Notes from class:

Concept of video art

• Commercial TV negates it. waited until streaming was available for a ‘revolution’ to begin
• Unrequited expressionism.
• Free of form

Experimental film – TV Lab (70s) New York
Glitch art

As film equipment became portable and more available to the public artistry in the medium became more common.  DIY revolution.

• Nam June Paik. – essential component in the conception of video art/inspiring others.

Video piano – visual synthesizer. Using music to inflect visual distortions and patterns. (old school windows media player)

James bond intro stylisation almost  – first possible mainstream use of video art in film? ‘Dr. No’ (1962) predates Paik – possible form of inspiration.

• New experience for audiences. Hype train prior to the movie?

Heavily utilised by MTV – abstract.

A Clockwork Orange – indoctrination/torture scene?

QUESTIONS:
Is there a reason for why video art has not had a major resurgence (merely a zeitgeist)? Seen some in music videos, particularly in the 90’s and 2000’s, but nothing overtly mainstream now. Additionally, filming equipment and any recording device is far more common place now, with a camera in everyone’s pocket. Is it because it has all been explored, said and done, or is the inspiration missing? – spark to ignite the flame of popularity.
To what extent does this exist? How broad is the umbrella of video art? – Soviet Montage – manipulating editing to specific ‘beats’ to coerce a specific reaction from the audience.

Modern renditions?, ‘r/surrealmemes’, YTP’s, steamed hams, (muse, knights of Cydonia film clip), music video seems to remain the most dominant form – but that may only be due to there’s a distraction from the video. Not a clashing medium, but only accompanying the song, rarely appreciated alone –take away the music, much of which the song is in time to, and much of the video’s artistry can be lost. (lest it’s made purely from the concept of the song and made in relation/to accompany the song itself.

 

Whilst video art is unique unto itself and differs greatly from almost every other aspect of film I believe it has suffered from having such an early conception; with the ideas overshooting what was available technologically. By the time technology caught up the ‘genre’ of it was almost burnt out. It’s still perfectly viable artistically and expressional-wise to create video art now, even quite different, but I don’t think it will ever return en masse and have a resurgence such as the readings suggest. It fell victim to its own time, burning brightly but quickly, stuck in a zeitgeist.
only enough space for a handful of major video artists to exist simultaneously. Can’t exist in the spotlight, and so in order for it to be popular it would have to be heavily saturated. (not exactly a bandwagon everyone can jump on)

I hope I’m wrong though.

 

 

 

‘Technology Affordances’.  William W. Gaver

Subconsciously or consciously, affordances come to affect every interaction or perception of the world around us; they can shape ideals, taste, even comprehension – depending on the given object and presentation. However, affordances tend to rely on several senses, or at very least are more often than not related to a tangible object. But what of our affordances with technology? Do they in conjunction with our expectations shape what technology is and how we use it today, or does the technology itself shape the affordances surrounding it?
William W. Gaver states that affordances “exist whether the perceiver cares about them or not”; that a ball affords throwing, a pit falling, or a cup drinking. Thus, would this be the reason when we think ‘phone’ one would afford it to a rectangular shape? To present someone with circular smart phone would be potentially jarring. Forfeiting the capabilities and actual use of the device, we can see how this may unnerve certain people, as that it has immediately gone against expectations, and in doing so has taken the user outside of their comfort zone of their affordances in relation to smart phones. But again, this falls in line with affordances to physical objects and not of a digital nature, software, layout, use or otherwise. Gaver continues to go on to discuss this very subject with the digital ‘object’ of choice being the scroll bar. Whilst yes, this differs between PC and smart phone devices, the affordances of the PC, being the phones predecessor have come to greatly affect how operating systems have evolved. Changing the format of ‘choosing next page’, the scroll bar changed how we have interacted with content, creating a greater ease of use, and since the mechanic has not changed apart from cosmetically. This has continued on to affect how we use mobile phones; despite having an easy chance for side swiping, which is still prevalent in many applications, the majority of sites and apps will opt for a scrolling mechanism in the form of a vertical swipe, mimicking the scroll action people are accustom to in using the PC’s scrolling action.
The exact same circumstance has affected many other icons, e.g. save button – universally known despite being a representation of an obsolete technology, but has remained due to our affordances surrounding it.

