Icelandic Vibrations Online

(1)

Anna Karólína Gestsdóttir (11312300) Master Thesis New Media and Digital Culture (Media Studies) University of Amsterdam, 26 June 2017 Supervised by dr. Marc Tuters Second reader: Ms. Amanda Wasielewski

A social network analysis of the Icelandic

(2)

(3)

ABSTRACT

This thesis sets out to investigate how interrelations and participatory connectivity can occur on the social media platforms Twitter and Facebook. Furthermore, the research explores how opportunities for collaboration, afforded by said platforms, help create social networks through interrelations between social actors. The popular music culture in Iceland was taken as a case study in order to map out actors participating in the collaborative activities as they appear on these platforms, and to further explore how the medium-specificities of Facebook and Twitter shape this particular outlook of online participatory connectivity. This thesis presents a theoretical framework consisting of Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory and Howard Becker’s theory on art worlds. The theories are used in conjunction, both despite and through their theoretical differences, which creates an original lens and approach through which a social network analysis of Iceland’s popular music culture formed on social media platforms is conducted. Two digital research tools were used to extract data from Twitter and Facebook; the Digital Methods Initiative Twitter Capturing and Analysis Tool (DMI-TCAT) and Netvizz, an application to extract data from Facebook. For further insight, interviews were conducted with three actors that hold important roles in the Icelandic popular music culture sphere. Ultimately, the networks created from Facebook and Twitter show how the structure and positioning of the social actors create opportunities for the actors themselves, while also shaping existing social networks within Icelandic popular music culture.

Keywords:

Facebook, Twitter, Iceland, Field Theory, Art Worlds, social network analysis, platform analysis, digital methods

(4)

List of Figures

Figure 1: General Twitter mentions network graph p. 30

(full PDF of the network in appendix A).

Figure 2: Keywords included in the query bin, Iceland_music in DMI-TCAT p. 30 Figure 3: Overview of numbers of Tweets per day in the researched timeframe p. 31

Figure 4: Facebook page like network graph p. 34

(full PDF of the network in Appendix D).

Figure 5: A two-depth process of the Facebook page like network p. 35

Figure 6: Colour scale for Facebook page like network p. 36

Figure 7: Pierre Bourdieu’s French literary field p. 38

Figure 8: Visual of the categorisation of Twitter users p. 42

Figure 9: Visual of the categorisation of Facebook pages p. 44

Figure 10: Mock-up of the Twitter Field for Icelandic music culture 2017 p. 49

Figure 11: Mock-up of the Facebook Field for Icelandic music culture 2017 p. 51

Figure 12: Twitter World of Icelandic music culture 2017 p. 54

(6)

1.0 Introduction

I think we need to put humanity into technology—the soul. It's about using technology to get closer to people, to be more creative. (Björk in Hooton n. pag.)

Following the burst of the dot-com bubble in 2001, a new internet wave commenced on the World Wide Web, labelled Web 2.0. The term, initially coined by Tim O’Reilly in 2005, employs collective intelligence and interaction between users and websites, offering a media participatory culture through a many-to-many data model (O’Reilly; Stevenson 1089-90; Jenkins 2006). With Web 2.0, the application of the internet was refocused from being a space of storage to a space of production, encouraging user-activity through which networks of social relations can emerge. The content is created through, and, hosted by various websites such as social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, as well as collectively produced archives such as Wikipedia (Hansen 180). As stated by Mark B. N. Hansen (2010), “what is mediated by Web 2.0 is less the content that users upload than the sheer connectivity” (180), which concurs with O’Reilly’s proclamation that “[n]etwork effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era.” Anne Helmond (2015) provides further clarity, noting that while O’Reilly had a computational definition of Web 2.0 as a platform, “it would be embodied in a more metaphorical sense (cf. Gillespie, 2010) as a platform for participation” (3)1. Web 2.0 thus operates as a platform for interaction which brings together various actors and blurs the line between production and consumption. This platform acts as a market by commodifying the online content, bringing together developers, users, advertisers, clients, and so forth (2; Hansen 180).

Being a space of production and user-generated content, Web 2.0, with its ability to generate an extensive amount of data, becomes a platform that affords research into online cultures. In Digital Methods (2013) Richard Rogers puts forward an empirical approach to conduct Internet-related research that blurs the line between “the real and the virtual” and

(7)

positions the Internet as an object of research, as well as “a source of data about society and culture”, and thus not limiting the research to just online culture (21; Rogers in Rieder 2013).

This thesis sets out to explore a perspective on the “sheer connectivity” afforded by Web 2.0 and to furthermore explore relations and interactions between actors constituting a network online. More specifically, in the sense of Web 2.0 being a metaphorical platform, and comparable to the quote stated above by Icelandic singer Björk, this study aims to explore the creative and ‘human’ (or social) aspect of interrelations and participatory connectivity, rather than a technical or computational aspect. A social network analysis was conducted to explore the “sheer [participatory] connectivity”, deriving from two social media platforms; Twitter and Facebook, as both platforms offer means and tools for actors to encompass interrelations and opportunities for collaborative acts. Moreover, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are, as stated by Vincent Miller, seen as a part of “the database culture and network sociality” (393). What makes these social media platforms more interesting and distinctive is, according to danah boyd and Nicole Ellison (2007), the fact that they permit the user to create and publically display their social spheres, making social media platforms applicable as digital domains to conduct social network analysis for a social and cultural analysis (211).

Aligning with Björk’s idea that technology should be further used for creative purposes, the social network analysis was conducted within the field of music, as music is habitually comprehended as a collective activity in itself. Illustrating this, Christopher Small (1998) termed the collective nature of music ‘musicking’, stating that “music is not a thing at all but an activity, something people do” (2). According to Small, music is not an individual action but a social action, and musicking happens through a collective effort of ‘taking part’ in a musical performance (9-10). Therefore, the music industry, as presented on social media platforms, is a relevant case for the study of the collaborative activity of ‘taking part’ composed by digital and non-digital actors. The intention with this thesis is, therefore, to explore the social networks shaped by the actors participating in the collaborative activities as they appear and emerge on online platforms. In line with Small’s perspective, Icelandic popular music culture was chosen as a case to further investigate online connectivity within a participatory media landscape. Despite being a country with only 320,000 inhabitants, Iceland has a globally recognised music scene, with world famous musicians and bands

(8)

such as Björk, Sigur Rós and múm. The Icelandic popular music culture will be further outlined as a case below.

