leave behind wishes and comments as to how to make things better, and upon command the things are changed:

The hyperdictionary defines labor as a form of productive work or any piece of work that is undertaken or attempted.[11] The work Arjen undergoes defiantly brings forth an end product. Weather it is personalized or not, is not of relevance, personally I am also always inclined to say that work or labor as such has something to do with working for another, and this page is obviously directed towards an audience.

                        So whatever way you look at it, webcam pictures are generally constructed and can therefore never be the ultimate truth. People in front of the camera then become either voluntary or involuntary actors and with that laborers, as they work to please the viewers. I assume that the one defines the other. As soon as you can speak of an actor you can speak of labor and as soon as you speak of labor, you only have to define the type of labor: in the case of webcams, it’s the actor.

The viewer – from ‘observer’ to ‘participator’

I believe one can say that throughout my research I have been a ‘viewer’ of the webcam community. In search for and during the findings of webcams, I have looked, observed and finally participated. To describe the process of this I will first sketch the idea of participation in general to then channel it towards my argumentation for this paper.

            According to Abraham Maslow, we are urged to satisfy every aspect of our needs[12] that is what motivates us; it is what makes us participate in everyday life. In terms of online participation, one can say that people are motivated to do so in order to belong in a group, to define oneself within a group. The main aspect of participation is to lay the grounds for connection, whether that is to belong to a certain skilled group (e.g. a blogger will feel able and connected to those that actually write for a living), or to create connections to people who have the same interests (e.g. fan pages).

            Jenkins, also talks of a participation culture taking place online.[13]  He speaks of the new technological possibilities and the new economic trends that demand a more active mode of spectator ship. Yet, most importantly he picks up on the idea of Levy’s theory and distinction between shared knowledge and collective knowledge. Shared knowledge being the information known by all members of the community and collective intelligence being knowledge available to all members of the community.

            Webcams create a feeling of intimacy to an apparently all-knowing individual. They give an illusion of autonomy in a collective intelligence by constructing individual narratives. I will try to explain the participatory nature of webcams in terms of the viewer more into detail with hel form the We Media internet site and there ‘rules of participation’.[14]

Let’s take a look at theses 5 points that make up a part of participation in general and webcam participation:

1. Build reputation in community
2. create connections with other who have similar interests
3. information
4. entertainment
5. creation

To be recognized and being able to show what you are capable of is a wish and possibility in webspace. This possibility, that one is able to utter his or her opinion whereas in real life he or she might be suppressed, generally give the opinionated a general sense of authority. On http://www.myboringlife.com you can direct a webcam to show you parts of New York with your mouse. Now this may seem minimal, but it defiantly gives a feel of authority. Or even on the van Gents website, you can leave a message, comment on the pictures, get a reaction, get the feeling that your opinion matters.

            When active on a webcam forum you will obviously have the feeling you are connecting to your subject: ‘the actor’, this often goes so far as to being an absolute fan, or having the absolute need to identify with someone. The actor becomes such a big part of there everyday lives that they might even consider them a friend, someone they share with and can relate too. For instance, after Jenni shut down her webcam after 7 years some fans still decided to keep her alive:

“But not being one to take a hint, I've decided to keep this site up a while longer. I've started the process of sorting through all the jennicam images that I have, which I'd guess is about three gigabytes worth. Organizing, removing duplicates and trying to fill gaps are my main tasks for next month or so. Some of the earliest images I can find that have date information come from 1997 and I've starting preparing these and putting them online in week-size chunks. I plan to update the site with a new set once a week about mid-week.”[15]

This shows the extent to which a relation such as viewer-actor can go but also undermines my argumentation to state that the viewer is a participant, for this man, is by no means passive.

            Yet now we have reached a crucial point when it comes to webcam communities: information exchange. If we take the pure form of webcam interaction then one could say that the exchange of information is one-sided. The actor can only communicate to the viewer yet the viewer cannot react directly. Yet, what the viewer can do is transcend information, that is pick up the information he is given and reuse it in another sense or place, he can also react via the forum or guestbook. This underlines a very important point when it comes to webcam participation: the participation takes place mostly in interaction with other viewers but it upholds the illusion of direct participation with the actor.

            In his text: ‘Watching the internet’[16], Dan Harries brings up a term that is quite suitable I find in relation to webcams and entertainment: ‘viewsing’. Allthough in general the term sounds quite strange it does indicate an accurate point when it comes to ‘interneting’ and for my usage ‘webcaming’: you are ambiguously viewer of never-ending show, as well as a user of the technical equipment and social interaction possibilities. You are an active viewer, you do something with what you see (comment on it, build up a fan site, etc.), you are a webcam participant and not simply just a viewer: a webcam viewser.

            What results out of all these point is that you create your own little webcam world, in which you uphold the illusion of intimacy and immediacy and real-life and use the input you receive from these site in your own way. What you see has an effect on you. This research has even given me the idea to purchase a webcam of my own, and before anyone gets a wrong picture: it’s for msn. I don’t believe you have to be the most active of webcam viewers in order to call yourself a participant, the simple fact that you see the site and observe it, use it in your own way and sense makes you a participant of the page.

Conclusion

“To me, webcams are like horrible car wrecks or daytime talk shows. I am by turns horrified, repulsed, and bored, but I can't seem to look away.”[17]

            When I first started on the idea for this paper, it obviously had to be my first intention to search the web for appropriate examples of webcams. I began with no great expectations and freely googled my way around the webcam community. Yet immediately, a very important factor made itself apparent: webcams on the internet mostly dealt with pornographic images. Although intriguing perhaps in terms of participation theory, I didn’t seem quite goaded into that form of subject matter. Mainly because (and excuse me if I’m being too narrow-minded) their only seems limited ways to ‘participate’ as such when it comes to pornography. What did, on the other hand catch my attention were webcams that did not intentionally involve pornographic contents. Especially as far as normal people and there everyday lives go.

            It seems overwhelming and hard to grasp even that such a small device as a webcam can deliver such a huge space for active users and call on participation in such a high form. If you were for instance to go to touchgraph.com, a site that maps out links between sites, and you were to type in the name of the minor webcam site of the family van Gent, you would still receive a picture of a high network structure indicating its high form of participation on the web.

            Can one thus define the viewer and the actor as the participator and the labourer? I believe to have proven that you can.

             “Webcams can be viewed as a home made media production”[18] Actors, show themselves, they promote themselves, they produce themselves, they sell themselves. They labour in a virtual realm. Viewers participate through the feeling of immediacy, the illusion of belonging, they participate in discussions on or over webcams they comment on what they see, they build up a relation to the actor and create there own world around that.

            Is this also a form of labour? Although fully aware of the discussable subject matter to define participation as labour, I have chosen to not deepen this thought. As Andrejevic writes: “(…) they highlight the overlap between interactivity, participation and labor.”[19] The distinction is blurred I agree, yet it is present and the aim of this paper was to show how these three aspects are present in webcam communities.

            Through the illusional interaction that takes place between the actor and the viewer, the actor becomes a labourer and the viewer a participant, and whether that is intentional or not, is not of importance, at least not to be able to state that. Webcams, goad participation because they are fascinating, because they hold up an illusion of immediacy and reality………. That much we can say, after all, the actors work hard for it.

“I love acting. It is so much more real than life.”

- Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891