Tag / communication

by harrietread

Jeremy Bowtell on Editing in Media

In our Media 1 class yesterday, we began with a presentation from guest speaker Jeremy Bowtell on editing; specifically, in film. For me, editing a film is the best part of filmmaking. I find it a meditative experience, requiring patience as I go back and forth trying to find the right place to cut. What I found interesting in Bowtell’s presentation was this trifecta that contributes to editing in film: Rhythm, Emotion and Story.

Rhythm refers to the technical aspect of editing; does the cut fit into the sequence in a way that fits with or challenges the rhythm of the score or soundtrack, or has a jarring or subtle effect on the audience?

Emotion refers to whether the style and Rhythm of editing evokes a feeling within the audience. For instance, in the gore-filled ‘torture-porn’ horror, Saw, the style of editing in the flashback of Amanda Young instils anxiety, fear and apprehension in the audience through its face-paced, erratic and frenetic style of cuts.

Story is how narrative within a film progresses based on editing. Bowtell provided us with a quote by Edward Dmytryk: ‘Never make a cut without a positive reason.’ This can be referred back to how Story and Editing are intertwined, as Dmytryk is saying that a cut made through editing should be done to allow the narrative to progress in a relevant and efficient manner.

by harrietread

Out with the Old, In with the New

With communication medias and technology changing at such a vast and rapid pace, it is interesting to consider how we are changing the ways that we communicate. I am most interested in how we communicate depending on our contexts, whether we may be doing so a personally gratifying sense, or in a professional environment.

When tasked in my New Media, New Asia class to brainstorm in groups what communication is and what forms it takes, we looked at two basic categories: personal use of technologies and media, and professional use.

In a professional sense, whether you are contacting employers, engaging in business, commerce or politics, or even just contacting a professor or teacher, we found that you are more likely to use traditional means of communicating. This includes emails, faxing, verbal telephone calls or even handwritten letters. Conversely, more personal means of communication involve text messaging and a wide range of social media platforms. This includes Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Whatsapp and even dating apps such as Tinder, Scissr or Grindr.

What I gathered from these examples is that presently, leading figures such as CEOs, world leaders and the judiciary, as well as teachers, shop owners and various practitioners, are predominantly of an older generation accustomed to a handful of communication methods. Within a few years, that may change. These are figures of a generation predating the mentally stimulating world of 21st century communication technologies; thus, it is far more appealing for them to be approached for things that are formal or professional with formal and traditional methods of communicating. An employer of an office-based job is highly unlikely to hire someone who only communicates with them via texting or Facebook Messenger.

Furthermore, as I myself am a member of Generation Z, I find that I am more comfortable using informal methods of communicating, which often don’t involve any verbal conversation; even now, businesses and organisations are adapting to the rapidly changing world of communication media, with apps and websites being developed such as LinkedIn. I theorise that in the years to come, the formalities of present day communication in a professional sense will relax, and give way to a more informal and casual style of communicating.

by harrietread

My take on Katherine Hayes

What I found interesting in Katherine Hayes’ work Hyper and Deep Attention: The Generational Divide in Cognitive Modes, was the notion of there being a generational divide in how people learn, behave and act in everyday life. To me,this divide is incredibly clear in everyday society in particular when those predominantly born in Generation Z (1995-2015), (such as myself, as I was born in ’97), are asked to explain how to use 21st century technology and software to older generations, whether it is how to use smartphones to computers and other communication technology.

What I have noticed from explaining the workings of technology to older generations, is that there are different motivations behind understanding how everything works. This correlates with how old the person being explained to is; for me, as a relatively young person, I know that ‘Ctrl+C’ copies and ‘Ctrl+V’ pastes, and that’s all I feel that I need to know. However, older people often feel that they need to know ‘Why do I need to copy this?’ ‘Where does it go when it is copied?’ and for many people of more recent generations, this is unnecessary information; we don’t care where something was copied to, we just need to copy and paste and be done with it.

This analogy holds relevance to the subject of Hyper Attention and Deep Attention because, as Hayes’ evokes in her essay, Deep Attention is cognitively the ‘de facto norm’ for older generations that did not have such mentally stimulating activities available to them. Therefore Hyper Attention is perceived by older generations as ‘defective behaviour’ and not an effective approach to everyday life, let alone education and academia. Yet Hyper Attention is the cognitive approach preferred by younger generations that tend to opt for mentally stimulating activities such as using video games, computer games, and multi-tasking constantly in everyday life.

The divide that I detect between generations in the 21st century is that older generations that are accustomed to Deep Attention are not accustomed to the mentally stimulating nature associated with Hyper Attention, which is a massive part of modern communication technology that Generation Z has practically grown up with.