Demanding Media: Platform work and the shaping of work and play

19/07/2016 Scan | Journal of Media Arts Culture

http://scan.net.au/scn/journal/vol10number2/JustineHumphry.html 1/11

Demanding Media: Platform Work and theShaping of Work and PlayJustine Humphry

Abstract

Most of us have had the experience of dealing with problems, errors and failures of code in one or more ofthe vast array of digital devices, applications, online systems, cables, plugs, cards and other media weconsume on a daily basis. This ‘platform work’, a concept that builds on Bogost and Montfort’s (2009)definition of a media platform, is a new kind of labour that arises from the highly mediated environments inwhich we live, work and play. Rather than assessing these errors and failures simply as aberrations, anuisance and waste of time, this article takes up Parikka and Sampson’s (2009) argument that accidents areexpressive of the experience of use. Just as importantly, they shape the spaces and times in which we work,live and play.

This paper introduces examples of platform work from a study on professionals’ digital media use andjuxtaposes these with corresponding activities performed by game players and artists. Some of the productsof this work the workarounds, glitches and mods are considered in terms of whether and how these aregranted value and in what way this assignment contributes to the construction of the boundaries betweenwork and play. Platform work is experienced differentially by users, with varying levels of access to andability to mobilise skills and resources as well as varying opportunities for formal recognition. The paperconcludes that media platforms and the work performed on them as much as through them have become keynodes of struggle in a culture and economy premised on knowledgecreation and userproduction.

Introduction

At one time or another, and sometimes more often than we’d like, most of us have had the experience ofdealing with technological problems, errors and failures of code in one or more of the vast array of digitaldevices, applications, online systems, cables, plugs, cards and other media we consume on a daily basis. Thiswork of maintenance and repair of media infrastructures is one of the many new demands of users arisingfrom the highly mediated environments in which we work, live and play.

The shift to a knowledge society and processes of mediation are bound up in the blurring of the boundaries ofthe circuits of production and consumption. Concepts like “produsage” (Bruns 2008) and “participatoryculture” (Jenkins 2009) point to the user activity and culture that unfolds with this blurring. As HenryJenkins writes of this shift: “knowledge culture alters gradually the ways the commodity culture operates, inwhich the unfinished aesthetics of commodities represents also a constant starting point for ongoingcreation” (2006: 144). Yet, within this paradigm, the celebration of a culture of user creativity can potentiallyobscure new forms of user labour that provide the necessary support conditions for this culture to besustained over time.

In this paper, I investigate one of these forms the largely hidden work of repair and maintenance that usersperform on their media platforms on a regular basis. I call this ‘platform work’, taking up some key conceptsand research in the field of platform studies (Bogost & Montfort 2009), and distinguishing it from the paradeof newly discovered forms of digital labour such as ‘immaterial labour’ (Lazzarato 1996), ‘hope labour’(Corrigan & Kuehn 2013), ‘free labour’ (Terranova 2000), ‘cocreative labour’ (Banks & Deuze 2009),‘virtual work’ (Huws 2003), ‘affective work’ (Hardt 1999) and so on.

Identifying and examining ‘platform work’ is important for a number of reasons. It can make a contributionto an area of research well underway in the field of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) byhighlighting the new demands of support for a growing digital workforce: knowledge professionals, creativeand cultural workers, whose work is increasingly taking place through the internet and on the move. Anational survey of ‘digital work’ found the number of Australian workers using the internet to work away



from the office was 51% of the total workforce, with 28% working while travelling (Gregoria 2013). Inaddition, the concept highlights the efforts of ordinary users towards working configurations of media as anincreasingly normal feature of what Mark Deuze (2012) has described as our “media life” a newrelationship we have towards media as our everyday activities become completely intertwined with andsupported by media environments.

Identifying this new relationship, which includes the new demands to keep media platforms working,addresses a major gap in the digital labour literature. To date, this work has failed to recognise the nondeliberative and accidental aspects of the current digital media environment as generative of new kinds ofsocial and capital relations. Rather than assessing errors simply as aberrations, a nuisance and waste of time,I take up Jussi Parikka and Tony Sampson’s (2009) argument that these be thought of expressive of the actualexperience of use, with potential for creating new knowledge, skills and innovations as well as for shapingthe boundary between work and play. At the same time, users have varying capacities to mobilise skills andresources towards their media platforms and opportunities to have their efforts recognised, making it largelya hidden form of labour.

The relationship of visibility to invisibility, one of the main concerns of this special issue, is itself a work ofdefinition and what counts as visible may be challenged and redefined. As researchers found in situatedstudies of use of early computer systems in the workplace, the work of supporting new technologies is oftennot identified or credited, despite it involving considerable skill and knowledge (Clement 1991, 1993; Star1991; Star & Strauss 1999; Suchman 1987, 1995). These authors argue that all work is subject to a politics ofvisibility, with some work more readily captured and officially recognised while other work is discounted,remaining invisible to formal organisational accounts.

