This is our most conceptual sketch out of the fourteen. While it borrows ideas from platforms Youtube and Soundcloud, it is not a current option within any media (that I am aware of). This technology provides the option to comment, but it is specified at what point in the video that it is created. For example, if there were a crescendo in a video, or a scene of notable interest, there would be more comments surrounding that one point that anywhere else. The main positive of this is combining live technologies with older media such as non-interactive viewing platforms such as YouTube. While this is more of a post-production sketch that anything else, it provides a different style of information than any of our other experiments.
One of the things we discovered that could be discussed with more specificity than traditional commenting was references to events happening within the frame, such as ‘where is this?’ or attaching praise or information to a specific point in time. Also, fleeting comments, such as ‘good transition’, or ‘clever cinematography’, have no need to be seen for longer than the time it takes to read, they are simply passing observations.
We imagined that this style could create a space for comments to be placed on a more micro-orientated aspect of production, centering around certain parts rather than a video as a whole. While it is largely different to streaming, it does incorporate an element of ‘live’ media sharing, in the sense of having quick and relative content/feedback to a certain stimulus.
A blog post is similar to Flickr, but can be used in a more written word orientated way. This written information can inform the reader in a far deeper way than by simply showing the photos themselves. This can provide context to an image that may be lost without any proper explanation surrounding it. The continuous video of this sketch fills in a lot of gaps in knowledge about time and place, which may be lost, especially if scrolling randomly through images.
Flickr is an image sharing website, which focuses around images telling the story primarily. Both a full screen and thumbnail view is available when browsing through a person’s profile. These are key differences, as the narrative changes from being individual to being part of a larger story.
For example, by looking at the sketch as a whole (each image shown on one page), there are obvious thematic links between them, such as colour, character etc.
However, if they are shown individually, it appears as a more cohesive narrative, with a sense of direction and linking between all of the images. Similarly to a GIF, the lack of sound draws far more attention to the visuals, and the fact that each frame can be studied also adds far more information than video can, especially compared to a low quality web video.
A GIF (or graphic interchange-able format) is a collection of images, often taken from a video file, and broken down into a low-quality flicker book looking image, which portrays 1-4 seconds of video. Usually, only the key moments/frames are shown, typically around 8 frames per second. In no way does a GIF attempt to recreate, or supersede video, it usually focuses around a key moment from a video, and disregards events leading up to and following it. A GIF is also repetitive by nature, and will infinitely repeat.
It creates a more fragmented narrative, borrowing elements from both photography and video. The lack of sound makes the visuals take on a different meaning, in a sense taking it one step from reality, and more into a stylised format.
This sketch entirely removed the video aspect. This was to test what meaning, if any, could be communicated without any visual cues. Skateboarding is almost exclusively visual, with most non-visual information consisting of music or narration.
This sketch lived up to expectations, with little to no narrative being derived from the audio file. If the original video was watched beforehand, it was much easier to draw links from the audio file. It includes elements of a non-narrative form, as it takes away from the traditional format. This service could be used for services such as Soundcloud or other music sharing platforms.
Narration would probably be the most straightforward way to explain the events going on during this video. A concept that is relevant to this sketch is time and space, as you can hear the skateboarder getting closer and further away from the camera. It is an entirely passive sketch, there is no option for interactivity, and there would be a limited amount different interpretations between viewers. It creates a non-narrative video, but there is so little information that a brief description of the content would almost be essential in order to glean any proper amount of narrative form from it.
SKETCH #2: SNAPCHAT STORY
Another facet of Snapchat is the ‘my story’ option. This can be selected in isolation or in addition to a regular Snapchat. Any content added to a story is viewable by every contact you have, it also has the ability to be replayed an infinite amount of times of the 24 hours that it is online for. Other people’s stories can be viewed in this space, and clips throughout a day build onto one another, so you can watch them in succession.
In relation to our experiments, the video portrayed is the same as in the previous sketch. The option to replay changes the video from a ‘moment’, to something more tangible and real, for lack of a better word. Anything interesting or enjoyable can be watched again, as shown in our sketch of skipping through videos. Because most of the form is conveyed within the nature of the app, story vs. one-time message does not present a huge range of differences, surprisingly.
