In today’s lecture (week 11, holy moly), we studied two scholars; Walter Benjamin and Eduardo Navas, and their theories in order to understand the idea of sampling, remaking and remixing original artefacts such as art, film and music, and how ‘authentic’ these ‘copies’ may be. The measurement of authenticity, is identified as how much ‘aura’ of the original is present in the copy. ‘Aura’ is a term used to describe the moment it was taken in, the human memory of that specific time. People will never stop trying to capture ‘aura’ via social media or photos, however you will never capture the exact moment as it was in its entirety (what it looked, felt, smelt, sounded etc. like). Dan stated that we talk about technology as always being ‘inauthentic’, however IT IS social media. IT IS hard to capture the ‘aura’ (as it is little more than a theory and very hard to quantify). But there is still a place for a tweet, Instagram photo or Facebook comment in illustrating who someone is. Granted, it is a more constructed, crafted version of one’s self, but still relevant and also somewhat authentic. You could argue that social media is becoming and more authentic mode of communication.

A mini case study for the lecture was artist Girl talk, whom does not produce his own music, but merely samples and remixes others. We watched a segment of a doco about Girl talk and the narrator stated, “culture always builds on the past”. A woman, assumably from legal background, questioned how Girl talk could not be a blatant copyright infringement? She says, “What is the moral dilemma with [sampling] Girl Talk?….. It’s taking something that is and turning it into something it isn’t“. She doesn’t think he is creative and states, “You can’t argue your creativity when it’s mixed with other people’s stuff”. Well why not? As said at the beginning, culture always builds on the past… Hmm.

Like the first line, an idea that really stuck with me this lecture was that in a world where there are no original ideas, tearing down and reworking old ones may be the only way to do it.

We presented our prototypes for brief 4 to our class today. As Jack and I decided represent to structure our video on the Classification Board of Australia as an informative, educational video, we decided to show a character famed for his…. Mr Troy McClure. *Please excuse subtitles*

The feedback we received was positive in relation to our creativity for the artefact, however some were concerned that if our video attempted to be a parody, it may in fact appear like it is trying too hard. Therefore we decided to just keep it as an informative video from the perfective of a filmmaker. The audience will learn information about the Australian Classification as the character does. We believe as we are first year media students there will possibly be some production issues to do with acting, costume and perhaps sound that may innately come off as comedic without us even trying.

When we first received brief #4, I was a little apprehensive about the topic of ‘institutions’ as I knew very little about what a media institution actually is, let alone their function in society. It has turned out to be a blessing in disguise as Jack and I have learnt more and more about what we perceived to be the hardest topic.

Institutions are concerned with organising structures of society. In their organisation, there are certain principles values and rules that underlie the way they function; such as legal framework and regulations, cultural rules and expectations.

Media institutions, according to Branston & Stafford (1999)

• Are enduring
• They regulate and structure activities
• Are collectivists in that they restrain individuals to their goals (E.g. Channel 9 camera man and CEO share the institutions goals, morals etc.)
• Develop working practices
• Employees and people associated are expected to share values
• Public is aware of this status (issues of trust, and breaching said trust between audience and media institution can damage an institution’s reputation. Examples: Journalism scandals, in the New York Times with Bush admin and Iraq and also the Catholic Church and child sex offences.

Some examples of media institutions are:

• ABO
• The news
• Journalism
• Newscorp
• Cinema
• Broadcast television
• Community radio
• Public broadcasting
• RRR

Hi, I’m Elise…*Hiiiiiiii Eliiiiiise* and I, I haven’t touched my phone in 3 days….*crowd cheers*. It’s been killing me, but I really need to break the addiction…

I’m kidding. I actually lost my phone, but we have finally been rekindled after 3 long days. No lie about the killing me part though, I feel like I truly have undergone a detox. I’m embarrassed by how much I have missed it and felt lost without it. Simple tasks such as setting an alarm for uni, navigating roads and organising group meet up times have been a struggle, let alone trying to socialise and use social media. I have gone without it for days at festivals before (how heroic of me..) but the difference is that I have known in advance to prepare myself. I fear this will be a major dilemma for Gen Y, X etc, an inability to function without technology when it unexpectedly is not there. It kills me to say, but #PhoneFreeDays, drawn out of a hat at random, may need to become a thing.