On the other hand, there may be good reasons for certain forms of labour to remain in the background.Mitchell Whitelaw’s (2009; 2011) concept of ‘transmateriality’ is useful for appreciating this point. Whitelawrefers to a plethora of material conditions and states as the necessary foundation for digital media systems. Itis by virtue of their invisibility that these systems are able to maintain their generality, allowing them totransduce, to make events happen across different layers and platforms with relative ease and transparency.

Like code, the work of repair and maintenance on media platforms forms part of transmateriality. This userlabour (often performed in tandem with nonhumans as well) not only supports the generality of digitalsystems, it is vital for a range of new social and creative expressions and productions. Yet this labourstruggles to be defined and valorised for the very reason that it is an embedded feature of everyday life. Withthe centrality of code in contemporary cultures (Bentley 2003; Dodge & Kitchin 2005) and the redistributionof production beyond the organisation, there is a need to disembed this work, to identify and examinewhether and how users’ work on media platforms is assigned value, and consider its generative capacity forcreating new knowledge and shaping cultural domains.

To investigate platform work and respond to these issues, I present examples of technological practices frommy research on mobile professionals and juxtapose these with corresponding activities performed by gameplayers and artists. I explore some of the products of platform work, the workarounds, glitch exploits andmods. The comparison of platform work by distinct communities of practice has been selected to display thewidespread nature of this phenomenon and its common characteristics across life spheres. This is not to saythat platform work and its products manifest or are treated in exactly the same way within these communitiesof practice. However, its pervasiveness is one of the forces further weakening any clear separation of thecategories of work and play. As Joyce Goggin has observed,

We are currently witnessing a progressive mixing of these two categories… work and play, tothe extent that they were formerly thought to be stable, discrete categories have, in numerouscontexts from office management to online game worlds, somehow changed places or cometogether to form striking hybrids. (2011:357)

This mixing might in part be a function of new forms and modes of knowledgecreation and userproductionthat help to break down previously separated spheres of production and consumption. It might also be a caseof the new demands of media, which call for a new set of practices and skills and which bring aboutopportunities for challenging and redefining these spheres. I start by situating platform work alongside otheridentified forms of digital labour.



Labour in the digital economy

A number of key contributions addressing the rise of a digital economy have been helpful for understandingthe online activities of users as operating within a set of new or changed labour relations.

In developing her concept of ‘free labour’, Tiziana Terranova (2000) starts with a counterpoint to Barbook’sdefinition of the ‘digital economy’ as a mixed economy of public, marketdriven and gift elements thatcombines new technologies with new types of digital workers. Using Lazzarato’s concept of ‘immateriallabour’, Terranova argues that the digital economy is better understood as an area for experimenting with andcapturing new forms of cultural and affective labour. Labour is everywhere in Terranova’s account requisitefor sustaining the constant production and updating of the internet but it is not all waged. Indeed, much of itis ‘free’ in the sense that it is contributed without financial reward and sometimes for pleasure. Terranovapoints to volunteer maintenance of mailing lists and open source software as examples of free labour, whichshe sees as intensifying and becoming central to late capitalism.

The online activities of users are also foundational to new labour relations as conceived in the literature on“digital labour”, a concept that has specific usage and meaning for authors such as Burston, DyerWithefordand Hearn (2010), Fuchs (2010) and Scholz (2012). Here the exploitative nature of capitalist labour relationsis given more emphasis than in Terranova’s ‘free labour’ account. Users engage in the creation of onlinecontent such as blogs, social networking sites, wikis, microblogs and locationbased services, which in turncreate value for owners of commercially operated sites and platform who commodify this content fortargeted advertising opportunities.

The strength of these accounts is that they show, that with the breakdown of the circuits of production andconsumption, it is not that production disappears, but rather that production is transferred and distributed,with users taking up a larger share of the overall workload. However, what they fail to capture are thecircumstances where this work occurs as an expression of the limits or failures of digital media platforms.Terranova’s ‘free labour’ explicitly covers aspects of infrastructural support, for example, in the coding ofopen source software. Curiously, however, there is little to no discussion of the kinds of activities that falloutside of the rational goals of work but which nevertheless exist in their service. Another way of describingthese activities is the work required to complete primary work objectives but which may shift registers tobecome the primary objective under certain conditions (Brodie & Perry 2006). Digital infrastructures rely ona vast and usually hidden reservoir of these secondary activities.

