Category: Lecture notes

Intent doesn’t matter?

 

  • Without constraint you can’t have creativity. Most creative pursuits are very constrained, eg music, film – narrative, convention, etc.
  • 52 Tuesdays – heavily constrained but effective practice. Film review: http://www.movieburger.com.au/review/52-tuesdays-review-10161/
  • How lists offer alternative ways of making to narrative.
  • Noticing practices in documentary – lists and how we look at that
  • Relations – our clips mean things not in themselves but by virtue of the relationships that emerge from Korsakow
  • What the filmmaker does rather than what they mean – essay films can mean pretty much anything, but by looking at what it does we can work out if it is indeed an essay film.
  • What makes a genre and what makes a style? Do these definitions matter? As Hannah mentioned, it’s more about thoughts being expressed through film rather than what the film is about.
  • Intent doesn’t matter. The author’s intention cannot preserve context or meaning. Context can never be preserved: that is why we can look at films, TV and artwork differently than audiences at the time.
  • There is going to be stuff in our works that we can’t see – goes back to the unconscious.
  • Completely associative experiences of the world: eg, we don’t remember things linearly, such as birthdays. These are complex webs of association.
  • There is no such thing as industry-standard. Change is too fast.

What do we do with the fragments? Week 7 lecture

  • Social media are more lists than narratives, eg Twitter, Flickr, etc. They are fragments listed together, not narratives.

I think I’m beginning to understand what Adrian has been getting at for the last few weeks: that we need to shake this kind of romantic notion that everything is a story or narrative, but I still can’t seem to get over it! Jennifer Egan’s novel A Visit From The Goon Squad I would argue is a list of fragments, but I would also argue as a total these fragments come together to present a narrative. I feel is we did list all of these fragments from Twitter it would present some kind of narrative: the progression of news stories coupled with people’s reactions, etc. Would this add up to some kind of narrative? Or just a collection of the current zeitgeist? Is there a difference?

  • Representation as tyranny? –> This idea fits in with Plato’s theory of representations in art which we studied earlier this semester in Philosophy/literature
  • Semiotics
  • The words matter more than their specific forms (although always exceptions, eg, if we were a designer clearly typography etc would matter.)
  • The world exceeds us in every possibility
  • Singing mice
  • We need to get over ourselves
  • We are not at the center = trees have rights
  • Representation can only say a little bit, and in doing so represents the whole. As such representation is a tyranny.
  • Because of this tyranny we keep misreading the world –> eg, digging up and burning coal because we believed the world belongs to us and is there for our use/consumption.
  • Riding a bike to work = a web of lists: places, things, rules, reasonings = Adrian riding his bike to work is not the centre of the bike’s story. Every part of the network has agency.
  • We can turn everything into a song, but it doesn’t follow that everything is a song. Maybe this applies to Twitter fragments… we could turn it into a narrative but it doesn’t mean it is a narrative?
  • Re: Google and Korsakow = what about the ads? Where would they go and how would Google make any money?
  • YouTube is old media

I found this comment from Adrian amusing because only the morning of the lecture I was listening to an interview between Jenna Marbles and Rhett and Link, both popular YouTube personalities. They were discussing TV not understanding YouTube, as exemplified with Jenna’s interview on GMA and her being described as “The Most Famous Person You’ve Never Heard Of”.

Also in the interview with Rhett and Link they discuss he being recognised over traditional TV actors. So for Adrian to say that YouTube is old when ‘traditional’ media isn’t even recognising YouTube is being ‘here’… I hate to say that it shocked me a bit! But ultimately I have to agree: afterall YouTube doesn’t rethink what video is or how we consume it.

  • Cusp of media change
  • Vine = fragments; Charlie bit my finger = fragment
  • What do we do with the fragments? One example is Korsakow.

I’m glad Adrian brought this up as I have been questioning lately why the majority of our grade this semester revolves around a single program, and this idea that it’s simply an example of what we do with the fragments has answered this to a degree.

  • Niche audiences + media users
  • We can’t work on the model of traditional grand audiences: we timeshift, illegally download, etc, and we can’t make-believe that our audience won’t also do that.

