A key point from today’s symposium was the hybridisation of the media. A lot of content can no longer just be called a singular form (such as TV which is now a multi-media product; a conglomerate of elements; entangled with online websites, advertising, and interaction). Adrian made an interesting point about reality TV saying it was where computer games meet television. The logic of these shows all involve a quest, or levelling up. They mirror our experiences, which is why we find it compelling.

We then went on to discuss the Habermasian notion of the public sphere, and what impact mobile technology has had on it. Someone pointed out that phone conversations used to happen in private phone booths, but now conversations are conducted in public spaces, allowing those around you to hear at least 50% of the conversation. Armand Mattelart, a Belgian media theorist, even goes as far as ‘participating’ in these conversations that play out around him, explaining to the person on the phone that they shouldn’t think that their conversation is private. We have very changed ideas on what public spaces now are. Whereas they used to be the coffeehouses of 19th century Europe, we have been trained to direct our sites of discussion more inward, with a current interest in the self. This can be seen with Apple’s branding, how they individualise each of their products to ‘belong’ to you (iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc). Adrian think we can build tools that either restrict our access/ability to look outside our own world view, or that enable this: it’s very much about how you approach it.

We spoke about the democratisation of media, and the accessibility which is unlocked as a result. Seth sees this as creating more opportunities, as more people have the possibility to make films now. However Adrian warned us of a conservative minority voice that exists in someone like Andrew Keen’s writings about how amateur production is eating away at professional production. I really don’t like this style of argument, and find it elitist. Whilst I understand what he means, I think so much more could be achieved creatively by accepting and embracing the possibilities that new ‘types’ of filmmakers can bring to the profession. It allows for more voices, more diversity, and ultimately more communication. We were also warned that this discussion relies on a very privileged definition of ‘films’ and ‘filmmaking’ – do we call ourselves filmmakers if we only use our iPhone? No. If we write a letter, are we a novelist? No. If you know stuff, are you an expert? No.

We went on to speak at length about narrative, which led me to write this blog post which looks into it further.

(Image via flickr)