Month: May 2015

The Project Brief 4 deadline is drawing closer and closer, so naturally Rose and I continued to work on the project during the workshop – specifically, on the reference list and adding the information from the references into the “about” page on our website. The Project brief 4 is submitted via each of our own blogs and onto our shared google drive folder. Although this was technically “class-time”, we still recorded it in the minutes of the group.

The class itself was instructed on how to submit our reflective posts. We are to write one last entry in our blog to reflect on our experience in the course (up to 500 words). We have to focus on “light-bulb moments”. We include links to 5 posts within this summary submission post (these 5 posts are supposed to be our “best” posts of either assignments and/or weekly reflections) and a scanned image of a “learning graph”. We put all of this onto our blog and a copy onto our google drive folder.

For the lectorial, we looked at a fairly new media theory; media materialism. We operate on a level of being directly engaged with technology, working with/on the cloud. However, everything we do is still grounded where we are.

There are 3 main areas of media materialism; technology, technique, and culture. Technology contains computer code, microwave rays, and hammers – as well as the skills to use these tools. Technique incorporates those skills that are uniquely human, such as using our hand to turn a screw or using or brain to read languages and algebra – essentially, the role of the human body. Finally, culture, is identifying subgroups within the population, the world as culture, humankind, and art, theater, cinema:creative expression.

One fear of technology is that it would spiral out of control (often seen in many sci-fi films/books/shows), first thought of in “Dr. Frankenstein”. Its been almost 200 years since it was published, but the fears of our technology going too far is still around us, either by politics, and still in films/games/books/shows etc. We were then shown a clip of a short online film called “KARA” which continues with the theme of robots thinking for themselves and possibly removing the “status quo” of humans being the only sentient creatures in existence.

We were then shown a trailer for the video game “The Last of Us”, which looks at how different people find scarce resources and interact with others. We were then told to pick a question presented before us for our blog in about 300 words.

I chose “innovation and progress is hindered by scientific regulation” –  The human race has advanced its technology more over the last 500 years than in the millions of years before it combined, and even more in just the last century. Clearly, it isn’t too hindered, but we could be farther along, perhaps. Some government policies have pushed back research into stem cells, despite their ability to potentially cure Alzheimers – the same is done to marijuana despite clinically proven cancer-representativeness in it. However, sometimes things can go a little too far – the Nazis experimented with prisoners and “undesirables” in hypothermia – information that we use and has saved countless lives, but still the experiments were horrible. In “The Island of Dr. Moreau”, he experiments with animals and combines them with human beings to create hybrids. While it is certainly a scientific jump, it doesn’t really have any practical uses and doesn’t really help progress humanity.

That being said, the reason people didn’t really progress or show much innovation until the last 500 years was because of government policies across much of the known world – with witch trials and executions and accusations of blasphemy being a main staple that kept humanity grounded in fear and superstition, so that the common man is just there to serve – for if they were allowed to think new ideas they might think that the feudal system wasn’t all that fair. When the Renaissance hit Europe, new ideas of society, culture, politics, and science arose without nearly as much fear of social or government persecution. That era gave us Shakespeare, Da Vinci, and . Clearly, innovation and progress is hindered by scientific regulation.

We were then reminded again of the reflective portfolio – nothing new compared to the workshop was said except our attention was drawn to the link at the bottom for an assessment declaration that we are to sign and send via google drive.

We didn’t have a workshop this week, but that didn’t stop some of us of continuing to work on the project. Rose and I completed our website late last week with the video as well.

In the lecotrial, we looked at the topic of “The Remix and the Glitch”. Our lecturer was Dan Binns. I found the music to be a bit loud – it also went on for at least 15 minutes. After the music, our lecturer told us that “there is no such thing as an original idea”, and remixes are a perfect example of that. There were remixes of art, literature, film, and of course, music.

The “golden age of hollywood” in the 30s and 40s was filled with remakes and reboots and adaptations, thanks to the addition of sound in cinema. Films like “Cleopatra”, “The Wizard of Oz”, and “Gone with the Wind” were made because of sound, and the cuts and mise-en-scene of a film is a type of remix.  Even the printing press allowed for mass popularization and reproduction of work. Anyone can make a series of copies, but the original work is something else (like a work of art).

The lecturer went on to say that social media is also a way of “remixing” photos, videos, and even people and personalities. However, moments captured in a photo will never be the same as the moment that the picture is capturing. It isn’t about the “artifact” (e.g. the digital photo) but rather the event itself.

He then talked about the “remix theory”, which is the best way to understand mash-ups and popular music in the world. We went from a calm man on the radio saying what was just played, what will play, and perhaps an update on the weather. We then went to jute-boxes in establishments and then eventually DJs playing and remixing records and songs, starting the nightclub scene in the 1970s, the theme of which more or less continues today (despite changes in how the DJ plays music, the music itself, fashion, and dancing styles). The lecturer then played a series of song bits with footage of “Saturday Night Fever”, cut and remixed together to show how easy it is. Some songs are even produced specifically for nightclubs.

Eventually, the home computer allowed two or more pieces of music to be mixed together without the input of either artist or producing studio (although sometimes they would collaborate to promote each others music) and create something new – called the “Mash-up”. However, lots of corporations do what they can to not have these productions mashed-up or remixed without purchase of the rights.

We then listened to a mash-up by a re-mixer called “GirlTalk”, where we were supposed to write down as many samples as we recognize. I recognized a “Jackson 5” song called “I want you back”. I also heard several drum and guitar beats as well as some rap and goth/heavy metal music that I didn’t recognize that contained the lyrics “Do u want to die?”. I think a tribal-type song was there, as well as something that might have been done by “Atomic Blonde” or by something from the late 70s. I found these groupings fairly strange. Other people heard Justin Timberlake, Simon and Garfunkle, Farside, Slat and pepper, NWA, the Beastie Boys, U2, BRB, and many others.

