This weeks key rhythm was entanglement. My understanding of entanglement is that the concept encapsulates and explores the ever-evolving connections within a complex world that is “always in flux” (Ingold, 2011, p.68) in a constant state of growth. Entanglement defines these endless connections as part of a “meshwork” (Ingold, 2011, p.70). An idea I found intriguing from the in-class discussion was the capacity for either harmony or destruction within the connections of entanglement, or perhaps a combination of both.

In response to this rhythm of entanglement, my artefact explores the “lines of growth and movement” (Ingold, 2011, p.71) that exist within the bridge in my environment. Through a selection of close up shots, superimposition and collages with added sound effects of birds, bike bells, construction sites and  flowing water I endeavoured to explore the connections derived from a seemingly inanimate bridge.

Taking on in-class feedback, in future I should attempt to include closer close-ups of objects and plants to allow an extended intricacy. Through these close-ups I could explore a more abstract perspective, looking further than the primary and arguably simple entanglements of water and trees and challenging myself to truly see the unseen.

References: Ingold, T. (2011) ‘Rethinking the Animate, Reanimating Thought’, in Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge, pp. 67–75.

Looking at this week’s key rhythm; precarious, it presented itself as the most complex so far yet indescribably fascinating. After an initial haziness, I came to understand precariousness to encapsulate the uncertainty, unexpected and uncontrollable nature of everyday life – the way things can simply and subtly “accrete, accrue and wear out” (Stewart, 2012) over time.

My artefact attempts to explore this concept of precariousness through the variables of weather, lighting and colour. I chose to include shots of my plant (a tree) on two different days in different conditions and ordered them in contrast with one another to emphasise the distinction between ambience and atmosphere. This intended to highlight the precarious nature of weather and the uncertainty of sunshine or gloom – as I stood in the same place, under the same tree, yet experienced differing “transient” moments. Through layering a variety of these shots together, I attempted to further accentuate the contrast between the blue and grey skies.

Taking on in-class feedback, I could make an effort to include more close-up shots of leaves and bark, looking at precariousness on a more intricate level. I could also explore more minimal editing/ cutting between and instead  including long lasting shots more often, as I sometimes find myself shying away from stillness.

References: Stewart, K. (2012) ‘Precarity’s Forms’, Cultural Anthropology, 27(3), pp. 518–525.

Looking at this week’s key rhythm of vibrancy, I again found myself challenging my pre-existing understanding of the concept. Previously, I perceived vibrancy to refer to things that were literally colourful, or they stood out in an eccentric way. I never considered vibrancy within objects I see every day, things that I would “generally conceive as inert” (Bennett, 2010). I found Monday’s in-class exercise beneficial in widening these preconceptions, as we attempted to capture vibrancy within glass – a typically animate object and I discovered vibrancy was about curiously noticing and perhaps “personifying” things in our surroundings.

In creating my media artefact, I looked at vibrancy through the concept of growth, presenting my chosen plant; a large tree, from its grass roots to its highest branches. In ordering my shots to demonstrate the cycle of growth and progression I intended to show the “trajectories, propensities, or tendencies” (Bennett,2010) in the tree itself. I attempted to further emphasise this trajectory through various shots panning upwards along the tree trunk, utilising movement as an essential part of vibrancy.

Based on in-class feedback, to develop my work further I could have included close-up shots of leaves from the tree to show more intricate details, along with the inclusion of long shots of the tree to give context within its environment.

References: Bennett, J. (2010) ‘Thing-Power I: Debris, The Force of Things’, in Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 4–6.