The genre of skate video can be changed within this platform, by creating a more fragmented narrative. Time and space can be played with in a different way.
The lack of post-production/the streamlined process of creation with Snapchat creates a more naturalistic output, it is less refined in the techniques and production value used. This is re-enforced by the lack of an importing feature, which Vine, a similar user-created video platform, uses. By not having this option, a more organic output occurs, due to the contraints of the application.
Snapchat is a mobile application that allows you to send content of a chosen length (1-10 seconds) to contacts that also have the application. These images/videos are traditionally only viewed once, with an option to replay one of these Snapchat messages per day. There is also a personal messaging option, but this was added in a later version and does not really contribute to the overall practicality or purpose of the app.
The experiment we filmed with Snapchat segmented the sequence we created. The general meaning was transferred, but in a highly abridged sense.
Because there is no guaranteed link between clips, in the sense that each Snapchat could have been sent hours apart, as a viewer (familiar with the app) you are not inherently looking for connections between the clips sent. Even though each of the clips were sent with an almost live setting, it is difficult to determine whether they were sent in the same street. It is also the lack of video in-between that also contributes to the overall constraint of the medium as a form to communicate live content.
The narrative was slightly disrupted, but definitely understandable and cohesive. There are gaps in time of filming, but still enough to give it a ‘live’ feel. The narrative changed from being a series of tricks within a clip, to being a collection of tricks, filmed separately. This added extra emphasis upon each trick, as it was more of an individual element than part of a whole.
This week’s close explanation of PROJECT THREE gave us a boost in progress. There were some things that were cleared up, such as the marking system, and how directly the prompt had to relate towards the current assignment, particularly in regard to creating sketches that removed the video aspect, e.g only using sound or GIF images to portray similar information to a video.
In regards to PROJECT FOUR, Nate and I discussed with Seth whether the finished prototype could conceptual/in part conceptual. This was prompted by brainstorming alternative platforms where skate video could be taken to. As this is the first semester this studio is being run, it seems as if there is a lot of scope for experimentation and I feel this is enhanced after every discussion in class. With purely the coursework that is given to us, some of the content can seem vague or hard to explore in a concrete form. The visual representation of the projects so far, and how they link into and inform one another, really helped me find a guideline for preparing for the prototype in project 4.
As far as presenting to a panel goes, one of the positives I am already drawing from it is the forced distillation of ideas, to focus and consciously think about which would work best in a real-life environment.
We spoke with Clare and Maria, who were examining Vine videos, and the constraints of the form, which ultimately leads to creativity. This helped us prompt and develop some of our concepts, such as taking skate video to other formats, such as GIF, audio and Snapchat.
I think today was one of the more productive classes, due to the open form of communication between the tutor, as well as inter-group communication. While everyone’s projects are very different, I found verbalizing our work added a lot more shape to our project.
Today we discussed the concept of satisficing, in regard to creative process. This ties in with the exploration aspect of PROJECT 3. I started brainstorming in a very broad sense, without any particular restrictions on my thought process. While some of these ideas don’t seem feasible when it comes to sketching, the process of going through many possible ideas definitely sparked ideas that were more workable.
I’m still trying to get my head around the project, and how many options there are within it. I like the openness of the assignment,
Nate and I started a basic framework for PROJECT 3, at a first look it is as follows:
2. Skateboarding and other contexts, e.g mixing it with other content e.g sport, cooking, documentary
3. ‘Skateboarding on steroids’-exploring other contents, platforms, resolutions, file types etc.
We are aiming to create sketches that lead into our stereotype, or at least give us a few options for when it comes to PROJECT 4.
Nethaniel and I presented PROJECT TWO today. By verbally presenting the work, it developed our understanding of the prompt further. One criticism of the criteria is that 10 minutes was not nearly enough time to explain the case study, framework, and a substantial description of each sketch. I think the main issue was that the majority of the sketches did not inform the audience without a detailed explanation. This is not an inherent problem with the process of sketching, I like that they are simple to the point of only focusing on one aspect of an idea. Perhaps 15 minutes would be an ideal amount of time to adequately explain the process of narrative in relation to our case study.