trees are people too

In today’s lecture Adrian identified changes in media during the industrial and post industrial era. We are watching the transformation of media and communications as it moves from the ‘clean’ and ‘ordered’ media of the industrial era (the 50s) and rapidly develops into the dirty, noisy media we are consuming today.

Industrial modes of practice are being completely revolutionised by new media and models of distribution. We are accustomed to having our public sphere bombarded with ‘ambient’ media – ‘background noise’ provided via print, posters, pamphlets and background music – but now we are seeing the rise of public spaces for video, and video filling more and more spaces as another ‘ambient’ media.

Video demonstrates very well the shift in media from an industrial model – professional, restrictive, specialised, industrial and ‘tidy’ – to a post-industrial model – one that is amateur, generalised, prosumer, mobile and ‘messy’. Video has seen this more significantly than any other media. Video recording, once exclusively available to the few (film makers and professional cameramen), is now available, in fact almost unavoidable, to everyone – it has become the medium of the people.

Video is an inherently reflexive media, offering instant playback. This reflexive nature, the ability to give humans insight into themselves, instantaneously, is potent and fascinating, and drives the development of the medium – vlogging is a pertinant example of this. We like to watch us.

The video medium is democratised through availability and access, and this in turn is changing the way video is made. Remember when desktop publishing revolutionised print, allowing everyone to harness the powers of a printing press in our own homes?? Desktop video is allowing everyone to be the next film director, news presenter or music video visionary. What was once prohibitively expensive is now almost so cheap it is disposable. Video, once so constrained in terms of access to create and distribute, is now saturating our media consumption, and it comes from an astounding variety of sources.

Once only created by specialists, creating and sharing video (and media in general) is now a skill employed by everyone, everywhere – we are all multimedia multitaskers, without even realising it.

As such video becomes dirty, messy, noisy, polluted. It’s changing from an elitist form of communication to encompass the common man’s voice (in the form of mentos and coca cola, hurray!!). It is, again, the people’s media, and as such is bound to become dirty, messy and noisy, just like they are. Makes perfect sense, really.

As media ‘experts’, we need to understand and identify the the dirty so that we can establish what is the ‘professional’…

But we’ll get to being professional later. For now I shall relish in contemplating something that can be messy and dirty, and ambient at the same time. Possibly my favourite combination.

oh la la.

we made it, and uploaded it good. but I am struggling to get the poster image to load, for no apparent reason except to spite me I am sure.

We’ll take this up later.

Adrian posed the question of where does our blog begin, and where does it end?

Does it begin as we conceive it? As we type it? Only when someone reads it?

Does it end when they stop reading? Or perhaps when they turn the screen off, or move to another page? Does it finish only when it is deleted, any electronic echo of it is removed from cyberspace?

The only way I can get my head around this question is to return to the book vs blog context, and try and compare them. I can see where a book begins and ends. It has a cover, indicating where it starts, and a final page, indicating a conclusion. But the blog has neither. It has a ‘home’ page, something of an anchor to attach the rest of the information to, but this home page is transient, fluid, impermanent. It has no end, as it can be digested in any order, and is often constantly being updated to include more info, thus changing where any end would be.

So the physical properties, while obvious, are not helping me define parameters. The beginning and end of the blog is more visceral, more conceptual than actual (duh?). You could argue it only begins (aka exists) when someone reads it, is engaging with the content. As soon as they stop, the blog itself also ceases to exist (somewhat existential?).

The blog cannot be captured, cannot be frozen, encapsulated, framed unchanging. I guess one could try to document it, but as Adrian pointed out, then it ceases to become a ‘blog’, its qualities become that of print. As a transient object, it literally exists in a single form only to the reader, and as such its attributes are constantly changing accordingly, not just with different views, viewers and their individual nuances, but also in response to the technology which it relies on, constantly changing and defining it.

Does your blog end when your computer crashes? And is there a right answer to this question?

These are only my initial musings, and I am far from philosophic, but my current consensus is that the blog begins and ends with the viewer (one or many). Without their attention, the blog may still exist in form, but ceases to be a ‘blog’ as we have defined it.

A reflection on the Lumiere manifesto. This seems like quite a puritan approach to me, although that might also indicate a suspicion and avoidance of pleasure, and I do not think this is the idea.

Rather, it is not just the method of creating the videos, but also of considering, involving your audience that creates a Lumiere experience. The Lumiere manifesto changes the way viewers (or shall we say viewer, as these videos are designed to be watched alone) interpret the art by forcing them to engage, to dedicate some of themselves to it.