There is now a mature body of work in CSCW exposing the practical requirements of supporting digitallymediated work, particularly the repair, adjustment, articulation and maintenance performed by the increasingnumbers of mobile professionals on the move. However, one of the most striking changes since the masspopularisation of the internet and rise of social media is the way in which creating and maintaining workingconfigurations of media technology is now a regular feature of use and no longer restricted to eliteknowledge professionals. Users direct significant efforts towards making their platforms work either tosome planned action or existing pattern of activity. Moreover, users are recruited into the ongoing productionand development of these platforms customising, installing, bug checking, error reporting and updating. Inother words, we are not just living what Deuze has described as a “media life” we are also producers of it;we are “prosumers”, referring to Ritzer and Jurgenson’s (2010) use of the term to identify a new form ofusergenerated capitalism.

Platform work

A platform, according to Bogost and Montfort (2009), is any sort of computing system on which furthercomputing development can be done. Though the definition is a general one, the application has to date beenfocused on the way in which platforms, (as hardware, software or a combination of the two) are used tosupport creative work. One of the strengths of this definition is that it offers a path through the prickly hedgesof the debate on technological determinism while opening up enquiry into the operation of specifictechnologies and arrays of technologies once in use. This definition also helps to identify a longterm patternin the development and marketing of digital media: as potential for users selfexpression and creativity.

As Jussi Parikka (2012) remarked in his keynote address at the inaugural CODE conference, Apple is onemaker of computing platforms that makes the idea of user creativity central to their computing vision, a move



which can be an effective means to differentiate their products from those of their competitors. In the ‘Get aMac’ series of TV commercials that ran from 2006 to 2009, starring John Hodgman as ‘PC’ and Justin Longas ‘Mac’, Apple products are presented as not only providing more creative uses than their PC counterparts,they are also used by more creative people.

A platform such as a general desktop or laptop offers the potential for creative activity but, as the ‘Get aMac’ campaign identifies and exploits, the products and associated activities may not necessarily be thoughtof as ‘creative’. As Justin Long, representing ‘Mac’ and the offerings of iLife, sarcastically drawls inresponse to ‘PC’s’ retort of a clock and calculator bundle: “sounds like hours of fun”. Sarcasm aside, whethera work’s identity is deemed to be ‘creative’ is ultimately socially and discursively assigned and thisassignment is multifactorial; dependent on the domain of activity to which it belongs (whether for leisure orwork), the kind of work including the associations, expectations and limitations of those who perform it andthe representation of that work including whether it is perceived to be a productive activity.

Marc Andreessen argues that platforms are reconfigurable: “if you can program it, then it’s a platform. If youcan’t, then it’s not” (cited in Bogost and Montfort 2009). This is what makes platforms flexible andimminently creative. Yet, at any one time platforms also demand to be configured, and not just by developersprogramming in software or machine code. Rather, configuring covers an enormous gamut of activitiesperformed by users to stabilise their media platforms to preserve the potential for creativity and, in someinstances, to create new potential. Users respond to glitches, errors, failures and limits of their platforms andthe surrounding media environment with a range of modifications, customisations and adjustments theseconfigurations are not usually represented as the creative products of media use but rather, exist as theoftentimes hidden work that is performed on them.

The definition of a platform developed here retains the emphasis on systems that support further computingbut does not only cover those systems used to produce what are commonly thought of as ‘creative works’.Rather, platforms support the creation of all kinds of informational artefacts that gain their identity and valuethrough their production, exchange and consumption in a culture and economy increasingly oriented towardsand driven by knowledge. This is a systemic phenomenon, its development and growth driven by digitalmedia platforms that support new forms and modes of knowledgecreation and userproduction. As work ismediated through these new forms, in a new paradigm described by network society theorist Manuel Castells(1996) as “informationalism”, it increasingly takes place in and through media. This is platform work.

Examples of platform work

I’m now going to share with you some examples of platform work conducted by professionals and comparethese with corresponding activities that are performed by artists and game players. As mentioned, these havebeen selected to identify how platform work is a widespread phenomenon across communities of practice.They have also been chosen to illustrate Terranova’s (2000: 42) point that in a digital economy, theemergence of new labour relations is a wholeofsociety phenomenon with varying degrees of intensity,despite the continuing influence of preexisting hierarchies of knowledge. The aim here is to show some ofthe activities that constitute platform work across the work/leisure divide, opening up lines of comparisonand points of difference, in order to challenge commonsense notions of ‘creative work’ and consider theways platform work mediates the whole media environment, including the boundaries between work andplay.

