-->
Introduction:
The present stage
of so-called Transmedia Storytelling resembles the period in which Cinema
lacked most of its conventions, rules and standards regarding language and
communication channels. In fact, there’s much fumbling around in the darkness,
much trial and error, in this new way of telling stories in New Media. It isn’t
constrained to movie theatres and/or traditional TV stations; it expands,
gravitates, plunges and moves through different sources, links and paths. This
is known as multi-platform media (JENKINS, 2009, 138). It is more sensitive in
that it provides a greater multiplicity of viewpoints and collateral
experiences to spectators who wish to explore and learn more about characters
and the plots into which they are immersed in and intertwined with (JENKINS,
ibid., 184).
The Transmedia phenomenon came to be at a time when
users/readers/viewers/players were immersed in experiences that spanned both
the new and the old media. Indeed, the qualitative aspect of Transmedia arises
out of the integration of different languages, aesthetics and poetics that make
up these experiences. In order to understand the exploratory, interlaced,
immersive and expansive nature of the phenomenon, we must turn our attention to
its hyper-complex ecology.
So what is this hyper-complex ecology? Media ecology is
simply the current environment in which we see a plurality of media coexisting,
competing, connecting, diverging and converging with one another, giving rise
to a great variety of experiences—prosaic, playful, economic, logical (Morin,
2007, p. 141)—that permeate our everyday lives.
In spite of facing a multifaceted media ecology, with
distinct languages and poetics, the media and the arts weren’t extinguished,
but they transformed one another. Mass media became on-demand; print media
started leading a double life: online and offline; photography became social
media; and social media transformed our public spaces, now ubiquitous and
transitive. There is still room, however, for movies theaters and scheduled TV shows
and radio broadcasts, as well as for circus and theater events, concerts and
rock festivals, all kinds of artistic performances, art museums and graffiti.
In short, the media ecology doesn’t exclude anything, all experiences and
interfaces are incorporated.
We possess the media as much as we are possessed by it, this
is a bidirectionally driven relationship (MORIN, 2007, p. 127). It is a circuit
with a positive feedback loop that gains autonomy through eco-dependency. In
fact, the media is eco-dependent on experiences that are outside of itself. At
the same time, that which is outside is also eco-dependent on the media. The
old and the new are never rejected, they are incorporated, intersected,
overlapped and organized to give rise to multiplicity and diversity. This is
the Gordian knot that we have come to call hyper-complexity.
Thus, the Transmedia phenomenon is umbilically connected to
this hyper-complex media ecology and this is the systemic view that underlies
this article.
1.1. On Instability, Complexity and Spirals
Transmedia is
basically shaped by the interactions (MORIN, 2008, p. 105) that occur between
different media. These interactions are systemic, which means there is a group
of communication media that individually performs specific functions and these
groups interact and commingle. Together, they give rise to a fictional
universe. The interaction and interaction
between specific media is immersed in a unique and dynamic universe that shapes
an active organization—or system. This system has a procedural matrix that is
forged through the multiform interplay between diversity, variety, antagonism,
diversion, rupture, equilibrium, order and disorder.
In its ontological
bias, Transmedia is therefore the result of a pluralistic, multiform, diverse
and varied organization, with an active unity that establishes and maintains
itself—acquires existence—via the multiplicity of interactions,
complementations and intercommunications which the different media—with its
specificities, functions and aesthetics—can provide, produce, develop and
transform. Therefore, “(...) its diversity is necessary to its
unity and its unity is necessary to its diversity.” (MORIN, ibid., p. 147)
Thus, Transmedia is
born in complexity—for
it needs other media to exist—and
it generates complexity—for by
triggering different media with their specificities—languages
and aesthetics—it
enlarges the semiotic horizon of the current fictional universe. As soon as the
ecosystem establishes itself, it launches a process of eco-dependence. The
ensuing mutual collaboration/cooperation among different media is set against a
backdrop of complementarity (MORIN,
ibid., 183).
Therefore, Transmedia cannot be conceptualized as arising
from a single medium, but from a set of knots, bonds, links, terminals and
access gateways, whose specificities and functions complement, harmonize and
retroact with one another in a recursive multicircuit (MORIN, ibid., 231). The
resulting dynamics operate through concessions, cooperations and associations between
the participating media—movies, social media, comic books, animations etc.;
thus, each medium—online and/or offline—has its particularities and is immersed
in its own individual characteristics, in terms of language and aesthetics,
which collaborates/cooperates/complements (with) the whole: Transmedia.