1.1 CASE: ICELANDIC POPULAR MUSIC CULTURE

Icelandic music is filling concert houses and venues in cities all over the world. For instance, during the time this thesis was written, the Los Angeles Philharmonics hosted Reykjavik Festival, as a part of a larger cultural event. Spread over the course of two months, the festival celebrated the creative variety in the contemporary Icelandic music scene. It is not only in Los Angeles where Icelandic music has found success: the cultural festival Taste of Iceland, hosted in the cities Chicago and Boston, continues to introduce the North American population to celebrate Icelandic music and other cultural activities. Flying across the Atlantic, statistics presented by Iceland Music Export show that Icelandic tunes have also made their mark across Europe, particularly in The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Germany and the conjoining Nordic countries (Iceland Music Export n. pag.).

With its vibrant music scene, Iceland has become a “hipster mecca” (Barrett n. pag.), attracting worldwide media attention and an increasing interest from academic circles. Magazines such as I-D Magazine, The Line of Best Fit, NME and Wonderland Magazine are just few of many examples of international news media who are currently addressing the Icelandic music scene, writing about everything from Björk and Sigur Rós to the hip hop scene (re)surfacing in Iceland’s music landscape.

The Origins of Iceland’s Global Music Scene

The Sugarcubes put Icelandic music on the world map, with Björk's personality, dress sense and vocal style tailor made for an increasingly faceless music scene in desperate need of strong, innovative and self-determined individuals. (Toop n. pag.)

Prior to the arrival of the Sugarcubes and the punk scene in the 1980s, music in Iceland was heavily influenced by the music British and American soldiers brought with them through

(9)

music records were extremely hard to find on the isolated island, but with the ensuing economic prosperity of the 1950s came record and record-player stores fulfilling the needs of the Icelanders. Additionally, alongside the American army came Rock ‘n’ Roll (Dr. Gunni 20-8). From then on, Icelanders started to experiment at an ever-increasing rate creating music in various genres. However, it was not until 1987, when the Sugarcubes landed “the single of the week” in the UK music press with the song Birthday, that popular music from Iceland got international recognition. Being on the cover of both NME and Melody Maker within the same week, Sugarcubes were put on the map and took Iceland with them. Björk later made her debut as a solo artist in 1993, which marked the beginning of her worldwide fame, and her success simultaneously put Iceland on the global “map of cool” (Guðmundsson 1999; Dr. Gunni 142). Einar Örn, Björk’s co-singer in the Sugarcubes and KUKL argues that music has always influenced the travel interests in Iceland, and has stated; “So many people come up to me and say, ‘I’ve wanted to visit Iceland ever since I heard the Sugarcubes, or Sigur Rós. (...) But it’s only lately that people have started to realise that it has been the music that got Iceland where we are” (Simpson n. pag.).

“All the animals in the forest are friends”

Although Björk and Sigur Rós are still the best-known artists coming from Iceland, the nation of just 320,000 inhabitants has produced numerous musical artists and bands spanning a wide range of genres. Indeed, many musicians hold the opinion that it is in fact the small population of Iceland that is the reason for the large music production. Árni Árnason, the bassist with The Vaccines states in a podcast interview with The Line of Best Fit that “what is fascinating about Icelandic music, and a lot of the art scene in general, is that the scenes, because it (Iceland) is so small, (...) there is no sort of scene that really develops and is exclusive [sic]”. Dagur Kári Pétursson, filmmaker and band member of Slowblow, holds a similar perception saying:

All the animals in the forest are friends2_{. There is a strong sense of friendship and}

cooperation, and people help each other a lot (...) The boundaries between the bands are floating, the same people are perhaps in three different bands, and everyone are constantly playing with each other, which is interesting, and is perhaps what has made

2

(10)

Icelandic music to what it is – that there is this family atmosphere. (Dagur Kári Pétursson in Screaming Masterpiece 2005)

Sociologist and musicologist Nick Prior (2015) conducted a sociological and ethnographic investigation into the popular music practices in Iceland, exploring the social space of music. Prior investigates nature’s assimilation with Icelandic music, which is prominent in the current discourse concerning Iceland’s national branding. One of Prior’s interviewees states that: “[i]t’s much more of a social thing than a nature thing”. In line with this, artist Ólafur Arnalds points out, in the documentary, Iceland: Beyond Sigur Rós (2010), that the relationship between music and nature occurs when the music is taken out of its original context in Iceland, and placed somewhere else:

People hear the word Iceland, and they think about the nature, and they connect it together. We are not conceptually using our nature in our music, it is used when people speak about our music in other countries (…) it helps to create an image for the music, which helps people make it tangible and something that you can seek out and look for. (Ólafur Arnalds in Iceland: Beyond Sigur Rós 2010)

However, as Prior argues in a forthcoming chapter, titled Spatiality, Sociality and Circulation: Popular Music Scenes in Reykjavik, geographical continuity and spatiality affects the conditions from which music arises. Although the idea of an “Icelandic sound” is tied to borealistic3 imaginaries, reducing Iceland to an isolated, mystical and exotic place, Prior notes that the environment does have an impact on both the music production and circulation. The production of music, collective identities, and ‘the Icelandic sound’ are, according to Prior, shaped through dense creative networks and dynamics, and through the way people act and are together in Reykjavík.

Boredom and DIY

There is a strong, but not exclusive sense of DIY (‘Do It Yourself’) culture when it comes to the music making processes in Iceland, as a result of a small music industry (Prior forthcoming). Árni Árnason describes it as a sense of carefreeness and being

(11)

experimental, as music-making in Iceland often “is just expression in sake of expression [sic], rather than anything else”. Árni Árnason further states that he “sometimes attributes the amount of music, or interesting music coming from Iceland, to boredom”, as Iceland is a small society with its limitations, and as one of Prior’s interviewees describes, “if you’re 15, it’s really boring to live here (in Iceland), because you can’t do anything. You smoke outside a shop and spit into a giant puddle” (Prior 5).

In an interview with the Icelandic duo ‘Young Karin’, Wonderland Magazine asks where the members, Karin Sveinsdóttir and Logi Pedro Stefánsson met. Karin answers, “we met while surfing the waves of music on the internet”. She continues by saying that growing up in Iceland is smothering, and therefore “bless the internet” (Wonderland Magazine n. pag.). Alongside the DIY culture, the internet has become an important tool to use. There is not always any need for a “middle man”, as artists can present themselves on various sites, such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, amongst others. The music industry in Iceland was, for instance, relatively unscathed by the austerity following the financial crisis arising in 2008, when the industry was already largely financially self-sufficient (Prior forthcoming).

