Edward has good notes about the ‘my life is a narrative’ thread. Koston has good things too. No idea where this up after last week’s discussion of hammers, cause and effect, and stories are machines to narrate stories so if that’s the machine you use, then everything will look like a story. It’s a good post. It is trivial to narrate things after they have happened, but if my life is a story, (and a story is a thing narrated, that has cause and effect understandable within the story world, with sentient agents), could someone let me know how it ends please? The point is that as it is happening it is not a story, but after it’s happened, it is simple to make it a story. They are two different things.
Hot out of the class (Tuesday 2:30) are the following questions (they were voted on in order of significance – those that missed out on a vote have been left out):
- Why has reality TV become so popular? Why is it that we are so interested in seeing ‘real’ lives on TV as well as stories?
- Have we lost Habermas’ notion of the ‘public sphere’ with the widespread use of mobile technologies?
- Is there a chance that the accessibility of media nowadays ruins film making instead of ‘liberating it from the old’?
- Most of the content uploaded online is never, or rarely, viewed, and receives little recognition. How effective are online sharing sites such as YouTube as a distribution network?
- What does Sørenssen mean by the ‘democratic potential of these media’? How can media be democratised?
- What is the key factor for emerging media to become as monetised or popular in that it will become the norm for all society? What is its appeal?
- Why does the corporate dollar constantly contribute to the swaying of new media towards the ‘elite’?
- Why does Astruc matter to interactive documentary?
- What does Sørenssen mean by partial public spheres? How does the public sphere fall victim to a dominating media structure?
The Tuesday 12:30pm class have put their collective enquiring minds together to bring these questions as the prompts for the panel next Monday (11:30am in 80.10.17).
From the Hight reading:
1. Documentary as a ‘project’ in regards to definition is becoming very broad – so, does it need to be redefined or broken up into categories? Does a taxonomy of definitions need to be created?
2. (p. 4) “The second dynamic is the appropriation by digital platforms of aspects of documentary’s discourse and aesthetics, refashioning them especially within participatory online cultures.”
How do documentary practitioners work with participatory contributions in regards to copyright and intellectual property?
And then from the Aston and Gaudenzi reading:
3. In regards to understanding the four categories of interactive documentary – How are they important independently, or should they complement each other?
4. (p.126) “..different types of i-docs demonstrates that a variety of i-docs is already established, and that each of them uses technology to create a different interactive bond between reality, the user and the artefact”
How exactly are these relationships formed using different technologies? What connections can be made between different types of i-docs in regards to how they use technology?
5. (p. 131) “He referred to the 90-0-1 principle, as cited by Jacob Neilsen (2006), which suggests that there is a participation inequality on the Internet with only 1% of people creating content, 9% editing or modifying content, and 90% viewing content without actively contributing.”
In regards to updating this evaluation – how have these statistics and practices altered with developments in social media since 2006?