There were many interesting ideas raised and discussed in this weeks lecture, as well as building upon ideas from previous weeks. for example, the main takeaway idea from the 80/20 reading was that networks do not form randomly, they gradually assume a logical network. Also, the idea that hubs are like those people in friendship groups who seem to know everyone. But although they know everyone, they know most of these people on an acquaintance level, so they have many weak connections, like a hub. When i got home i also had fun with The Oracle of Bacon website which illustrates how Kevin Bacon is a hub in Hollywood. These are the kinds of people that create the ‘small world’ network.

Something i have been pondering a lot since the lecture is the idea of creative freedom. It was suggested that we don’t have creative freedom in many ways as rules and codes have already been decided. The example of somebody wanting to make a sci-fi movie was used; the person wants to have the set up exactly like the lecture room for example, but people say ‘that’s not sci-fi, there’s no sci-fi stuff,’ which means the person would have to conform to the rules and codes of what a sci-fi film is to make this film. Also, there was the example of films being rectangular, why not shoot one that is a circle? And it is viewed on a circular screen.

Now i don’t think this is a question of “why don’t people think for themselves when they create,” i would say it is more of what has been mutually agreed upon over time. People can create circular films if they want to, if there is a specific effect they desire, and they can make a film in the lecture theater if they want to as well, there are no rules stopping them, the film just wont be sci-fi, because ‘sci-fi’ is a classification term. You are only constrained while making that film if you decide initially ‘I want to make a sci-fi film,’ because then, yes, there are certain aspects that make things sci-fi, because sci-fi is a classification system. The first person to ever make a sci-fi film didn’t have constraints, but these films were grouped together and given a name based on similar properties. But if you are  just deciding to make a film, there are no rules and regulations that you must abide by. Also, you can make a circular film if you want to, there is nothing saying you cant, but over time people have found that watching rectangular movies is easier on the eye and mind, because it is similar to the way we see through our eyes. So it depends on what you label your creation as, if you want an easy to watch film, then yes, rectangular has been decided as being best.

So in that way, i didn’t really understand the point Adrian was trying to make, i guess that people should think about possibilities rather than just following the norm without questioning it. But the examples didnt really prove anything for me. If you label something before you create it, then you must create it to fit that label, that is obvious. It is ridiculous to say Titanic could be a sci-fi film because ‘screw constaints!’ because sci-fi is a classification of a genre, and Titanic does not fit the classification, so instead it is classified as something else.

However, if the point was supposed to be about letting your creations have agency, and not to force them to be something, then yes, I agree. I do find this a lot when i am writing essays etc.