Double-edged Sword

There are seemingly two identities in Icelandic music production; one existing within Iceland, and another outside of the Icelandic borders. From the sparsely populated island, big names such as Björk and Sigur Rós, and more recently Of Monsters and Men, Kaleo, Ólafur Arnalds and Ásgeir have managed to gain international success. However, as Ólafur Arnalds notes in the documentary Iceland: Beyond Sigur Rós, “for me, I had sold tens of thousands of records outside of Iceland, and I was still completely unknown here (in Iceland) (…) My music had appeal to foreigners because they connected it to the nature, that Icelandic people didn’t”. In relation to this, music journalist Haukur Magnússon states that “we have our pop music here, there are professional musicians in Iceland, making a living by playing music (…). This is just not the stuff you hear outside of Iceland (…), this is commercially motivated music”. Magnússon further argues that “people will recognize the name [Iceland] and link it with music, and with a certain attitude in music (…) But it is a

(12)

two-edge [sic] sword, because as soon as you define it as such, it starts getting pigeonable” (Iceland: Beyond Sigur Rós 2010).

As pointed out by Prior, music in Iceland is created through collaboration as opposed to individual actions, which concurs with Small’s notion of musicking. By exploring the social interactions on Facebook and Twitter, this thesis sets out to map the collaborations by visualising a social network. This network portrays Icelandic popular music culture through the lens’ of Facebook and Twitter’s medium-specificities. This popular music culture is shaped by the actors participating in the collaborative activities both on Facebook and Twitter and in the offline world. The thesis aims to further investigate how these online networks affect and shape the music production in Iceland and how the networks influence the exported image of Icelandic music. Concepts from Pierre Bourdieu and Howard Becker, namely field theory and art worlds, are used to analyse the workings of these online networks. Ultimately, this study shows that networks can exist as both fields and worlds. The thesis is not limited to exploring online networks, and through conducting interviews with representatives in the music industry in Iceland as well as engaging with current media debates, the thesis also explores how “offline” relations shape the Icelandic popular music culture. The thesis will thereby contribute to the existing public and academic debate by visually representing the act of musicking in Iceland as it appears online, as well as a further reflect upon “offline” interrelations. This study shows that the social media platforms Facebook and Twitter are not only used for promotional intentions aligning with the DIY culture in the popular music culture in Iceland, but also provide opportunities to create new networks amongst actors within the popular music culture in Iceland.

1.2 CHAPTER SUMMARY

A general introduction has been sketched out above, presenting an overview of Icelandic popular music culture as the research object of this study.

The following chapter deals with Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory and Howard Becker’s theoretical study of art worlds as the two main theories that make up the theoretical lens for the research. Both theories are theoretically and methodologically different from one another, but are used here in conjunction to create the theoretical framework that allows the

(13)

related social network analysis to be carried out. The theoretical framework not only acts as a method for theoretical interpretation, but actually directs the empirical approach of this study, as this approach is developed with the concepts of fields and worlds in mind.

Chapter 3 subsequently outlines the methodological approach used to conduct the study as well as a detailed account of the research and analytical tools chosen to aid the study. The studies and explorations of Facebook and Twitter are conducted through an interpretive take on platform analysis deriving from Tarleton Gillespie’s notion of platforms and Henry Jenkin’s concept of transmedia storytelling, ultimately resulting in a ‘trans-platform analysis’. This chapter thus positions the empirical approach in this study to a theoretical stance within the field of new media.

After the outline of the empirical approach, the chapter titled ‘Networks’ follows, which consists of two parts. First, a general overview is deduced from the findings deriving from the networks from Facebook and Twitter, respectively. Second, an analysis of the two networks is performed, implementing both art worlds and field theory. The medium-specificities of Facebook and Twitter are furthermore depicted and included in this analysis.

Consequently, the ‘Discussion’ chapter engages with the social networks derived from Facebook and Twitter and reflects on the structure and positioning of the social actors within Icelandic popular music culture depicted in the previous chapter, bringing together elements from the theory of art worlds and field theory. Interviews conducted with Kristján Eldjárn, Sigtryggur Baldursson and Arnar Eggert Thoroddsen ‒ individuals involved in Icelandic popular music culture ‒ are integrated in the discussion for added perspectives and contextualisation. The discussion chapter will reflect on how the conducted social network analysis can be positioned and understood in terms of digital methods and the field of new media, and subsequently how this study suggests a (re)positioning of digital methods within the general field of new media.

(14)

2.0 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this thesis is comprised of Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory and Howard Becker’s theory on art worlds. Both theories are used widely to conceptualise various forms of socio-economic networks, for instance, within music industries. Although holding some similarities, the two theories are also distinct from one another, which both Bourdieu and Becker have clearly expressed on multiple occasions. Becker on one hand, coming from an interactionist tradition, centres the social aspect in the relational composition of a network, whereas Bourdieu centres the notions of power and positions when conceptualising the field as being composed and structured by objective relations. The theoretical framework outlined below intends to use both theories in conjunction, although acknowledging and understanding the various theoretical differences, and even antagonism, between them. The conjunction of the two theories creates an original lens and approach through which a social network analysis is conducted of Iceland’s popular music culture on social network platforms.

The following chapter is comprised of three sections. Firstly, it outlines Bourdieu’s theory on the cultural field. Becker’s notion of art worlds then follows this section. Finally, the latter segment will sum up points from both theories and discuss them in order to articulate a theoretical outline for a social network analysis that can combine both perspectives and use their differences as a point of discussion in the analysis.

2.1 A FIELD OF MUSIC

The notion of the field is one of Pierre Bourdieu’s central concepts. The field can be described as a ‘social space’ structured by a system of social agents, but also larger groupings and institutions, and is organized around a particular practice. The system, Bourdieu argues, is constituted of “objective relations between positions defined by their rank in the distribution of competing powers or species of capital” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 114). In other words, the interrelations between the different positions correspond with the distribution of capital. The notion of different forms for capital referring to different forms of

(15)

forms of capital in Bourdieu’s work dealt with in this thesis are the economic capital, the social capital, the cultural capital and the symbolic capital. The economic capital constitutes material value, in forms of currency, money, stocks, property etc., whereas the social capital comprises of social connections and competences. The cultural capital is made up of knowledge and educational credentials amongst other cultural assets, and may be subdivided into artistic, literary or musical forms. The cultural capital is furthermore characterised by high culture and distinguished taste (Thompson 14; Lindberg et al. 30). The symbolic capital covers social prestige and status, but can also be seen as a ‘meta capital’, as all forms of capital can include a symbolic aspect. If a resource from any given capital becomes of value to the society, it becomes symbolic capital (Bourdieu and Wacquant 119; Lindberg et al. 30).