The source of many of these examples is research I conducted over 2006 and 2007 on the use of mediatechnologies by professionals in a council in Sydney and a telecommunications company or ‘telco’ (inshorthand), in Melbourne. For 18 months prior to the study, a group of telco employees were involved in atrial of a smartphone in development for the company’s line of mobile and wireless products. Theseemployees frequently travelled for business and as part of the trial, were encouraged to stay away from thecompany headquarters and provide feedback on their use of the smartphone. Ethnographic research methodswere employed to gain a comprehensive snapshot of daily media use: facetoface interviews, participantobservation and personal recordings in a ‘technology diary’ which participants kept for two working weeks.Pseudonyms are used throughout this article in reference to participants.

As well as recording problems and when, what and how technology was used, individuals were asked toreflect on diary entries through personal comments and drawings. The diary provided a way to reveal



interactions with technologies, functioning as a tool for deroutinising normal habits and routines (Sofoulis2005). Observations and shadowing enabled work to be followed beyond the workplace and added a visualunderstanding of how spaces and resources were organised and assembled for work. For comparison, thisarticle sources additional examples are from game player blogs, YouTube videos, glitch art and user gamemodding and development. Investigations of everyday practices commonly utilise a range of mixedmethodologies (Scott 2009). The approach taken here, combining ethnographic data with analysis of onlinetextual examples and secondary texts, helps to reveal the takenforgranted and routinised actions of users ontheir media platforms. It also helps to illustrate the range of responses and products that emanate from theseactions. These textual examples are also meaningful in the context of their production and circulation (Lee &Poynton 2000). It is telling that within the gaming and art worlds, many of the products of platform glitchesand code hacks are well documented a signal perhaps, of their value and place as part of a broader critiqueand reassessment of the way valorisation regimes have, in the past, been defined and driven by formalindustries and institutions.

User configurations: workarounds, exploits and mods

For mobile professionals in the smartphone trial, configuring was an activity performed to assemble togethermultiple objects, putting them in relation in meaningful and useful ways. These objects were largely made upof digital media their prototype smartphone, laptop, Ethernet cable, USB but also extended to a host ofother supporting artefacts, like pen and paper, and conditions, like a place to settle over time, to concentrate,get out of the glare and so on. It was this ensemble of media, objects and conditions that made up a workingoffice platform.

At other times, configuring was a response to an unexpected result or glitch while assembling or using theiroffice platform, requiring extra efforts of repair. Rosa Menkman, in her ‘Glitch Studies Manifesto’, definesthe glitch as having “no solid form or state through time; it is often perceived as an unexpected and abnormalmodus operandi, a break from (one of) the many flows (of expectations) within a technological system”(2009/10: 341). In this situation, repair is directed at reinstating the flows that preserve the potential for doingand creating work through the office platform.

It was during travel that staff in the trial of the smart phone experienced the most difficulty assembling theiroffice platform, coming across glitches frequently. At these times, staff encountered enormous variability inthe conditions that were necessary for their work, as well as in how their use of the smartphone was receivedby those around them. Paradoxically, this variability was compounded by the very technology that allowedstaff to be dislocated in the first place. For even though the smartphone enabled these staff to access thecompany’s information and communication services and the internet when they were away, it also meant thatstaff were more contactable in places where there was little or no support for their work activities.

Configuring was directed towards overcoming or working around the limits of the spaces in which theyfound themselves, the complexity of their technologies and the extra requirements of being more highlyconnected and contactable. Since the smart phone was commonly used with a laptop and in a variety ofsettings, the number of parts involved in configuring was significantly increased. This meant that at anymoment one of its components could fail, go missing, be incompatible or simply be unavailable. In thesesituations, platform breakdowns were commonplace as Jan, the Business Development Manager, told me:

I think it’s become more complex. There’s a lot more to absorb now, lot more interaction, lotsmore complexities in the way things work. And if things go wrong then, it’s no longer a simplematter of turning it off and turning it on, and hoping for the best...

Professional workers, especially those on the move, are very resourceful at coming up with strategies forrepairing their work platforms and overcoming extra demands of work on the move. One of these was pretrip planning practices, or ‘planful opportunism’, such as printing out documents or carrying extra cables.Brown and O’Hara (2003: 12) discovered similar practices used by the mobile professionals in their study inthe UK. Other strategies included splitting tasks, allocating tasks to different times and locations, selectingmedia to generate specific effects, configuring on the fly and maximising the affordances of places. Indeed,places that provided an already partiallyconfigured office were quickly identified and integrated into futuretravel plans.



