Creating digital objects

As has already been said, that anyone can create something new is not an evident phenomenon; on the contrary, it corresponds to the idea of ​​ perfect and complete humanity, but at the same time has never been perceived as an ordinary human activity.

The creation of digital content is different from the“physical" one, but at the same time, there are common themes or areas between them. The key is the concept of creativity, i.e. creativity transcribed into Czech. Who is and who is not creative? Can creativity be taught? Is it even right and permissible for so many people to be involved in content creation? In addition to the quality issues already mentioned by us, sometimes there are also technological or information science objections - how will it be possible to search in such a large amount of data at all? Will anyone index and record it?  

The digital environment enables the creation of digital content as a specific variant of the physical one. For example, it is possible to have an online version of a newspaper or run a website that will compete with classic newspapers — the creation of wholly new and original forms and types of content. The digitization of design opens up space for the concept of non-traditional multimedia or interactive forms. After all, for example, computer games are today perceived as a separate part of artistic creation with their theory, professional community, research topics, and, above all, a tremendous economic impact.   

Why is the creation of digital content part of the digital competencies that apply to every citizen? This question implicitly includes a question from a previous art exhibition - why is it not possible to leave the creation of digital objects to experts?  

At this point, we would like to offer some answers that will hopefully (at least, to some extent) show the complexity and multi-layered nature of the whole problem. First of all, there is the anthropological starting point - man is a creature who is called by his freedom to create. He is not only (and here again shows a European, not very economic narrative) called to work, as a homo-Faber, but through his work, he should develop himself and the society in which he lives. In the section devoted to participatory work on Wikipedia, we tried to show that everyone can bring something to society through their creative work. This possibility should also be a particular moral commandment - a man who would give up creativity has betrayed his mission in the world.       

On the other hand, the second aspect is economic - more and more professions require one to be able to create digital objects of various kinds - from text documents, through tables, program codes to infographics and presentations. Very often, these are professions that do not have a primary anchor in ICT. Still, the informatization of society transforms them so that they have to work with the creation of digital objects if they are to do their job well. This area includes, for example, teachers, scientists, but also marketers, managers, and journalists.   

Artificial intelligence is playing a pivotal role in the process of creating digital content. It enables the creation of texts and poems, images, videos, music, code, presentations and much more. This raises three significant questions.

1. Is what artificial intelligence creates truly creative? The answer is not clear-cut; it is probably essential to critically reflect on what creativity means and how to conceptualise it, so that it does not become a phenomenon reserved for just a select few (Mozart, Einstein) whilst, at the same time, perhaps remaining something specifically human.
2. When we talk about artificial intelligence creating digital content, we should also recognise the importance of ‘prompting’ – that is, user input – which gradually refines and shapes the final work.
3. If we link the process of creating artefacts to artificial intelligence, we must be very wary of banality – many outputs (such as images) look very similar and generic. The fact that the output is ‘prettier’ than if we had painted or played it ourselves does not mean that we should publish or distribute it further.

However, these points should not diminish the importance of creating digital artefacts in this way, which, in many specific situations, represents an effective tool for quickly achieving a goal, for greater productivity or quality.

Symbolic analysts, who Robert Reich speaks of as a critical layer in the information society, play a crucial role here, of course. If a community does not have the people who can create digital objects and become symbolic analysts, it will have significant problems - primarily economic, secondarily also political and social.  

Between, say, anthropological and economic optics, there is a civic view. To present oneself in cyberspace and be able to intervene in various decision-making processes, the ability to create adequate and functional digital objects is essential for one. People need to create simple objects themselves or to assign their creations adequately or think critically about them. Similarly, he should make an online petition, effectively disseminate it and understand the degree of its legally binding nature compared to a regular petition. 

Without the ability to create digital content, the scope for civic activism is notably reduced, especially one that is firmly based on digital technologies, but this is an area of ​​citizens' activities that will become increasingly important.   