In fact, this complex
unity through which Transmedia structures itself is an eco-organization
(MORIN, 2005, pp. 35-42) with a temporal nature. In other words, it’s a type of
organization that occurs in time (VIEIRA, 2007, 93) and whose logic revolves
around temporal processes, which in turn encompass transformations,
fluctuations and intersemiosis.
According to
Vieira (ibid., 89), there are three key classification criteria to observe in a
system: its permanence capacity, its environment and its autonomy. For a system
to become consolidated as such, it must observe hierarchical or evolutionary
parameters that take time into account. These parameters can be outlined as
follows: composition, connectivity, structure, integrality, functionality and
organization, all of them permeated by a parameter that can appear at the very
first stage: complexity. Thus, a system is characterized by its temporal
process and its capacity to grow and develop. The complexity of such a temporal
movement arises out of the diversity of connections that help the system
survive.
The implementation
and activation of Transmedia follows a similar process. Since these media must
be grouped together into a single piece of work that is embedded in a network,
this environment is marked by a temporal process that demands to evolve through
each one of the hierarchical parameters mentioned above. Thus, such a system
expands and lasts as long as its permanence capacity will allow, that is, its
capacity to reach regularity in the
construction of a narrative in crossed and complementary medias.
On the one hand,
there is a risk, to a greater or lesser extent, that such a combination of
media will bring on a process of entropy (MORIN, ibid., 94) with the
potential to harm the intersemiotic interfaces and exchanges between its many
layers of meaning. In fact, the organizational wealth of a system is measured
by its diversity and variety, for its logic is marked by transformation,
generation and production; or, as Morin underscores: the interactions and
associations between different media give rise to “interproduction”. (MORIN, ibid.,
202) So, entropy would have a homogenizing effect on the system; multiplicity
and differences would be lost, leading the system to collapse since the
“organization of a system is the organization of differences.” (MORIN, ibid.,
149). Thus, complementarity means exchange of information, the commerce of signs/difference,
or simply intersemiosis.
We can say that,
in the end, the poetics operated by Transmedia are produced through the
ontological systemic interplay of media interactions in a multiple and
cooperative whole (MORIN, ibid. 147). Thus, each medium, in its
particular field, is responsible for a signic fragment which goes through a
process of creation, development, and production. This fragment has to: a)
connect itself to others; b) map existing relations; c) structure itself, that
is, establish and strengthen two-way intersemiotic relations during the articulation
and development period of works; d) integrate with other media in a process of
complementarity; e) accomplish a task, with the goal of establishing mutual and
interdependent cooperation; and, f) materialize in an organization (or
organicity) that is cohesive enough to develop pragmatic regularity
while a specific work is executed in crossed media.
The complexity of
the dialogue that takes place between online and offline media leads them to
integrate and take shape. This transformation happens through the interfacing
and signic interchanges they bring about, but also maintain and produce
among themselves. (MORIN, ibid., 148)
What makes such
multiplicity of media work in a complex and interacting unity is that which
Morin calls generative idea.
(MORIN, ibid., 277) In this sense, this matrix idea—source of information—puts these
subsystems in motion and gives rise to a recursive retroactive multicircuit
between the whole and its parts, and between the parts and the whole. This
means that the parts—subsystems or media—have a retroactive and recursive
effect on the whole—the Transmedia—and the whole has a retroactive and
recursive effect on the parts. The parts form the multicircuit where
intersemiosis, fluctuations and transformations take place. (MORIN, ibid., 228)
This nucleator idea—which is the argument
that shapes the entire fictional universe—unleashes the fluxes and the
multiprocesses—circle-evolutions—between the subsystems. The resulting
dialogy—between animations, comic books, TV series, short films, feature films,
video games, theme parks, apps, and/or any other online or offline
communication channel—revolves around this key
idea, the story’s DNA. The nucleation process around a source of
information is what moves the
organization, so it closes the system; but it leave sit partially open to the
environment in which it is immersed, since the nucleating idea, to be autonomous, must feed on
knowledge—memory—that is umbilically connected to its key idea.
