Today we had the last networked media symposium everrr.

There was mostly discussion about how protocols both social and technical ‘control’ behaviour online, the dangers of violating these protocols as well as the humiliation that might come with it.

Adrian also mentioned how our course is not really appropriate for media makers at the bottom of the rung because the teaching model is catered towards those higher up in the profession (such as those who plan/create distribution strategies over different media platforms). When he said TAFE was better suited for that, I cried a little inside.. I started this course because it was/seemed like the safest option, and though I had thoughts about dropping out to enter a TAFE course, fear got the better of me. Anywho, I’m still here and may as well try to do a good job while I’m at it.

Only a couple weeks left until the school year comes to an end. Can’t wait for break!!!

In this week’s symposium, there was discussion about stories/narratives, as well as what it means for technology to neutral.

Adrian had asserted in the symposium that, I quote, ‘plots are a load of rubbish because they don’t happen in the real world’. However, I think I disagree with that. When we try to remember our own experiences from the past or recall the way something happened, it can be quite fragmented, might not follow a chronological order, and may have no cause and effect structure. If someone asks me to talk about a childhood story, I don’t necessarily do that in story form (if story = what happens chronologically, with cause followed by effect), so wouldn’t that mean that my recollection is more a plot than it is a story? Could we say that even though in the real world events naturally unfold chronologically, real people recall things in a disjointed manner, aka as plots?

On the topic of stories and narratives, it got me thinking of the different ways people can tell stories. For instance, traditional Chinese story-telling usually has one solo storyteller who would use their voice as well as music to deliver the narrative. Similarly, Japanese Rakugo is also done by a sole performer who is the narrator of the story, as well as the characters in it. The performer would change characters by a slight turn of the head and modification of the voice.

Moving away from stories, there was also discussion about neutrality. Adrian said ‘nothing is neutral, but nothing is coercive either’ and while I do understand and agree with the coercive part, I can’t say the same for the neutral part. To begin, I don’t even know what it means for something to be neutral or not neutral. In the reading, the gun example was used – ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’, to support them being neutral. But then later on, the article continued to say that guns were too strong/powerful to be considered neutral. If that’s the case, all other weapons should also be considered not neutral. How about weapons used by the defence force??

I think a gun is just a gun. The internet is just the internet. A phone is just a phone. What’s the struggle/conflict they’re involved in? What is there to be neutral about?

The question about whether it is form or content that makes a good book piqued my interest. Personally, I’d rather engage in something that is interesting, and not worry about how ‘good’ the form is, although good form is enjoyable and respectable in it’s own way.

Particularly what made me think this way was a reading that I did for the Authorship and Narrative unit. It was a critic by Kael on auteur theory. She talked about how people in the auteur circle were more concerned with techniques of films rather than the material itself, and this is something I’ve noticed in the films that were screened this semester. The storyline/plot/narrative was never all that exciting, but it was the stylistic features that made them ‘good’ and set them apart.

If we consider non-fiction books, I can’t see how form would be more significant than the content itself. People approach these books for what’s inside and not how it’s presented. However if we consider more ‘artistic books’, like those of Graeme Base, it’s the art form that makes them memorable.

In conclusion: it depends – as always

The last point in this weeks lecture was about how someone’s intent may be misinterpeted, misunderstood, or manipulated in some way. I think it sort of overlaps with media audience theories because it really depends on the individual who is viewing whatever content you’ve posted. They may be active, passive, or somewhere in between.

This not only applies to the online community, but I think in all aspect of commication in general – whether it be in the form of a conversation, an advertisement, films, television, articles, pictures…etc. The form in which messages are communicated, I believe, also has some bearing on how it taken by the receiver and since these forms are always evolving, developing, and changing, I think audiences’ approaches also chang simultaneously .

In general, I would say content producers have control over the encoding of messages, but I think the consumption and interpretation of these messages is quite ‘broad’ and meanings are ‘flexbile’.

Is there a formula for blogging ?

Like Adrian asserted in the symposium , I would also say no. Because if there was, I would certainly be much better at it. The way I see it, the best blog posts are those which come naturally. In that respect, I still have a long way to go…

Another thing that caught by attention was the shocking statement that there is NO correlation between vce results and uni results whatsoever. Being a non-fan, possibly even anti of the atar system and all the pressures it puts on students, it was definitely relieving to hear!