Wherever we go, something would crash!

On the 28th of October 28th at 11pm, we had the chance to finally meet the creators of “Grand Theft Avatar,” the Second Front. The interview was a rather refreshing and interesting one.  The members were all rather laid-back and I could tell that they were passionate in what they were doing as they did their own personal explanations.

It was intriguing to learn that they were not exceptions to backlashes from the public. When asked about this particular topic, Jeremy Turner actually brought up an incident where a guy was  able to “see his IP address” and in turn knows where he lives and threatened that he was going to come and kill him. While this may be sounded scary, I guess its a part and parcel for all artists. As had the virtual space made the Second Front free-er and more daring in what they could do, so did the public. Perhaps it was more easier to make such threats with the internet allowing for one to be anonymous and mysterious. This could be tied in with the abundance of cyber-bullying cases as well in our current times. The internet had not only allowed for artist to push boundaries but also for its audience as well, I found this rather interesting.

Identity was a big topic during the interview and it was interesting to learn about the backstories and inspirations that allowed for them to later form their avatars. Overall, their identities seem to be an alter ego and a blend of their favourite characters. When asked if it was easy for them to differentiate who is the “real me”, whether it was the self in real world or the second life self, almost everyone said they tend to be thrown into confusion all the time. Is this virtual leakage happening? With games like Second Life allowing for easy access to take over someone’s else appearance and identity, one could easily switch their identities around easily. They had the freedom of expression too.

Grand Theft Avatar was a live performance where Second Front attempted a local bank heist, where the Linden Treasury was robbed. The robbers then flew off in helicopters, freeing the loot from the sky in the process. In this performance, members of the Second Front started off with their usual virtual identities, and then changed their avatars to impersonate the members of the panel, before embarking on the bank heist. Aside from the inspiration from trying to replicate an actual event, was changing their avatars part of an attempt to disguise their “real” self? Just like robbers in the real world, they would tend to cover up or disguise themselves before attempting their heist in prevention of being caught or recognised. I think it was interesting as to the self in second life is technically not real yet with more and more time and effort invested into it, this “real self” becomes more “real”, sometimes even more real than the real life one. I felt that their was a blur and leakage  in how actions and behaviour is been carried out in both in the virtual and real. Also with the title of their work to be Grand Theft Avatar, it had a lot of resemblance to the game, Grand Theft Auto where players can just steal other’s cars. With it being Grand Theft Avatar, was the emphasis more on robbing identities instead of a bank heist of Lindens?

Second Front is an international performance art group who utilises a online world platform, Second Life as their main choice of medium. The group are made up of performance art (not performing arts) artists from around the world. They aim to explore new and different environments in the virtual world, like the game Second Life. In a way they are exploring how the third space can create a “alter self”.

In their work, Grand Theft Avatar, it is a live performance created in  Second Life. Like any other virtual world game, Second Life has its own currency,  laws, rules and regulations. They wanted to challenge the authenticity and embodiment of virtual identities by assuming avatar identities including those of Camille Utterback, Char Davies, Howard Rheingold and Christiane Paul to commit a parodied staging of a bank hold-up of the Linden treasury.

GREAT ESCAPE: One thing I think we’re looking to do is to question the underlying assumptions of Second Life and what it means to be a virtual being in that space. A dominant trend in Second Life is to shop, make friends online and participate in a virtual economy. The possibilities for the space haven’t been fully explored as of yet and so I think people are much more receptive to performances that they might be in real life. Because it is so new, we can have a huge affect on people’s thinking.

I think raises the question of authenticity and identity. Can anyone easily just “take over” or steal someone else in the virtual world? Also, how real is the virtual self in comparison to the real one? In a virtual world where anything and everything that is possible I think it is easy for identities to be “stolen” or “faked”. I think using Second Life as a platform allows for more unrestricted, creative, crazy ideas and experiments as compared to having to carry out in real life that is full of restrictions and limitations. It might not even be possible to carry this out in real life. Another aspect is that I believe that the virtual world makes us much bolder and daring. What we would do, interact or behave in real world might be a different reality when changed to something virtual. In this work, it raises the question of whether we trust and believe in everything we see in the virtual world?

To end off, I think this particular sentence stuck me a lot and it holds so much truth for the people of this century:

ALISE IBORG: While we as Second Life avatars become more real in the virtual world, so too, that we as human inhabitants of the real world become more virtual.

Her first supposedly captured image on Jennicam.

In 1996, Jennifer Ringley, a junior at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania stumbled upon a new piece of technology at her college bookstore – a webcam – and came up with this radical idea to broadcast how she lived her life for seven years which updates an image every 15 minutes on a website. She shared every uncensored detail of her life, in what she called a “virtual human zoo”. As the project flourished, she also added more webcams and charging for access to her site, allowing both paid and free access with the paid access updating the images more frequently than the free access. (wait but I thought she didn’t originally want to charge viewers according to “Jennicam’s Jenni on Letterman’s Late Show“?)