What is central to Bourdieu’s theory, and what distinguishes him from Becker, is that he is not concerned with the social relations between the different agents, but is rather interested in the objective relations between the positions “which exist independently of individual consciousness and will” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 97). The positions are objectively defined within the specific field and can only acquire their meaning within a system of relations (Bourdieu & Wacquant 97). Within the field of cultural production, agents can include artists, cultural institutions, critics and producers. The field is dynamic and is an ongoing process continuously affected and constituted by the agents, the positions and relations between the positions. The field is a site of constant struggle and conflicts which results in a constant shift in the positions and their hierarchical orders (Moore 440). The agents are all competing for prestige and success within the hierarchy, but under the rule of the predefined social structure of the field (Stevenson 1091).

The field is often compared to a ‘game’ where the agents can be interpreted as ‘players’ competing with each other while following pre-set rules and structures. However, the field also includes specific types of trump-cards in the form of capital that can reinforce the power that causes shifts within the hierarchical structure, the positions, and the relations between positions (Bourdieu and Wacquant 98-100). The main point in this analogy is that the players choose to play the game and they all find the purpose worthy enough for their effort to participate in the game. This aligns with Donald Broady’s “’minimum’ definition” of the social space being a “system of relations between positions occupied by specialized agents and institutions engaged in a battle on something they have in common” as described

(16)

in Lindberg et al. (30-1). The struggles then lie in drawing the borders of the game – or to leave the game analogy – the struggle lies in defining the boundaries of the field itself. What continuously shifts the boundaries are the dynamic struggles and shifts in positions. In terms of the field of cultural production, new artistic movements are established, new genres are celebrated or different aesthetics renowned and distinguished. However, all the changes are created and determined within the specific structure and regulations within the field itself, and are therefore created in relation to the predetermined structures, and are not the result of “creative geniuses” (Stevenson 1091). Agents play the game by using their capital as a resource. One of the most important aspects of the field theory is in the way one form of capital can be converted to another (Thompson 14). The agents hold capitals as commodities for strategic purposes, and when attempting to either improve or just maintain their position within the field, they can do so by converting and exchanging one form of capital to another, thereby converting one form of power to another (M. Scott 66). A musical artist can, for example, convert cultural capital into economic capital by going from creating ‘avant-garde’ music to creating popular music.

The agents all enter and interact with the field according to their habitus, another central concept in Bourdieu’s theory. The habitus is embodied knowledge and is “a set of dispositions which incline agents to act and react in certain ways” (Thompson 12). These dispositions are internalized and are not consciously coordinated, deriving from the agent’s upbringing, social class and social structural norms (Thompson 13; Oware 66). It is thus the habitus of the agents that inclines how they act as players in the game of the field. The habitus draws agents within the same social space together, which forms concrete relations and clusters. Actors with similar habitus “are more likely to be interacting with one another, mutually influencing one another and therefore mutually shaping their respective habitus” (Bottero and Crossley 102).

The field is constituted by the interrelations between two sub-fields, with the ‘heteronomous’ space at one pole, and the ‘autonomous’ space at the other pole (Hesmondhalgh 214). In terms of the field of cultural production, the heteronomous space is a sub-field of large-scale production, or rather mass production. The autonomous space is conversely a sub-field of small-scale production, with restricted production. Being autonomous, the agents form their own rules and forms of legitimacy (Bourdieu 38). Bourdieu defines the cultural production within the autonomous sub-field as ‘art for art’s

(17)

sake’ or ‘production for producers’, which could be experienced as high culture. The intention within the heteronomous space is on the contrary to reach out to the mass-audience, where success lies in economic capital, and can thus be seen as low culture, or what Bourdieu defines as ‘bourgeois art’ (Bourdieu 40). The agents are thus highly contingent on outside forces, in contrast to agents in the autonomous space. An agent’s “position taking” in the field of cultural production is “subjectively defined by the system” (Bourdieu 30) and is always relational to other positions. Thus, being positioned in the heteronomous or the autonomous sub-field is relational to the rest of the field. Lindberg et al. exemplify this with The Beatles, and argue that the band is an example of a ‘two-step process’ (2). The Beatles were first accepted in the heteronomous field as a rock band in the sphere of popular music, but later gained the double achievement of gaining recognition as autonomous artists. The Beatles positioning was therefore relational to the field itself, and the band itself shifted the hierarchical order and positions of power.

A cultural field is thus a site of struggle between internal forces, shifting boundaries, hierarchies and positions. The field is relatively autonomous, but it can never be completely independent, as its position is determined by its relation to the dominant social system. Cultural production is thus created in the midst of struggles both within the field and between fields. It is created in and is shaped by a structure of interrelated agents coexisting in the given field (Craig and Dubois 442). In The Field of Cultural Production, Bourdieu favours the autonomous sub-field and argues that it “would reign unchallenged” if it were to “achieve total autonomy” from the market (38). Bourdieu states further that “the more autonomous the field becomes” the more symbolic capital and power it has, and the clearer division the two poles would have (39).

Bourdieu stresses that when analysing a given field, the focus must be on the field and not on the individuals constituting the field, as individuals should be understood as agents acting and producing effects in the field, and not as biological subjects (Bourdieu and Wacquant 107). Analysing a network through the lens of Bourdieu’s field theory therefore allows for an awareness of the position-takings being dependent on the system it arises from, and not only as position-taking in itself (Bourdieu 32). However, as Bottero and Crossely (2011) have previously noted, Bourdieu’s theory is weakened in his rejection of the social account of the interrelations between the positions. Even the word “interrelations” suggests social interactions. Furthermore, the social relations and clusters forming on the

(18)

basis of agent’s habitus suggest a social bond, which is mainly negated in Bourdieu’s writing. To conceptualise the social ties and relations between the positions in the field of cultural production, or rather Iceland’s popular music field, Howard Becker’s concept of art world will thus be outlined and conceptualised below.

2.2 A WORLD OF MUSIC

[T]he metaphor of world – which does not seem to be at all true of the metaphor of field – contains people, all sorts of people, who are in the middle of doing something that requires them to pay attention to each other, to consciously take account of the existence of others and to shape what they do in the light of what others do. (Becker and Pessin 278)

Moving from the metaphor of fields to the metaphor of worlds – this section will deal with what is a central concept in Howard Becker’s theory, the worlds – or rather, the art worlds. In the quote above, Becker expresses how he himself would distinguish his theory on worlds from Bourdieu’s theory of fields. According to Becker, a central difference between them is found in their emphasis, or lack thereof, on the social aspect in the organisation of the network. As Becker expresses elsewhere, “he (Bourdieu) doesn’t speak about people. He just speaks about forces. There aren’t any people doing anything” (Gopnik, The Outside Game). The social relations are, however, central to Becker’s conceptualisation of art worlds.

