Week 7’s studio allowed for class members to pitch ideas regarding their up and coming assessment task, which could be included in an online publication. A pitch’s nature should be descriptive and brief, stating the fundamental aspects of the subject in a ‘hook’ like fashion. Investigating the nature of the pitch, coincided nicely with one of my other classes about The Cinematic Image of Youth, where we recently discussed high concepts films. Similar in approach, the shortened nature of a pitch in general got me thinking about buzz words and click bait online.

A couple of classes ago we discussed how it has become quite common now to read an article’s title, digest that information and move on without actually having opened or investigated the true nature of what that article is saying. In response to this, a newspaper published an article that deplored this millennial behaviour, with the actual contents of the article celebrating the fact that the persons opened it. This story, in conjunction to this week’s pitch, are interesting things to note in the development of our society, as we’re heading towards dot-point new articles and summarised news broadcasting on The Project.

Pitch’s are great, as their lack of development invites the audience to both critique and expand your point. As we’re becoming more and more aware of the way language and semiotics develop thought patterns and meanings, perhaps the short natured rotten tomato reviews aren’t such a bad thing.

As a way to look back over the semester, it made sense to first look back over my blogs. Starting from the beginning ‘Brainstorming ‘Bout Blogs’, I wrote in depths about what I thought was required of me to constitute a blogger. Now, I find this quite ironic, as this semester has made me realise the impossibility of constituting anything. So with my new found ability to question everything, and then continue to question the every thing of that thing, I can already identify progression from my previously linear mindset.

Besides this serendipitous lol, I think the most successful thing I have done this semester surrounds my dedication and interested to the readings. Each reading that I was given, I read enthusiastically and at least twice, and as the subject topics were new to me and thus complex, my application to understanding them was vigorous and triumphant. As the content was a lot more abstract to what I was initially use to, each reading’s challenging nature provided me with an opportunity to apply myself more vigorously then I have done in previous classes and at RMIT in general.

Consequently, I have learnt a better way to apply and interpret my learnings, broadening my ability to not only digest more of what the author is saying, but apply it within my own school of thought and actual doings. This has allowed me to contribute in classes more, and understand the progression in which the class is travelling (which at times, have been refreshingly spontaneous). Unlike previous classes, where I would usually skim readings due to their repeating of content, this class made me slow down and breathe with what I was being taught. Demonstrated in my Bogost and Group Assessment essay, a majority of the feedback critiqued my application of what I’ve learnt onto the soundscape. Thus, the readings provided theories that rejection correlationist views and allowed me to replace myself in the context of my own life in efforts to truly assess what surrounds me.

In conclusion, I have been extremely satisfied with this class and my workings within it. However, I think I could have done better in the time management section, especially towards the end of semester. In efforts to extend my media resume, I have recently gotten a job as a Production Assistant at Brave studios which did effect my the dedication I had priorly applied to the course. Although still very much intellectually invested in the course, the physical aspects (attendance) did seem to waver due to night shoots and work responsibilities. Yet, due to my dedication to this semester’s academia it allowed me to invest and contribute to class discussions on a regular basis.

Thus, I can see the positive and negatives in this experience of this semester as a whole and I think what I need to do better is communicate (this seems fitting with the semester’s theme of meshwork). Communicate to Adrian more, communicate to group members and peers more, communicate to my community.

In retrospect, I give myself a 85% for an overall grade.

How do we invert or flip the landscape work we now study and work in?

Once upon a time ‘what you knew’ is what mattered when you went for a job, yet nowadays the focus is on what you don’t know and your ability to negotiate that is what matters.

As the post-industrial media world’s nature is to grow and adapt, we must ensure that we grow and adapt with it. Therefore, what you don’t know is what matters.

I am proud of my mark but definitely want to speak face to face with Adrian, in order to reach a more comfortable level academically.Adrian’s main feedback was ‘Ok, comfortable with the theory so now you need to learn when to relax when describing and using it‘. I totally agree with this remark. Whilst writing the essay I found that I was able to discuss and understand the theory due to close reading of Bogost, however I could tell I wasn’t comfortable enough with OOO’s theory to really surpass its initial response and provide myself with a serendipitous new understanding. In a sense, I wanted an emotional experience where my metaphorical legs would come off the ground and fun into a new age reality full of Alice in Wonderland absurdities.