From this we can see that other than its format and presentation, technological affordances do not differ in nature to their physical counterparts. The user must still interact with them, and thus has expectations, and to change them could bring about consequence.  Affordances are merely a game of expectation and association; being the subconscious mental hyperlinking within the human mind. We are creatures of habit, and affordances are the habit of expectation, shaping how we engage with our environment and the nature of any objects discourse.
‘Network Literacy: The Path to Knowledge’.  Adrian Miles

Network literacy is relatively new in terms of modern skills and has quickly become widespread and necessary to the point of being mandatory to navigate online platforms. Whilst being far from computer literacy or book literacy, networked literacy remains the same in nature; being the ability/knowledge to connect and cross digital platforms, sites, and sources in order to increase reach and access to information and media.

An example of network literacy would be a student completing a research essay: They are given their topic, in this case the history of England, and so they decide to google search it. the first result is on Wikipedia and they click on it, but their teachers don’t credit Wikipedia as a legitimate source, so rather than defy their teacher or give up a source of information, they scroll to the bottom of the page and check the references Wikipedia used. Suddenly, without having to search article after article and book and book, the student now has tenfold the sources, all relevantly on the topic, and legitimate credited sources. This is just one case of networked literacy; they have used the sites own networking to benefit themselves.
But this is just our own network literacy. Network literacy also exists within the computers programming, and autonomously hyperlinks relevant sources.

Programme services of XML and RSS allows sites to automatically connect, communicating with one another and allowing linking and the sharing of information. Not only does this apply to websites but also servers, so that information stored all over the world in various places can be linked to form one or many cohesive compilations of data, seemingly making a singular hub for storage, accessibly from any point: moreover also being the basis for how peer to peer (P2P) sharing operates.
Such categorising and actions are not unique to these services, as that we do the same. This enacts as the season for having various accounts across different social medias and platforms and linking them together. This segmenting of relevant information can be prevalently seen in media and social media platforms, such as using Soundcloud for audio, FlickR/Instagram for images, Vimeo/YouTube for video projects, and WordPress/Twitter/Facebook for thought collection or promoting. What this achieves is the creation of a succinct and ordered network. Rather than blend several mediums together and creating a jumbled platform in which all information is stored, a user can separate them, creating an easy to use linked network for those wishing to view their content, as well as creating an easy sorting system for them to remain organised. To be able to do this successfully demonstrates the user/owner to be network literate. Additionally a useful aspect of high network literacy is that it encourages and increasing the skill of network literacy in people that navigate said networks. If someone were to access a network literate content creators YouTube page, they will see multiple links to various other accounts, thus promoting the same level of organised and literate thought within the consumer, of whom may them go on to promote the same to their own peers. Such could explain the reason as to why network literacy has become so widespread as a common skill among those more engaged in technology, particularly youths who are brought up usind said technology in their education.

 

