Recently I have learnt that I do not enjoy editing someone else’s bad writing. I find it hard work (but deep down enjoyable) to edit my own writing, regardless of its state. It is also a pleasure to edit someone else’s good writing. But bad writing, trying to turn it into good? Horrible labour. You know it will never be much good. You also harbour the realisation that they will not really notice the work (and it is a lot, hours upon hours) since the work is so poorly written to begin with it would appear they have no real ability to judge merit or otherwise of the written. My lesson? I will not do this again.
Hannah B. has the text of her recent talk “Assembling Observations: Transformations of Avant-Garde Docuemntary in Korsakow” online. Korsakow, networks, granularity, facets and reconsidered practice.
Thought for the student’s struggling with my ways: Don’t confuse documentary with journalism. Journalism tends to insist on objectivity (which is trivial to critique) and explanation. Documentary is not obligated to either.
Extracted from a brief today email.
but yes. there is a crisis that I think speculative realism, particularly it’s ecotheoretical arm, is making very plain. Talking about things and treating talk = meaning = what it means, then as a field there is little, to no, agency for the humanities out in the ‘real’ world.
In Creative Arts Research (CAR), which should not be about how artist’s do research (everyone does research, including my eight year old daughter into her Smiggle purchases), but about how creative practice becomes academic research, that is research recognised as research within universities. There are a couple of things to get your head around here.
The debate is not whether art is research, or not, or whether I can write ‘differently’ or not (you can), but whether and how it constitutes academic research. Academic research is instrumentalised knowledge that contributes to an identifiable academic community of practice (yes, that is tautological, as all academic fields are, the field does define itself). The question or problem then becomes one of how to instrumentalise what I am claiming as knowledge in my creative practice or artefact. It is instrumentalised knowledge because, in the context of CAR, knowledge needs to be extracted/contextualised/made explicit from the implicitness of material thinking and making so that its specific knowledge claims can be recognised and used by others. This lets CAR then move from an argument or discussion about aesthetic merit of the work (which is not and can’t be an academic research claim in itself) to one about knowledge claims. Research knowledge claims need to be evidenced, contestable, and to be propositional (they make claims about something else, not just themselves) to be a research knowledge claim. Art does not need to do any of these things to be art (in can do these things, but it doesn’t have to), whereas academic research has to do each of these three things, every time, to be research.
The problem of how knowledge becomes visible so that it can be used by others in academic contexts is a different problem than whether or not something contains knowledge.
Call For Papers – Special Issue for the Fibreculture Journal – Computing the City
From the website:
Issue Editors: Armin Beverungen and Florian Sprenger
abstract deadline: 20 April, 2015 article deadline: 1 July, 2015 publication aimed for: early 2016
Ubiquitous computing is often referred to as a prime example not only of a new mode of computing, but of a new paradigm of mediation itself. The ‘smart city’ is promoted as its primary site of materialisation: the integration of computational systems with architectural design turns inefficient urban settings into smart cities that manifest as the penultimate value-extraction machines. This themed issue focuses specifically on the pre-history of ubiquitous computing, its status as media infrastructure, its complicity with logistics, as well as its contingent histories and virtual futures. The approach to smart urban environments taken here questions the accustomed self-descriptions of a mediated society as completely new infrastructure of living and dwelling. Town planning has, since the early 20th century, relied on ecological concepts of environmental transformations. By drawing a line from these early urban development plans to todays digital infrastructures, it becomes evident that the current condition of smart cities has to be understood as part of a transition of environments from natural habitats to objects of planning, management and control.
Some of what I’m teaching this semester.
Exploded view of a JVC GY-HD100U Camcorder (http://www.nomenclaturo.com/jvc-gy-hd100u-camcorder-parts-exploded-diagram.html)
Like a medieval bestiary, ontography can take the form of a compendium, a record of things juxtaposed to demonstrate their overlap and imply interaction through collocation. The simplest approach to such recording is the list, a group of items loosely joined not by logic or power or use but by the gentle knot of the comma. (Ian Bogost, Alien Phenomenology or What It’s Like to be a Thing p.38.)
What happens when things in the world world, not us, is made a cause and the centre of telling stories?
There is a wave of new ideas in media and cinema studies loosely known as media materialism, speculative realism, or post digital media. This work is changing how we understand what the media is and our relation to it. These theories criticise media and cultural studies for placing us (the social, human, even language) at the centre of our understanding of what the world is. These theories also provide different ways for us to think about the role of narrative in what we do.
