Since I have been so sick this semester I had to get an extension for the essay as I felt I had to give 100% contribution as was not able to fully participate in the making of the soundscape and video. From the feedback of my first essay I felt more confident on focussing on specific elements of the soundscape/film and relating it back to Bogost. This gave me a lot to talk about in regards to reflecting Bogost’s theories and also contradicting what he claims. The first part of the essay (commenting on Offenburg) I felt is not as strong as the comments I have towards our created video and soundscape- as I guess they do not reflect Bogost the way I do.
I reinforced throughout the essay that Offenburg continues to show that pre determined expectation of humans through a relationship towards the video camera object, whilst we tried as hard as we could to distance ourselves from that. I feel that removing the human connection gives us greater clarification of understanding the object as that object. We so regularly (without even knowing) link human elements to everything around us, and to get that greater knowledge it is so hard (but worth it) to try remove this.
What I didn’t understand:
- “There is a considerable problem, if objects recede from one another, forever enclosed in a vacuum of their individual existences, how do they ever interact?” I feel this is so broad to where humans will never quite understand this, because clearly objects do interact but they are all individuals…
- “The relationship between the first object and the second offers the clearest rendition, insofar as a metaphor is ever really clear”
- “Physical reductionist positions hop to erase the subjectivity of experience by explaining it away via underlying physical evidences”
I have spent the easter break in Fiji hospital with a stomach virus, but was a good time to get a clear grasp on the readings i.e. chapter 3 of Bogost. I quite enjoyed this chapter as it made me look from a different point of view. Rather than understand what it is like to be an object, it focusses more on what it is like for that object to be that object. The example they used was what it is for a bat to be a bat. I really like this idea and have decided to incorporate it quite in depth throughout the supporting essay of our file. It is time to really start distancing the human elements (although I am writing the essay which is human) and seeing it from the object- I feel like this can be done effectively through the use of listing once again.
Telephoto, zoom, Versatile, quality, macro, results, focal point, usm, convex, stabilzation, macro, ultra wide, vibration, attractive, fast, range, sharp, disorientation, fisheye, digital, hsm, sigma, aperture, diffraction, modification, illuminated, normal, angle, kit lens, concave, rays, shutter, memory, action, view point, purpose, image formation, sensor, objective, colour, electricity, science, exposure, sensitivity, editing, light, microphone, battery
discuss and describe what it is, and what it does.
CHOOSE EXACTLY: What it specifically is and what it does. THEN compose a detailed analysis of this, can have reference to Bogost chapter 3, e.g. “Bogost says this and the file shows this by…”
Express what you are going to do and why you are going to do it
Discuss the file as a whole…: soundscape from offenburg with the overlapping footage and the extra 1 minute soundscape from us
how will i break this down? Needs to be discussed as a whole in what it is and what it does: maybe relate to fluidity/ and or different components.
Links between location footage and soundscape, avoid what it means
BE SPECIFIC
OR
a extremely detailed list of what it is and what it does…? feels could go so wrong
Today in class we recieved feedback on our first essay that went along side our first soundscape. I was quite pleased with my results as I felt very confused by the essay and how broad it was, but with this feedback I feel I understand more about how I need it to be focussed rather that ‘avoiding depth’.
What Adrian said about my essay is that I fall into the error of using craft to avoid biting into the problem. I understand what he means as I do re call feeling anxious to focus and elaborate on something so defined INCASE I am doing it wrong, so felt the safer option was to have a vast approach. Now I know sort of what he wants from the essay I feel I will be able to focus more in-depth on the group essay to each individual operation/ the location recordings.
I am going to get started on a plan for my group essay so we don’t write/ elaborate on the same areas of focus and it covers each individual part of the formed file (audio and video).
I think it is safe to say, I have reached an all time low for the semester… I have been so slack with blogging/ been struggling to know what to blog about whilst being in New Zealand and not able to attend class. Over the easter break this is a serious time to get back on track with readings, in depth thinking about noticings and focussing more on being a better participant in my group.
I feel embarrassed at my participation and hope to not let this get the better of me again!
To my understanding ‘convivial’ is in relationship to the atmosphere. Which therefore must have some sort of relation to how the atmosphere of maybe a unit/operation is made…? This is all I can really take from this.
I’m not quite sure yet how a ‘convivial making’ relates to a ‘truculent clamour’ of things because I would regard that differently in the way it would have something to do with all the parts of a unit or operation and how they interact together e.g a book and there is the pages, the words, the glue, the cover etc etc and their intense collaboration.
I will continue to think on this as I lay in bed with my awful head cold but thankfully I have submitted my essay on time!
I have completed my soundscape essay which resulted in a lot of procrastination but I really feel I have got a good grip on what I was trying to illustrate and reflect onto Bogost. I feel my points about how overlapping can also contribute to the individuality of the units is a really valid part of the essay and reflects how it draws attentiveness to the units themselves.
I am still trying to make my way through reading Bogost and my gosh there are some confusing points but I am making sure that I always take notes of what I don’t understand or those key parts I can reflect on. I am looking forward to going over this tomorrow.
I wasn’t able to attend class on Tuesday but after looking at the other soundscapes from our class mates I think we got it really wrong with interpreting what we were meant to do with the script. To my clarification I didn’t think we needed to have voice over of the list of units/operations but turns out that was a major part in this first soundscape to send to Offenburg. I am worried that it will effect our mark dramatically- but for next time I will defiantly make sure this doesn’t happen again…