During today’s studio, we presented where we are up to in regards to project 3 to the class. I found the encouragement for peer feedback to be useful because the way that certain students tried to contextualise and explain the work of others, in my opinion helped pose potential improvement or even advance the level of understanding in the presenter. In presenting our probe and sketch drafts:

DRAFT PROBE

What happens to skate video when it is interacted with via different online tools and services?

We were given feedback indicating that the word ‘interacted ‘ should be changed. Whilst we are interested in introducing elements of creativity, the question is too open ended and undefined as it stands. It also seems we are interested in how different tools and services may impact the creative process (in regards to constraints). This also highlights a need for more specification upon what we expect to change, what creative elements? For this reason, the probe was reshaped to remove ‘interacted’ whilst keeping a possibility to explore interactivity as an online tool. In addition, the narrative / non-narrative creative elements were implemented into the probe, which I think much more effectively addresses the studio prompt and the purpose of project 3.

RE-DRAFTED PROBE

What happens to the narrative / non-narrative structure in skate video when it is produced in different online services and tools?

Today’s studio was also helpful in encouraging the students to consider the relevance of what each group is exploring. i.e. Why does it matter? Which immediately makes me think of referring to the studio prompt as a point of reference to exemplify relevance to the course.

Studio prompt: How can video, computers and the network be used to redefine online video practices?

Exploration of our probe is thus making a contribution as to how skate video (an online video practice) might change when distributed among different online tools and services (including different forms of video, computers and the network).