Our last Media 1 Lectorial wrapped up on Monday. In the absence of any readings this week, the lectorial was generally a reflection on the course and getting ready for the future of the degree.

We discussed the final reflection, which is due next week (June 3), and were asked to look back on the Course Objectives for Media 1, which are:

Upon successful completion of this course, you will be able to:

-Analyse and discuss media objects in terms of disciplinary frameworks.

-Analyse and evaluate your own learning styles.

-Explore and use a range of production technologies to make media.

-Reflect upon and explain your creative choices in individual and group contexts.

The first point has been well covered with the readings, lectorials and especially the Project Brief 4. The blogs have been a major part in covering the second point: analyse and evaluate your own learning styles, as well as the last, regarding reflecting. If I’ve done anything in this course, it’s reflecting. I think the activities in the workshops definitely encouraged the exploration of a range of production technologies.

I’m sad to see the end of the lectorials as I’ve really enjoyed them. I liked the more informal style of the lectorials compared to normal lectures, as well as the increased interaction and use of technology.

At this point, the prospect of doing a work attachment is a little nerve-wracking. The Lectorial on Monday probably raised more self-doubt and concerns than eased them. However, I am attempting to stay positive, so let’s see if I can simplify the process. I’m glad that it was specified that the work attachment is not an internship, as that conjures up images of doing meaningless tasks like coffee runs and being underpaid or not paid at all without any prospects of future employment.

From the Work Attachment Guide:

1. You must complete 80 hours by the end of the semester in which you complete Media 6
2. You will not be eligible to graduate until your work attachment has been completed.
3. For your attachment workplace to qualify you must be supervised by a professional practitioner.
4. You must complete a 1,500 word written report – see below
5. You are expected to speak to the careers officers at least once before you begin your attachment. 

80 hours? That seems like a huge amount. But, broken down, especially between 2 or more work attachments, it won’t be so intimidating. #2 seems reasonable too, I mean, you don’t really want to graduate with no work experience and no connections. As much as I like my part-time job, I hope to eventually do something other than make coffee for other people.

‘Professional practitioner’ is quite broad. From what I could understand, it essentially means anyone who works in the media, from advertising, journalism, public relations, to new media.

So what are my ideal outcomes for an attachment? Firstly, to gain insight into what it’s like to actually work in the media industry. And, importantly, as has been stressed in the lectorial, to expand my professional network. My main concern is that I don’t have currently have any specific skills to bring to a work attachment. It’s the old adage: you need experience to get work, and you need work to get experience. Ideally, my first attachment would have to be something that allows me to demonstrate my personal skills: I’m reliable, attentive, punctual, organised. Maybe I don’t yet know all the ins and outs of the media industry, but these skills and qualities are a good start.

A video essay about video essays. Video essay-ception.

Moore’s video essay is a good example of how video essays can work well, whilst simultaneously analysing video essays. He starts off by explaining how video essays are a popular form, and indeed they are. They are more accessible and perhaps easier to produce than long winded academic essays. Examples of video essays such as supercuts, which can, for example, take common elements of different films and cut them together in order to re-contextualise them.

He proposes that ‘a video essay must collect its material from everywhere,’ and, that it is ultimately, a ‘film about ideas.’ In a written essay, the main tool is language, but video essays combined text, sound, and image.

Moore’s video essay did present a set of ideas. It was clear that his video was created with the affordances of the visual medium in mind – it was snappy, engaging, and entertaining, all the while remaining provocative in terms of ideas. Its structure was significantly less formal than an academic essay, but there was a certain structure discernible. There are almost visual paragraphs; whilst a myriad of ideas are presented, they are separated from each other in an order that is logical and easy to follow, and the essay is topped off with a conclusion.

I’m unable to link Nick Moore’s video essay here, so I’ll leave you with another excellent example Ingmar Bergman’s films that employs similar techniques as Moore.

What are institutions? This week’s topic had me somewhat puzzled, so I turned to dictionary.com for some enlightenment, but, faced with no fewer than 8 different meanings, I was none the wiser.

I then Google searched ‘institutions media’ and found this somewhat more relevant definition:

Screenshot taken 9/5/16

From what I’ve been able to piece together, institutions can can take on different forms, from social institutions like marriage, or media institutions like the ABC, both of which are relevant to the study of media and communication.

Institutions are concerned with the organising structures of society, as well as social, political, cultural and economic relations. Media institutions are long-standing, such as cinema, and are associated with certain values and working practices.

Examples of media institutions include:

• Community radio
• Public broadcasting
• Cinema
• Journalism
• The news

The Lectorial regarding copyright on Monday prompted us to think about what rights we have regarding work we create, and how these copyrights may be affected by sharing work online. We not only have to take into consideration whether we have used any copyrighted work, but also which of our rights we are giving up by posting through different services. We were shown Twitter’s terms of service regarding copyright:

Twitter’s terms of service. Screenshot taken 7/5/16. Source

By posting on Twitter, you are granting them a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty free license, which is perhaps a whole lot to be giving away for free.