It was only when completing a group presentation for my contextual study this week, that I realised just how necessary a collaborative contract is. As this was my first group presentation as a university student, I went in optimistic and enthusiastic, not thinking any of my group members would ever disagree let alone fail to co-operate well. The nights leading up to the presentation, and also on the day of the presentation, things did ironically fall apart. Thankfully, it all worked out in the end and the 4 remaining members worked as a team to solve issues that arose, however it did get me thinking… I wish we had a contract at the beginning of this assignment, and a procedure with failing to hold up one’s end of the contract. For future assignments I would like to ensure that a contract is written up, not to be used every time, but as a tool for arbitration if needed.

Best soundtrack of the year in my opinion, and I can’t see one topping it for me.

Today’s lecture was quite fast-paced and difficult to take notes, whilst remaining up-to-speed with what was being said. Concentration levels low.

Mental note: Always eat before lecture

It’s a great feeling to finally start noticing ties between my contextual studies unit and Media 1, to see things coming together a little. The vocabulary that I am currently learning from my Cinema readings and notes I am compiling, allows me to explain myself in a far more coherent fashion, especially in relation to editing and what is being presented, and why, in the shot. Though its only been a few weeks, when I look back on text relating to my first couple of briefs I now find I now have a (somewhat) developed language to talk about the work, which really excites me. It’s awesome to see progress, and I think it will help me to be a lot less hard on myself as I can now see that I am improving.

Today was the first meeting of Project Brief #4. Jack and I decided to jot down the minutes of our meetings on our blogs in order to record what was discussed and also to reiterate our main ideas… And thus this post was created!

In our set meeting time, we decided that for our topic, ‘Institutions’ we would focus the Classification Board of Australia, in particular the Classification Board in relation to cinema. We have decided to explore the function and structure of the board, but also some arguments surrounding the extent of its supposed ‘usefulness’ in contemporary society.

Another task we got on to was the collaborative contract. Here are some group goals we came up with:

• We would like to utilise our skills on the Sony MC50 and the Zoom H2N sound recorder to produce our work.
• We want to develop a clear understanding of the Classification Board and its interaction with contemporary society
• We would like to try and interview people on the street (Vox Pops)
• We will attempt to meet up 2-3 times a week to combine and collaborate ideas. This may include particular locations such as cafes, the state library as well as on-site office locations to further our knowledge of media institutions.
• We will be consistent in our blog posts to record the minutes of our meetings, and also re-iterate what was discussed.

As well as some dispute resolution methods:

1. We will always give honest, constructive feedback to each others work (De Bono’s “coloured hats” method)
2. If we have contrasting ideas or opinions, we will try to resolve the dispute through compromise, to avoid the issue quickly escalating.
3. If compromise cannot be reached, we have agreed to draw straws, and leave it up to chance. This provides fairness to both sides.
4. If things cannot be revolved, we will seek independent advice from Rachel.

I’m super excited for this brief and can’t wait to start filming, editing and piecing all our work together ☺ 

Narrative Vs. Non-Narrative

A narrative is a chain of events, linked by cause and effect, that tells some sort of story. Wikipedia (trustful resource, I know) defines cause and effect as ‘the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the first event is understood to be responsible for the second’. In film, can there even be such a thing as a non-narrative? In watching Daniel Askill’s, ‘We Have Decided Not To Die’ in the week 8 lectorial, the media students deliberated this question.

Most, if not all films can embody some form of meaning, a story or idea to be told even without cause and effect. Though we are able to utilise our own experiences in order to fill the gaps and decide what the film may be about (aka, “non-sequiter closure” from Scott McLeod’s ‘Blood in the Gutter’), a lack of causality typically leaves the audience to see the actions unfold, but struggle to find the connection in between. Therefore, ‘We Have Decided Not To Die’ probably suits a title such as experimental, abstract of avant grade film rather than narrative. We can understand that it is not a narrative, by looking at certain elements that are present in conventional narrative films. Our experiences are what tells us it is different. There is no explicit correlation between the three people in the film, and the shots do not seem to be done in any form of chronology (except for the text: birth, between and re-birth) but instead jump around a lot. Shots are also played backwards, forwards and repetitively which jolt the viewer. There also seems to be no point of conflict or emotional development or progression of characters.