 

 

Interpreting the gaps – lecture notes

  • Documentary wants to engage with the world and change our understanding of something. It is never just art for art’s sake. Documentary changes how we notice and experience our place in the world.
  • Art can be for itself: eg, ballet for ballet, music for music: not every song has to be a political commentary, etc.
  • Adrian mentioned a bot sending a news story, and more information can be found here.

This morning, two minutes after the earthquake struck, the USGS Earthquake Notification Service sent out the details of the earthquake and its location and strength to anyone listening. At that same moment, Schwencke got an email: a story on the earthquake was ready to be published. Though Schwencke gets the official byline, the Quakebot does the dirty work. Indeed, the biggest delay in the story going live was the time taken for Schwencke to roll out of bed, turn on his computer, double check the Quakebot’s accuracy, and press publish.

  • Designs change. We used to think we’d always need journalists, but do we? Based on the bot, maybe not.
  • Learn by doing –> By trying things out, as Anna said, we learn what we like: we learn what kind of filmmakers we want to be by making films.
  • Media specific criticism matters. TV has been defined by advertising = four ad breaks = a very specific structure.
  • Experience design –> eg the wedding example from last year.

What we do with the accidents: week 4 symposium

  • Conglomerates and reality TV as a hybrid: Big Brother is not just a TV show, but a website with extra footage, a voting system, etc.
  • Why do we like reality TV so much? Adrian suggested because “we live and die by our constraints“. Reality TV certainly plays on constraints and expectations: the constraints of living in a house with 14 others and the expectation to do dishes or compete in games and tasks for example. These constraints and expectations mirror the modern world, eg the “Nanny state” which constrains us.
  • Public and private spheres: how have they changed? We now hear half a phone conversation instead of our conversations being held in a private phone booth or within the home.
  • Making mischief – why not talk into someone’s phone? It’s not a private conversation after all!

  • So what are the boundaries between inside/outside, safe/dangerous, legal/illegal?
  • TV has an insatiable need to see –> the desire to see is much more important than the camera quality. Content is more important that an HD image.
  • Jasmine mentioned that the individualised nature of our devices has changed the public and private spheres. iPad, iPhone, iPod: these are named for the individual.
  • Adrian questioned if the internet allows us to build walls further around us or whether it allows us to open our minds. The internet is capable of doing both, it depends on what the individual wants to use it for.
  • It was asked whether new technology/phones ruin TV/film making, and I immediately thought of the recent iPhone 5 film starring Scarlett Johansson:

  • Adrian proposed that the more tools the better off you are, which I tend to agree with. But this idea does avoid our need for constraints and the creative liberation found in putting constraints on our work.
  • Our language can’t even keep up with the rate of technology change: it’s not ‘film’ and it’s not a ‘video’ for instance.
  • Embrace the constraints
  • It’s all about what we do with the accidents.

Mess is good

This week’s lecture centered primarily on the danger in categorising. There is immense danger for the artist/author/creator’s creativity in getting put in a box and not being about to get out or seen in a different way, and for the audience/viewer if we aren’t open to new possibilities. By categorising works into these artificial taxonomies we risk becoming cookiecutter. Jasmine mentioned it is good to create a taxonomy but to be open to change. This idea is reminiscent of scientific paradigms: we once did believe the earth was flat after all. Consensus can change.

Adrian explained that as humans we like the boundaries that taxonomies give us, we like borders for complex issues such as gender. Similarly I think as humans we crave narrative: we look for signs, symbols and patterns to give our days/lives meaning, but things don’t have perfect boundaries. Classification isn’t black and white; we don’t have boxes but very messy, muddy edges. Definitions by definition are problematic. The following video by Hank Green of the Vlogbrothers sums up very well the fact that to put people into gender stereotype boxes we would need infinite boxes.

So do we even need to worry about classification? The more important question seems to be what the documentaries actually do. Adrian suggested we start from the premise of making and then work out where it fits. It’s much more interesting to ask a specific thing what it does rather than create overarching theories. Taxonomies impose a grid: if you don’t fit into the grid we can’t see you. Distinctions become games of power that create false dichotomies.

Everything is entangled

We contemplated the media landscape, something that is ambiguous, messy, changing and dissolving. But we shouldn’t fear, mess is good.