Then it all went downhill when she stolen the fiancé of a friend, Pamela Courtney who was a fellow cam-girl as well. The drama continued with bouts of “love” and sex on Jenni’s side and bouts of depression on Courtney’s site. Fans eventually stopped supporting Jenni and some people even judged her harshly. In 2013, she went completely off the grid since then.

In my opinion, Jennicam seems to be a curious and innocent experiment that went wrong. Also, what started as a purposeful even somewhat turned contradictory?

But first of all, why/how did she manage to do it for so long, over a span of 7 years? What are the appeals?

“I keep JenniCam alive not because I want to be watched, but because I simply don’t mind being watched. It is more than a bit fascinating to me as an experiment. So feel free to watch, or not, as you so desire. I am not here to be loved or hated, I am here simply to be me.”

She aims to portray only the real life, uncensored and unedited, even if that means giving up all of her personal privacy.

Mundanity/ Relatability

She carried out her life, from the mundane to more exciting ones, over a span of seven years entirely and wholly broadcasted for all the world to view as they please. I guess this appealed to large masses of people because of how relatable it could be and it was almost like viewing humanness into the computer age. This helped with people who were lonely and desperate for a form of companionship where on one Saturday night while she was doing laundry at home, she got an email saying it had made someone feel like less of a “loser”. She could connect with viewers because it was relatable and humans somehow just thrives in trying to find like-minded people. Its similar to how celebrities, especially in the case of Korean pop idols to be keep their fans in the loop by broadcasting their mundane activities too. Humans in generally are just inclined to learn about others, their stories and their lives. There is just a unexplainable attraction.

Curiosity

At that time, it was a radically new idea. Something people have never heard, seen before ever on the internet. Humans being curious beings as well might have been swayed to check what all the hype for this was about.

Voyeurism/Sex Appeal

I think this was one of the elements that played a large part. Aside from her daily chores she can also be shown nude or engaging in sexual behaviour, including sexual intercourse and masturbation. People was anticipating what would happen next. I guess it was also human nature to tend to be voyeuristic. I won’t say all the viewers that tune in are anticipating for this kind of action but i think its mainly a split between this and people trying to find connection with others who relates to their life.

Two-way communication 

A strong community grew in the chatroom on her site, where she also hung out. She was accessible, part of the gang, a friend. How surprising for her audience of new web recruits, who had probably never experienced this kind of connection with someone they’d only ever met online. And probably for Jennifer herself, too.

As the saying goes, communication is key, humans bond and thrive only with communication. I think with the chatroom is kinda reduces a layer of wall between her and everyone else. Even in our current times, many people can be great friends or even “soulmates” just be talking to each other virtually without having to meet up.

Through this project, she opened up discussions as to what is privacy and what it encompasses, a question that we are still asking ourselves till this day. What can be defined as privacy? In our day and age, we’re all similarly surrendering our personal life and details both voluntarily and involuntarily. I found it interesting how Jenni herself was aware that she would never be able to completely remove herself from the web even if she wanted to but still proceeded on with this project head-on.

This also raises the question what can is considered suitable or acceptable content? Also another question that we are still debated ourselves. From nudity to sex to publicly humiliating and betraying a friend, do we have to be mindful of the message that we are disseminating to others and how our attentions would affect others?

I also found it interesting how Jenni felt the weight of responsibility for her to try harder and she felt that she had to really go out of her way to make it happen so she’s not just going to give up. Was a need for recognition?

The internet can be a wonderful place but also a scary one. People might find solace but also harsh backlash and judgements. In the case of Jennicam, she experienced both the joy of fame and recognition but also the wrath when a line was crossed. For example, she was called a “homewrecker”, a self-obsessed “vixen” and a “phoney”. Even the The Washington Post called her an “amoral man trapper”.

Another interesting point was how she stopped performing stripteases for the webcam after she was discovered by a group of hackers on Efnet who teased her for their own amusement. After she reacted humorously to their taunts, she was hacked and even received death threats. The hackers turned out to be approximately 100 people including a handful of teen pranksters, but Ringley did no more stripteases after that.

In conclusion, her personal experiment inspired the first conversations about the things we’re still talking about now: digital over-sharing, the value of online expression, and the meaning of online community.

It’s interesting how after years of living publicly, she wanted to reclaim her life as a private person, especially after she got an onslaught of criticism for an on-screen affair.

 “Life started slowing down for me,” she says now. “You get into a routine. I’m not 21, I’m not flailing, I’m not making laughable mistakes every five minutes like you do when you’re younger. It’s a little more boring.”

But then I thought the whole purpose was to portray REAL life or was it all for the fame and drama?

?

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AmIntaD5VE

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37681006

https://gizmodo.com/jennicam-why-the-first-lifecaster-disappeared-from-the-1697712996

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley#Origins

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/patient-zero-of-the-selfie-age-why-jennicam-abandoned-her-digital-life/news-story/539cd1b26016fcee1a51cfca3895a7b5

http://digg.com/2015/reply-all-jennicam

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2000/08/26/all-a-woman-can-bare/f104e1fc-7cc1-47ca-acad-53193eb1c18b/?utm_term=.f94b9389ea83

http://web.archive.org/web/19980124153249/http://www.jennicam.org:80/faq.html