Workarounds like these had a highly ambivalent status. Despite allowing staff to, in their words, “save time”and “get things done”, telco staff were loath to describe their repair as “real work”, instead describing it as a“waste of time”, creating “inefficiencies”. Moreover, employees found it difficult to separate out theirplatform work from the glitches they encountered. Once incorporated into daily routines, these workaroundstended to disappear and were only able to be excavated when there was a breakdown or with a tool like thetechnology diary. Yet, these workarounds were a new form of knowledge even if a tacit one. They existedas “techniques of the body” in the sense proposed by Marcel Mauss (1973) as the way the body moves andacts in ways that vary between cultures and to the available instruments of a culture. Building on the work ofMauss, JeanPierre Warnier (2001) suggests that motricity the motor habits developed in given materialities needs to be reworked into an understanding of how subjects are formed including their sense of self. Thisapproach concentrates on material culture not as an exterior means through which subjects are formed but, asWarnier proposes, “a mediation embodied in the subject”:

We know that incorporated material culture reaches deep into the psyche of the subject becauseit reaches it not through abstract knowledge, but through sensorimotor experience. (2001: 1011)

Configuring is one such motor habit or technique by which technologies of work are physically incorporatedinto the self, generating a ‘knowhow’ rather than a ‘knowwhat’, a knowledge regime developed in moredetail by Glen Fuller (2013) in ‘Towards an Archaeology of “Knowhow”‘. These small but considered actsof configuring not only made mobile work possible, they also endowed users with feelings of technologicalcompetence and readiness. They are one of the means through which workers gain entry and maintain theirmembership into their specific professional culture.

The work of configuring media platforms and responding to glitches is not limited to mobile professionals. Inthe gaming world, redrawing the limits of media platforms is a more formally recognised feature ofgameplay. Players take advantage of or exploit program limits in the system to create new experiences andresults. One quite famous example in the Pokémon game series is a software bug or glitch in the originalmid1990s Game Boy games that, once exploited, enabled users to catch the secret 151st Pokémon, ‘Mew’.Mew was known as an uncatchable Pokémon, impossible to obtain through conventional play techniques andselectively distributed at game event promotions, for example, to trainers who provided Game Boys andPokémon Game Paks at Nintendo Power events and Poké conventions (StrategyWiki, Wikia, Bulbapedia,Pokémon Elite 2000).

Though the endings of all games are preprogrammed and thus set, glitches, like the Mew glitch, produceunexpected results, creating the possibility for new games and experiences. Introducing some of the mostfamous World of Warcraft glitch exploits, Peter Ludlow and Mark Wallace write that these “can be among themost interesting ways to experience a virtual world, in part because they enable residents to take actions thatweren’t intended to be possible” (2007: 179). Actions in response to glitches can also produce new creativeworks in the form of cheat walkthroughs, YouTube instructional videos or cheat devices like Gameshark,which supplies cheat cartridges for PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo and Sega game platforms.

As Menkman (2009/10) documents in her previously mentioned ‘Glitch Studies Manifesto’, glitches canbecome the source of artistic practice; she points to the “glitch art” of Gijs Gieskes in his Sega Mega Drive 2(2007), Paul Davis in Codec (2009) and botborg’s Live at Ars Electronica Festival video (2007). ForMenkman and glitch artists, glitches are interruptions to be embraced rather than shunned, they challenge thenormal uses of a platform and allow for a reconfiguration of its internal logic (Menkman 2009/10). From thisperspective, and returning to the notion of a platform as programmable, we can say that glitches represent achallenge to the internally defined parameters of the platform and what should be able to be programmedwithin it.

Workers, gamers and artists approach the glitch differently and thus there are different potentialitiesrepresented by the glitch and the glitch response. Workarounds, for example, preserve the potential flowsbuilt into the platform, upholding the builtin Taylorist logic of efficiency, whereas glitch exploits and glitchart can potentially subvert the internal logic and create new flows and experiences. These differences areframed in some part by the physical domain in which the glitch occurs, be it in the workplace, at home or at agame tournament, for example, but also by the situated demands, expectations and perceived limitations ofsystems, including those belonging to organisations. This is illustrated in the diary entry where one of the



participants expressed a certain amount of frustration that the organisation’s IT department had purchasedwhat they thought was a software system bound to “fail” the “kid car instead of the BMW”.

In his ethnography of building mechanics, Henke (2000) found that repair is as much about renormalisingexpectations and an understanding of the work setting as it is about repairing technology. For staff in thesmartphone trial this meant restoring ‘faith’ in the promises of their mobile office for instance, in itsportability and the sense of ‘freedom’ achieved through gaining movement and personal autonomy. It alsomeant fixing norms and expectations that others had of them and of the environment in which they worked.What is the correct response though, is often highly variable, and often negotiated on the fly, requiring newverbal strategies of repair as well as technical strategies for preparing in advance for the future context ofuse.

