How does how you capture something change what you capture?

Reflections 

Work-in-progress #1 – Initial ideas 

How does how you capture something change what you capture?

In initial discussion of our assignment 4 concept we discussed a lot of different options, however, we were most drawn to the concept of how different technology altered the way we captured video. Specifically focusing on what differences we could notice visually through the varying devices used and the influences this had on our perception of environments.

Whilst we discussed forms this could take we arrived on the realisation that we had 9 different cameras between us, some varying in specifications and quality more than others but no cameras the same. We intend to play these videos at the same time in some form, most likely a grid layout, to draw attention to the specific differences captured in our piece.

At the end of the discussion, we had arrived on the question, “How does how we capture something change what we capture?”. 

We intend to develop this further through test observations to ensure the piece will be interesting as well as entertaining.

Work-in-progress #2 – Test observations

From out test footage captured on two cameras, we had both some elements of success and some obstacles to overcome. The footage showed a vast difference in quality, with the beaten up Oppo producing a very unclear result whilst the iPhone gave a much clearer and focused shot. This debunked a concern we had regarding the variation in the footage we took. Initially, we had concerns the different cameras would produce images to similar to each other to notice any difference in what we captured.

The negative we all agreed on whilst looking at raw footage was the different positions of the two cameras. Whilst this was partly due to our lack of tripods at the time making it hard to replicate camera positioning. In class we discussed avoiding this through using one tripod and filming a subject one at a time however, this diminished our ability to display the differences captured in the 9 different shots we would take. We remedied the test footage with a shaped layover to best line up the shots however we will most likely avoid this in our final piece.

This idea will hopefully be replicated in our final product as we intend to sink the videos to capture a set period of time. In the weeks reading, ‘Fieldwork’ researcher E is attempting to replicate the exact sound heard by the human ear. Whilst he admits this is impossible he questions the differences in a camera or microphones result (Fieldwork, 2018). This similarly embodies what our test and production want to examine, but rather than the difference in camera and eye, the differences in what different cameras allow us to see. 

References 

Sydney Review of Books, 2018, Fieldwork, A New Essay by David Carlin, Sydney Review of Books, viewed 15 Oct 2019, <https://sydneyreviewofbooks.com/fieldwork>.

Work-in-progress #3 – Research

Initial research produced two articles which piqued my interest in relation to our initial ideas. A film by Emand Burnat and Guy Davidi titled ‘5 Broken Cameras’ (2011), and Pierre Sorlin’s Article ‘Deceptive images The social sciences and the puzzle of moving pictures’.  

The film especially resonated with me and then the group as it reflected this concept of what different films were able to capture. Whilst the cameras in this project capture different points of time and has a far stronger political theme, the use of different cameras reflect what we want to achieve. 

The Sorlin article as well as the weeks reading shared two opposing ideas which I thought related heavily to our piece. In reference to the use of film as documentation, Sorlin suggests we must use editing and other solutions that allow us to comment on moving images (p.14). This is something we would like to avoid as much as the project allows us. 

We would like to present a piece that does not have a story as discussed by researcher E in, Critical Distance in Documentary Media (2018) the weekly reading. We discussed these articles in class and the theme of avoiding presenting some sort of story which doesn’t exist in our environment. This is intended to draw attention in the different rhythms in our environment and present a display of how different cameras allow us to notice these.

References 

5 broken cameras, 2011, Documentary, Burnat Films, Isreal,  directed by Emand Burnat and Guy Davidi, Trailer available <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_93nOqwmhU >

Sorlin, P, Deceptive images The social sciences and the puzzle of moving pictures. Available <http://www.academia.edu/download/39150586/Hamilton.docx> 

Miles, A., Weidle, F., Brasier, H., Lessard, B., 2018. From Critical Distance to Critical Intimacy: Interactive Documentary and Relational Media, in: Cammaer, G., Fitzpatrick, B., Lessard, B. (Eds.), Critical Distance in Documentary Media. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 301–319

Work-in-progress #4 – Rough cut

Our rough cut was presented as our raw footage in a meeting with Hannah. We were particularly pleased with the footage however were unsure of how to edit it. The basics of the plan included a grid which showed a 2×3 layout playing all videos simultaneously.