Of course, it also has a downside, which stems from the fact that not all content pursues good and legitimate aims, and that not all content represents something that would contribute in any significant way to the resulting information ecology. Content creation can be linked to manipulation, attempts to alter perceptions of the world for one’s own benefit, and ambitions for power. It is precisely the consideration of ethical implications that is of significant importance in this competence.

We would also like to point out that digital content creation is one of the most and fastest changing parts of the whole framework of digital competencies. Both by the constant emergence of new tools or services in which it is possible to create digital content and rapidly changing the trends, tastes, or forms of digital content and its acceptability. An archetypal example can be, for example, the use of the Comic Sans font, which was once extremely popular (especially among teenagers) and is now perceived either as an expression of utter distaste or as a recessive or cartoonist element.     

Another example is infographics, which did not exist 15 years ago and are now handled as a regular medium, similarly as if we were writing text in a word processor or creating presentations in PowerPoint. 

In terms of digital content creation, video occupies a leading position, whether in terms of the time spent watching it or its economic and social impacts. In this respect, it can be said that, in a way, it has partly replaced photography. What video has in common with photography is that it is primarily created not by professionals with professional equipment, but largely by amateurs who use their mobile phones for their work.

Although the difference between professional and amateur work is clearly evident, users’ engagement with creating videos – whether for their own use or to share with others – is considerable. Filming has become ‘volkart’ – a form of folk art practised by almost everyone. Thanks to the widespread use of mobile phones and tablets with cameras, there is essentially no economic or technical barrier to such creative work being carried out.

Without wishing to embark on any kind of systematic typology, from a Digcomp perspective it is crucial that video content can often be linked to the recording of a socially significant event or occurrence. In such cases, eyewitness documentary material plays a key role, often of modest technical and compositional quality. What is important, however, is its informative value. It must be emphasised that the raw nature of the material reinforces the impression of authenticity, although this may not be the case at all. The rise of deepfake videos or entire AI-generated videos has, from the outset, represented a certain type of new epistemic experience which part of society (or rather, the majority) has been unable to come to terms with sufficiently. This category of video is therefore linked to grassroots civic activism, but also to manipulation and disinformation.

The second group comprises videos that are intended from the outset to disseminate and promote a particular person, idea or fact. This category includes, for example, YouTubers, politicians’ speeches, and so on. These videos are characterised by the fact that they follow a script and their creation is deliberate from the outset. If the aim is to develop the skills to create such content, it is essential to know how to work with a script (and rhetoric) and, ideally, to establish an appropriate technical setup (for example, by ensuring suitable sound and lighting). These videos may also involve post-production – that is, editing, colour grading, and green-screen work – or be supplemented with subtitles.

This area encompasses the entire field of influencers, and it does not really matter whether they create content for YouTube, Instagram or TikTok, although each platform has its own specific characteristics relating to the target audience, formats and expected content. Bauman discusses the emergence of a new class of authorities, which is of a completely different nature to the traditional formal ones (the president, parents, teachers); however, this does not mean that their impact on people’s lives is any less significant. They often become much more deeply embedded in everyday life and the shaping of attitudes, which in fact grants them an unregulated and exceptionally powerful informal position that forms part of the contemporary power-cultural landscape. The democratisation of content creation and the removal of formal, economic or social barriers can, on the one hand, be a positive step for democracy; on the other, it can be a phenomenon that poses a serious threat to democracy, the parameters of which are not easy to set or balance. This is because, in addition to the power wielded by the influencers themselves, the keys to power lie with the platforms, which decide to whom they grant reach and on the basis of which criteria. This results in a remarkable intermingling of oligopolistic players and influencers (whose incomes are sometimes linked to paid collaborations or support for selected political or economic groups), which paradoxically subverts the effect intended to build civil society and, to a certain extent, exploits it as a means to profit, power or other sought-after benefits.

YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, as the largest video platforms, are not only used for uploading videos, but also for sharing and disseminating them. Users can engage in discussions beneath videos, create playlists from them, and so on. The platform is significant in three further respects – first and foremost, it is YouTube that has managed to make video one of the dominant elements of digital content, even though it was not the first (and perhaps not even the most feature-rich) portal of its kind. The second distinctive feature relates to the mix of professional content (some of which you can now even pay for) and amateur content. These two spheres are closely intertwined, and there is also a dimension of content that is copyright-protected, uploaded by an unknown user, but for which no one is enforcing the rights. This interconnection between professional and amateur content is absolutely fundamental to the digital environment. Other video-oriented services also have their own distinctive features in terms of building likes, views or other forms of interaction, which in turn enable algorithms to recommend content for further viewing.

The second distinctive feature relates to the portal’s mass appeal. It is one of the largest and most-visited websites in the world and an exceptionally profitable part of the Alphabet (Google) consortium, just like Instagram for Meta (Facebook) or TikTok (ByteDance, which is effectively controlled by Zhang Yiming and over which the Chinese Communist Party wields significant influence). Video advertising is a source of income not only for the platform but, according to advertising rules, also for the most successful creators. If videos do not attract sufficient traffic, the creator receives nothing for the adverts displayed; however, once they exceed a certain threshold, the video content becomes a source of significant income. This disparity in income is a key business model, with major social and copyright implications.

AI-generated content is playing an increasingly significant role on these platforms. Here, we will focus on two specific aspects of this. Firstly, the development of tools is leading to these platforms (and not just them) being inundated with AI-generated content, which can sometimes be engaging, but at the same time is unlikely to benefit consumers in the long term; indeed, it appears that this could be one of the technological trends threatening the very essence of social media, even in the medium term. That is, once users have had their fill of such content and it begins to make them feel a little queasy, as The New York Times has noted. It is precisely this disillusionment or burnout from being surrounded by such content that may ultimately prove highly problematic. On the other hand, it enables creators to produce a vast amount of content at relatively low cost, which, in business models, generates higher profits than focusing on quality (even if this involves AI tools and AI-generated content).

Because AI-generated content can be problematic, the AI Act introduces an obligation to clearly identify and label it. How effective this rule will be in achieving its objectives – such as limiting manipulation or the spread of deepfakes – remains to be seen, but it may influence the creative process and encourage some reflection on the part of content consumers.

Youtubers are specific for another important feature that often appears in digital content creation - a close relationship with the community. Discussion papers, meetings, the possibility of thematic participation are other important shaping features of this phenomenon. It must be emphasized that we cannot thoroughly assess the significance of the YouTubers at this time. At least in the case of creators, they support creativity, lead to independence, independence, development of project and product approaches.

While the video is a format that is gaining more and more popularity and allows easy and effective publishing of content that is interesting to viewers, creating a blog or blogging, in general, is an entirely different phenomenon with a different tradition and perhaps also perspective. The development of blogs is connected with the advent of Web 2.0, which emphasized the possibility of individual users creating their content. The text was the easiest way to express yourself. First of all, we learn to express ourselves in writing at school, and our entire educational tradition is directed towards it and sees it as a clear peak. Still, it is also a form of digital content creation available to everyone in the late 1990s and early 1990s - unlike audio or video. Writing a text has the advantage that it does not require any specific technical skill - anyone can start a blog.          

Blogs came at the time with the revolutionary idea that to publish content, you do not need to create a website, but that you need to use some services where the basic layout is provided. Still, the focus will be on the text and its simple form: the minor formatting and setting options, the better.

Blogs soon became quite fashionable, and in today's narrative, they are associated primarily with teenagers, who wrote their ordinary everyday experiences and dreams on them, which may seem naive and superficial to the adult reader. The fact is that the spectrum of blogs grew to become something significantly broader than teenage diaries. Some of them gradually became industry media, or in the US, for example, there are still influential blogs or authors who publish their news, observations, or behind-the-scenes information in this form.       