Michael Renov

1. What does poetics mean in relation to documentary?
2. What are the laws of documentary? Are there any?
3. ‘It is the film of fact nonfiction… rather then enjoyment or imagination’ (talking about documentary) does this mean it is presumed to favour truth over poetics?
4. Does the dichotomy of description and interpretation relate solely as binary opposites?
5. Foucalt: the attempt to think in the term of the totality has in fact proved a hinderance to research… How one infinite answer can cause a hinderance to our documentary?

Adrian just sent us all an email stating that he’s been very busy recently, and hasn’t been checking the blogs as much as he previously did. I feel like I also have dropped the ball a bit.

Looking back at the beginning of semester where Adrian made us write a list of things we’d like to achieve over this course, being mindful of the fact that we’ll mark ourselves on them at the end of semester, I’d like to acknowledge that I have been lazy but am determined to change that now.

Initially, I was aiming for a HD regarding participation and commitment to the studio. Although I started well, I do believe that for the last couple of weeks I have been working at a credit mark. Thus, I am going to sit up straight and delve back into my computer, as I am eager to get a good mark on this studio, not just for academic sense but because I honestly think that it houses a lot of interesting concepts, all of which I would love to understand.

In reaction to Gruppe 3’s existential recording, where the narrator sits under a tree and discusses existentialist topics, our script is going to take on the subject matter of mortality mixed with a little nihilism. However, decentering post humanist thought will be difficult as it’s *mans’* consciousness that seperate human from ‘animal’. It is due to human kind’s “I think therefore I am” attitude, that our progression as the human race has surpassed and dominated all other nature of beings, as our ability to question not only our surrounding, but ourselves allows us to consciously adapt (as oppose to the unconscious process of evolution). Thus, Gruppe 3’s focus on man’s existence makes it difficult for our soundscape to obtain OOO’s tiny & flat ontology, as we ultimately manipulate the narrative to question themes more relevant to human nature then existence’s nature.

However, I guess in theory existentialism questions ‘existence’ against ‘purpose’, which is ultimately the aim of the studio as we attempt to detach human associations of ‘why’ and object existence and instead focus on ‘who’ this object is. Thus, I guess whilst producing our narrative we must not only to attempt to continue Gruppe 3’s focus on existentialism, but also focus on existentialism component of purpose and try extract the human questioning of the philosophy, from the philosophy itself.

Ian Bogost in Alien Phenomenology analytically examines Object-Orientated Ontology’s rejection of correlationist views, to embrace the multifarious complexity of being among all things (Bogost, p 5). By decentralizing anthropocentric theory, OOO’s objective is to give all objects equal status in the importance of their existence. However, by deeming all objects equal and thus equating all being’s existence, Bogost cautions placing misguided inter-subjectivity upon an object’s relativism and agency. By avoiding such, it draws our attention and transcends the limits of an object’s conventional purpose whilst simultaneously encouraging more possible ways to join and relate ideas not previously associated with an object’s existence. Thus, doing the philosophical work of drawing and expanding explication’s confines as it expands transmission model’s linear discourse and hierarchal connotations of being.

Therefore, by applying a combination of what Bogost describes as flat and tiny ontology we unite two worlds and synthesize the human and nonhuman into a common collective (Bogost, p 17), whilst a list’s succinct yet open-ended format makes us less likely to fall into the systematic trap of over-determination. In class we investigated this method by producing a one-minute soundscape, attempting to create ontology for a locale void from anthropocentric and teleological explanation and restraint.

Our locale was ‘a garden’ – Carlton Gardens. In an attempt to encompass OOO’s primary principle of objects not relating merely through human use but through any use, including relations between one object and any other (Bogost, p 6), we intentionally selected a location fundament of a natural eco-system. Initially focusing on relativism present in the garden’s eco-system, birds to trees, trees to soil, soil to worms etc., a serendipitous moment occurred making us reconsider our applied approach. As Ben held his phone and the recording equipment close to one another, a static noise appeared and was recorded. This provoked recognition of objects that were prevalent, but overlooked (radio signals, Wi-Fi, telephone tower range, etc.) (Similar to Bogost’s capsicum), and exhibited our unconsciously applied anthropocentrism. The moment was consequent to the delusion and naiveté of contemporary scientific naturalism and social realism, which enforces that although all things equally exist, not all things exist equally (Bogost, p 11).