One of the main findings of my research was that new practices and demands of working on the move, incombination with the need to configure media platforms to support this work, sometimes lead to the need toreestablish or create a new line between work and leisure. We know from the contributions of ChristenaNippertEng (1996) that these categories are conceptual territories and codes as well as spatial domains. Inmy research, I encountered a range of new practices and techniques used to reconfigure these boundaries.This included physical compartmentalisation such as placing the mobile device in a cupboard or drawer and rules and regulations governing configurations with the help of screening aids and filters, such as the‘out of office’ reply, voice mail and the ‘Freedom’ app, which blocks access to the internet. In one sensethese innovations were designed to stop the encroachment of work into life and to “keep work at bay”, part ofa general trend in contemporary cultures of work to put the onus on individuals to manage their ‘worklifebalance’ (Gregg 2011). In doing this, they also revive the categories of ‘work’ and ‘play’, giving them newrelevance even as they are simultaneously collapsed and transformed.

In some instances, responses to glitches might result in a usercreated addition or modification known as amod. In the gaming world, CounterStrike is a wellknown example of a total conversion mod, an entirelynew game created by Minh Le, which was originally a modification of the firstperson shooter HalfLife(Kücklich 2005). The modification enjoyed such success that it was later marketed as a standalone title forboth Xbox and PC (Kücklich 2005).

Through configuring ‘mods’ or modding, game players can be recruited into the longterm development ofgame platforms. Julian Kücklich (2005) documents how the game industry sometimes uses modding as asoftware development strategy, pointing to games company Valve’s venture through its distribution platformSteam, where mod teams are offered a “$995 engine license plus royalty to allow them to distribute theirmods over Steam”. Kücklich thus identifies modding as an important part of gaming culture as well as anincreasingly important source of value for the games industry (2005).

Ordinary users are also recruited into longterm product development, sometimes unknowingly, for example,through betatesting and bug reporting. Peter Bentley observed that this is an industry strategy in response tothe complexity of software, arguing that software has now become so complex and unwieldy that it simplydoesn’t work (2003: 34). Software is no longer delivered as fully operational but instead needs continuousupdating with service packs and upgrades to deal with bugs in the original code. In this situation, Bentleysuggests, “the only options are either to reduce the complexity, or find a different approach to writing code”(2003: 34).

But to what extent is the platform work of users recognised by industry as writing code? Kücklich points outthat modding “struggle[s] to free itself from the negative connotations of play: idleness, nonproductivenessand escapism” (2005). Userdevelopers can enhance their social status through modding, gaining a reputationas a community leader or ‘pro’, but only very few receive formal recognition and monetisation for theirwork.

Mobile professionals similarly struggle with the negative connotations associated with the work of repair andmaintenance on their media platforms. Since these workers are bound to organisational metrics ofperformance and time, and are often working without an officially sanctioned culture of play andexperimentation, these negative connotations are amplified. Though some workers do have theircustomisations or workarounds formally recognised as an organisational contribution, these gain their valuebecause of their alignment with the internal logic of productivity and efficiency, rather than for their potential



to disrupt this logic and add a new kind of value for example as decoration or art. This not only creates anew line between work and play, it can also reproduce traditional gendered divisions and associations ofwork. For example, I observed a number of examples of configuring in my research involving decoratingmedia devices such as smartphones, desktop computers and laptops. These activities provided a great deal ofpleasure for employees and promoted a sense of wellbeing that often extended into the larger social context,yet these were rarely considered ‘real work’ by workers or managers, providing few opportunities forrecognition or promotion within the organisation.

Conclusion

Different meanings and values are ascribed to platform work and its products based on whether they arerecognised as productive and generative of knowledge; what domain of life they are associated with (work orleisure); traditional gendered associations or divisions of work; and the demands, expectations andlimitations of others in overarching systems and environments of use. These categories continue to structurethe way that platform work is valued and recognised. At the same time, platform work is a way that thesecategories and the boundaries between them can be reworked. For mobile worker participating in thesmartphone trial, the extra demands of repairing and maintaining their media platform and the lack ofrecognition of this work fed into an increased sense of time pressure and the need to establish a new linebetween work and nonwork. For game players and ordinary users recruited into longterm platformdevelopment, platform work contributes to the blurring of this same line. While this presents users with newfinancial opportunities and ways to enhance their social standing as community leaders or ‘pros’, this comesat a cost. Only very few of the vast majority of modders, glitch artists and other userproducers receiveformal recognition and monetisation for the work on their media platforms, creating a new form of‘playbour’ (Kücklich 2005).

It is crucial to recognise that problems and errors with our media platforms and dealing with these are asignificant feature of our daily interactions. As Norman Perrow (1984) has pointed out, unanticipatedbreakdowns are better understood as a normal aspect of systems in general. Perrow’s approach to complexsystems has some parallels with a more recent turn in new media theory, for example by Parikka andSampson (2009), concerned with reinstating anomalous objects and events as not merely interruptions orhindrances but expressive of their environments and contexts of use.