In fact,
information about different characters, events and the different
parallel/crossed/interrelated stories is disseminated across specific media
that adheres/cooperates with the macro story that is underway. Therefore, the transpoetics
promotes a multiplicity of worldviews and semantic relativism, i.e., a
perception of distinct layers and instances in each new
aesthetic/language/media that is developed.
Each subsystem or
medium goes through evolutionary phases in their own distinct way and in
specific moments during a transmedia performance. This is called
circle-evolution; the end of a process/narrative in a specific media is the
beginning of another process/narrative in another media. Or, as Morin defines
it, it is: “(...) a retroactive multiprocess that closes in on
itself from multiple and diverse circuits (…).” (MORIN, ibid., 231)
Therefore,
the end of a narrative in a movie marks the beginning of another narrative in a
videogame; the end of a videogame is the beginning of a narrative in a comic
book story; the end of that is the beginning of a web animation; we then have a
recursive retroactive multicircuit.
Morin explains the
concept of generativity as being:
(...) an indefinitely reborn, organized and
regulated genesis. The generative circuit is neverending and transforms
interactions into retroactions, turbulence into rotation, unceasingly it
produces, in the same movement, being, existence, and productive organization.
(MORIN, ibid., 277)
Hence, the concept
of generativity is one that reinforces a sense of circularity around the key idea
matrix—recursivity—and of action that renews and expands itself—retroacts—from
this matrix/DNA. The matrix story/argument/script feeds information into the subsystems, that is, it organizes information
and how the subsystems are to be articulated, mobilized and organized. It is
simultaneously the guardian and the source of the matricial idea. (MORIN,
ibid., p. 379 and 394)
In fact, its role
as source—storage—of information is
what makes the subsystems learn, understand and develop their specificities.
(MORIN, ibid., 150) In fact, it is through the transmission/distribution of
information that the activation/articulation strategies for different media types are delineated. So, on the one
hand, there is a control/command center—nucleation—and, on the other, a
“programming” center with the goal of reaching
a specific outcome and that is projected to complement and integrate the
subsystems into a whole: Transmedia. (MORIN, ibid., 392)
This flux of information is critical to
prevent degeneration, a process that is inherent to the whole system. When
selecting what information will be disseminated, quality is more important than
quantity, as this also plays a role in reducing waste, mistakes and system
collapses. In fact, the level of quality used to process information during the
development phase of a script/argument also impacts the dissemination process,
since by having such information “at hand” producers/authors/developers can
measure the periods in which each media will operate within the system.
The role of guardian—of information—refers to the
function of regulating the multicircuit, that is, reiterating, repeating and
regenerating what has generated it: the generative idea. (MORIN, ibid., 242)
The concept of regulation means that disturbances and deviations are
neutralized, that is, we know how to coexist with, explore and assimilate the
entropic processes and how to weave regularity
into interrelations, associations, cooperations, complementarities and
intersemiosis across Transmedia processes.
The living system
is dynamic and the way to keep it constant and in circular evolution is to
manage the different networks of interactive temporal/information flows. This
means that initiatives pertaining to specific media, or even manifestations of
followers/fans with their own story productions/appropriations, texts, videos,
drawings, etc., can cooperate towards stability but also towards dispersion.
It’s important
that we don’t reject the shifting nature of deviations and ruptures—negative
feedback—, but that we assimilate it, understand it, learn from it and reverse
circumstances—positive feedback—, because transmediatic works are established
not only through official channels, but mainly through speculative,
conjectural, rhizomatic, labyrinthine spheres, owing to the immersive,
participatory and playful nature of its game.
In fact, the
stability of the system—homeostasis—is achieved through the intermittent flow
between internal and external exchanges. However, stability does not placate
disorganization and disorder, but assimilates and explores them through
positive feedbacks—constancy, circuit, repression of disturbances—and negative
feedbacks—dispersion, deviation, deregulation—in a systemic game that seeks the
improvement and maturation of the active organization.
Morin explains
that: “All creation, all generation, all development
and even all information have to be paid for with entropy.” (MORIN, ibid., 98)
Therefore, regularity means we display the necessary sensibility, conduct and
knowledge to balance the setbacks, delays and other problems that might appear
in the course of this kind of work.
In this case, regularity does not seek to become
bureaucratic, it doesn’t target machines, but the machinant (MORIN, 2008, page 282), that is, it’s in a constant
state of genesis, transforming turbulences and waves, the random and the
chaotic, into a whirlwind, into a driving force. So we can say that regularity
seeks to preserve "heat", kinetic energy, movement, flow,
organization and creativity.
