Reflecting on my first semester as a Media student there has been an alteration in my perception of making, marketing, consuming, and studying Media. Initially, my expectations were for a very technology based practice with recording equipment, supported by an specialised introduction to industry grade editing software. This would have suited my hands-on learning style and proven effective in conjunction with the reflective and analytical elements of the course. Rather, we were provided with vague commentary on the theories of editing and production, moving quickly between intangible ideas that proved detrimental to engaging and recording information. The course content was aimed towards the learning objectives and outcomes but was covered in distant overviews and incorporated irrelevant ideas that became a distraction from perceptive discussion of key concepts.
The basis of the teaching method and the course’s aim was epitomised by a guest lecturer (I cannot remember his name) who stated “we are not here to give you the technical skills or abilities, we are here to teach you a method for formulating and implementing Ideas” (Lectorial 2). I feel that this approach is redundant and impractical because it is through the practice of a process (editing, filming etc) that one develops a conscious engagement with the ideas being communicated and in turn builds a platform for one’s own ideas. It is confident proficiency in the art, and the exercising self-evaluating reflection that makes us ask what more is possible and how, not a transparent relay of theoretics. Further, for elements of the course – practical assessment, work placement, and establishing a folio as a media practitioner – a strong technical ability is paramount.
The most beneficial segment of Media 1 has been the self and peer evaluation, helping us understand our creative choices and learning styles. This method of critical thinking should be applied to hands-on production in class to develop our understanding of the limits and possibilities of technologies that are central to an adaptive media environment. The ways we think about media will change as quickly as the ways we produce it. Therefore the best way to adapt our practices in this changing environment is to establish strong reflective skills when operating central media concepts with actual devices. The maintenance of the blog, in class workshopping and written assessment components have worked to sustain a discourse of improvement and development.
From here I hope the course will focus more-so on the initiation and production stages of media making, developing from our coverage of research procedures. We have been introduced to analytical tools such as semiotics through the second half of lectorials and set readings, the most prominent being “Blood in the Gutter”. These ideas and voices that we are starting to notice can be studied and discussed in greater detail to supplement practical content. Overall the course should increase its involvement with industry equipment and disregard elusive analytical content that will be understood better as a graduate, having knowledge of technical media processes. There is no point having us think about what we have done until we can do it, which seems an impossible notion, so why does it remain a key value of this course?