The benefits of this approach are multiple: for identifying new demands, experiences and supportrequirements of working with and on digital media, be it professional or otherwise; for recording new skillsand innovations that arise from this work and which are themselves constitutive of knowledge; and foridentifying some of the forces shaping the reconfiguration of cultural domains and the new tensions andchallenges they represent. And ultimately, to recognise that media platforms and the work performed on themas much as through them have become key nodes of struggle in a networked and knowledgebased society. Ifcode is a central feature of our relationship to power and control, as Gilles Deleuze (1992) argued in his postaddendum to Michel Foucault’s work on the disciplinary society, and Castells (1996) asserts in relation to the‘network society’, then failures of code and how these are understood and dealt with are crucial to the powerdynamics and meanings generated in a codedriven and codecontrolled society. This extends to the newskills and forms of knowledge we gain in working on our media platforms. Just like code, these form part ofthe transmateriality (Whitelaw 2009) of media. They are necessary for the operation of digital systems butthey are also vital for the production of knowledge and the definition and placement of the boundaries ofwork and play.

Works Cited

Banks J. & Deuze, M. (2009) “Cocreative Labour” in International Journal of Cultural Studies 12: 5. pp.419431.

Bentley, P.J. (2003) “The Meaning of Code” in Code: The Language of Our Time, Ostfildern: Hatje CantzPublishers. pp. 3339.

Bogost, I. & Montfort, N. (2009) “Platform Studies: Frequently Questioned Answers” in After Media:Embodiment and Context, Proceedings of the Digital Art and Culture Conference, UC Irvine, December.

Brodie, J. & Perry, M. (2006) “Virtually Connected, Practically Mobile” in Mobile Virtual Work: A New



Paradigm? (J.H.E. Andreessen & M. Vartiainen, eds), Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 97128

Brown, B. & O’Hara, K. (2003) “Place as a Practical Concern of Mobile Workers” in Environment &Planning A 35: 9 pp. 15651587.

Bruns, A. (2008) Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: PeterLang.

Burston, J., DyerWitheford, N. & Hearn A. (2010) “Digital Labour: Workers, Authors, Citizens” inEphemera: Theory & Politics in Organization 10: 3

Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Pokémon Elite (2000) “Catch Mew”, viewed 12 November 2012,http://www.pokemonelite2000.com/rbcatchmew.html

Clement, A. (1991) “Designing Without Designers: More Hidden Skill in Office Computerization” inWomen, Work and Computerization: Understanding and Overcoming Bias in Work and Education (I.Eriksson, B.A. Kitchenham & K.G. Tijdens, eds), Amsterdam, North Holland. pp. 1532.

Clement, A. (1993) “Looking for the designers: Transforming the ‘invisible’ infrastructure of computerisedoffice work” in AI & Society 7: 4 pp. 323344.

Corrigan, T.F. & Kuehn, K. (2013) “Hope Labour: The Role of Employment Prospects in Online SocialProduction” in The Political Economy of Communication, 1: 1 pp. 925.

Deleuze, G. (1992) “PostScript on the Societies of Control” in October 59: Winter pp. 37.

Deuze, M. (2012) Media Life, Indiana: Polity.

Dodge, M. & Kitchin, R. (2005) “Code and the Transduction of Space” in Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 95: 1 pp. 162180.

Fuller, G. (2013) “Towards an Archaeology of ‘Knowhow’” in Cultural Studies Review 19: 1 pp. 271295.

Fuchs, C. (2010) “Labor in informational capitalism and on the Internet” in The Information Society 26: 3 pp.179196.

Goggin, J. (2011) “Playbour, farming and leisure” in Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 11: 4 pp.357368.

Gregorio, J. (2013) “Home is Where the Work Is”, Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA)Snapshot series, 16 October 2013, viewed 12 October 2013, http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engageblogs/engageblogs/Research/ReseachSnapshots/Homeiswheretheworkis

Gregg, M. (2011) Work’s Intimacy, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hardt, M. (1999) “Affective Labor” in Boundary 26: 2 pp. 89100.

Henke, C. (2000) “The Mechanics of Workplace Order: Toward a Sociology of

Repair” in Berkeley Journal of Sociology 44: pp. 5581.

Huws, U. (2003) The Making of a Cybertariat: Virtual Work in a Real World, New York: Monthly ReviewPress.

Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York & London: NYUPress.

Kücklich, J. (2005) “Precarious Playbour: Modders and the Digital Games Industry”, Fibreculture 5:

http://www.pokemonelite2000.com/rbcatchmew.html

http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research/Reseach-Snapshots/Home-is-where-the-work-is



http://five.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj025precariousplaybourmoddersandthedigitalgamesindustry/

Lazzarato, M. (1996) “Immaterial Labor” in Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics (P. Virno & M.Hardy (eds), University of Minnesota Press.