This hierarchy of being was further disrupted through editing’s transformation, as networks of human and nonhuman actors behaved on one another through entering and exiting relations (Bogost, p 19). Working in assistance with one another’s subjectivity (what humans have recorded and what technology can record), flat ontology’s democracy of objects allowed us to transcend restrictions due to the reliance of one another’s object’s distinction. However, the narrative’s contribution was difficult to decipher as the use of language, (let alone the English language), seemed like a dominating, constructionalist attribute. However, by applying tiny ontology and viewing each actor as a unit, whilst using flat ontology’s method of flattening out previous hierarchal relationships, we attempted to keep all objects decentralized, thus denying a dominant narrative arc and structure. Hence, producing a file that invites creativity rather than enforces previously associated detachment. Rushkoff asserts that stories don’t work in a technological environment as their un-engaging nature with an active audience creates a narrative collapse, whereas lists and games interactivity can attract new relationality and interpretations.  Rushkoff describes games surpassing all other forms of entertainment and cultural importance as they engage with player they expand the infinite structure of a list, as opposed to the grammatical formation of a sentence. Thus, allowing the audience do the philosophical work of drawing our attention to an object with greater attentiveness, through experience rather then the act of telling (Rushkoff, p 62).

Our list was constructed in random subject sequence avoiding traditional hierarchal connotation. Instead of depending on thoughts relativity and nature of ‘what comes next’, we observed the locale and encourage our site to be constructionalist. Attempting to liberate from the determined associations of our psyche, my involvement with a chain of ‘choice’ was still subject to preconditions taught by my own cultural context. Thus, making it harder to reject humanist determining, as systematic subject patterns appeared due to my engrained psychological context – viewing left to right, seeking similarities rather than differences, making connections through subject matter, etc. This is demonstrated in my list below.  

–  

– Grass

– Metal

– Stones

– Pebbles

– Sand

– Roots

– Trunk

– Trees

– Bark

– Leaves

– Stems

– Water

– Dirt

– Duck

– Moss

– Algae

– Spider

– Bubbles

– Coins:

– $2,

– $1,

– 50c,

– 20c,

– 10c,

– 5c

– Metal

– Fences

– Plastic

– Plastic bags

– Cigarette

– Juice popper

– Bark

– Phones

– Cameras

– Clothing

– Smoke

– Books

– Umbrella

– Glass

– Walls

– Dust

– Wheels

– Cars

– Pens

– Check boards

– Crowds

– Keys

– Ratio

– Doors

– Locks

– Footprint

– String

– Possum

– Birds

– Bat

– Ant

However, even though relations and association between subjects can be identified, the list’s format enforces that there is no super object, but instead a demonstration of objects gathered together in a harmonious unity.  This draws our attention to each object individually, and with greater emphasis, as we attempt to do this philosophical work of making sense of ‘what we see’ but with greater attentiveness.

Thus, a list does not explain but instead leaves open interpretation. Liberated from the grammatical confines of a sentence that attempt to establish narrative arc, a list format prompts us to question the nature of connection between two objects, as oppose to its purpose. In conclusion, the list itself communicates simply the multifaceted relations and possibilities of an object’s very complex existence.

‘The stronger ones were ones of Flat Ontology’

Overall our feedback was quite diverse.

Incorporated in our video were the static sounds made from the microphone and phone when in close proximity to one another. This sound was one of the main subjects of our feedback, as it’s unnatural presence ‘within a garden’ caused people to become confused about the soundscapes situational nature. Although I can understand the initial confusion regarding the static’s sounds ‘right’ to be there, I think its use within our video is important as it demonstrates ‘things’ that prevalent but not noticed. Similar to the chilis in Bogost’s introduction.

The feedback thus was beneficial, as it allowed us to question the production of our soundscape whilst simultaneously deepen our understanding of what our soundscape means and why.