In each new beginning—when a story
is told and articulated through a specific media—the
system keeps turning, echoing and resonating through other stories, poetics and
aesthetics, so it never "cool down". Such initiatives—namely, the intertwined
narratives that have distinct temporalities—act as
"thermostats" because when they are triggered, their actions that
were previously arranged across specific time periods allows Transmedia to
stabilize, that is, to continue gravitating around the minds of its followers,
who in turn share their thoughts, insights, theories etc., attracting more fans
to the franchise, increasing its range of action and perpetuating its
influence, permanence and longevity.
Finally, Transmedia only happens and takes place to the
extent that it can circulate regularly through different media. This
circularity is transformed into a circuit (Morin, 2008a, pp. 228-231) with to-and-fro
movement and recursive capabilities. It can resume previous narratives while being sequential, irreversible and
retroactive. It expands and adds new perspectives, information, scenes,
characters and narratives.
This system or ecosystem circle evolves in a spiral shape,
since with each return, new beginning or immersion in one fictional universe,
we are offered or presented with different dramatic moments and points of view,
we can explore the immersive aesthetics, the playful chain iterations. It is
this spiral and diverse one-ness that
is similar to the archetypal figure of the ouroboros,
which eats its own tail.
1.2. On Immersions, Migrations and Imbricate Experiences
What the
transmediatic ecosystem proposes is an immersive experience into potential
worlds (VIEIRA, 2008, p. 78) by dilating the biological Umwelt towards a noological[1] Umwelt.
It must be understood that the noological reality of the transmediatic
ecosystem does not exclude the reality in which the fan lives, that is, off the
franchise, on the contrary. The two axes—reality and the fictional
universe—coexist and nurture one other. It is not necessary, therefore, to
abandon one to experience the other. To submerge in a fictional ecosystem of
this magnitude, we don’t have to leave our bodies inert in some corner while
our minds migrate to other worlds. In fact, both spheres are imbricated into a
uniduality (Morin, 2008, p 172).
It is well known
that archaic societies lived a double life: one dedicated to ethical-practical
issues, or, as Morin (2008, p. 169) puts it, one that used
empirical-logical-rational answers to deal with daily affairs such as feeding,
protection, construction, collection, hunting, etc.; and another life dedicated
to critical-pragmatic questions that answered questions in the semantic sphere,
which Morin named symbolic-mythological-magical (2008, p. 169). This
intellectual sphere dealt mainly with the demands of uncertainty, of the
future, of loss, of death, of life, that is, of the meaning of all things
around the individual and his/her community. This noological sphere was
dedicated to understanding the world through gods, spirits and entities,
summoning them when necessary, satisfying their desires and appetites, building
temples, shrines, sacred places, or performing prayers and other rites to
obtain blessing and favor at the beginning of the harvest, at the sowing of
fields, during battles and all kinds of undertakings.
The two spheres
were nourished, there was no separation between the myths and logos, their
relationship was one of complementarity, competitiveness and antagonism. Thus,
archaic men and women had to deal with two imbricated spheres that enjoyed full
communion. Morin (2008, 174) clarifies that myths "... constitute the
discourse of subjective, singular and concrete understanding of a spirit that
adheres to the world by feeling it from within." In fact, modern science
excluded men/women from this connection with the cosmos, so in order to
decipher its mysteries, it made reality an inhospitable place.
In the world of
myths, the inanimate has subjectivity, that is, the mountains, lakes, rivers
and seas have a story, a narrative, a subjectivity, a proper name that is
meaningful, an existence that intermingles with the story of men and women, of
their families, their origins and destinies, as well as their community. So we
can say this whole—both animate and
inanimate—participated together in
a macro narrative of the cosmos. They were integrated into it because there was
a higher purpose hovering above their clashes, uncertainties, doubts and
questions. Everything made sense, nothing was random, everything happened for
unknown reasons that were beyond the foreseeing capabilities of men and women,
but in due time everything would reveal itself as part of an original and
beautiful project. In fact, participating in such a macro-narrative gave them
psychological comfort and ensured their earthly actions were not devoid of
semantic value, on the contrary. They were part of a larger plan that gave them
assurance of overcoming death itself, of having access to a full life after
death, whether in Valhalla or New Jerusalem.
