Upon reading the criteria sheet for PB4 I was pretty overwhelmed as to the work that it seemed we had to do in preparation for the audio and visual essays. But as the group collectively broke the task down bit by bit, identifying what strengths each one of us had to bring to the table the task became far easier to digest and begin.
Overall I am very happy with the two finished products and think that our group successfully produced two polished and creative pieces of work that addressed our inquiry question: what are the various effects of modern technologies, particularly social media? I will delve more deeply into how I think we completed the task well and the elements that we could have improved on.
Firstly, lets start with the negative: I believe (and I think it will become clear) that we were too “broad” in our inquiry process and focal areas of interest. With the time limitations governing the two essays, there simply wasn’t the time to be that broad or general. It is important to note, however, that this wasn’t necessarily because of the group being indecisive or lacking in direction or focus. Although admittedly we did have, from the beginning, quite disparate ideas on how we could consider, digest and respond to the overall topic of ‘media technologies’ in an inquiry-focused process. Because of this difference in interpretation, as well as ideas on what would make an interesting and thought-provoking area of interest (as well as angle), compromise was necessary. And it was due to this need for compromise that our essays make seem, I have to admit, “disconnected” to some degree. But, yet if you adopt a “big picture approach” you’ll be able to appreciate the overall connection, being the considering of what the various repercussions of technology (both negative and positive) on our culture are.
Essentially we tried to focus on the positive aspects of technology through enabling more dynamic educational opportunities and the negative elements of technology due to the hold media networks (especially social media platforms) seem to have in our lives. These angles were easy to control as according to the material that we chose to select in each essay. However, it became more difficult to execute each angle as per our intentions in the interview stage, when interviews would give a perspective different from that which we hoped they would give. Of course you can try to guide their answers according to the questions that you ask and select footage according to what best services the perspective that you wish to foreground. But ultimately if they are giving a certain perspective you can only disregard or highlight certain extracts of footage before you are totally re-contextualising what they said. In this instance, where the topic wasn’t overly controversial per se, this isn’t going to cause a major problem. However, I do think it is something to be aware of in future instances, especially where the content being explored is potentially far more contentious.
Perhaps a way to avoid this is the future would be through collecting a broader range of interview content so that you can feature a subject that wholly represents the attitude that the project is, in itself, striving to convey.
I also feel, in retrospect, that the introduction and conclusion voice-over pieces were too formal and, because I wrote and presented all four pieces of narration, this is something that I need to work on. Especially if you are trying to appeal to a younger audience, a younger, more relaxed and natural way of speaking is necessary. This is something that I have picked up in other pieces of work and something that I will continually work on.
There are also several positive elements of our projects that I think give it an extra creative flair and authenticity. Firstly, I love the music as a backdrop to both essays. I think it is edgy and unique without being overwhelming or drawing too much attention. For the audio essay the inclusion of Obama also sounds great, giving it more texture and originality by adding that pop-culture reference. Obama is, generally speaking, quite an appealing figure amongst a younger generational cohort so including extracts of his speeches perhaps makes it a more relatable media source amongst that target demographic.
In regards to the video essay I am really pleased with the visual elements that we were able to find, all of which were licensed under a Creative Commons arrangement. While we did place emphasis on the need to make our projects textured, we also paid attention to one stream of focus and worked hard to not make the project too convoluted or confusing. If you try to “do too much” aesthetically (which is easy given the many features Premier has), it’s certainly easy to do this, which then inevitably compromises the effectiveness of your argument.
So, retrospectively, there were many elements of our project that we completed with success and many areas in which there was room for improvement. Our group did work with one another quite harmoniously in agreeing to compromise in terms of areas of interest. I think more significant than this, although, was our ability to self-identify our strengths and weaknesses and contribute accordingly. Next time when participating in a group project, because of the strict time constraints I would emphasise having more structure or focus early on in terms of answering an inquiry so broadly. But again, when you are needing to marry the (often distinct) interests and knowledge basis of very different people, this can be difficult. Ultimately, nevertheless, I am proud of the products that we have retrospectively produced.