These new ideas are relevant when the internet and social media, combined with global environmental and cultural problems, change what making media is. These ideas can provide us with a different vocabulary for how and what we make as media professionals. One step in achieving this is to make creative
Like a medieval bestiary, ontography can take the form of a compendium, a record of things juxtaposed to demonstrate their overlap and imply interaction through collocation. The simplest approach to such recording is the list, a group of items loosely joined not by logic or power or use but by the gentle knot of the comma. (Ian Bogost, Alien Phenomenology or What It’s Like to be a Thing p.38.) nonfiction because it addresses the world. A second is to learn how these ideas let us understand and work in digital media in more sophisticated ways.
These ‘materialist’ theories describe the way things form relations that are more complex than we give them credit for, and how we are part of these relations too. They regard an object, person, even an idea as, equally, a thing. When this is understood our relationship to media, making, content, tools, stories, and ourselves changes.
This studio is relevant for anyone wanting to understand and play with network media, video, media theory, digital media, documentary, cultural studies, and philosophy.
In the studio we will do theoretical readings that will be understood through making a variety of media
artefacts. This will include online media and interactive documentary.
Students will be required to purchase required software (OS X or PC) for US$25 for this studio.
- To get an introduction to recent radical media theory
- Learn how to make sophisticated online work that demonstrates complex ideas creatively
- Learn and initiate ways of making media that is about the world that is relevant across different media and stories
The learning approach of the studio is a mix of problem based and action learning methodologies. Each of these emphasise the ways that to learn anything you have to do something, and then take what you have done to inform what happens next.
Problem based learning emphasises the asking of complex, open questions — problems — that don’t have simple answers, and the class using what is already known to see what is already known, what is not known, and what needs to be found out. This last step defines what is done next.
Action learning is common in management seminars. However, it is useful for us because it places an emphasis on being able to identify what you don’t know that matters, and recognises the value in sharing different points of view, understandings, and experiences to solve problems.
The combination of problem based and action learning will lead to what we will describe as ‘matters of concern’ for the class. These are the things that the class decides are significant and will form what we need to investigate.
Work in progress will be regularly reviewed in class by the students and teacher together as a basic principle of studio teaching is that making is public, iterative, and constructively critiqued.
The studio will rely on face to face teaching and will make extensive use of a variety of online platforms to share information, resources, and work. This studio will not use Blackboard to share or distribute course work, undertake discussions, or generally do anything. The platforms and services used will be defined by the studio, and may be a mix of individual blogs, FaceBook, a dedicated web portal, Google Apps, or new services such as Slack or Podio. We are committed to using ‘real world’ platforms as part of the learning in this studio.
We are committed to the work of the studio being public facing (online and available for others to see).
There is no set weekly schedule for this studio. It is anticipated that the first studio each week will concentrate on readings and theoretical problems which will then be explored through the second studio. The direction that the studio takes in relation to readings, problems, and work undertaken will emerge from the ‘matters of concern’ that arise in the classes. These concerns aren’t known in advance.
Assessment Criteria/Learning Outcomes
Students will be assessed according to the Learning Outcomes of the Media Course they are enrolled in:
COMM2626 Media 3
Discuss and apply relevant theories and frameworks in order to demonstrate media literacies
Investigate, design and produce media at an intermediate level
Work collaboratively at an intermediate level
Reflect on and evaluate your own and other’s creative process to improve outcomes
COMM2628 Media 5
Independently situate your practice in relation to appropriate disciplinary theories and frameworks
Research, design and produce media at an advanced level
Work collaboratively at an advanced level
Analyze your own and other’s creative process at an advanced level and critically evaluate and act on feedback provided
These learning outcomes will be assessed in relation to specific pieces of assessment. Individual project briefs for the studio may assess one OR several of the learning outcomes. Project briefs will clearly indicate which course learning outcome is being assessed.
Project One: An Exploded Map of A Media Thing
Due: presented in class, week 2.
Description: This is a prototyping task. Select any thing (where a thing can be any object, idea, artefact, tool, event) that is clearly and unambiguously a media thing. Draw a map showing all the parts/things/units that make up, influence, include, effect, participate in, are influenced by, this media thing. Colour and labels are essential.
