(Original post: December 6, 2000)
a vog respects bandwidth
a vog is not streaming video (this is not the reinvention of television)
a vog uses performative video and/or audio
a vog is personal
a vog uses available technology
a vog experiments with writerly video and audio
a vog lies between writing and the televisual
a vog explores the proximate distance of words and moving media
a vog is dziga vertov with a mac and a modem
(added on February 2, 2002)
a vog is a video blog where video in a blog must be more than video in a blog
Tags: Vogging Practice
, Vogging Theory
Just needed to share that in Keynote I added a Vine clip as a background, scaled up to 800 x 800, plays automatically and loops. Text on top with dissolves in and out. Then over 30 seconds I zoom in 10x closer onto the video, then over 30 seconds back out again. Plays fine. Then I stuck it on my iPad and it still works.
F$*k me. When I started working in video 120 x 120 was the viable window size for online work. Maybe 12 fps. To have a little sliver of a screen in my hand that could do this. If you’d told me that back then. I really would not have believed you. Seriously.
Tags: Lifes Little Pieces
, Vogging Theory
Just spent 20 minutes trying to find where it was that I saw the ability to ‘curate’ your own highlights in Kindle on my iPad. All those things you highlight and bookmark and even comment on, I was in some Kindle app and saw you could toggle these to only show highlights, starred ones, comments. No joy. Google? No joy. Then realised it wasn’t there that I’d seen it, but on my laptop. Wrong Kindle client. I hardly ever read Kindle things on the laptop, just an odd moment of blindness where the porousness of things got forgotten. Of course my Kindle books and highlights are on the phone, iPad, laptop – anywhere the app as as service is. And of course there’s some changes in what each one can do. Except, bugger, iPad now lets you have highlight colours, desktop app doesn’t recognise these. And I can’t filter for the ‘starred’ highlighted sections. Seriously labour saving moment, this.
Tags: Lifes Little Pieces
Mail Pilot is something I backed on Kickstarter. There’s some iOS clients, and now a desktop client just gone public beta. They originally outlined a way to do email that Mailbox also uses. Mailbox I think stole an early march with their very slick iOS client, but I’ve been beta testing through 7 early versions and things are getting pretty good. Still beta, so yeah, crashes sometimes, but this is a great way to approach email and as far as I can tell the only client that has desktop and iOS.
I get it for free as a kickstarted funder, no idea what they funding model is for everybody else, but worth a look:
Mail Pilot, aka Mail Pilot (and I still don’t like the colour scheme) and the Public Preview
Tags: Lifes Little Pieces
, Network Literacy
Straight off the email. Be good. Can’t go, other deadlines but would’ve liked to have had the opportunity.
Interested people are invited to a workshop on Digital Publishing and Open Access Publishing. The workshop features some of the leading people involved in contemporary scholarly communication during the past decade. These include Fibreculture founder, Geert Lovink, who will be in Australia.
The workshop will take place from 10am-4pm, on Wednesday, December 18, 2013, in room 327 of the Robert Webster Building, University of New South Wales, 2052. The Robert Webster building is in the middle of the campus, near the top of the boulevard that runs up from Anzac Parade.
Speakers will discuss both practical issues and ideas. There will plenty of time for questions and discussion. Indeed the final session of the day will invite speculations about future possibilities for academic/para-academic/non-academic scholarly communication.
The workshop is organised by Sigi Jöttkandt and Andrew Murphie from the School of the Arts and Media at UNSW.
Attendance is free (although we’re afraid there will be no catering). It’s entirely likely we might move to a local establishment for drinks afterwards.
If you wish to attend can you please make sure you let Andrew Murphie know by December 10, at email@example.com.
Tags: network practices
Visible Evidence 2012 (Canberra). The website was http://www.visibleevidence2012.com. Visible Evidence 2013 (that’s still this year), seems to have been http://www.vexx2013.se/. One is now Japanese with information about loans, I”m assuming it’s some sort of SEO scam. The other is vacant. Not sure what it says about things when one of the major documentary conferences so misunderstands the deeper structure of the interwebs (if you buy a domain, you only own the name for as long as you pay for it, it’s more a lease really) that it fails to keep its own recent history, but I wouldn’t think whatever it says is very good.
, Lifes Little Pieces
Fiction creates a bounded universe within which narrative is sovereign. It is all inside. Nonfiction finds itself within an unbounded universe where the world is sovereign. It is all outside. This makes documentary, as form and in its modes of address, necessarily and inevitably insecure.
Hot off the new documentary list.
Jeni Thornley on September 24 wrote:
“Sure the digital turn beckons in the era of the active co-creator-maker of the text, as Gaudenzi’s four interactive modes indicates, but a sentence like this seems quite a sweeping statement: “….to move documentary studies from its obsession with representation to a wider focus on documentary systems. From questions of what does documentary mean to questions of what does documentary do?” (Aston, Dovey & Gaudenzi 2013: 124)
I don’t think that documentary studies is ‘obsessed’ with representation; and also plenty of documentarists and scholars have investigated deeply ‘what documentary does’. I am thinking of Thomas Elsaesser’s application of being ‘stung into action’ by one’s own intense and empathic engagement and response to a film – in his terrific essay: ‘Subject positions, speaking positions: from Holocaust, Our Hitler, and Heimat, to Shoah and Schindler’s List’, in The Persistence of History, Routledge, 1996.”
Again I think Jeni’s picked a really important part of this essay. The shift from representation to ‘doing’ is picked up in lots of recent theoretical work, part of the stuff being critiqued via ‘new materialism’ and the ‘media archeology’ sort of stuff. This work argues that media (and we’ll stick doco studies in there for now) has been fascinated with representation, with what things mean, what people do with them, and what institutions do with or around them (the audiences, texts, institutions which defines media, communication and much cinema studies). The criticism of the recent work is that this research looks straight ‘past’ what the media is, to what we think it does in relation to whatever social system we want to investigate it through, but in that moment we don’t see or can’t see what the thing is in itself. I think Jeni’s point from Elsaesser is a good one, though still within the regime of ‘documentary doing’ that is representational or at least as a call outside of itself towards something else. (This could well be an elegant definition of documentary in relation to fiction.)
On the other hand I don’t think Aston and Gaudenzi quite get to where they could. Documentary systems is where the research needs to go. Partly to pick up and intersect with all the work being done in software studies, platform studies, new media and so on. I’m currently writing about how Korsakow, We Feel Fine, and Cowbird could all be thought of as documentaries, but as systems they are qualitatively different and this is a difference that makes a difference. (Bettina F. also used Cowbird as an example at Visible Evidence last year in Canberra.) The shift we are now defining is post digital to the extent that it is computational (procedural and processual) and networked. Yes it relies on the digital but the first wave digital was really only about access and ease. Just because I shot and edited digital I could still make the same sorts of things in much the same sorts of ways. But once we think of them as systems, then representation falls to some extent by the wayside, certainly to begin with because system dynamics (different systems produce different representational epistemes and experiences), and it is the relations afforded by the systems (between content and its parts, people, other systems, as well as procedural and computational processes) that matter.
Why don’t I think it quite gets there? Because the focus on what ‘documentary does’ risks becoming another way to representation, of what it means. Which is fine. But there is a lot to be learnt and understood by first thinking and answering what documentary systems there are, where system is closer to systems theory (let’s not forget Burnham’s system aesthetics either) and Actor Network Theory than socio-political conceptions of system. Different systems, different documentary possibilities, at all points/moments/facets of these systems.
, Network Literacy