Tenori-on stage: YouTube as performance space

This paper reports findings from four related studies of the "Tenori-on" as it appears on YouTube in order to consider Web 2.0 as a performance space. A quantitative analysis of returns for "Tenori-on" attempts to model how posts achieve and maintain popularity. This analysis suggests sustained posting and engagement amongst users rather than initial product launch enthusiasm. A content analysis of the videos returned demonstrates a very different response to the launch of other technologies like the iPhone 3G. A grounded theory explores comments to the most viewed video returned which was a post by the artist Little Boots. A range of comments indicate virtual applause and suggest that YouTube has been appropriated here as a space for performance. Finally perspectives from critical theory are drawn on to consider the meanings of the Tenori-on in this user generated context and the ways users creatively resist the most obvious affordances of the device.

[1]  Slavoj Žižek,et al.  Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture , 1991 .

[2]  Shaowen Bardzell,et al.  Can we all stand under our umbrella: the arts and design research in HCI , 2010, CHI EA '10.

[3]  H. Simon,et al.  ON A CLASS OF SKEW DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS , 1955 .

[4]  Philip E. Agre,et al.  Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI , 2006 .

[5]  Shaowen Bardzell,et al.  Critical dialogue: interaction, experience and cultural theory , 2010, CHI EA '10.

[6]  Ernst von Kardorff Uwe Flick,et al.  A Companion to Qualitative Research , 2004 .

[7]  Antony Easthope,et al.  A Critical and Cultural Theory Reader , 1992 .

[8]  Paul A. Cairns,et al.  Critical methods and user generated content: the iPhone on YouTube , 2009, CHI.

[9]  N. Hoffart.  Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2000 .

[10]  G. Yule,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Evolution, Based on the Conclusions of Dr. J. C. Willis, F.R.S. , 1925 .

[11]  Olav W. Bertelsen,et al.  Criticism as an approach to interface aesthetics , 2004, NordiCHI '04.

[12]  Slavoj Zizek,et al.  The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? , 2000 .

[13]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  The Semiotic Engineering of Human-Computer Interaction , 2005 .

[14]  Christine Satchell,et al.  Cultural theory and real world design: Dystopian and Utopian Outcomes , 2008, CHI.

[15]  M. Batty.  Rank clocks , 2006, Nature.

[16]  Shaowen Bardzell,et al.  Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design , 2010, CHI.

[17]  Jiangchuan Liu,et al.  Statistics and Social Network of YouTube Videos , 2008, 2008 16th Interntional Workshop on Quality of Service.

[18]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Human-centered design considered harmful , 2005, INTR.

[19]  P. Brook.  Empty Space , 1941, Nature.

[20]  Mark Blythe,et al.  Research Methods 2.0: doing research using virtual communities , 2009 .

[21]  Jeffrey Bardzell,et al.  Creativity in Amateur Multimedia: Popular Culture, Critical Theory, and HCI , 2007 .

[22]  Alan D. Sokal,et al.  Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity , 1996 .

[23]  Yu Nishibori,et al.  TENORI-ON , 2005, SIGGRAPH '05.

[24]  Jeffrey Bardzell,et al.  Interaction criticism and aesthetics , 2009, CHI.

[25]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Reflective design , 2005, Critical Computing.