Becker’s art world is a production system constituted by a network of people formed through cooperative activity, “organized via their joint knowledge of conventional means of doing things” (Becker X). The activity within the art world occurs collectively, and the lines of activity are developed and adjusted gradually and in relation to the other agents (Becker and Pessin 278). In the simplest terms, a world consists of human beings trying to do something, creating a new song for example, and they do so by getting other people to assist them, which they can do both directly and indirectly. For instance, if an artist wanted to create a new single, the artist would need the help from a music producer and other musicians to play the featured instruments on the track, all of whom would directly assist the artist. The artist does however also get indirectly help from actors such as the luthiers that

(19)

along with multiple others, are an example of a collective forming an art world. Thus, when analysing a social network as an art world through the lens of Becker, the emphasis is on understanding the agents in play as:

Groups of people who cooperate to produce things that they, at least, call art; having found them, we look for other people who are also necessary to that production, gradually building up as complete a picture as we can of the entire cooperating network that radiates out from the work in question. (Becker 35)

This chapter deals with three interlocking elements in Becker’s theory on art worlds; collective activity that comprehends the interrelations in the network, the conventions shaping and organising the social relations, and finally the distribution system that outlines the resources available in the art world, all of which will be outlined below.

Collective Activity

Art worlds are formed by interpersonal ties and visible relationships (Bottero and Crossley 104). Similar to Christopher Small’s notion of musicking that was described in the previous chapter, Becker too sees that art production such as music is not only created by “the artist” himself (although that can be hard to distinguish in itself) but by all people involved in the production – from the ticket-takers at a concert to the luthiers creating and repairing the instruments, to the audience listening. However, Becker goes one step further, including actors who were involved in even the smallest segment of the musical production, and states that “[a]rt worlds consist of all the people whose activities are necessary to the production of the characteristic works which that world, and perhaps others as well, define as art” (Becker 34; Roy and Dowd 9). It is the collective activity that ties the social actors together and ties them into a set of direct social relations (Gilmore 149). Routine collective activity within the art world creates “relatively stable patterns of interaction that act as social referents guiding future collective activity” (Gilmore 151). The idea of “cooperation” between the social actors in an art world is at the centre of Becker’s theory. It should not, however, only be understood in the “conventional, minimal understanding of that word” (Becker and Pessin 283). Firstly, the relations are not always direct, and the actors might not be aware of each other. Furthermore, actors could be cooperating on just single project and have a distant relation outside of that, and also, explicit actors could be in a conflict but still co-exist

(20)

in the bigger web of relations in an art world. These relations can be observed, if they are explicit, in clusters, in conflict with each other or as distant relations.

Becker identifies four different groups that make up the network within the art world: integrated professionals, mavericks, folk artists and naive artists. The groups are defined by how their roles relate to the art world as a whole and how they are integrated in the networks of collective activity (Bottero and Crossley 105). Becker mainly deals with the integrated professionals in Art Worlds (1982), as he argues that most people who work in an organised art world are by definition integrated professionals (230). Integrated professionals can produce work understandable to others, because when relying on shared history of problems and solutions, the integrated professionals can habitually use the conventions, social skills and technical abilities necessary to create art that others would find interesting and characteristic (229-32). Integrated professionals are thus not only artists, but the group also includes all actors involved in the art production. Mavericks are actors who have once been a part of the “conventional art world of their time, place and medium” (233), but have left it and created their own network of mostly untrained and unprofessional actors with new audiences (235-6). Becker argues most mavericks’ work remains unknown and is never immersed into an art world, but creates networks and clusters for themselves nevertheless. Becker uses the categorisation of folk artists to explain the habitual art engrained in the conventions or “ordinary” practices, that “members of a particular age and sex, ordinarily do” (247). Mavericks and folk artists are therefore only partially integrated in an art world. The last group, the naive artist, are an ignored group, according to Samuel Gilmore. The group encompasses artists without any professional training who create meaningful art unintentionally. Becker argues that the reason naive artists are able to create unique art is because they have never internalised the habits and visions of professionals, as they have never acquired professional training (263-5). The distinction between the aforementioned four groups are found in their relation to the art world, not in terms of the art explicitly produced, but in the way, they work and how dependent they are on the art world (Becker 270).

(21)

Conventions

Conventions are a central aspect of Becker’s notion of the art world, and can be described as shared knowledge “deeply ingrained” that covers “all the decisions that must be made with respect to works produced” (Becker 204; 30). Becker explains that “the conventional way of doing things in any art utilizes an existing cooperative network” and that “[e]very convention implies an aesthetic which makes what is conventional the standard of artistic beauty and effectiveness” (Becker 306; 305). In other words, conventions are embedded in the practices in the art world, and the shared knowledge of the conventions directs how the members of the world act and coordinate their actions. The art created in the world is also understood from the standpoint of an aesthetic base manifested in the existing conventions (Bottero and Crossely 104; Becker 270).

Acting according to the existing conventions makes the collective activity simpler and easier, as everyone would act and understand the action according to shared knowledge. The actors can also create unconventional work, however it is “more costly and difficult”, as the participants lose the basis from which the collective activity stems from (Becker 35). Breaking with the conventions results can mean a decrease in the distribution and circulation of the work, but can on the other hand mean more freedom, as the work is not fastened in any practices (Becker 34). In this sense, we can, according to Becker, “understand any work as the product of a choice between conventional ease and success and unconventional trouble and lack of recognition” (Becker 34). Becker admits that within this choice, people are often forced to do something for lack of an alternative because of hidden positions of power and elements of coercion (Becker and Pessin 282).

Distribution System

The distribution system is the system of resources available in an art world. What gets distributed has a crucial effect on the artist and the art works as distribution is connected to artistic reputation. What does not get distributed is not known to the public, and as Becker argues, “[m]aking art works of any kind requires resources” (Becker 69). The distribution system thereby holds a dominant position in the art worlds.

(22)

The resources available in the art world are contingent to the economic activities shaping the distribution system (Becker 92). As Becker explains, “[a]rtists produce what the distribution system can and will carry” (129). The distribution system accordingly affects and shapes the art produced, as most artist wish to attain the advantages of distribution, so they create their art from the aesthetic basis of the world. “The patterns of economic activity characteristic of a society” thus “shape what artists can get to work with and who they can get to work with them” (Becker 92). In other words, art works always carry marks of the system distributing them (94).

