The Ingold I find a fascinating read for two simple reasons. The way he describes the line and the circle and all that falls around and out of that. The line is what film and sound is in technical media. To record, edit, make. It is, immanently, about lines. Something moving in and through time that constantly changes. However, what we tend to do with this media-that-is-a-line is make circles with it. So the problem, at least for now, is how to let the line stay a line?
The second point, which only emerged in what I took to be a conversation (me to you all as a single-thing-called-a-group) and you probably took to be an asymmetrical lecture, is that using language as an example we can see how it is a medium. We think in it. Through it, with it. To such an extent that we often make the mistake of thinking that is only in language that we can think and know. And that this we have learned as speaking, which happens sort of by itself (by immersion and cognition, and hard coded features of our bodies, and social structures), but writing requires the enormous apparatus of schooling, and then many many years. This it what lets it be a medium for us. But in relation to our sound and video making it is not yet a medium for us. Because we a) have not made enough, b) do not spend enough time making in it, c) think that the model of language (and for that matter story) is how to learn to ‘do’ sound and video. These all let you travel over it, not through it.