‘Understanding New Media’. Eugene Siapera  

Understanding new technologies and media has always been important as that it allows us to expand our current knowledge on the matter and utilise available tools to their maximum potential. But at what point do we begin the study in the lifecycle of an emerging medium, and is it worth deeming as a change, thus affecting its merit/worth to be studied? Whilst it is certainly helpful to catalogue and study something since its inception, it could prove as a waste of time if it doesn’t go anywhere or offer change. To vivisect it while it’s in its adolescence could yield the same result or worse due to a lack of information, and to dissect it after development  could be too little too late. It all depends on the subject itself. Whilst technology has exponentially increased over the last century, newer emerging mediums have seemed to slow down, with current ones progressing more rather than newer ones coming about, thus begging the previous dilemma as whether it is worth studying in such detail. However we cannot deny the invaluable profit of recording all information possible, and so we do tend to choose the first option.
But what is making current media new, and how is it new? New media can be partially defined by its ever-growing shift from a solely digital platform, to online. (online be a sub-category. All online is digital, not all digital media is online, e.g. not all broadcast television is online). While old digital forms still exist and thrive today, their dominating shift to online is undeniable; with a large shift in music from radio to Spotify, and film and television shows shifting from broadcast television to Netflix, YouTube, and Stan, etc. New media it seems is coming about due to the increasing demand for content to be on demand, allowing viewers to consume entertainment in their own time rather than adhere to the scheduled time of programmes. Thus, rather than ‘new media’ being entirely new mediums, it is more a shift of how media is consumed; further developing what already exists, and evolving the media itself – merely shifting platform rather than adopting new forms entirely. This may be due to the affordances we hold in relation to said mediums: we are accustom to 22-24 minutes shows in 30 minute timeslots and 48-52 minute shows in 1 hour timeslots thanks to broadcast television, yet despite moving away from broadcast to be on demand, we still adhere to these time guidelines out of habit and people’s expectations, (to air a 37 minute episode of a show may jar a viewer due to expectations of narrative flow).
Technology has always had a close relationship with society, and so to track the evolution of media and its technological affordances can be beneficial in an anthropological aspect, in recording our progress as a whole, and how we define ourselves. It is for this reason why new media is recorded and studied intensely, often being the forefront within media coverage; for how new media affects us, will inevitably go on to affect how we conduct ourselves, direction of technological progression, and subsequently affect new media yet to come.

 

READINGS:

Gaver B 1991, ‘Technology Affordances’, Proceeding CHI ’91 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 79-84.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cv4VW54jvL9wPkSthwoUj61B9YqAy8FQ/view

Miles, Adrian. Soft Cinematic Hypertext (Other Literacies). RMIT University, 2012. (Network Literacy: The New Path to Knowledge 201-208)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fu237fq7szXX-yy_VvvjtWFWCQobTfUs/view

Siapera, Eugene. Understanding New Media. SAGE Publications, London 2013.(pp.1-16 )
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y_1hqJsCQg6owP0qFMSw6GRGQgT1j_yL/view

 

BLOG POSTS:

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/cody-nelson/2018/07/17/week-one-networked-media-thoughts-from-the-readings-and-workshop/

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/cody-nelson/2018/07/24/some-notes-from-week-2-networked-media/

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/cody-nelson/2018/08/10/week-3-networked-media-blog-post/

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/cody-nelson/2018/08/07/week-4-networked-media-workshop-notes/

 

 

Whilst the two are undeniably linked and cross-share many skills, network literacy is far different from computer literacy. Computer literacy more tends to refer to an understanding of both mechanical/technological knowledge of a computer, as well as its operating systems – being able to utilise the single device to its full capacity, whereas network literacy tends to refer to an understanding of connectivity on a more grand scale. Rather than remaining on one strand of the ‘web’, being isolated to a connected or disconnected computer server, someone who is network literate can branch out and connect to other webs, increasing access to information as well as create more broad access to conversation.

The very basis of network literacy stems from Tim Berners-Lee’s evolutionary creation of the World Wide Web; an extension of ARPANET, and additionally the introduction of HTML, otherwise known as Hypertext Mark-up Language. HTML enacts as the common language for all operating systems to understand and enable processing/dispersing information via the internet. Within its coding  the language cross-references and creates hyperlinks; a subconscious form of association and  hypertextual networking, which in the human mind is the ability to jump from one subject to another based on ones understanding of the subject itself and networking.  – creating links in commonalities. Being a far cry from previous renditions of the internet, this peer to peer (P2P) system conjoined via a central node in conjunction with hypertextual programing revolutionised networking, and became the basis for the internet as a whole.
With this leap, the internet now enacted as an encyclopaedic program, hyperlinking all of its information in order of relevancy. To know how to make the most of this and navigate the internet, you must be network literate.