In initial discussions of the edit, we threw a lot of ideas around. This included the concepts of fading some shots in and out over continuous shots, we also played with the idea of deliberately excluding one shot from playing at any given time to create a real focus on the differences presented in the final piece. Discussion amongst us and Hannah confirmed this as a worthwhile idea and we will endeavour to experiment with the edit to see how this comes across.

I do however feel this may take away from the project as we would like to reflect an idea from this week’s reading. Stephanie Lam’s piece ‘It’s about time: slow aesthetics in experimental ecocinema and nature cam videos” (2015)’ presented the idea of experimental slow ecocinema and nature cam videos allowing for a “more immediate and extended visual contact with nature”(2015, p217). We would similarly like to reflect this improved visual connection through extended, unedited shots, allowing our audience to feel more immersed in the scene.

Lam, S, 2015. It’s About Time: Slow Aesthetics in Experimental Ecocinema and Nature Cam Videos, in: Luca, T., Slow Cinema. Edinburgh University Press, pp. 207–218.

Reflection:

Dynamic was challenging to shoot in my location. Attempting to find a “set of contingent relationships, evolving, shifting while also persisting through time” (Gibson, 2015, p.10) resulted in my focus on the way in which the natural elements reflect similar qualities however are constantly shifting and changing amongst this environment. Reflecting on this piece I would have liked to shoot it over a larger period of time. I attempted to point out changes which are evident just from looking over a short period. This had more potential if it was literally the same subject filmed a longer time apart. This, however, was unachievable for a weekly task.

The idea of time within this rhythm was especially important as all of the plants and structure persist through time however changes can be physically seen, such as in the worn wooden chairs and sprouting plans. 

The tree bark reflected the idea of shifting through time as its course and random patterns almost appear to be lines which have built themselves on top of each other over time to create the tree. Similarly, the stumps of the cut of branches provide a rapid and severe change in time which affects the makeup of the environment. I attempted mostly to capture the effects of time without actually being able to use the time to do so.

References

Gibson, R 2015, ‘Changescapes – An Introduction’, in Changescapes: Complexity, Mutability, Aesthetics. Crawley, UWA Publishing, p. 1-20

Reflection:

In this rhythm, I particularly attached to the concept of an allegory. According to Law in his piece ‘Making a Mess With Method’, “an allegory is the art of meaning something other than, or in addition to, what is being said.” (Law, 2007, pp. 10) This suggests something more than what is being presented, that there is a story or suggestion available within a story, image, sentence, expression etc. My understanding of the ability for this to exist is due to the lack of clarity we see in a mess, As put by Law,” crafting multiplicities, indefiniteness, undecidability” (Law, 2007, pp. 9)

I attempted to reflect these concepts in my piece through the focus on things which both stood out of the ordinary but also suggested at more. Graffiti appeared two times in my piece as it both stands out and in itself withholds a deeper meaning and story. A ‘tag’ is a representation of someone who exists beyond the location they paint. Similarly, I found the exposed wires in a pole as a nice metaphor for a deeper unseen idea, the pole which is seen by the everyman representing the ideas of light and electricity whilst inside the unseen wire conduct what we associate with it.

On reflection, it was pointed out that my only shots consisted of close-ups whilst I did receive some compliments on the camera movement itself. I specifically included this twisting and lowering or raising effect in contrast with the straight up and down or side to side tracking shots as it, as well as the subjects,  provided a lack of clarity at exactly what we are seeing.

References:

Law, J  2007, “Making a Mess with Method”, The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology, Sage Publications, p.1-15.