Form: The completed artefact is to be at least large enough to require a sheet of butchers paper. It will be a flow chart drawing of all the parts that you have found, thought, think, make up the media thing you are documenting.
Submission: presented in class
Learning Outcomes Media three: 4
Learning Outcomes Media five: 4
Project Two: An Exploded Media Map of a Media Thing
15% of overall result
Due: presented in class, week 4.
Description: This project requires you to develop the map you prototyped in project one, refining and ‘thickening’ it. The new map is to distinguish human, technical, nonhuman physical and nonhuman nonphysical actors.
Form: Poster, that includes images, labels, arrows and so on. Can be done by hand, printed, or not. Can be presented electronically.
Submission: presented in class
Learning Outcomes Media three: 2, 4
Learning Outcomes Media five: 2, 4
Project Three: A List of 100 Concerns from the Point of View of….
25% of overall result
Due: presented in class, week 7.
Description: This project will be done in pairs. Describe a statement or question that will become a proposition that is the ‘point of view’ of the project. This statement may include a ‘productive constraint’. The point of view must be from a thing. This proposition is to be realised by creating 100 brief video or audio clips that express this point of view (aka ‘a matter of concern’).
Form: A Flickr album or any similar platform that allows them to be presented as an array of 100 images/videos.
Submission: presented in class
Learning Outcomes Media three: 1, 2, 3
Learning Outcomes Media five: 1, 2, 3
Project Four: A Poetic Listing of Concerns from the Point of View of…
40% of overall result
Due: Week 13, work is published online and url emailed to Adrian Miles
Description: This project is to be done in pairs.
Using media from Project Three develop a multilinear, poetic video documentary (an interactive documentary) that becomes a description of the thing that the point of view is of. The media from Project Three can be edited, remixed, reshot, etc.
“Let’s adopt ontography as a name for a general inscriptive strategy, one that uncovers the repleteness of units and their interobjectivity. From the perspective of metaphysics, ontography involves the revelation of object relationships without necessarily offering clarification or description of any kind.” (Alien Phenomenology, p. 38).
discuss one of:
- how does your film reveal ‘object relationships’ and the ‘repleteness of units’?
- how has using lists and other non–story strategies let your documentary engage the world? (Does it engage with the world?)
- how does your documentary show how ‘replete’ things are?
- what sort of difference has not using a story made to how your documentary discusses something in the world?
- how and in what way (is?), your interactive ontograph a documentary? Why? How?
Submission: to be confirmed
Learning Outcomes Media three: 1, 2, 3, 4
Learning Outcomes Media five: 1, 2, 3, 4
20% of overall result
Due: Week 13, if electronic email url to Adrian Miles, if hard copy then hand in via Building 9, Level 4 submission box.
Description: Using the studio experience graph (this will be made in the final week of the studio) write an essay of up to 1000 words that selects the ‘critical moments’ or ‘critical events’ that signify important moments of your studio journey. This essay should provide a narrative of your semester. It can be chronological (ie, time-based narrative), highlighting positive or negative things that happened, or it can be thematic that coalesce insights, inspirations and changes in your understanding that took place. It is expected to use evidence from the informal documentation you have made through the semester. The submission must include your studio experience graph.
Learning Outcomes Media three: 4
Learning Outcomes Media five: 4
Bill Nichol’s Documentary Nodes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_mode
Wikipedia introduction to Oulipo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oulipo
Wikipedia on Fluxus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxus
Fluxus on fluxus http://www.fluxus.org/
MOMA on fluxus http://www.moma.org/collection/details.php?theme_id=10457
Tim Morton’s OOO for beginners http://ecologywithoutnature.blogspot.com.au/p/ooo-for-beginners.html
i-docs (UK) http://i-docs.org/
Adrian Miles’ blog http://vogmae.net.au/vlog
Korsakow Manual http://korsakow.org/learn/manual/
We have moved to a studio model of teaching in the media degree (I got it adopted it across the honours degree several years ago). In practice this means that our media students have half of their course load in media specific subjects (the other half is made up the sorts of subjects you’d expect to find in a media and communication school). These subjects are now generic studio ‘placeholders’, ie media studio 1, 2, 3, and so on, right through to 6. In each studio (except for 1 and 6 which get special treatment) rather than a particular subject, we simply have our staff offer individual topics. They are available (currently) to a mix of students from different year levels, and with our enrolment numbers it means that this semester, to kick it off, we have seven staff offering seven different topics. We call each topic a studio (which sounds confusing but it isn’t really), so for instance I am offering the documentary ontography studio. Students completed a ballot of preferences, and as so often happens, everyone easily got their first choice.