We then looked at Popart, and how it associates us with various aspects of society. Its played up with colors and shapes and politics and sexuality etc. Advertisers showed us what our life “could be” and would be fulfilled by thier product and their product alone. Pop artists took popular culture and ads and dressed them up and mixed them together as a form a criticism of the status-quo, the political structure, etc. Glitch artists mess with footage with bugs to affect aesthetic. They don’t change the content or form, but rather just the digital code that it uses to alter it -“predicated on wrongness to catch the sublime”. Glitch art is sometimes compared to expressionism and cubism.

Dan Binns concluded the lecture by reminding us that we still had readings and that the ones for week 11 would be helpful for the subject of remixes.

 

In the workshop, Rose and I talked about photos she took on Friday of close-ups on human skin. We talked about how we were going to present them in a video by placing the photos in groups of three between white flashes. The video will be placed on a website along with all of the photos. We discussed with Mr. Rowlands the potential issues of people’s different perceptions i.e. porn vs art. We elected to ignore these worries and let people who see the video think what they think.

In the lectorial, we were given a lecture on “institutions”. We also got a talk by Paul Ritchard on work attachments for the next few semesters.

Institutions

• term from sociology
• concern with organizing structures of society
• social, cultural, political, and economics relations
• principles, values, and rules that underlay these

e.g. “Marriage” as a social institution. It is governed by a set of rules and expectations – certain values, legalities, religion, culture, and of it being widespread and communally recognized.

Media Institutions:

• are enduring
• regulate and structure activities
• are “collectivist”
• develop working practices
• employees and people associated are expected to share values
• public is aware of the status

We were then told to, as a group, to brainstorm the institutional characteristics of Facebook, Newscorp, Google, and Community Media. My area focused on Google.

After this activity, Raul Ritchard talked to us about work attachments. We were encouraged to do multiple attachments so we have more to write about for our 1500 word report (not on this blog, better to do it on a private word document or google drive) and to quickly fill up the 80 hours. He hopes it will be somewhere that we will actually learn something and not just filing papers. When we do an attachment, the admin people send in a form to the employer for the supervisor to fill out and return (if the attachment happened recently, and not months beforehand). We are, thankfully, completely covered by the RMIT insurance policies so we don’t have to worry about injuries or mistakes but we are still encouraged not to make mistakes).

I decided to book an appointment with Mr. Ritchard for 8:15 on Wednesday the 13th of May to see if he can help me find an appropriate attachment (preferably near where I live). To get him to approve an attachment (before contacting an employer and before he sends forms to the employer) we just e-mail him the general details of what we want to do and he says “yes” or “no”. Hopefully I can find something good and soon to get the 80 hours over and done with.

 

Nothing of particular note occurred during the workshop. All that was decided that Rose and I would find pictures over the weekend to experiment with. We intend to have our project focus on close-ups of human skin, but our first few photos will be getting the idea of square-shots of close-ups.

In the lectorial, we looked at the topic of “audiences”.

“What about the audience?”- Simple men (1991, DIR. Hal Hartley)

We were shown a clip from “simple men” to discuss the idea of music and sound techniques affecting audiences, while also looking at feminist ideals of the time this film was made (specifically Madonna and exploitation “who exploits who” etc?). A lot of people studying media began having similar discussions about sexuality, feminism, exploitation, and the empowering of women within media. It came to the point of audiences and “who cares about audiences?” Those that do include advertisers, commercial broadcasters and cable networks, production houses and individual program makers, government policy makers, social scientist/psychologists, and cultural theorists.media scholars.

Characteristics of a post-broadcast era: Changes in:

• television institutions/major players
• technologies of production, distribution and consumption
• audience practices
• aesthetic sensibilities

We were told that TV has become such a central part of our culture. How it addresses the audience through its video and audio is exceptional. When the Australian PM addressed the Australian public on its first day of having a network (16th Sept 1956), he made it about policy because he now had a way to communicate to people’s homes with ease. Australian TV was originally like British TV, i.e. mostly educational and news. American was purely entertainment. TV services can be tailored to specific demographics, which advertisers find difficult as they now have to look at a variety of fractured audiences (as opposed to everybody at once). This puts forward the idea of “mass culture” and “mass audience”. There are no real “masses”, but there ways of seeing people as “masses” – > a way of seeing people which has become characteristic of our kind of society.

We were shown a clip from a film “Network” (1976) that was meant to show us that the audience is no longer “passive”, mindlessly taking in messages and content. Media is affecting audiences as much as audiences affect media.

“The individual is prompted by a text to recognize him or herself as being a subject that belongs in a role” – Louis Althusser (1918-1990).

The audience is not just a commodity, and has to be acknowledged as “the public”. The class was then shown a video-survey of the video-habits of average Australians, the number 1 entertainment is TV, but the Internet is quickly overtaking that.

The TV ratings are incredible drivers in the media industry. They are based around exposure, and must appeal to the inherent “correctness” of the measurement. Its a statistical sample that is delivered as a single number, and meant to accurately represent a public audience. Studios and advertisers then react to that to produce what they think the audience demographics will want, to single out the desirable and undesirable forms of media culture.

We then looked at fans and fandoms. They have been stereotyped as obsessive, freakish, hysterical, and infantile. Pop-culture has looked at fandoms with distaste and critique, with fan’s emotional attachments to media texts and celebrities being viewed as “irrational”. Henry Jenkins, however, claims that they are in a way “active producers and manipulators of meaning” (Textual Poachers, 1992). Fans are a crucial part of “people formally known as the audience”.

I consider myself an avid consumer of tv-via-laptop, and a fan of a variety of shows, films, genres, etc.