Reflection:

This concept or rhythm provides an interesting way to view our environments. I specifically think the idea of separate pieces of a place or environment creating a ‘meshwork’ (Ingold, 2011, p.70) is something I have had to put a lot of effort into notice within these weekly tasks. Filming in Argyle square, a place I used to pass through regularly, became somewhat of a challenge when searching for this interconnection. An environment like this which I have passed through so many times form in my perception as a whole area, not an environment consisting of so many different details, attempting to take note of this was a challenge.

The way in which I attempted to respond to this rhythm was to focus on these parts of the environment which I had only noticed as an entire meshwork and then film it in a way which highlighted the different elements of it.

Reflecting upon the final product I may have attempted to utilize more longshots as I think this may have improved the reflection of how these individual pieces make a whole. I strangely found the ground to be of most interest, focusing on the individual tiles and concrete set to make the floor pattern. Regrettably, I did not use a shot which showed the entire design of the ground, however, it was the clearest example of the way in which the individual elements create a broader and larger concept for our perception.

References:

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

Reflection

Our third rhythm for this class focused on precarious as a form. The reading ‘Precarity’s Forms’ by Kathleen Stewart provided interesting discussion and examples of what precarity can look like. My main take away from this piece was an object need to have changed or possess the potential to change in order to appear precarious.

The part which was most relatable to my plant was the idea of “Emergent phenomena” and the way in which things “accrue and wear out” (Stewart, 2012). My artefact ended up having a large focus on this wearing out of things as it was the most prominent way my plant appeared precarious. I spent most of my time filming intending to take shots of wind moving my plants small leaves around to reflect how delicate and frail it could be however had very little luck with the weather I wanted. Reviewing my shots I realised the contrast of the pant as it died in certain areas and this was the most relatable feature to precarity. 

Reflection from Hannah and a few friends pointed out how shaky the shots were. I hadn’t taken a huge amount of notice of this and it was caused by the awkward positions I had myself in trying to get close.

References

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

Reflection:

The focus of this week’s Monday class was vibrancy. I find this topic particularly interesting as it was a large reason for me electing this studio. I am not a regular Instagram poster but when I have posted it is often in an attempt to capture ‘thing power’ (Bennet, 2010).

This idea that an object can have an inherent “energetic vitality” (2010, p.5) or can at least appear too is what I attempted to reflect in my artefact. I intended to reflect this through the way I ordered my shots. The first 6 shots show both a wall and a bush, as the shots flick between the two there gradually becomes more bush showing on the wall and more wall showing through the bush. This leads to an entire shot of the wall, half overgrown by the bush. My intent by ordering the shots this way was to reflect the “excruciating complexity and intractability” of nonhuman bodies (Gould as cited in Bennet, 2010). Specifically, the intricate and uncontrolled way it had begun covering the wall. 

The main point raised in the group reflection of this piece was that the final shot could have been a better shot, potentially as a still or a closer shot. My attempt at a tracking shot whilst walking was very shaky and inconsistent and even a long shot showing the surround of the wall as well may have been more visually pleasing.

References:

Bennet, J 2010, ‘Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things’, Duke’s University Press, pp. 4-6.

Reflection

My understanding of Environment as a focus of the first week consists mainly of emphasising the importance of observation within a place. Whilst an Environment could consist of a place you pass through daily it seems important in this class to begin paying more attention to the details of an environment.

In our first tutorial, Hannah discussed a documentary in which filming was stopped in order to save a colony of penguins. The idea that the crew would not only notice such a thing but continue to pause production to do something about it seems to reflect a significant idea within this class. That is, the importance to note what is happening within a location rather than attending this location in order to create a preconceived idea. This seems especially relevant today as our own eco-system falls further into disrepair due to the ignorance and lack of observation perpetrated by our species.

Within my media artefact, I found the most interesting shot was the second showing the purple wall with a vine growing over it (Argyle Square). I thought its contrast of the natural with the man-made followed our theme in class strongly and its colours provided a nice shot. This was agreed in my group for in-class reflection. My group had a discussion of this theme and it was reflected in a couple of people artefacts. On repetition of this task, I may have focused more of my shots on this idea as it reflected the idea of tutorial more than other shots I took.