There is no reason for a studio topic to be repeated, so I could offer a different studio next semester. Why? To reflect and align with research I may be doing. A symposium that is coming up, a visitor coming to town. It is, as some colleagues from another university noted, very agile. We have also, in one fell swoop, changed the entire experience of the degree (apart from the pedagogy) as now instead of 2 subjects that were writ in stone the students can choose from 7, every semester.
How studios are being taught will vary a bit, given the differences in staff ability to let go of older practices, of being comfortable to a greater or lesser extent with emergent curricula, and so on. While once upon a time I probably would have worried about that, these days I’m not. Students will work out the differences amongst the staff, and probably manage to get a variety of experiences and learn what they prefer. (We will prevent students from following an individual staff member from studio to studio.)
Anyways, for those curious enough, here’s a gallery of our studio offerings (and as a pdf booklet).
Amazing looking conference coming up shortly at the University of Sydney that I’ve completely missed! Camera-Stylo: intersections in literaure and cinema. Obviously channeling Astruc’s seminal essay, this is one I would’ve tried hard to get to if it hadn’t managed to slip past me so comprehensively! Great line up, topic, and possibilties.
Preliminary abstract for a new paper.
Interactive documentary finds itself caught, theoretically, by the narratological assumptions that underwrites much cinema and documentary studies. These theories rely, implicitly or explicitly, on the presence of a story that audiences are required to interpret or understand in some way. Theoretically we have sophisticated ways to account for the actions of audiences on documentaries, documentaries on audiences, and the relation of documentaries to the world, yet in most instances we do this through the gestalt of story. However, stories as a theoretical model by which to understand interactive documentary are problematic in two ways.
The first is that documentaries are, while obviously complex and sophisticated language machines, resolutely linear, sequential and reliant on linear cause and effect. This is not surprising given that film and video is an insistent time based and sequential medium. In spite of our celebration of ambiguity and complexity stories struggle to account for, describe, or perform the simple complexity of, well, anything, because of their inherent necessity to be linear, sequential and ordered.
This is not how the world is.
For now we find ourselves wondering whether we are in the new geological age of the anthropocene, facing unprecedented environmental change, population migration, and sociopolitical transformation from north to south and east to west. Combined with a twenty first century media ecology that has long departed the command and control model of industrial media manufacture and distribution, we can ask whether stories, in the pragmatic way we use the concept critically, is adequate.
The second is that new media, as a technical form, is not, like film and video before it, linear and sequential. This would suggest that it is a form that is ill suited to storytelling (whether fiction or nonfiction), and while as a species we find it easy to tell stories about anything (an epistemological practice) this is a very different claim to then thinking that everything is a story (an ontological claim).
By beginning from the narratological assumptions that underwrite much cinema and documentary discourse interactive documentary theory risks misreading what interactive documentary is, and can do, by looking past the specificity of the computer and network through its colonisation by narrative.
In this paper I explore this proposition relying on case studies of digital nonfiction works using recent materialist media theory. I revisit interactive documentary to describe what digital media is, and does, and on that basis argue that narrative is not a key trope or method to investigate interactive documentary. Narrative is at best a handmaid to interactive documentary, and so begs the question of what interactive documentary is for, if not story.
Bogost, Ian. Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like to Be a Thing. Minneapolis: University Press of Minnesota, 2012.
Dovey, Jon, and Mandy Rose. “We’re Happy and We Know It: Documentary, Data, Montage.” Studies in Documentary Film 6.2 (2012): 159–173.
Gaudenzi, Sandra. “The Interactive Documentary as a Living Documentary.” Doc On-Line 14 (2013).
Nash, Kate, Craig Hight, and Catherine Summerhayes, eds. New Documentary Ecologies Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
Parikka, Jussi. “Operative Media Archaeology: Wolfgang Ernst’s Materialist Media Diagrammatics.” Theory, Culture & Society 28.5 (2011): 52–74.
Parikka, Jussi. The Anthrobscene. Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2014.
Parikka, Jussi. What Is Media Archaeology. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity, 2012.