The general problem with blogs was that no one was brought up to create them. We can write one or two good essays, comment on sporting events, or reflect on an exhibition. Still, for a blog to be sustainable and meaningful, it needed to be permanently maintained, thematically narrow, and enjoyable. Running such a blog is then time-consuming and intellectually demanding. At the same time, it quickly became apparent that for a project to be successful (and the author himself enjoyed writing), he needed to gain readers and take care of advertising, and SEO.

All this resulted in the gradual decline of blogs, which has led to the current state. There are a small number of exciting bloggers that have found a  community with their readers. They often earn money from advertising for their writing (or, on the contrary, writing is a source of influence and personal brand for them). The second group is the blogs of institutions such as schools, banks, or manufacturers of specialty goods, where the blog acts as a marketing communication channel. Copywriters usually take care of its fulfillment. Some blogs have been transformed into journals published in electronic form. Often, not very large media can have a significant influence on the diversity of the publishing environment. Another group of bloggers is scientists or interesting personalities who gain readability based on their expertise or life situation.    

Only a small number of “ordinary" bloggers today run their blogs on specialized services. Blogs on large servers (such as iDnes) are still popular, or these authors relocate to social networks (Medium or Facebook, which allows the creation of long blog posts).   

Thus, blogs clearly show that the digital environment can also create digital forms that are mass-unsustainable in the long run. But they can - as happened right here - undergo a particular transformation and find a place for their distinctive (and relatively stable) existence.

At this point, we would like to mention some types of digital artifacts that are new and have no direct or easily detectable analogy in the“old culture" or offer fundamental changes or improvements. The list provided by us is eclectic and aims to identify some interesting phenomena in this area.  

Gif, i.e. an animated image or meme, is currently an exciting type of digital object. Its work is by no means demanding and specific in that it is not used “on its own", but it has found its role in the field of digital communication, wherein in some respects, it replaces or complements emotions. Gif is already a relatively old format (including support for animations dating from 1989), which has been experiencing a great revolution and spread in the last few years. 

Tweets as short messages (initially up to 140 characters, today up to 280) represent a unique digital object. They can be either plain text or supplemented by a link or image. What is specific to them is that they require a very heavily compressed message, which must often be conveyed in an abbreviated and humorous way. In addition, it contains hashtags, i.e. keywords that link it to thematically related posts. In the Czech environment are known mainly those whose author is Petr Kukal.   

Gamebooks are already known from the book's form - the story is structured here so that the reader can (typically as the main character) decide what should happen and leaf through the book to different places. The digital form significantly simplified their creation (the author sees a storyline in front of him while writing) and offered a completely different reading comfort. Skipping is solved by browsing (in the form of a URL link), and various media can also be connected to the book itself - in addition to images, one can work with video or music, or other audio tracks.   

Animated films have been around for a long time, but the digital environment has significantly changed their work. First of all, there was a necessary reduction in the line between the animated and feature films. Feature films such as Avatar or The Hobbit are costly for post-production and computer processing. From the point of view of civic competencies, however, it is interesting that you can find tools for creating animated films (for example, simple scripting of predefined characters) or even open-source films (for instance, from Blender). Everyone can use ready-made characters, sounds, animations and create your movie or give the film an alternative ending.      

Game streaming is the last digital format we would like to mention. The development of computer games itself is usually so expensive that we will not consider it in our model, but it is worth thinking about streaming gaming. Playing games is a significant phenomenon, and in recent years, it has been complemented by the fact that some players share their playing with others. It can have the character of an annotated solution of tasks or challenging parts, a review of the game. Still, often it is just a commentary (many hours) about the gradual playing of a particular game. Leading players (commentators) gain a lot of funding from this activity and a large community of followers that are waiting to solve a particular problem. It is necessary to emphasize that playing and commenting on playing so that it is exciting and fun, even in a several-hour format, is a highly demanding and challenging activity.