First maybe it’s good to remind what transmedia is :

Transmedia uses multiple media platforms tell « something » (game, story, etc). Each media piece—whether it’s a comic, novels, video games, mobile apps, or a film—functions as a standalone story experience—complete and satisfying but it also contributes to a larger narrative. The process is cumulative and each piece adds richness and detail to the story world (such as character backstories and secondary plotlines).

Transmedia storytelling is participatory and asks the public to be active. The unfolding story design creates the motivation to engage with other participants, seek out other parts of the story, and contribute to the narrative by adding content. Transmedia stories can be simple, across a few low-tech media platforms or break down the barriers between the story and reality by bringing the narrative out into the real world, in the form of complex and exciting alternative reality games (ARGs), where participants engage with narrative elements and characters using real world locations as part of the storyworld.

So a transmedia public could be resumed like this :

• They are interactive audience. No more potato couch. They are not only media-consumers but also media-producers, media-critics, media-publicists, media-distributors.

I can also ad a quote which inspired me this question and which we can maybe discuss.

« Pierre Levy speculates about what kind of aesthetic works would respond to the demands of his knowledge cultures. First, he suggests that the “distinction between authors and readers, producers and spectators, creators and interpreters will blend” to form a “circuit” (not quite a matrix) of expression, with each participant working to “sustain the activity” of the others. The artwork will be what Levy calls a “cultural attractor,” drawing together and creating common ground between diverse communities; we might also describe it as a cultural activator, setting into motion their decipherment, speculation, and elaboration. »

Henry Jenkins, convergence culture, where old and new media collide, p.95

In the past, some have tried to take radical positions against art market like conceptual artists with “unsaleable” immaterial works, or (suposed to be) “un-buyable” works like artist shit, but all those experiences were made into the art field which is not outside of the global capitalist system.

Thanks to those experiences, we now know that this system is able to integrate absolutely everything, the critic even more. Trying to make the art world changes without trying to change the whole thing is for me unconceivable ((even if I know this is no small matter.))

I think that we now have new kind of positions which are no longer envisaged within a system of binary oppositions (artist or curator, gallery or offspace, private or public). I relate them to the kind of “potlach” you are speaking about in Network Culture when you say that “money-comodity and gift relations are not just in conflict but also co-exist in symbiosis” we could say the same for the organisations of our productions and for what we are setting up as groups and individuals.

Actually I have to confess that what scared me more on the hyper commodification of art is the way it makes it more and more looks like the mass music industry. I mean the « Kleenex artits » phenomenon ; very young people with a kind of un-mature and standardised work, used for three-four years then thrown away. As they are broadly disseminated, those kind of works tends to become new canons.

Actually, I’m just asking myself the inverse if collective intelligence is sharing a specific knowledge (more than just information) and by doing it the collective gains more capability than the sum of each member’s intelligence, would a kind of expertise not be good for the community ?