What can I do inside a rectangle? What does it mean vs what can it do? We need to find out what it is before we can assign meaning to it.

Patch up those sails, we’re back on the water!

Alternatively titled “Huge Blog Post To Catch Up On Everything Because Of Computer Problems / Why Do We Have A Long Weekend So Early In Semester So I Think It Is Still Holidays And Do No Work”

Lecture One:

  • Systems + better flow: The following system flow chart is for a border/coastal surveillance system, but demonstrates the benefits of a network system and how different sections contribute to good ‘flow’ of ideas and action. I want to work on adding more systems to my day-to-day life because I think they contribute to good practice and habits – maybe even just a morning routine?
  • Autism spectrum: Adrian mentioned this in regards to his own life experiences and what he has learnt about himself, particularly regarding messing with structure (and this link to networks). I’ve read a few articles surrounding the idea that everyone is on the Autism spectrum, including this article from New York Magazine, and it’s an interesting idea. Clearly not everyone who is a bit quiet, or has obsessive interests, or is socially awkward, or is an abrasive jerk, suddenly “has Autism” but these individual’s may be present on some far end of the scale. (Apologies for my incorrect use of commas, I just finished The Catcher in the Rye) I’m still unsure how I feel about this – could it also just be those traits and character flaws and curves and edges that make us human?
  • Assumptions: about what we think others know. This reminded me of two quotes:

    To assume makes an ass out of you and me

    and

    Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don’t.

  • Essays: as modes of thought to follow an idea, as we discussed last semester. The fact that this concept still resonates and seems so novel and foreign to me is a testament to how strongly this previous strict practice about what an essay does has been taught and ingrained in us throughout our schooling.
  • Korsakow
  • Film as disposable and trivial: Adrian mentioned that what you are going to say and what you are going to do with it are more important than creating something confusing with “bells and whistles”. He made the point that great writers can make great writing using a biro and the back on envelope; they don’t need the best pen or their MacBook. Similarly we don’t need the best filming equipment to brainstorm ideas and try out techniques – our smartphone cameras are more than adequate. What we write with doesn’t affect the quality of what we write. I like this idea, and I think it’s important to realise this in order to let go of any preconceived notions when approaching film. It’s often been off limits in my mind simply because I’m not good at achieving depth of focus and pretty compositions. But it doesn’t have to be perfect – I touched on this in a few posts last year and this is definitely something I want to work on this semester: it doesn’t have to be perfect. Just try.
  • Personal documentary: what is/isn’t this? Specific apps sure, but what about any storytelling we do?

Notes I wrote on the first page of Catalyst (speaking of biros and envelopes)

  • Themes and ideas to consider and explore:
  1. playfulness, temporality and memory
  2. interactive documentary
  3. noticing
  4. reflection, practice, process
  5. explicit and tacit knowledge

An exercise in Noticing: ZOZOVISION#1 – My room in 60 seconds

Closing Ceremony

  • Jonathan Harris
  • We Feel Fine – example non fiction project
  • a complete change to journalism and what it was
  • digital revolution faster and to more people than print revolution
  • all technology is digital
  • unfixed and free-flowing, like learning and the nature of knowledge
  • open things get scoops
  • ecosystem
  • link back – power laws and the long tail
  • “someone might do something bad” – work out how to deal if something bad happens
  • just do it – things get done on the outside
  • what is used to be for probably doesn’t apply any more
  • you don’t need to build a radio system
  • be the person making the phone call

Soy burger bites

  • Internet as gift economy – protocols on the web = free, can’t be patented
  • Protocols: socials protocols (manners), public protocols and internet/technological protocols
  • Where is the money on the internet with this gift economy? Building the services > providing the content?
  • Mediation vs protocols = internet as a democracy?
  • Great Firewall of China
  • Limits of technology and how we interact with it
  • Importance of mobility, flexibility and fluidity
  • How does power/modes of control operate in this new system? How does resistance work?
  • Flatness – everything is equally distanced
  • Culture of building vs culture of dismantling = creating meaning from destruction + taking what we agree with and building on top of that
  • Distributed responsibility
  • Protocol is the basis of the web – social practices: what do I give, how do I share it, why should we share it?
  • Because protocols are social they are negotiable
  • Internet standards and RFCs = transparency, flatness, democracy
  • DNS = centralised, tree model
  • Alternative forms of management, eg, Army command control vs terrorism management systems
  • Bottom-up models – reshaping of forms in new contexts
  • Spying on yourself and normative behaviour
  • Conceptions vs eventual use, eg telephone
  • The virtual and the actual: actualised future is real, but everything in the virtual core is true – don’t tell me  you weren’t thinking about Alice Cullen!
  • Don’t ever give your money to anyone who says they know.