The artist can also challenge the conventional distribution system that is ingrained in a particular art world. Self-supporting artists, often students or unlearned amateurs who are financially independent from the dominant market, often have to think of new ways of distributing their art. In the music industry, this means that instead of performing concerts in establish institutions and concert halls, they have to find other locations and smaller venues to perform their music, e.g. at amateur nights at bars, on the streets, or as currently occurring, on an online platform such as YouTube (Cayari 2011).

The market is a participatory actor in the network of the art world, and cooperates in forming reputations by offering resources as a form of economic support to selected actors. The state therefore helps shape the aesthetic value of the art world and has the power position of giving support to some artists opposed to others, “when they appear to further national purposes” (Becker 191). Becker argues that “[f]ully developed art worlds, however, provide distribution systems which integrate artists into their society's economy, bringing art works to publics which appreciate them and will pay enough so that the work can proceed” (Becker 93).

Becker is not keen on conceptualising the world as an existing structure or organisation, but rather as the product of cooperative activities of people (Becker 35). However, resources and inequalities in power relations are, as indicated above, crucial in Becker’s art worlds. Although, Becker does refrain from dealing with this aspect in a ‘structuralist’ matter. The focus in this theoretical framework is conversely on the social relations, and how resources are distributed between the social agents (Bottero and Crossely 105). As described in Adam Gopnik´s The Outside Game, one of Becker’s students has written that “rather than asking the less than fruitful question of why people break rules, Becker came to focus on how people go through an identifiable process to choose to break

(23)

rules.” Putting the focus on the cooperative activities between actors, Becker turns his attention to a larger network of social relations, which distinguishes his theory from Bourdieu’s field theory.

Becker’s theory differs from Bourdieu’s in many ways, and like Bourdieu, Becker has been widely criticised. Hans van Maanen points out the descriptive emphasis in Art Worlds, and questions whether the theory can be defined as a sociological analysis of the art worlds, or if it can only be seen as purely descriptive (42). Although giving a very descriptive portrayal of the art worlds, Becker does hold a very important position in network theory, especially with his emphasis on social relations, embodied conventions, and in the interest in the distribution systems. Criticism concerning Bourdieu’s approach to field theory is, however, generally directed at his seemingly structuralist stance that encapsulates his understanding of underlying power structures and patterns, a stance Bourdieu himself has rejected (74). Drawing upon Becker’s and Bourdieu’s individual fields of attentions, whilst challenging the distinctions between, the social network analysis described below comprises of Becker’s emphasis on social relations and Bourdieu’s emphasis on underlying structures and power relations.

The following section will outline the framework for the social network analysis. This section will also discuss how and why Bourdieu and Becker are used together, both in spite of and because of their differences.

2.3 SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

In this section, the theoretical framework is used to posit that a social network analysis can be conducted using Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of fields in conjunction with Howard Becker’s analysis of worlds. Although both Bourdieu, Becker and other scholars (e.g. Fine) have argued that the two theories cannot be used in conjunction since their theoretical stance and focus arise from different theoretical perspectives, it is argued here that the theories can be used together both despite and through their important differences. The aim of this thesis is to conduct a social network analysis of Iceland’s popular music culture that has been formed on the social media platforms Facebook and Twitter. A social network analysis “depicts agents – individual or collective – as embedded in webs of

(24)

connections, and the task of the sociologist is to describe and explain the patterns exhibited in these connections” (J. Scott 112). The focus of research is commonly the interactions and exchange and often the affiliations between individuals and institutions, where structure is equated to the network of interrelations (de Nooy 313; 317).

Bourdieu rejects the method of social network analysis, as he distinguishes between structure and interaction (de Nooy 306; Bourdieu and Wacquant 113-4). It can be said that Bourdieu’s theory operates on a higher level of abstraction due to his exploration of power structures between positions rather than the concrete interrelations. The interactions arise as a result of power relations and objective positions, and should therefore, according to Bourdieu, not be the object of investigation. The second reason for Bourdieu’s reluctance to use social network analysis is the “exclusive focus on the present, which entails a denial of the past” (de Nooy 317-8).

The argument put forward here, however, is that interactions between agents in fact do occur within the exchange of capital along with repositioning and reorganising the hierarchical structure in the field. What is seemingly neglected in Bourdieu’s theory is the idea that this interaction cannot be seen as one-sided. Granted, the interactions occurring in the field are affected by the power positions and their relations, however, it is shown here that the power positions and hierarchical organisations are affected by the interrelations between the social agents. As for the aim of this thesis, the research would benefit from a dissection of the social relations within the network, as well as an examination of the power positions and relations, as depicted of Facebook and Twitter. Moreover, while the past is undoubtedly relevant in the structure of a network, it does not have to be a reason to impede investigation in a present state of affairs. Structural relations and power dynamics are still displayed. The methodological framework in this thesis does, however, takes the social network analysis one step further, as interviews with selected social actors were conducted to foster a contextual analysis and uphold a historical contingence.

Contrarily, Becker’s focus lies on the concrete relations between actors, their interrelations and labour divisions forming collective activities. This, along with his analytical emphasis on the distribution systems, makes his concept a valuable contribution to the theoretical framework of this thesis. Crucially, Becker rejects the claim that social actors respond “automatically to mysterious external forces surrounding them” (Becker and Pessin 278), which he critiques Bourdieu for claiming.

(25)

Alain Pessin describes the differences between the two theories in Dialogue on the Ideas of “World” and “Field” as follows:

They are two ways of thinking that are opposed in their intentions and, necessarily in their results: the philosophic-sociological approach that searches for the essence of the social, which leads to the theory of fields, and the sociological ethnographic approach that tries to make explicit the circumstances in which social situations create links between actors, which is the idea of a world. (Becker and Pessin 286)

The relationship, or perhaps the theoretical rivalry between Bourdieu and Becker, has evidently been dealt with on numerous occasions, not least by themselves. Their theoretical frameworks have nevertheless been used in conjunction prior to this thesis: Wendy Bottero and Nick Crossely, for instance, drew upon a theoretical framework similar to the one presented here when examining the social network found in the punk subculture in 1970s UK (2011). The argument put forward by Bottero and Crossely likewise suggests that within the sets of differences between Bourdieu and Becker, there is a space for a juxtaposition. They advocate the theory of art worlds over the theory of fields because of Becker’s interactional aspect and his emphasis on conventions and resources, although celebrating Bourdieu’s account of relations between positioning.