Initially the Lumiere manifesto seems inherently one-sided, biased towards the filmmakers wants and reliant on their perspective, but the manifesto also argues that the film cannot become meaningful, will not resonate, unless the viewers invests themselves in it. This is done by keeping the technical constraints extremely rigid, resigning the video to a simplified consciousness of the medium it is portrayed in – it plays, it stops, you watch it. By keeping the piece pure, simple, clean and uncluttered as such, confining it to a space we can all recognise (but which alone possesses no meaning), the video should be accessible to all active, consenting viewers. A Lumiere video – spontaneous, reflexive – juxtaposes an unadulterated, almost natural, view of the world, but with the attributes of a technology that is completely the opposite. The viewer cannot choose but to consider these elements.

The Lumiere manifesto argues that effects, zooms, audio, edits all distract the viewer. They create meaning, direct narrative, steer the piece. In turn, the viewer becomes idle, pedestrians, not participants. They become readerly. The creator’s perspective becomes the dominant and inescapable paradigm.

And this is what makes Lumiere writerly. A piece that is so simple allows you to ask, demand something of your audience. It becomes a two way transition (should the viewer consent to participation) and each transition with the video, each transaction will be different to the last.

This lends itself so beautifully to the online video environment, in which the video can be disseminated endlessly but with each viewing remaining one on one, personal and private. As such, everyone with a computer can access Lumiere – not just the interpretive, philosophical properties, but the physical also.

Unstructured and spontaneous, yet simple, clean, almost natural. These are the concepts I keep coming back to.

Meeting minutes for our second meeting.

Elizabeth, Sarah, Tingting and I met in the labs.

Discussion of what we had done over the last week. What would we do for the next? Plan for our mock interview. Discussion of content. Discussion of publishing a faux interview with Tom Sherman, publishing his correspondence with us. Discussion of use of photographs – Discussion of overall copyright issues, further covered by Adrian. Review of classmates wikis to see if we are on track. How are our creative researching skills? Where do we go from here?

Working in our ‘sections’ seems to be working quite well. We can continue focusing on one topic/area of information (which we can then take a bit of ownership for) and this gives us each a foundation from which to branch out from. I have discovered, since laying down my original posting (on writings), it becomes easier from there to ‘build’ on existing content. I am hoping it becomes a more ‘organic’ experience.

Elizabeth mentioned that the research was taking disproportionately long compared to how much content was prepared, and we discussed how hopefully (as mentioned above) this would become less as we start to branch out, following ‘hunches’ and the research takes on life of its own. It will be more involuntary, more natural. I think we will find this is the case – i have been surprised already at how the research – my research practice – is evolving.

From our foundation, we thought we would spend the next week developing our sections and working on pbranching out from our own areas and also noting areas, keywords in each others research we might like to expand on and develop.

We are going to meet next week to film a mock interview, in which, as discussed with Adrian in class, we can quote our good friend Tom as long as we avoid risking defamation by keeping it in good taste. We’ll brainstorm the interview during the week, and we are also toying with the idea of including content from his email. It was so lovely, after all.

But we all seem to be on track and our little wiki is taking shape. It’s fun watching our applied research, our explorations, being collected and curated there. If we can keep up the momentum the creature should evolve quite pleasingly.

As burgeons the popularity of blogging, it is only natural that more studies will be conducted to define this new medium. Scholars are trying to categorise, define and conclude on what blogs are and why they are so successful in engaging an audience. When looking to our studies of teleology and hypertext, this kind of study – an essay written on a blog, pertaining to a concluding reason why – seems somewhat ironic. But studies will be ongoing and evolving, and probably as transient as the blogs themselves. Thinking of our wiki project and creative research, I wonder how long until we see this become the preferred method of analysis and research. Maybe we will never let go of our leanings towards linearity, our need for closure. The abstract remains too challenging.