Hubs

Notes from week nine symposium and tutorial

  1. The center of our own network/our relationship to the network vs the network actually having a centre
  2. Networks are dynamic – always growing
  3. ‘Dynamic’ as a way of thinking and learning: open to change, admitting when we’re wrong – this is not a popular way of thinking
  4. Global networks and how cities fit in to this network –> creative industries
  5. Creative knowledge workers
  6. Creative economy
  7. Networks: centralised (hierarchical) vs scalefree?
  8. Heritage media
  9. There’s no centre for the internet – if something goes downs, the rest of the internet won’t go down as in TV or radio or newspapers.
  10. Hubs – defined by how many ties link in and out
  11. The importance of the strength of weak ties – friends don’t get you jobs but acquaintances do
  12. 6 degrees of separation
  13. The internet is not virtual – bandwidth pollution and carbon footprint
  14. Developing countries leapfrogging heritage/industrial media and getting straight to wireless, eg Nokie interface translation
  15. The mechanics of scarcity, eg, retail shelf sapce, TV only having 24 hours of broadcast time a day
  16. Venture capitalism
  17. 80:20 rule
  18. Internet infrastructure is finite

Unspun thoughts

A few half-formed thoughts from the last week or two:

Mixing up categories of form and content. Eg, poetic documentary
– I like this idea because I’ve been thinking a lot about contrast, conflict and duality, and how we can make meaning out of deconstruction and appropriation.

Genre – relies on audience formation, so what is interesting about interactive documentary is that its not fixed in terms of audience expectation.

Media literacies around genres and media forms. Are these learnt behaviours? Rap example of “What is this?” and “why would I enjoy this” and “where is the artistry” – the literacies for pleasure and judgement weren’t yet learnt. How can ____ be judged, and why?

Storytelling makes truth claims, either about a world (fiction) or the world (non-fiction)
–> doesn’t all fiction allude to the human condition in some way, hence documentary?

Interactive documentary: Wikipedia = participatory non-fiction

Authorial intention and purpose. Plurality of the ways that texts are engaged with.

Authors can never control the interpretation of their writing
–> books belong to their readers
– eg, example of the Bible, what does it mean!

We can interpret texts, but we can’t have access to the author’s mind. How can we have access to Shakespeare’s mind if he is dead? This is magical thinking. What we interpret is a text, not the author’s mind. Treat the text as the thing with the personality, not the creator.

Author’s cannot control their texts or the interpretations of their texts.

Chop/stop example. We think that reason is in charge of everything that we do, but a trivial childish rhyme can completely subvert what we think is the privilege of reason. If that’s so easy to do, how can we think author’s are in charge of anything, and if we read anything we can get magical access to the author’s mind.

Plot and story. Plot is the order of the things that happen, story is the order in which the things are narrated. Eg, flashbacks, etc.

How does communication work at all if there are no guarantees?

Idea of encoding and decoding – trying to work out the different codes the author/composer may have in the text, they may be thematic, visual, etc, and they use those to construct the story, and the audience can decode that to find meaning in the story.

The difference between understanding the author and the author’s mind, and understanding the author’s composition and strategies.

–       Psychoanalytical theory?

The unconscious by definition cannot be known. We analyse the text over the person.

No context can be attached to the text.

Intent cannot survive. We can’t say what we mean because we can’t guarantee the audience will take the meaning away.

We assume there are intentions in the message, but we can’t guarantee we will take the intended message away.

We can’t help but find patterns.

Context cannot survive the text, eg, 1950s film being racist/sexist, or Adrian’s teacher explaining Aboriginals would soon be extinct.

For interactive media, authorial control needs to be surrendered.