Author: Florian Thalhofer

Florian Thalhofer is a media artist and the inventor of Korsakow. A system to create a new kind of narration. In his spare time he works in the newsroom of a German TV station.
Posted on

Audience of Collaborative Thinkers

People often ask me what I want to say with what I say. They ask me things like „What is the message of your film?“ and then they ask me „And who is the audience for your films, for your texts, for what you put out into the world?“. I used to say: „I don’t think of an audience.“ I said that for many years, at many instances, on many stages and then I learned that this is not quite true.

I do have an audience and I know my audience very well. The audience is one person, and that person is me. „So if it is only for you, why do you need to put it out into the world?“ might be the next good question and I have two answers.

The first reason is that when I put it out into the world, I put it out of my head and in front of me. Then I can look at it and I can see it in context with all the other things that are out there already. Things that other people have put out there and things that I have put out there earlier.

The second reason is that when I put something out, sometimes other people come and look at it. Naturally other people look at the thing from a different viewpoint than me. Sometimes people look at the thing in a way that I would not have been able to see myself. When they are so kind and patient to point that out to me, I then can see something that I never saw and most likely would have never seen on my own. This can be enlightening or simply helpful to better understand what I thought and what I think of the thing that I can now see with their eyes.

Many people do it like me. They do it on Facebook or Instagram on YouTube. People put things out into the world and have other people look at it and learn from what these people see.

But just few people put things out into the world to learn from the thoughts of other minds.

Most people are still in the habit of making statements. It seems they want to convince other people to think the same as they do, to look at the thing from the same angle.

Most of the time it is not obvious what the motivation of someone that put something out was when that someone put it out. And from my own experience I can tell that for the longest time I did not know myself what my motivation was.

Mostly people still put out things into the world with the intention to deliver a message without even being aware that it is usually not them who came up with the message in the first place. Usually, it is a message someone else put into their head. So, without knowing these people broadcast the messages of somebody else.

This happens a lot. But as new generations grow up with these web-based tools that make it easy for anyone to put out things, more and more minds start putting out things into the world before they have gotten a message stuck into their head by someone else. These people more and more use the tools to look at things and think collaboratively. They use these new tools not as tools to broadcast opinions but as research tools, tool that help them learn about the world, tool that help them to collaboratively build and maintain vast collections of meaningful things. They use these new tools to collaboratively look and evaluate the things they collected. And while they are doing that, they learn to better use the tools and further develop the tools simultaneously.

This enables them to see patterns that humans have never seen before that no one has realized before and they do that by using not only one brain but many brains, the brains of all the people participating in looking at the same things and start to communicate what they see without starting with a message.

These people don’t need to dumb down reality into messages, they don’t need to tell simple stories, they are able to embrace and enjoy the beauty of complexity.

Posted on

Die Diskussion um Facebook

Es passiert gerade sehr spannendes. Es ist die Debatte um Facebook. Es geht dabei allerdings um etwas ganz anderes als um die Frage, ob Facebook gut oder schlecht ist oder gar um die Frage ob die neuen Kommunikationsmedien an sich gut oder schlecht sind.

Wir können gerade einen wichtigen Schritt in der Entwicklung der neuen Kommunikationsmedien beobachten. Das ist nur nicht so offensichtlich, da dieser Prozess von Leuten ausgehandelt wird, die so sprechen als ginge es um Gut oder Böse. Das klingt dann bisweilen so, als wären die neuen Kommunikationsmedien an einen Punkt gekommen, an dem es womöglich nicht weitergeht. So als stünde der Untergang von Facebook oder so an. So wie darüber berichtet wird, könnte man den Eindruck gewinnen, das System stehe an einem Kollaps. Dem ist nicht so. Es wird zwar z.B. in den Hearings, die im Senat in den USA stattfinden immer wieder auf das Beispiel tabacco-industry verwiesen, wo also ein Wirtschaftszweig wissentlich das Leid von Millionen von Menschen billigend in Kauf genommen hat um Profit zu erwirtschaften. Auch wenn der Vergleich nahe liegt ist er doch nicht besonders hilfreich, denn anders als beim Zigarettenkonsum stehen den negativen Auswirkungen des Konsums neuer Kommunikationsmedien wesentlich mehr und wesentlich stärkere positive Effekte gegenüber. Was für die neuen Kommunikationsmedium insgesamt gilt, gilt wahrscheinlich sogar für Facebook selbst.

FB ist nicht so schlecht, wie die meisten sicherlich nachvollziehen können, wenn sie bereit sind folgender Überlegung zu folgen:

Den negativen Auswirkungen von FB stehen viele positive gegenüber. Ich denke das kann jeder sehen, der FB benutzt. Der FB nutzt trotz allem, was die meisten an FB zu kritisieren haben. Dem was zu kritisieren ist steht also etwas also etwas anderes gegenüber. Und bei den meisten (bei allen, die FB weiterhin nutzen) ist dieses Ding grösser als alles was zugegebener Massen negativ an FB ist. Und dieses Ding, das da dem Negativen gegenüber steht, das ist das positive, das FB hat.

