Week 4.
Some thought-provoking discussions in the symposium this week. The topics that I found most illuminating were those which related least to this week’s readings.
The discussion of reality TV as sort of the offspring of computer games, hero-quest narratives and television intrigued me. Adrian likened it to “TV truth-telling”: The nature of the world offers its members simultaneous constraints and expectations. These constraints and expectations are so often represented in conventional narratives as hero quests. But they are more adequately realised in reality TV, which is more relatable to and, hence, arguably more compelling for audiences. Reality TV may notoriously lack sincerity, but there is some degree of truth in it whereby the viewer can see a reflection of their own situation within the world among the real characters, the contrived constraints, and the contrived expectations.
The second point which stood out for me was Adrian’s appraisal of the ‘new’ public sphere. The public sphere only really functions as a space for rational conversation when people exchange thoughts through the manner of “reason free from emotion”. Today’s culture is not motivated by reason free from emotion. Nowadays, our main motivation is the self. Modern technology condones this addiction to self – Facebook likes, blogs, selfies etc. Individual reputation building is corroding the public sphere. We’re now a culture that has been trained by technology to be obsessed with ourselves for which the consequence is that we build walls up higher around ourselves and don’t actually consider things beyond the immediate.
Aaaand thirdly (this discussion point sort of relates to the readings), our current constrained thinking in regard to film. What limits us at the moment is that we continue to believe that the adaptations of film into recent technology – for example, phone cameras for video production and editing, the Web for video distribution – is film. But it’s not. It’s something else completely. It’s not cinema. It’s not television. It’s a different instrument entirely. A different medium. And we’re trying to coerce it into being film. Cinema. Television. But it just won’t do it. That’s why we’re examining Florian Thalhofer’s Korsakow, and the new possibilities that this platform offers in terms of video production and distribution, storytelling and meaning-making. We are seeking an understanding of how video and story laws can be adapted to modern technology for better use in contemporary and future cultures.
As for the readings, I found that they both kind of washed over me. But I was thrilled that they were short for once. God. The work I’d be able to do on assignments if the readings were short each week… A student can only dream.
Bogost’s discussion of lists was really poorly written. Unnecessarily wordy. Self-indulgent. Communicated minimum meaning. (I can’t really talk, this post is also kinda unnecessarily wordy.) I got a little bit out of it, though. Bogost describes lists as “refus[ing] the connecting powers of language, in favour of a sequence of disconnected elements.” I can identify with the value he holds in these disjointed word combinations. It made me think immediately of haiku poems, which often, for me, communicate a meaning so extraordinarily impactful in their emotive word combinations. And then I thought of abstract form in experimental film, where certain pictorial qualities of mundane things can be isolated for aesthetic appreciation and emotive interpretation. Bogost explains that people who spend too much time dealing with language in its context “risk forgetting about the ordinary status of such material”. So, I think lists are similar to but different from haiku and abstract form conventions. Rather than emphasising their extraordinariness in isolation, lists reassert words’ ordinariness. One other thing I’d like to add about this reading is that I really liked the extract of the lists, J’aime, je n’aime pas, from Roland Barthes’ autobiography. I quite like that kind of writing. It’s simple and intriguing.
The reading about narrative from Ryan was similarly difficult to read. I didn’t get much out of it. I didn’t understand it. What is “individuated existents”? No? I didn’t think so. Anyway, Ryan devises a formula for narrative. It is less of a constructive formula and more of a preventative formula – preventing certain sorts of “representation[s]” from shaping the focus of interest. Ryan stresses the importance of perceiving these conditions as dimensional. Rather than simply being “fulfilled”, the conditions can be more or less prominent in the narrative. And then there is a broader discussion of narrative in terms of life itself. Ryan mentions that most (if not all) memories are stored in story form, according to cognitive scientists. He supposes that life can, in some circumstances, suggest narrativity. But he somewhat reaffirms his position that life is not really a narrative.
I kind of disagree with the last sentence. I know this was a huge discussion point in the lecture. But there is so much in traditional narrative form that is reflected in life. And I’m sure that unconventional narrative forms can accommodate for the fuzzy areas. A life is linear. Cause and effect propels the individual’s experiences. There are a multitude of goals for the character (which is different, but not a deciding factor in branding it a narrative) – long-term and short-term……………. Ahh.Ok. I’m tired. Again, I’ve spent too much time on the one thing and have accomplished very little. Time to wrap up.
narratives r Fun And We r @ll Karacterz in da truman show 5eva bye now <3 <3