However, men and
women who walked through this symbolic world had to learn to read the signs, if
not isolated, then together, in communion with the communities to which they
belonged. If they didn’t possess such a gift, they sought help from oracles,
psychics and shamans, experts in interpreting messages that came from the
cosmos, gods and spirits. Because,
"All events are in fact signs and messages that ask for
and obtain interpretations." The mythological universe is a constant
emitter of messages and every natural thing carries symbols, a semantic
proliferation and an excess of meanings "(MORIN, ibid., p.176)
Returning to our
time, this mythological environment full of access points and surrounded by
meaning on all sides is everything that Transmedia and also Augmented Reality
seeks to become or is driving towards.
Through AR,
inanimate reality is becoming alive, subjective and re-inhabited "again".
The two axes—Reality and AR—coexist and nurture one other. It is not
necessary to abandon one to experience the other. To submerge in a noological
ecosystem of this magnitude the user doesn’t gave to leave his body inert in a
corner—the Matrix Paradox—while his mind migrates to other worlds. In fact,
both spheres are imbricated into a uniduality. This can take on a very complex
nature when both start nourishing each other as self-organized living systems. Artificial Intelligence will also
become integrated into this process in the near future.
So to create an
advanced experience in the transmediatic ecosystem that incorporates Augmented
Reality, the fans/participants, in communion with their communities and using
the narratives made available by the developers, become co-creators of cross
narratives and interrelated plots, promoting the historicity of the ecosystem,
actually populating it with
complexity, generating their own stories/trajectories and expanding the network
of correlations (PRIGOGINE, 2002, p. 69) and, ultimately, colonizing these possible worlds.
References
BERNARDO, Nuno. Transmedia 2.0 — How to create an entertainment brand using a
transmedial approach to storytelling. Lisboa, Beactive Books, 2014.
JENKINS, Henry. (2009) A Cultura da Convergência (“The Culture
of Convergence”). São Paulo: Aleph, 2nd edition.
KINDER,
Marsha and MCPHERSON, Tara, editors, Transmedia
Frictions: the digiral, the Arts and the Humanities. New York, NYU Press,
2014.
MORIN, Edgar. (2008) O
Método 1 — a natureza da natureza (“Method 1 — The Nature of
Nature”). Porto Alegre: Editora Sulina.
_____________ (2005) O
Método 2 — a vida da vida (“Method 2 — The Life of Life”). Porto
Alegre: Editora Sulina.
PEIRCE, Charles S. (2000) Semiótica
(“Semiotics”). São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva.
________________ (1998) Antologia
Filosófica (“Philosophical
Anthology”)
PHILLIPS, Andrea. A Creator’s Guide to Transmedia
Storytelling. New York, McGraw-Hill books, 2012.
PRIGOGINE,
Ilya. As Leis do Caos. (“Laws of
Chaos”) São Paulo: Editora UNESP, 2002.
SCOLARI, Carlos,
BERLETTI, Paolo and FREEMAN, Matthew. The
Transmedia Archaeology: Storytelling in the borderlines of science fiction,
comics and pulp magazines. New York, Palgrave Pivot, 2014.
VIEIRA, Jorge de Albuquerque. (2007)
Ciência
— Formas de Conhecimento: Arte e Ciência uma visão a partir da complexidade (“Science
— Forms of Knowledge: Art and Science, a View from Complexity”). Fortaleza:
Gráfica e Editora.
__________________________ (2008) Teoria
do conhecimento e arte — Formas de Conhecimento: Arte e Ciência uma
visão a partir da complexidade (“Theory of Knowledge and Art — Forms of
Knowledge: Art and Science — A View from Complexity”). 2nd Edition.
Fortaleza: Gráfica e Editora.
__________________________ (2008) Ontologia
— Formas de Conhecimento: Arte e Ciência uma visão a partir da complexidade (“Ontology
— Forms of Knowledge: Art and Science — A View from Complexity”). Fortaleza:
Expressão Gráfica e Editora.
[1] “(...) designates the world of ideas, of the
spirits, of the gods, of the entities produced and nourished by the human
spirit within the culture. These entities, gods or ideas, endowed with
dependent autonomy (of the minds and culture that feed them) acquire a life of
their own and a dominating power over humans." (Morin, 2007, 208).
