Tag Archives: softvideo

Poetics of Networked Video

Abstract for an essay that is underway:

Much writing on online video uses a media and cinema studies tradition that relies upon a tripartite separation of critical theoretical frameworks that considers either audiences, institutions, or the texts themselves. In the specific case of critical writing on online video these three broad models have remained largely untroubled, epistemologically, as they have been used to examine online video. As a consequence much scholarly attention in regard to online video has looked to the ways in which it challenges, disrupts, or reconfirms what has already been said about cinema and TV more broadly.

This is unfortunate, as these traditional approaches risk missing the specificity of digital video including its engagment with the formal properties of the World Wide Web. Networked digital video has a material thickness and obdurate recalcitrance that is neutered when the digital is treated as immaterial and virtual, or merely as an avatar of earlier media.
This essay will develop a series of propositions for a poetics of networked video. It will begin with Deleuze’s concept of the ‘minor’ as something that makes a major language ‘stutter’. Networked video will then be seen as a stuttering media in itself that, in turn, also makes traditional institutional forms of cinema and TV stutter. This stuttering of network video will be literally and figuratively described, much as Latour’s actor–network theory advocates, to critically articulate the things that networked digital video can do.

This descriptive method evades the acculturation of online video to existing theoretical frameworks. It wil not account for what happens through the lens of audiences, institutions or the texts in themselves. Such description allows us to approach digital networked video in the manner advocated by recent scholarship in speculative realism (for instance Ian Bogost’s work) and materialist media studies (Jussi Parikka) and will eschew the correlationist impulse to elevate story and narrative as an explanatory deity.

The terms of a poetics of minor video are that networked video no longer has ownership of the screen, as has been the historical case with film and TV. The screen is now personal, owned and controlled by its user, and subject to local and minor affective action. Hardware, software, and an economy of codecs and protocols aligns to network characteristics of an algorithmic making, while glitch, compression artefacts, interruption and pause are features (and not bugs) of a network specific practice that, as in lo–fi music, offers its own aesthetic autonomy. In relation to TV and cinema’s traditional literal occupation of time, digital video offers new paradigms for cinematic duration and, finally, cinema’s immanent granularity — it’s ability to be cut and rejoined through editing — shifts from a historical subservience to narrative toward other, machinic, associative, poetic, and relational ends.

Embedding

WordPress 4.0 now has improved media embedding. It relies on the oEmbed protocol that lets a site ask for media content from another site and for the correct HTML to be delivered. I don’t know if oEmbed works for video stored already in a WordPress install (it can talk to wordpress.tv so presumably?) and if it can then it also means embedding video becomes elegantly trivial…

Once upon a time to embed video I would make a single frame poster movie, embed that using a lot of embed code, including the URL that the poster needed to link to, and so on. Ah, the good old days.

Stuttering Video

From an abstract I am currently working on:

This essay will develop a series of improvisational propositions for a preliminary poetics of online video. It begins from Deleuze’s concept of the ‘minor’. The minor will be understood as something that makes a major language ‘stutter’, and so is both a stuttering media in itself, and in turn makes traditional institutional forms of cinema and TV also stutter. Considered as minor, stuttering online video is not only digital but can be claimed as a network specific media form and practice. This stuttering will be literally and figuratively considered and is evident when we describe, much like Latour’s actor–network theory advocates, the existing things that networks and videos can do.

Such description evades the acculturation of online video to existing theoretical frameworks that seek to account for what happens through the lens of audiences, institutions or the texts in themselves. This description also allows us to approach digital networked video in the manner advocated by recent scholarship in speculative realism (for instance Ian Bogost’s work) and materialist media studies (Jussi Parikka is exemplary here) as it eschews the correlationist impulse that elevates story and narrative to an equivalence with light in a vacuum for physics.

Sovereign Temporality (not)

Lives in a Korsakow film proffer themselves as a profound proposition in relation to cinema. Cinema and video are technical media, which is to say that they consist of a technological apparatus for the indifferent recording of what falls within view. They are indifferent because they do not care. A camera does not speed or slow in anticipation of what is there, nor complain because the view is too dark or light. This indifference is most deeply marked in its rhythmic consistency — ‘metronomic’ does not come close — established and then enshrined through the standardisation protocols of international convention.

