Into the 7th

Seven Samurai for Seven Weeks. Photo: ORAZ Studio

So as we enter the seventh week of semester, the symposium enters its 4th incarnation. It was an interesting hour of discussions and debates, one that yielded enough to satisfy the avid networked media fan. It’s very interesting to see the ideas of three minds collide, and certainly makes for a much more invigorated sense of learning. I think I found one aspect of the symposium more interesting then any other, coincidentally it was one that was touched for the longest. That is the issue of authorial control.

Coming from a background of learning about communication and audience theories, I have always found the control (or lack of) of the author to be a complex and intriguing debate. It is clear that people from different backgrounds and with alternative ideologies have substantially different views. The key is to find the common ground. I think that’s what’s so important about the symposiums for networked media. In the end thanks to some thorough rebuttals and discussion from our celebrity panel, it was clear that there is an authorial intent in the work, but you can’t expect to have control over the audience. Something I agree with. Timeless debates have raged over this issue, and it is quite contentious. But it is true that you will never be able to control what your audience read from your message (Goodbye hypodermic needle).

With that being said, Brian and Elliot both raised valid points in that there are conventions and expectations that history and society prove can to some point be relied on. That is being said, I think, that there is a certain extent to which you can safely suggest your message will be received, the way you intended, based on certain principles that are pre-learned and developed.

It would be rash to suggest that the message intended by a filmmaker is not to some greater extent received by the audience (if he sends it and codes it properly). But it is also definitely valid that the work does not grant you access to the mind of the creator. Not their person anyway.

It is valid to point out that a work of an artist will carry their values and beliefs to an extent. Everyone has their own personal beliefs, bias and so forth that they take into the creative process, and in some way this will always end up impacting the work that is created. But as Adrian pointed out, context gets left behind. As society changes, so to do the contexts in which we consume texts. That’s what the author can’t control. I guess that’s why it’s hard for a lot of people to watch an old black and white monster film, and feel any sense of thrill, excitement, shock, or horror. They’ve seen it already. We’re a different society. I’ve tried watching the old Universal Monster films with friends (Some of my favourite all time films) and they usually end up laughing. Most people don’t take the time to consider things from a different context to the one that they understand, breathe and live in.

 

Hypertext, Books and Death

Every fire needs a little kindling. Photo: Alienratt

Today’s symposium yielded a number of very relevant and intriguing discussion points. Elliot, Brian and Adrian provided some concrete knowledge from different perspectives regarding the nature of hypertext in itself. Brian’s point on hypertext not being a new “idea” but simply making used of pre-existing technologies, I felt, was an essential component of putting hypertext into context alongside the relevant theory we have explored in this subject and others. It is also important to note that hypertext interacts with different media mediums differently, and different forms work more effectively with different modes and mediums than others. I found Adrian’s link to Wolfgang Ernst’s idea of hypertext being more relative to music than print media to be an interesting perspective that helped to understand the very essence of hypertext and it’s relation to other media formats.

Jasmine reinforced for me the ideas that I expressed in my blog assessment essay – that blogging can be relevant if no-one reads it, given that the space is used appropriately for reflection and critical analysis and noting of one’s own practices and behaviours. It is also a great way to practice writing, and more specifically as Adrian noted, as a way of practicing writing to a speculative audience. When you start to write something good, the audience will come, as long as you put it out there and perform the appropriate transactions – links.

Onto one of my favourite moments for the lecture, being the morbid and often frightening discussion of death. More specifically, the death of books. Adrian raised good points, in that books are now only important because of their relationship with literature, and that in one sense, books are dead (look at how many textbooks, manuals, cookbooks, etc that are online, or e-books instead of physical books). In this sense, the equation and balance between convenience and experience have to be measured. For something like a manual or a textbook, or an academic essay the ease of access and convenience comes first. Even perhaps, for literature and fiction convenience may come first. But for those with interests closely tying into the experience that a book provides, the book is still very relevant. Personally, I like nothing more than to relax and read a good book, made of fine quality paper, with a nice leather binding and crisp pages. The experience is too rewarding for me to give that up. There’s also the collectors factor. I have books that I have collected not only because of the stories within, but because of the very object themselves too, being desirable.

On one final note I want to take a second to think about the health behind books and e-books. I for one, know that I sleep better after having read a book on paper, rather than screen. There’s plenty of evidence out there to suggest that screens do not allow your eyes to relax before sleep, which can significantly affect the effectiveness of your rejuvenation during sleep. Not only this, but as someone with poor sight, sometimes I struggle to focus on a screen. Paper holds the perfect contrast between black and white, but it is softer. It’s easier for my eyes to focus on, therefor the content of the read becomes more digestible.

With that, I can say that I’m a firm believer in books. But it’s also nice to be able to have a convenient portable version of a book. Maybe the book industry could take a page from the music industry and provide free e-book downloads with physical purchases. That’s something I would find very useful and could be a major factor in determining whether I buy a book or not. Is it economically viable for publishers? That’s not for me to know. Time to do some research.

 

Skip to toolbar