Defining a blog, this fluid entity, is not an easy thing, as is pointed out in this article. To truly understand the popularity of blogs one must move beyond the technical aspects (it contains RSS, it is ordered chronologically) and into the human-computer relation. An understanding of how viewers read and engage with blogs helps identify the readerly and writerly qualities, and might bring me closer to applying these to my own work…

Reader response theory aids in the identification and understanding of audiences in literary criticism. When discussing blogs, “the reality and meaning of a blog exists neither solely in the blog itself nor solely in the reader, but rather in the reader’s active interpretation of, and interaction with, the blog”. This might be said to apply to all manner of hypertexts, or even printed texts that demand an additional engagement from the reader (choose your own adventure, I :heart: you)

The study found that reading blogs – regular visiting, reading and commenting – became habitual internet practice, much like reading email. It was an action users would do regularly – as regularly as the author would post – and formulated dedication and loyalty to the content. The temporal qualities of the blog drove the users need to engage with the updated content on a regular, and often routine, basis. Another feature for many users was the sense of community that a blog offered – despite being essentially a one to many activity, readers were inclined to feel a personal connection to the author (due to the informal style? The manner of reading?? The specialised content??) – even when they did not actively participate (i.e. comment). For this reason, although comments on blogs can be volatile and meaningless, most readers felt their engagement with the blog and the community it fostered demanded respect. They therefore attempted to make their comments ‘insightful and cogent’.

Readers interact with blogs quite unlike they do with any other medium. But rather than this engagement and collaboration resulting in a fragmented and fractured text, a blog encourages unity, community and alliance unlike any other media. A blogs’ relevance and quality increases to both readers and writers as they strive for meaningful exchange and, more astonishingly, communication of ideas between total strangers.

The wiki is a creative project …playful, creative, exploratory, risky. We have to work out the questions and follow the ideas, rather than answer the question after fomulating ideas. This research should give rise to more questions, to an endless stream of ideas, and should encourage collaboration and further discourse – questions, ideas, answers, dissagreements.

Having realised all of that, however, and to be perfectly frank, I still am afraid of my wiki. I don’t really know where to go from here – the possibilities are so endless, the potential magnitude so limitless, where would one begin?? I guess this is the risk taking. Pick a direction and jump.

I am a control freak. I like mastering essays, starting with my piles of information and filtering it down down down until I have only the essentials, nothing peripheral. Working towards a goal which is, if not attainable, at least concrete. Reaching a conclusion, allowing for that ‘closure’. Predictable and safe am I.

But the wiki is wild. It has a mind of its own. Having laid down the basic elements (in this case, our subject, Tom Sherman) I am realising the beginning is the easiest part. From here things could go (gasp) anywhere.

Instead of trying to fit an idea to a form, I have to find ideas and discover where they go. I have to be intuitive, somewhat organic. With no specific ending I am working with hunches, metaphor, what is outside the ‘cone’ that reaches conclusion. I have to listen to the media, as well as the combination of my intention and the intention of the medium (the material aspect of what we are working with has its own properties: ‘Backtalk’) I have to let go.

Even though it is obvious that life itself adheres much closer to the wiki model than the essay model, still I am nervous. What I am realising is that my way of approaching this project, of thinking about this is going to have to change. I have to start getting creative about the way I view our subject and the endless offshoots of information that can be chased. Relaxing my grip on the need to control this information is already inherent in the media itself – the wiki itself is open to changes and contributions from others – but the key (for me) is going to be changing the way I process this information, freeing my thought process so the content is not constrained, using my intuition rather than instruction.

Hence this becomes a project about risk taking and exploration not just within the media, but also within my own personal creative constraints. And, as I now see, there are many.

Teleology and hypertext, a comparison described in Monday’s lecture. This is a long post, and painful in my attempts to be philosophical. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Compare teleology – the philosophical study of design relating to purpose (i.e. design for a reason, to reach a conclusion or ending – think of the funnelling of many ideas into the one place) – to a format such as hypertext, in which the design precedes the purpose (design is open ended, there is no one conclusion, but potentially unlimited outcomes – think of one idea funnelling in the opposite direction and dispersing into many). One might call a teleologic text ‘readerly’ and hypertext ‘writerly’ in nature.

The study of readerly and writerly texts is a concept first put forward by Barthes. He argues that most texts are readerly texts – texts presented in a traditional narrative manner, linear and somewhat predictable, maintaining the status quo of style and content. For the reader, these texts are designed to negate any multiple meaning, any alternative to a structure than that which is designed with a beginning, middle and an end. There is some pleasure, some satisfaction in this closure. A readerly text keeps us constructed as users of the text – the content is realist, but it does not question the reader – it is submissive. A readerly text adheres to the commercialised values of literature – that the destination of the text is fixed and predetermined. When this destination is reached the conversation is over, and the reader becomes disposable.