Technical media occupies time the way a twentieth century army invades territory. This is no guerilla activity, minor tactic or smooth flow but industrial, rigid and fixed. Thirty seconds on that video camera is thirty seconds on this one, and every other one. This is why cinema is, in the first instance, a temporal rather than spatial media. And why, barring technological misadventure, a twenty eight minute film will be a twenty eight minute film all the time and everywhere, on every screen. Technical media’s temporal indifference is also preserved after these moments of capture and repeated in the industrial segmentation of our day by the radio and television broadcast, and the constancy of the record, CD, projector, cassette, and DVD player.

Cinema becomes then principally a temporal rather than a spatial medium. Obvious but always forgotten (for instance the edit is an intervention – the only possible – in time, its use to create a spatiality or to maintain continuity of space is secondary and at best parasitical to time) as this temporal writing and rewriting gets reduced to being merely narrative’s handmaiden. As if. Time though, no matter how quickly one cuts, or what to, is inexorable.

Korsakow offers an alternative temporality to this constancy (a constancy that can regarded as a joy or a prison) through an attribute which constrains how often its individual clips can be played. These are simply known as lives. If a clip is selected by a user while a Korsakow film plays this counts as a life, and once the set number of lives has been reached that clip will never appear again. This means Korsakow films shrink as they are viewed, they consume themselves (much like Gibson’s famous collaboration Agrippa) in the very moments and activities of their being watched. A performative combustibility. This inverts cinema’s existing relation with time as in Korsakow a film’s temporality is no longer sovereign.

A 2010 K-Film Explaining How to Make your K-Films

I’ve made a k-film that is very linear. Well, not linear, you can listen and view the clips in any order you like, but it is not so much a k-film as using Korsakow to collect some screen casts together where I go over some things to think about in relation to making your k-film projects. This was made using Korsakow 5.0.4, and I’ve included a playhead in the interface which shows you where in the clip you are. The advantage of this is that it immediately tells you how long a clip is, since if the playhead progresses very slowly then you know it is a long clip (and vice versa).

So, the k-film. It is commentary on some of the things to think about in your final projects. I made it as a k-film because it was just much faster to talk about this stuff and record it than trying to write it all out. YMMV. Click the pic go there.

Knotes

Representational Fallacy

Students are currently using Vine or Instagram (predominantly) as their medium of choice for filming in our smuggled in Korsakow based subject. We get them to make a lot of quick, sketch video work, largely so that they can produce a viable media library, to provoke them to question their implicit model of media monumentality as their default position for making anything on video, and to get them to think quickly and critically about what makes a good shot a good shot by doing a lot of them.

A common problem, which is the same as the ten fonts in the brochure and the twenty two edit effects in the iMovie clip problem, is that even where the video clip is only going to be six seconds long (Vine) they clutter it up. This happens in two ways.

The first way is that they get worried or are unsure about what their clip is about. This is unnecessary as they are given a quite specific brief (e.g. ‘light’) that while open, also grounds it. So they will film a light (for example), but then move their camera in, out, around. As if six seconds of watching the light shimmer as the CCD and compression plays with it is not enough. So we talk about one clip equals one idea. If it is about light, and the movement doesn’t contribute to how it is about light, then it just gets in the way, it reveals an insecurity in the material and the practice.

The second way is what might be called the ‘representational fallacy’. This is where they feel obliged to have to explain everything. Even for six seconds. If they start close, and it is not immediately evident what we are looking at, then the camera will pull back, or there will be the Vine equivalent of a wide shot, so that we now know what it is. Or the reverse. Start wide, then go close. If there are several shots, a list, then there will be a closing shot that reveals what this is a list of. It is like there is an obligation to explain, account for, that ambiguity or even just abstraction, the simple pleasure of what the brief glimpse is for itself is not sufficient. The collapse of a possible poetry of the image into the rationalisation of explanation. This is the dark side of Bataille’s restricted economy where there is the logic of the bookkeeper’s double ledger so that what is spent on one side must be recovered on the other. It is a variety of epistemphilia.