Bourdieu’s and Becker’s distinctive perspectives are used with not only an awareness on their variances but their variances are deliberately utilized. The framework put forward in this thesis offers an original take on the conjunction of Bourdieu and Becker, as they are used as a lens for a social network analysis conducted from primarily online data.

By using the analytical tools of field theory, a system of positions is mapped within the field of Iceland’s popular music culture. The positions and the relations within this field are then further explored on a more micro level by using Becker’s relational approach. The theoretical framework presented in this chapter encompasses both Becker’s and Bourdieu's seemingly antagonistic and irreconcilable perspectives on social relations. For Becker, the primary relations are explicit, conscious and close, while relations to actors that you do not know of, or only vaguely familiar with, are secondary and weaker. For Bourdieu on the other hand, social relations that are not explicit or unconscious are more important than the explicit/conscious relations. Because the actors in the field are not aware of the nature of some relations, these relations in particular yield a stronger pressure on them and their actions. The theoretical framework presented here thereby raises the questions: what if both mechanisms are at play in the art world? How would they interact in practice? How can their

(26)

interaction be analysed? The way to get further is to activate both theories in the same empirical studies.

The following chapter will further explicate the empirical approach and parameters applied in the research will be comprehensively outlined. Moreover, in line with Wouter de Nooy, the word ‘structure’ will be used from this point onwards to refer to objective relations, whereas the word network will be used for intersubjective relations, to clearly display the distinctions between both theoretical perspectives in play (de Nooy 317).

(27)

3.0 Empirical Approach

In the following chapter, the empirical framework of this thesis will be outlined. In order to conduct a social network analysis of the popular music culture in Iceland and explore an outlook of the online connectivity occurring with the rise of Web 2.0, a platform analysis was conducted through a trans-platform approach exploring two networks that were generated from the social media platforms Facebook and Twitter. The overall empirical approach employed here aligns with digital methods as presented by Richard Rogers (2013a) as well as employing a device-driven perspective, put forward by Esther Weltevrede (2016). According to Weltevrede, device-driven digital research allows digital media to be both the object of research and simultaneously be the mode of method (3-8). In other words, a device-driven approach allows the researcher to comprehend the social media platform as a source of sociality while also allowing for a repurposing of data to modes of analysis. Then, as mentioned in the first chapter, the platform analysis is conducted on the basis that the Internet can be used as a “source of data about society and culture”, as “virtual interactions supplement rather than substitute for the “real,” and stimulate more real interaction, as opposed to isolation and desolation” (Rogers 2013a 38; 20). The chapter is comprised of a detailed outline of the empirical approach acquired to conduct the study, as well as a comprehensive account of the chosen research and analytical tools used.

3.1 TRANS-PLATFORM APPROACH

The two networks were generated from the social media platforms Facebook and Twitter, and were explored from the perspective of what will be termed here as a trans-platform approach. The notion of a trans-platform approach is put forward by Richard Rogers in the chapter Digital Methods for Cross-platform Analysis (2017), borrowing terms from Henry Jenkins (2006) and Tarleton Gillespie (2010). However, as Rogers does not expand on the term, it will be further elaborated and interpreted here, in terms of the research objective of

(28)

this thesis, but first a general outline will be sketched out of two separate notions offered by Gillespie and Jenkins, namely platform and transmedia.

Gillespie introduces a conceptual usage of a platform, expanding on the more traditional computational understanding of the term in stating that “‘[p]latforms’ are ‘platforms’ not necessarily because they allow code to be written or run, but because they afford an opportunity to communicate, interact or sell” (351). A platform thus enables interactions and participation. Gillespie further states that the rhetoric of platforms, compared to other structural metaphors, embodies computational, political, figurative and architectural connotations, “fit[ting] neatly with the long-standing rhetoric about the democratizing potential of the internet, and with the more recent enthusiasm for user-generated content (UGC)” (349; 352). As Anne Helmond notes in the article The Platformization of the Web (2015), both Facebook and Twitter should be positioned as platforms, as both offer computational systems that are programmable,4 meaning that they offer opportunities to reprogram and accommodate needs and niches of the users. Furthermore, both interfaces provide an API5_{, which other computational applications can}

run on. External website developers can build new websites or apps on top of platforms such as Facebook and Twitter integrating their medium-specificities. Helmond illustrates this with the dating app Tinder, as it requires a login from Facebook and employs shared friends and medium-specificities such as ‘likes’ given on Facebook (4). The notion of the platform is thus seen as the most appropriate structural metaphor to position both Facebook and Twitter in this particular study.

The argument for why this study takes a trans-platform approach, opposed to the more traditional cross-platform approach is due to the empirical intention of using both Twitter and Facebook in conjunction in order to shed light on a general social network analysis of the popular music culture in Iceland.

The notion of transmedia derives from Jenkins (2006), who states that “a transmedia story unfolds across multiple media platforms, with each new text making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole” (95-6), opposed to the connotation of a cross-platform

4_{Definition put forward by Marc Andreessen (2007), as depicted by Anne Helmond (2015)}

5_{API (Application Programming Interfaces): “An API is an interface provided by an application that lets users interact}

(29)

analysis, implying rather that the media story is the same for all platforms. Today, users are typically present on not just one singular social media platform, but rather multiple platforms. According to Jenkins, attention on this media convergence can thus offer new levels of insight into online activities, as a broader and more nuanced network of connected agents can be detected (20-1; 96).

Conversely, a cross-platform approach typically offers a perspective for content comparison and content organising across platforms, which is a valuable approach when, for instance, carrying out an event-following study (e.g. presidential elections or natural disasters). The purpose of this study was not to compare the content on Twitter and Facebook, but to combine both platforms’ data and then use it to present a perspective of popular music culture in Iceland. Moreover, as the networks produced for this study from Facebook and Twitter were generated from different empirical queries, elaborated below, the data cannot be compared on equal terms. Hence a ‘trans-platform’ approach being employed.