Lee, A. & Poynton, C. (2000) “Culture & Text: An Introduction” in Culture and Text (A. Lee & C. Poynton,eds), Marylands: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Ludlow, P. & Wallace, M. (2007) The Second Life Herald: The Virtual Tabloid That Witnessed the Dawn ofthe Metaverse, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Mauss, M. (1973) “Techniques of the Body” in Economy & Society, 2: 1 pp. 7088.

Menkman, R. (2009/2010) “Glitch Studies Manifesto” in Video Vortex Reader II Moving Images BeyondYouTube.

Wikia (2012) “Mew”, viewed 12 November, 2012, http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Mew.

Bulbapedia (2012) “Mew Glitch”, viewed 12 November, 2012,http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Mew_glitch.

NippertEng, C. E. (1996) Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Parikka, J. (2012) “Managing Software: Cultural Techniques of Cognitive Capitalism”, Keynote Address forCODE: A Media, Games & Art Conference , Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia, 2123 November2012.

Parikka, J. & Sampson, T.D., eds (2009) The Spam Book: On Viruses, Porn, and Other Anomalies from theDark Side of Digital Culture, New York: The Hampton Press.

Perrow, C. (1984) Normal Accidents: Living with HighRisk Technologies, New

York: Basic Books.

StrategyWiki (2012) “Pokémon Red and Blue/Mew Glitch”, viewed 12 November 2012,http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Red_and_Blue/Mew_glitch.

Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010) “Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The Nature of Capitalism in theAge of the Digital ‘Prosumer’” in Journal of Consumer Culture 10: 1 pp. 1336.

Scholz, T., ed. (2012) Digital Labour. The Internet as Playground and Factory, New York: Routledge.

Scott, S. (2009) Making Sense of Everyday Life, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Sofoulis, Z. (2005) “Big Water, Everyday Water: A Sociotechnical Perspective” in

Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 19: 4 pp. 445463.

Star, S.L. (1991) “The Sociology of the Invisible: The Primacy of Work in the Writings of Anselm Strauss”in Social Organization and Social Process: Essays in Honor of Anselm Strauss, New York: Walter deGruyter.

Star, S.L. & Strauss, A. (1999) “Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The Ecology of Visible and InvisibleWork” in Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8: pp. 930.

Suchman, L. A. (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of HumanMachine Communication, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Suchman, L. (1995) “Making Work Visible” in Communications of the ACM 38: pp. 5668.

http://five.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-025-precarious-playbour-modders-and-the-digital-games-industry/

http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Mew

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Mew_glitch

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Red_and_Blue/Mew_glitch



Terranova, T. (2000) “Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy” in Social Text 18: 2 pp. 3358.

Warnier, J.P. (2001) “A Praxeological Approach to Subjectivation in a Material

World” in Journal of Material Culture 6: 1 pp. 524.

Whitelaw, M. (2009) “Transduction, Transmateriality, and Expanded Computing”, The Teeming Void, viewed25 November 2013, http://teemingvoid.blogspot.com/2009/01/transductiontransmaterialityand.html .

Whitelaw, M. (2011) “After the Screen: Array Aesthetics and Transmateriality” The Teeming Void, viewed 25November 2013, http://teemingvoid.blogspot.com.au/search/label/transmateriality

Artistic Works

Gieskes, G. (2007) Sega Mega Drive 2, glitch/circuitbent console, http://gieskes.nl/circuitbending/?file=segamegadrive2

Davis, P. (2009) Codec, compression algorithmhttp://www.beigerecords.com/paul/defineyourterms/codec.html

botborg (2007) Live at Ars Electronica Festival, live feedback http://botborg.com/index.php?go=videoslive

Biographical Note

Justine Humphry is currently Research Fellow of Digital Media in the Digital Cultures Program at theUniversity of Sydney and has previously taught at the University of Technology and Macquarie University.Her research interests include the discourses and practices of digital media with a focus on changing patternsof work, leisure and consumption. Her current research examines issues of social inclusion and participationin relation to mobile phones and mobile Internet amongst homeless families and young people. She continuesto write about digital technologies and new media cultures in professional settings.

http://teemingvoid.blogspot.com/2009/01/transduction-transmateriality-and.html

http://teemingvoid.blogspot.com.au/search/label/transmateriality

http://gieskes.nl/circuitbending/?file=segamegadrive2

http://www.beigerecords.com/paul/defineyourterms/codec.html

http://botborg.com/index.php?go=videoslive

Demanding Media: Platform work and the shaping of work and play

Documents

Transcript of Demanding Media: Platform work and the shaping of work and play