HOLA.
The web represents the Web.
I found Lev Manovich’s Database as a Symbolic Form to be full of contradictions.
He discusses database vs. narrative in the world of new media, describing database as a collection of elements.
Manovich first takes the standpoint that these two forms are discrete. Then he says they’re not. Then he says they are, and that he would like them to not be discrete. Then he says there are ways they can be merged.
I was thrown by the continually shifting argument of the paper.
I both agreed and disagreed with a few of his points. I could understand his side, but I felt inclined to favour the other side.
The key thing I disagreed with was the absence of narrative from database. I am probably a story-idealist or something, but I think there’d be many ways to see narrative in database ;) Of course, Manovich already disputes a few – the way users create their own path and thus perhaps construct their own “unique narrative”. I can see how he thinks this cannot qualify as narrative. I respect this. But I can’t help but lean towards calling it narrative. I think narrative is flexible in its meaning. Since the form of our material is changing with new media, why even try to block the evolution of ‘narrative’? I think it’s pointless for the word to be stagnant, and remain in the past. Why can’t the meaning of narrative evolve alongside the material it is supposed navigate?
“In the world of new media, the world “narrative” is often used as all-inclusive term to cover up the fact that we have not yet developed language to describe these new strange objects. It is usually paired with another overused word: interactive.”
Why do we need a new word? Why can we not redefine the meaning of ‘narrative’ to accommodate for the changing way we consume information? And, yes, new media is interactive. I think the use of that word is completely justified.
What about hypertext narratives? What do they qualify as? Are they not a hybrid of database and narrative?
Databases, and the Web, are anti-narrative because
- They change (material keeps changing, so a coherent developmental trajectory cannot be maintained)
- They are random
- They are unordered
- They do not follow a cause-effect linearity
- They do not adhere to the criteria for narrative as identified by Mieke Bal – criteria I strongly disagree with, by the way.
Something I found particularly interesting was Manovich’s explanation of database and narrative in terms of semiological theory.
First, I have to outline the meanings of two things (as much for myself as for whomever may be reading this).
Syntagm – exists in reality, is explicit, elements are related in praesentia.
Paradigm – exists conceptually in imagination, is implicit, elements are relation in absentia.
The database of choices from which narrative is constructed (paradigm) is implicit, while narrative (syntagm) is explicit. New media reverses this relationship. Database (paradigm) is given material existence, while narrative (syntagm) is dematerialised.
I like this thought.
Manovich mentions Christian Metz’ idea that most films come under a super-genre, or ‘sur-genre’, in that they tell a story. I disagree with this, I think it’s purposeless. In my opinion, all films tell a story. Different story styles exist, yes, but each film has something to say – some sort of meaning – which, in my eyes, is enough to qualify for story.
Manovich also discusses Rosalind Krauss’ argument that video’s real medium is a psychological situation – it is “support for the psychological condition of narcissism”. Wow. Okay. Well, what does that say about me? I mean, seeing as I’m really passionate about film and want to be a filmmaker. Am I narcissistic? Possibly. I don’t know. I would prefer not to be. I guess there is something self-involved about film in its imaginary sense. Anyone, especially those passionate, can easily get caught up in the fantastic world of a film – through either process of filmmaking or film-viewing. I have found myself more self-involved in the days leading up to and following on from working on a film. But this may also be due to the lack of sleep and increased disorganisation of life (schoolwork, social life, eating habits, etc.) that accompany filmmaking. As well as excitement in regards to the project. So, I suppose cinema can be considered self-involved. I’m not so sure it’s ‘narcissistic’, though.
Manovich cogitates that the world – in terms of computer programming – is now reduced to data structures and algorithms.
He uses the example of computer games. He considers them to be narratives. I would like to refer back to two previous blog posts that I wrote on the topic of games as narratives. Manovich argues the same point as I did (except he does so far more eloquently).
Some of what he talks about is this:
Computer games are “experienced by their players as narratives”. The player is given a “well-defined task – winning the match, being first in a race, reaching the last level, or reaching the highest score”. This task is what makes the player experience the game as a narrative. All the elements are “motivated”. Computer games don’t follow database logic. They are ruled by algorithms. The player must execute an algorithm in order to “win”.
Manovich’s key point is that we want narrative and database to work together. We want “new media narratives”, and we want them to be different from the narratives we know. These narratives need to be new-media-specific.
He suggests that cinema does this – that it “exists in the intersection between database and narrative” (in terms of the footage-collecting process and then the editing process). According to Manovich, every filmmaker engages with the “database-narrative problem” in every film.
Manovich goes on to talk about computer filmmaking. I had not heard of ‘computer filmmaking’ before reading this paper. I am curious as to what these films are like.
This is a link to Vertov’s 1929 film Man With a Movie Camera, that Manovich praises for having achieved the task of merging database and narrative into a “new form”. I am leaving it here to watch later on, when I have some time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW5Nm_D7Wns
Other filmmakers to look at: Peter Greenaway (100 Objects to Represent the World, 1992) and John Whitney Sr (Catalog, 1961).