3.2 POSTDEMOGRAPHICS

This study takes a postdemographic approach that deals with the collected datasets. A postdemographic study sets out to analyse the data from social media platforms where the objects of interests are online profiles and the data stored within them. Understanding the meaning and role of the prefix ‘post’ is important, as the postdemographic approach differs from the traditional, sociological demographic approach, where groupings based on socio-biological characteristics such as gender, education and race are the points of interests. The characteristics concerned with groupings in the postdemographic study has shifted towards an “info-political” perspective, where information such as interests, tastes and ‘favourites’ are the main theoretical importance (Rogers 2013a 153-4). In other words, postdemographics is a way to engage with social and culturally significant digital profiles, and how they are ‘performed’ (12). Postdemographics is moreover a way to engage with larger communities and their interrelations, and it allows one to ask how sociality is organised on social media platforms (153; 156). The relations can be presented in various

(30)

ways, depending on the medium and its affordances6. A common factor for social media platforms is the accumulation of sociality. These platforms are designed to encourage user activity; the more active a user is, the more chance of their presence being seen and felt by their ‘followers’ or ‘friends’. This means that more user-activity results in more data being produced. The social activity shows links and relations between the different actors, essentially forming a network, making the profiles into nodes whose links are based on shared attributes, such as taste or interests (156). With the research objective in this thesis being the social networks within popular music culture in Iceland, the data of interests is not the personal data per se, but rather the relational data. Through the relational data that is based on shared attributes, networks can be constituted, showing an insight into the popular music network in Iceland.

There are of course ethical considerations to reflect upon when dealing with data scraped from personal profiles or pages. As stated by danah boyd and Kate Crawford: “[j]ust because content is publicly accessible does not mean that it was meant to be consumed by just anyone” (672). Thus, although users have given their consent to a given privacy policy on a particular website, the data given and produced by the individual user can be sensitive, and was unlikely to have been produced with the intention of being used for outside research (673). Questions of power, control and truth have therefore been reflected upon when conducting the research for this thesis: the content retrieved and used here is intentionally relationally based, and the information engaged with will not regard individual posts or tweets, although it will use information on postdemographic attributes such as ‘likes’ and ‘mentions’.

3.3 NETWORKS

To conduct the social network analysis, two networks were generated from two social media platforms - Facebook and Twitter. Both Facebook and Twitter are acknowledged not only as some of the most prominent social media platforms in the world,

6_{An ‘affordance’ is a notion coined by James J. Gibson (1986) and is a term for different objects in an environment,}

(31)

but they are also two of the most visited websites overall (We are social; Alexa a). Furthermore, as this study is specifically conducted to research the Icelandic popular music culture and network, it was imperative for the study that the social media platforms were prominently used by Icelandic actors. According to the data-listing company Alexa, Facebook and Twitter are the top two most used social media platforms overall in Iceland, making both platforms suitable for this research (Alexa b). Both Facebook and Twitter exist because of users and networks of users legitimising these platforms daily, which gives them both economic and symbolic success (Stevenson 1099-100).

Furthermore, through “following the medium perspective” (Rogers 2013a 25-7), the data retrieved from Facebook and Twitter were respectively dealt with according to their medium-specific attributes. Mediums and their affordances are structured differently in how the inbuilt systems are organised, meaning that the scripts and algorithms constituting the systems differ from one another, and are organised according the distinct goals and intention with set medium – a methodological perspective Richard Rogers puts forward as web epistemology (26). Alongside built-in possibilities and options come integrated limitations and restrictions. Facebook and Twitter are, according to danah boyd and Kate Crawford (2012), consequently restricted in their modes of archiving and search functions. Therefore, boyd and Crawford state that the results in research objectives are constrained to focus on an objective occurring in the present or immediate past (666).

Twitter and Facebook will be dealt with individually below in relation to their own medium-specificities. The methodologies for producing the networks will be further outlined, along with a description of the digital method tools used, followed by explanations on the methodological choices made and the limitations of said methodology.

3.3.1 TWITTER NETWORK

Twitter

Twitter is a microblogging service where users can convey short messages of 140 characters called ‘tweets’. It includes features such as ‘mentions’ for direct mentioning of another user, ’hashtags’ for collecting posts on the same topic and lastly, ‘retweets’ to instantly share information with your followers (Twitter a). Jack Dorsey, co-founder and

(32)

current CEO of Twitter, explains that the idea behind Twitter was to create a mobile platform that could act as a form of ‘livestream’ so one could keep up with one’s friends’ activities in real time. Dorsey explains, “we wanted to capture that feeling: the physical sensation that you’re buzzing your friend’s pocket” (Sarno n. pag.). From the launch of the platform in 2006 until 2009, users were met by a tagline posing the question “What are you doing?”, which encouraged users to contribute with banal answers, as sharing lunch desires or cultural preferences (Rogers 2013b 2-3). In 2009, Twitter made an internal change and reconfigured some of the existing elements, as well as adding new ones. The platform became a medium for “massively shared experiences” that placed more emphasis on features such as hashtags that would act as content-organisers for tweets. These features would often be used as a means for following news and events (Sarno n. pag.; Rogers 2013b). Twitter has thus become a platform where a user can: “connect with your friends — and other fascinating people. Get in-the-moment updates on the things that interest you. And watch events unfold, in real time, from every angle” (Twitter b).

Twitter is an interesting social network to include in the research for this thesis, as the infrastructure of Twitter emphasises social connections, rather than substantive content. Because of the 140-character limitation, the content is organised in hashtag-use, retweets or by directly mentioning other users. The message is thus subordinated to the role of “ever expanding networks and the notion of a connected presence” (Miller 398). According to Rogers, Twitter could be understood as producer of shallow media coverage, as Twitter, through its technical affordances, favours the present and the popular content (3).

Twitter, however, differs from other social networking sites, such as Facebook, as users are not necessarily “friends”. On Twitter the users do not ‘friend’ one another, but ‘follow’. As Dorsey explains, “on Twitter, you’re not watching the person, you’re watching what they produce”. The user can “watch or unwatch someone - but we found a better word - follow or unfollow” (Sarno n. pag.). According to Vincent Miller (2008), “Twitter is a glimpse into a future media/communications world of connection over content” (397).

DMI-TCAT

The network created from Twitter (figure 1; appendix A) is created by extracting data from Twitter’s API, using the data analysing tool, DMI-TCAT (Borra and Rieder).

(33)

Figure 1: General Twitter mentions network graph - the size and colour of the node represents the overall degree (a spectrum from blue (low) to red (high) (full PDF of the network in appendix A).

A data set was created by the author by collecting tweets in real-time with selected keywords and archiving these tweets into a ‘query bin’ (Borra and Rieder 267). It was important for the query bin that was created for this inquiry to consist of keywords relating to music terminology in order to coincide with the research objective (see figure 2). The query bin consisted of keywords in both English and Icelandic, as a preliminary research showed a tendency for Icelanders to use both Icelandic and English in their writing on Twitter. The query bin was then further filtered, which will be outlined here below.

Figure 2: Keywords included in the query bin, Iceland_music (a translation of keywords can be found in appendix C)

Icelandic Vibrations Online - A social network analysis of the Icelandic popular music culture on Twitter and Facebook