In this we can see how network literacy aids a person in their search for information. With automatic hyperlinking, one who is network literate can jump from relevant source to source in maximising their reach on their given search. This may be utilised from a student in search of information on a topic, going from site to site to reach varying sources of information, to a marketing manager linking their private websites and social medias, using their own network literacy to aide those who are less network literate, create easier access to information they wish to spread/convey.

 

 

Lecture/discussion:

• New media
• social media
• Instagram
• Digital (mp3/4, jpeg, gif, p2p etc), online (varying platform, YouTube, Netflix, vimeo,) evolution
  • Consistent pattern/expectation of new media to be solely/predominantly utilising digital formats on an online platform; evolving, changing and contorting to business and suer expectations, as well as pop-cultural zeitgeists, conforming to fads, trends, etc

 

Symbiotic relation between social media users and social media itself. Must uphold some sort of sense of expectation of one another throughout the platforms/formats evolution; a new media cannot be solely responsible to adhere to the needs of every demographic of users, just as nor should every user be expected to adhere completely to the changing form of a new media. A middle ground must be established in order for the platform to thrive; wherein users and the media change in conjunction with one another, developing at the same pace. Users have to change to layouts and features, and the media has to change to trends, expectations, and the needs of the users/what is rising in popularity.

However as new media has emerged we tend to take things for granted. Our accessibility to one another is greater than ever; and with instantaneous connection being the norm, our desires and need for speed/haste in everyday life when in relation to our consumption of media, be it social or not, has subsequently and exponentially increased. 20mbps is far from a slow speed, yet many with such a connection are deemed to be on the lower end of internet speeds, and since we have seen the rise of fiber -optic cables for internet connect – capable of delivering speeds tenfold of its copper-based predecessor.
When it comes with new media, connectivity is key.

To be able to analyse new media, vivisecting emerging forms, speed is crucial. The faster we can gain access and view something, the quicker we can understand it map its relations to other media forms, thus creating an overarching map of the evolution of media as a whole.

Consequences/side effects:? As our speed and connectivity increases, as does as our consumption: in doing so we are able to move from trend to trend much quicker, seemingly creating a time in which what is popular is always fleeting. E.g. memes, often recognised as the forefront of pop-culture (as it encapsulates a mindset of the time) can have lifespans of months, or even days; people are connected to the point that a malleable piece of media can become saturated as quickly as it rose to popularity, and before many are even able to witness it, it ‘dies’. In the news, we consume information so quickly that the scandal of one day can be forgotten by the scandal or event of the next, OR, in extreme cases, in cases where events happen simultaneously, the lesser attention-worthy one is dropped, with only the more ‘popular’ piece/article making it to air/print.
This process is far from new, with a slow burn of the more modern model of media beginning with the introduction of radio; limited channels, time, and production costs have always dictated what was to be presented, and still is, but at a far more rapid pace. Now, there is more media in any format than anyone person has time to consume, thus making it all about choice: what to watch and when (this is a reason as to why platforms such as YouTube and Netflix have risen to dominance – eliminating the costly variable of channels and time, it has made it easier for users to consume their media as that it’s on demand.)

Media is always changing, and so what we consider ‘new’ will be changing with it, but the question now is to what extent? Have we peaked? Definitely not. But have we discovered the key formula for media to succeed? Quite possibly: make it quick, easy to consume, accessible, and keep it evolving with the users.

• This may be partially set due to the affordances associated with media consumption and its formats. – platforms evolving to adhere not to the user but to technology; easiest forms of consumption being via smart phones (simple design, ease of access, scrolling ability, tactile interaction, multiple recording tools, etc) and the constant of television, with video still being produced in a 16:9 aspect ratio, (or with some Instagram filters, 3:4 or 4:4). Our relationship with screens have shaped how media has evolved. For all intents and purposed Instagram could produce their own range of cameras or smart phones, e.g. a classic style polaroid camera that can still take physical photos, but scans and upload to your profile.