Tag Archives: youtube
Week 07: Reflections
We got to talking about lists again this week. It was said that lists achieve much more when we think of them as something that aren’t ‘literary’ in a sense. Lists aren’t narratives. Think of micro-blogging, or sites like Twitter and Flickr as being list-building devices.
Bogost mentions the phrase ‘the tyranny of representation’ in last week’s readings. Adrian discussed why representation can be tyrannical by saying the act of narrating is actually an act of arrogance on our half. You can only ever say a little bit about what you’re trying to represent. Narrating, by nature, includes and excludes (in a similar fashion to my discussion about the politics of definitions), however lists are vastly different because they don’t reduce things into meaning. They just simply are.
We talked quickly about why a company such as google hasn’t bought Korsakow (in conjunction with YouTube/online developments in video). Adrian pretty quickly dismissed this question, but touched briefly upon the fact that Korsakow is very different as software to something like YouTube – nothing in YouTube is about rethinking what video is/does, and in this sense it is ‘old media’ because they focus more on audiences and advertising. As an avid YouTube watcher myself, I reckon this is not necessarily true because there are communities of content creators who have incredibly creative takes on what they can achieve through their video medium. For example, one of my favourite YouTubers KickThePJ who studied digital film at university in England and is doing some really fascinating things regarding video content.
Another point which really struck home with me is how multi-linear our day to day activities actually are. When you think of the way we navigate the internet, we often have many tabs open, steam music, check the news, and reply to emails all at the same time. However, there’s no real mainstream idea who what multilinear means. We’re on the cusp of an enormous media change; the media landscape is so different to anything that’s ever been. But we’re still in the middle of the change, we don’t yet know what direction or form those changes are going to take. Twitter, Instagram and Vine are helping to popularise fragmented modes of media. The way we seem to be heading, as our media use becomes more and more niche, is towards creating building systems which do interesting things with these fragments we produce day in and day out.
Week 04: Expectations
Bill Nichols three-part definition of documentaries is often the springboard for discussions about documentary practices and discourse. It was my first time encountering his ideas when I read the first readings for IM1. In particular, I was drawn towards his third statement about audiences and their expectations. I began thinking about my own assumptions that I bring with me when engaging with documentaries, and media in general.
Do I expect that I will be entertained? Educated? Enriched? Do I approach the artefact with any pre-existing opinions? Will I love it/hate it? Will it make me laugh/cry/cringe?
Recently a friend recommended an episode of ABC’s Four Corners program called ‘The Boy With The Henna Tattoo’, which delves into the underground sex work ring operating in Australia. Her precursor to the recommendation was that it is harrowing, twisted and hard to watch. She told me that a few times she had to question whether or not it was right for her to keep watching. However, she said she was rewarded with one of the most interesting and insightful pieces of media she’d seen in some time.
I have a habit of watching countless documentaries on YouTube – often in quick succession in one sitting on a cold Melbourne evening. Some of my favourites are those produced by Vice. I find their distinct style and unique/unconventional topics and niche interests never fail to entertain me and keep me falling down and down the rabbit hole, click after click and link after link.
I wonder if my viewing experience will change if next time I click through to Vice’s YouTube channel and stop to think about what my expectations are before delving into the content. I almost think it’s a more exciting and interesting experience when you don’t acknowledge your expectations, and let things unfold without your picking up on them. Although that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re not filled with expectations, it might just be the difference of paying attention to them in that moment which makes you cognisant of them.
Week 02: Reflections
There was no symposium this week due to the Labour Day public holiday. However, in class we viewed and discussed the first constraint items we have been asked to film. We also composed the questions for next week’s symposium. Some things that were mentioned during the class were that:
- The constraint task taught us to stop looking for ‘the typical’.
- We had to question how to make something interesting.
- People found circles to be more fluid, whereas squares indicated restrictions and structure.
- Are squares benal?
- Did the time constraint of 6 seconds per clip force to you create single shots by default? Perhaps try filming multiple shots to see if this will work better for you.
Adrian posted that the theme of this semester is ‘relations’ which has prompted me to consider what this actually means. Are relations instant, and exist before we figure them out ourselves? Or are the a complex assemblage of meaning build on top of meaning built on top of meaning?
In the Sørenssen, there is a long discussion of Astruc’s vision of film becoming a fundamental tool for human communication. I really like the idea of the author who writes with a camera instead of a pen. Even though Astruc’s ideas were written over half a century ago, it is so interesting to see that his influence is still significant to this day. I was particularly tuned in when reading about what was being said about the gap between access to equipment (and capital) and quality/distribution. Obviously as a young media professional, this is something I think about quite frequently. But the IM1 course is making me think about whether this is necessarily true – maybe all you really need is a camera and the internet.
There was also a good discussion about the new technologies of making – specifically focusing on YouTube and the case study of user ‘geriatric1927’. I think there is something very fascinating about the certain type of community that is forming around YouTube and its content creators. The platform is becoming so powerful, but I think it will be really interesting to see where it goes in 5-10 years.
I also love a good chat about old mate Habermas, who I’ve encountered many times in my time as a communications student.
I didn’t get on so well with the second reading, as my only experience with QuickTime is that it is the default app that opens all of my video files. I’ve never thought about it and its capacities until now, but perhaps I will have a more critical eye after reading Sobchack’s piece. I think his concept of moving image films being called ‘memory boxes’ is intriguing, seeing as “human memory and its re-collections don’t compute so neatly… [it is] more associative than hierarchical, more dynamic than static, more contingent than determined” (p4). This is one phrase that has helped me see just how non-linear we are as humans.
(Photo via flickr)