Es könnte natürlich blöd für FB laufen und FB wird im Zuge der Diskussion zerschlagen. Das wäre dann sicherlich aber auch schon das dramatischste, das passieren kann. Am langfristigen Trend, dass die neuen Kommunikationsmedien immer größere Bedeutung bekommen wird sich gar nichts ändern.

Was wir da beobachten können ist schlicht und ergreifend, wie gerade unter grossem Anteil der Öffentlichkeit Fehler am System der neuen Kommunikationsmedien ausgeleuchtet und damit die Voraussetzung geschaffen wird diese Fehler zu korrigieren. Nicht mehr, aber auch nicht weniger.

Posted on

The discussion about Facebook

There is something fascinating happening at the moment. It is the debate about Facebook. However, it is about something quite different than the question of whether Facebook is good or bad or even whether the new communication media are good or bad in themselves.

We can currently observe an important step in the development of the new communication media. It’s just not that obvious, because this process is being negotiated by people who speak as if it were a question of good or bad. Sometimes it sounds as if the new communication media have reached a point where they may not be able to carry on. As if the downfall of Facebook or something is imminent. The way it is reported, one could get the impression that the system is on the verge of collapse. This is not the case. In the hearings that take place in the US Senate, for example, the example of the tobacco industry is referred to again and again, where a branch of industry knowingly accepted the suffering of millions of people in order to make a profit. Even if the comparison is obvious, it is not particularly helpful, because unlike the consumption of cigarettes, the negative effects of the consumption of new communication media are offset by much more and much stronger positive effects. What is true for the new communication media as a whole is probably even true for Facebook itself.

FB is not as bad as most can surely understand if they are willing to follow the following reasoning:

The negative effects of FB are offset by many positive ones. I think anyone who uses FB can see that. Who uses FB despite everything that most have to criticise about FB. So what is to be criticised is counterbalanced by something else. And for most people (all those who continue to use FB) this thing is bigger than everything that is admittedly negative about FB. And this thing that stands opposite the negative is the positive that FB has.

Of course, it could go badly for FB and FB will be broken up in the course of the discussion. But that would certainly be the most dramatic thing that could happen. The long-term trend that the new communication media are becoming more and more important will not change at all.

What we can observe is simply how, with a large share of the public, mistakes in the system of the new communication media are being illuminated and the prerequisites for correcting these mistakes are being created. No more, but also no less.

Posted on

Bundestagswahl 2021 : Triell ums Kanzleramt : Laschet, Scholz, Baerbock – und was es mit mir macht

„Wir geben jetzt ab nach Adlershof. Wir sind sehr gespannt, Gute Unterhaltung!“ sagt die Moderatorin.

Komisch, wenn ich das Triell anschaue finde ich es herzlich unergiebig. Was für ein Zirkus, denke ich mir, mit riesigem Palaver vor dem Triell und riesigem Palaver nach dem Triell und das Triell selbst inszeniert wie ein Gladiatorenkampf. Weil aber Politiker keine Gladiatoren sind müssen jetzt Politiker Gladiatoren spielen und weil Politiker keine Schauspieler sind, ist es ein seltsames Schauspiel. Die Performance ist bei allen schlecht. Über das, was sie sagen, kann ich nicht wirklich was sagen, weil ich dazu die Performance als Schauspieler herrausrechnen müsste und das ist mir zu kompliziert. Daher werde ich am Sonntag die wählen, die ich immer wähle. Meine Meinung eben, weil so natürlich niemand meine Meinung ändern kann. Selbst wenn jemand meine Meinung ändern könnte, ich könnte gar nicht verstehen, was sie sagen vor lauter Tamtam und blödsinnigem Spiel.

Wem soll man das vorwerfen? Den Politikern, weil sie schlechte Schauspieler sind? Oder den Medien, weil sie dem Publikum das geben, wovon sie denken, dass es das Publikum will?

Ich wünschte, die Medien würden wissen, was ich will. Ich bin ja schliesslich das Publikum. Naja, vielleicht nicht, die Glotze ist wieder aus.

 

Posted on

TV is Easy (e)


A few years ago, I pitched a TV show format together with a friend of mine at a festival in Barcelona. That means we were allowed to present our idea to television producers from all over Europe. The event was set up like a competition with a stage, audience and everything. Our idea was one of four. I think we came last. Afterwards, a few people from the audience came up to us and said that the project had been the best …(*)

I have to say, I didn’t understand for a long time why our idea wasn’t accepted, I think it really had the potential to move the world forward through television (and the internet).

A TV producer I hung out with a few months later at another festival explained it to me:
No matter what show is produced on TV, it always has an element, like a spice that must not be missing from any dish, a spice that every TV show tastes like. Anything without this element doesn’t stand a chance. Audience research has found beyond doubt that no show can succeed that doesn’t have this element. As beautiful as your project is, it lacks this element.

What is that element? I think it’s important that every time you watch a show on TV, or hear a conversation about a TV show, or read about a TV show, you should recite the following to yourself:

The viewer in front of the TV should always feel superior to those who are being paraded in the show.

I think everyone should know that, because it explains a lot. Not only in terms of television.

(*) …and way ahead of its time. I’ve been hearing that at regular intervals for twenty years. There’s probably some truth to it, but if that’s the case, then I can say from my experience that those who are too far ahead of their time don’t change anything 😉

 

Next page