The end of procrastination - machinic desires

Machine. An odd amalgamation of metal and silicon or a cultural studies tool that can UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE?! It's interesting to think of it in terms of the latter, to think of a machine as a cluster of cultural practices/artifacts that can essentially create or morph 'pathways' and ultimately alter subjects (which include us - part of the machine). All cultures can be seen as a machine with pathways and traditions that ultimately manufacture cultural norms, practices and icons. We saw with Dogtown and skate culture how the Z-boys essentially created a machine that would redefine culture and leave behind icons and symbolic artifacts and practices (i.e. the half pipe, skateboard designs). To view culture as a machine gives us a unique perspective on sub-cultures, especially in regards to capitalism and how subcultures are essentially manipulated by the 'evil' consumerism machine and marketed to us. It depicts media conglomerates in a unique light, particularly in a political-economy perspective.

It is easy when viewing large conglomerates as culture abusers and manipulators to participate in some sort of modern day pseudo-witch hunt and in many respects they do use and abuse people and intellectual property with ease. Could be the stigma of a machine; a cold, calculating and inhuman object. However, it is simply part and parcel of the world we live in, it provides the perks, luxuries and brands that we all secretly crave in some way or another (ipod!).

With media machines, culture is not simply propped up on an artificial pedestal and marketed, but in many instances it creates culture. Sex and the city, The L word, Kath and Kim are all instances of culture that is created (though these are examples that are very different to study compared to Idol). It is not so much about tapping into marketing potential, but creating a different and unique market.

With Idol as a study we can see the producing cogs ticking into motion, on how to maximise and sustain the loyalty and attention of the audience. The contestants are but small subjects in the grand scheme of the idol regime. Often defined as 'real events' with 'real people', reality television epitomises machinic processes. Idol and other similar reality programs sells participants and competitors as commodities, differing strongly from regular television shows. Idol sells the franchise on multiple levels; that of reality, fame and audience participation.

The concept of reality is a fickle one, especially when combined with 'real' situations such as Idol, Big Brother or Temptation Island. Reality, however promotes empathy or at least an association with those on the show. It draws 'real people' and puts them in normal or abnormal social situations, allowing audiences to relate to the range of 'average Joes' and 'plain Janes'. In many ways it allows the audience to live 'the dream' vicariously through the shoes of those that they can relate to. No better situation attempts to encapsulate this feeling then 'beauty and the geek'

(those prone to late night trash TV will understand), which attempts to match a socially awkward geek to 'little miss popular'. Situations and subcultures (or in this case subcultural mismatches) are forced to interact and the ensuing mayhem (staged or otherwise) provides for entertaining low brow entertainment. Reality in the sense of media is it's own culture and is far from simply objective displaying unscripted acts and parties. 'Media reality' is a culture and a market unto itself, with its own set of cultural practices, standards and decorums. Media reality is a commodity to be sold off as a franchise, and individually through contestants/bachelors/bachelorettes/house members etc etc etc. It should not simply be seen as an unbiased depiction, but rather a set of carefully edited scenes designed to maximise the emotions drawn to these instant-2-minute-celebrities.



















One of the most commonly upheld dream by us mere mortals is to leave a metaphoric imprint on this world, to be acknowledged, to be '(almost) famous'. It's a desire that is prominent through almost all capitalist societies, and subsequently a commodity that can be sold. The Herald Sun (particularly the Sunday) has morphed into a tabloid that reports onto the wellbeing of footy star's dogs, or candid photos at the back pages. The highest grossing magazines are gossip magazines with largely trashy uninformed stories on celebrities (think NW, New Idea etc) who are willing to pay millions for exclusive photo rights. The constant attacks on news programs for the omnipresent coverage of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan (Lilo) and Britney scandals are somewhat founded (in my opinion). Fame and those select few scandal-mongering celebrities are constantly sold off for increased sales and publicity. It seems that it is with this mindset that reality TV shows have decided to take on. Fame and celebrity sells so lets create our own home-grown-battling-Aussie celebrity and publicise judge spats (Idol, Dance), shower and sex scenes (big brother - let us not forget the night of the turkey slap). All these programmes contribute to our apparent desires to be 'witnesses' or in a more cynical phrase, our voyeuristic culture, yet the trend seems to continue to grow.



Perhaps one of the most interesting choices of reality television is the concept of the active and interactive audience. The lines between the producer and the audience are blurring, or more likely the producers are giving the collective audience a chance to exercise their (somewhat limited) cultural power through the voting system. It has reduced the concept of the hierarchical structure of broadcasting (they broadcast, we watch) and at the very least provides us with the illusion that we are making a difference to the contestants and the show. Yet although we may have a degree of control over the intricacies of each contest/season, the audience is still very limited in its power. The choice in making reality television into an interactive experience is to further imbue the characters and personalities of each season into our households. The more vested our interests become in favourites, the votes gives us the audience the feeling of contributing to the length of his/her respective stay in the competition. It is a part of the 'reality' culture as churned out by the media machine, with the subjects voted in order to stay within their Guattari-pathways (we are the judges).



The reality television machine is an interesting study as it appears to have embedded its own brand of culture into society, yet it is heavily dependent on existing beliefs and notions. Most interactive reality television programs are franchised, so they must appeal on both a global and local level, appealing to a global audience rather than a local demographic. It plays on notions of fame, creates their own play on 'reality' and interacts with an audience and is rewarded with a global billion if not trillion dollar industry. Reality television, is an interesting reflection of our societal values. The success of the competition and the instant-2-minute celebrities (who seem to end up on Ramsay Street) has been for the most part endorsed by Australia, with our plain Janes and average Joes put on stage living the dream. It is a culture that attempts to fuse the role of producers and audiences, one that appeals to many of our senses and emotions but most importantly it is a culture which revolves around a corporation and subsequently their profit margins.




These have been my random musings for the topic of the machine and the media franchised machines. Hopefully I havn't twisted too many academic theories in the process and that my loyal readership enjoy my mind spiel. I should note that I do not in fact despise any reality television shows, but for the sake of an intellectual discussion I may have depicted the corporations and shows in a 'slightly' negative light.