Mia picks up the three things that have changed as a result of digital technology and the differences these are making (this was also discussed a lot last year, and will appear again this year, it is the decline of scarcity that we argued around in network media which applies to education/university, know what versus know how, and media practice). So we seem to be in a position to realise Astruc’s vision, though the aesthetic side of this I think is lacking. Sharona notes Astruc’s prescience, and picks up the quote about a new aesthetics, I’d like to think we’re helping build that this year. Natalie has a great over view of the Astruc reading (well done!), particularly noting how the ideas was that we’d use video/film to tell things that weren’t just fictional stories. Hell yeah. Vine is perhaps the most significant intervention in that space since, well, the turn of last century (seriously). Brenton offers a thumbnail over view of the Sørenssen, and I like that for Astruc it’s an epiphany, that gives it more force than just an idea. Daniel uses the Astruc ideas and Sørenssen’s working of them to think about Malick, philosophy and expression, be cautious of generalisations, but a good example of the sort of other cinema that Astruc alludes to. Zoe has a long post picking up ideas about what it might mean to treat the camera as a pen, or more usefully as functional/useful as a pen. Habermas gets a look in too, which might get touched on in Monday’s symposium.