A writerly text does exactly the opposite. The text dissolves boundaries between the reader and the text, exposes them to interrogation, to negotiation. A writerly text is ambigious, there is no fixed meaning, but rather interpretation, a variety of different meanings and undetermined potential endings, and in this way the reader becomes indisposable – they drive the text. The text is nothing without their input. The exchange of information is two way and ongoing; there is no satisfaction of closure in a writerly text, rather the text invites the reader to engage further and invites collaboration – what can you do with this information?? These texts are often confronting and excessive in their quest for engagement.

While no text can be purely ‘writerly’, the economy of exchange varies greatly between the two methods of readerly and writerly communication. Barthes identifies the ideal text as one that has more writerly qualities – one that blurs the distinction between reader and writer, one which contains many networks that interact, without any carrying more weight than another. This text ‘ has no beginning; it is reversible; we gain access to it by several entrances, none of which can be authoritatively declared to be the main one…’ These qualities can be found in hypertext, in which the presentation is non-linear. In hypertext the ‘information branches, links and connects segments that may be understood individually, or in random sequence.
Conclusion or closure are unimportant and superficial to the content. The links between the information, the direction chosen, becomes a defining feature in hypertext, surmounting the segments of information themselves.

We are naturally conditioned towards readerly texts, as Barthes points out. Narratives are present in every action humans make, as life itself is structured as such, with a beginning (birth), a middle (life) and the end (death). This innate need might explain humans desire for stories, and their need for closure and understanding within these stories to ensure enjoyment and satisfaction. Of course, life is rarely like this, but it rather more like a writerly texts – often difficult to access, without a fixed ending, multi- linear and written more for the writer themself than for the reader. Still, neither type of text is ideal. One could say the formulaic properties of a readerly text would indicate the author has the audience in mind too much, while the writerly text can mean little to anyone else aside from the writer themselves – both could be rejected by the reader as meaningless.

So, considering the qualities of readerly and ‘writerly’ texts (could also be considered as the different attributes of traditional print and hypertext) how are we able to apply writerly qualities to a currently readerly text, in this case video? The following must be considered.

There can be no predetermined ending. There can be no fixed beginning. The text must be able to begin and end indiscriminately.

Therefore, each idea, area, concept in the text must be independent, must encapsulate its own meaning, must be as important as another

The reader must be considered a producer, not just a consumer. The boundaries between idle reader and active participant (writer) will be challenged and blurred.

The reader’s interpretation becomes a key element in the narrative, and their engagement is ongoing, endless. Their choice of links, directions between information, the order in which they digest it, their intuition in navigating becomes central to the text.

In a writerly text the reader engages not just with the information, but with the medium itself. By engaging with the text itself, a writerly text inevitably draws you into the qualities of the media – the way in which it shapes and alters the text (hypertext is a perfect example of this, with the digital qualitity of the text defining our interpretation of it).

Vast difference between economy of exchange – a readerly text asks nothing of you, a writerly text demands your engagement, without which the text cannot be read

A writerly text begins with a concept from which it can develop, grow, branch into an unlimited number of narratives, conclusions and meanings. This is not about satisfying the reader, providing pleasure or constraining oneself to give an easily accessible ‘meaning’ or ‘narrative’.

Hence a writerly text is never finished. It may be read numerous times and in any direction, any order, or in parts. A video must be able to be watched backwards, an audio file listened to in reverse. The access to information must be constant, almost cyclical.

We want to create a space for interactivity – a marriage of the two, both readerly and writerly. I want to engage my audience without alienating them, demand their choices without directing them. I want them to participate in my text, making the experience one that cannot be disposed.

a little trickier than I first thought.

After Adrian must have said a million times that the rhizome.mov file and the rhizome.xml file needed to stay together, I still managed to forget this.
So, note to self: this is probably what you are doing wrong.

A quick recap:

download rhizome template
choose two videos (.mov files) and upload to server
open rhizome.xml file in textwrangler (or alternative text reader sans formatting)
input the url location of two vids, save (nb must remain titled ‘rhizome1.xml’)
upload rhizome1.xml file and accompanying rhizome.mov file (which can be renamed) These must be in the same folder as each other (and I have placed them in the same folder as the videos also)
copy and paste the ‘rhizome.mov’ file url into media player
don’t forget a poster image ….
et voila! (hopefully).

A few issues – first the video aspect ratio was way out (i.e stretched upwards as I had the dimensions 640×480 when it should be 640×240).
I changed this accordingly, but when I returned to my blog it wouldn’t play at all and said I needed additional plugins to play this file.
Uh, whatever computer. I mucked around a bit to no avail, but when I got home it was mysteriously working. Everything worked fine. Hmm. O, Why do you defy me, confuser?

I’ll do more tests on this later this week.