This led me to consider Instagram, which is a popular app/website which is used frequently by photographers and artist to share their work. It has often been criticised for its policies. However, it’s terms of use are similar to those of Twitter: whilst you retain ownership of your work, you are granting them a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license. This means they can use your work wherever they want, anywhere in the world, for free.

Instagram’s terms of Service. Screenshot taken 7/5/16. Source

It’s important to remember that once you post something online, you have no control over what happens to it. An important of example of this is when last year, artist Richard Prince screenshotted people’s Instagram posts and hung them in a New York gallery, and sold them for a pretty 90k. He did not ask their permission, those affected did not find out photos of them were hanging in a gallery until their friends told them about it.

So be careful out there, kids.

Whilst Brian skipped over the fan culture part of the Lectorial on Monday, I decided to revisit it because it’s an interesting topic and it relates strongly to my group’s PB4 topic. In the post-broadcast era, ‘fandoms’ are no longer relegated to socially isolated groups of Star Trek geeks. This is due to the rise of ‘participatory culture,’ which has been enabled through the development of new technologies and thus new forms of communication. The Internet has given fans spaces to create communities, and connect with other fans around the world. One of these spaces that springs to mind is Tumblr, which can almost be considered the ‘home’ of modern day fandoms. Thanks to the interconnected nature of fan culture in the post-broadcast era, fans have been given a voice, and thus a power as an audience, that they previously did not have.

Audiences are now able to engage with media texts in different, increasingly interactive ways. A fan might produce ‘fan art’, post it online, and have it shared hundreds or thousands of times with other fans. This culture of sharing amplifies the voice of fans, thus decreasing the distance between producers (knowledge culture) and fan culture. Sometimes, these fandoms are able to influence producers through their responses to texts.

I believe the saturation of fan culture, especially in social media, has normalised these ‘fannish modes of engagement.’ It’s no longer considered a social faux-pas to be a fan of something, and to actively share and discuss pop culture texts.

Source

Source

In Australia, copyright is automatic and applies from the moment a work is created. Similar laws apply overseas, providing protection to content creators from having their work stolen or used without their consent.

However, this does not deter those known as ‘pirates’, from uploading copyrighted content, notable films, TV, and music, to the Internet for others to download. Time and time again, efforts have been made to suppress file sharing websites like The Pirate Bay, which is in now in its umpteenth domain name to prevent authorities in different countries from taking down the site. The Pirate Bay has become almost invincible, due to peer to peer sharing.

Plenty of arguments have been made that this rampant sharing of copyrighted content is hurting creators, like film studios, who claim loss of ticket sales because of films being shared online. So if the effects of piracy are so negative on content creators and copyright holders, why are people so reluctant to give up on piracy? There has been an overwhelmingly negative response to corporations and governments censoring torrent sites.

It is because modern audiences demand to access content at their convenience? If someone in Australia wants to watch the latest offering of Game of Thrones, they have two options: buy an expensive Foxtel package, thus paying a premium for a lot of extra content they don’t desire or need, or wait until the DVD release of the season a year later. Waiting a year to watch a show is an unpleasant option in today’s Internet world where online discussions are an integral part of the media experience and dreaded spoilers lurk around everywhere corner.

Some creators do support piracy, like Brazilian author Paulo Coelho offered his opinion on file sharing: “a person who does not share is not only selfish, but bitter and alone.”

In today’s Lectorial regarding audiences, Brian mentioned the rise of long form narrative, and how this has affected audience consumption. The first example that springs to mind is, of course, HBO, the American cable channel. It’s hard to find a person that hasn’t watched or heard of Game of Thrones, a testament to the show’s popularity. Fun fact: Australians are the world #1 for illegally downloading the show. There are plenty of reasons for this, including archaic Foxtel models, but that’s a rant I’ll save for another blog post.

HBO, as a cable channel, has more freedom with the content it produces compared to free to air channels. They have built a brand that audiences associate with quality TV productions, also known in some circles as ‘prestige’ TV, and also attract big name actors for their flagship shows. When my parents walked in on me watching the opening credits of True Detective they thought I was watching a film – season 2 stars Colin Farrel, Rachel McAdams, and Taylor Kitsch.

However, despite cable TV’s success, there has been an increase in the amount of people cancelling their subscription service.  Netflix, a relative newcomer on the TV scene has provided real competition by providing a service that allows audience to watch whatever they want, whenever they want, for a low (compared to cable TV) monthly price. They are unrestrained by broadcast time slots or the restraints of broadcast TV, allowing them to produce original content, and releasing whole seasons of shows at once, enabling viewers more control. Audiences are able to ‘binge watch’ their favourite shows at 2am if they so desire, something that was not possible 10 years ago waiting for shows to be released on DVD, and then making a trip to the local video store.

Modern consumers are unsatisfied with the restrictions of cable TV, and the convenience of streaming services is a more than tempting alternative than being locked into expensive cable packages that don’t provide follow traditional broadcast models.

Netflix isn’t the only service that uses streaming to provide content to audiences. In Australia, most commercial channels now provide catch-up services, where audience can watch episodes of shows they have missed when they aired. The post-broadcast era is for large part about convenience and accessibility, giving audiences power to access content the way they want, not the way media institutions are telling them to consume.