One of our main areas of interest for the production of skate video, was upon live broadcasting. Also, given the relevance of the battle between Meerkat and Periscope in current media affairs, we were particularly interested in experimenting with these applications and comparing the potential effects to skate video. Unfortunately, due to Errol’s incompatible iPhone software and my ownership of an android phone (which Meerkat and Periscope have not been released for yet) we were unable to use either of these softwares.

After researching for potential alternatives, I discovered there existed an android application called Tarsii, which was designed to be a direct copy of Meerkat. However a key difference I noticed in my research of Meerkat is that it only displays a live broadcast of video, without the option for material to be re-watched later. However Tarsii allows the user to save a stream for either 24 hours or forever. These are important constraints meaning that my analysis of skate video produced through Tarsii is only relevant to the Tarsii application itself. Although just to provide an element of popularity and current affair, associations can be drawn between Tarsii and Meerkat during the analysis. In addition, possibly due to the applications connection with Twitter, a lag is experienced when beginning the stream (and it is difficult to decipher how long the lag occurs for) meaning that the beginning of the skate sequence wasn’t actually captured initially. This required us to go back and re-film the sketch, attempting to allow more time for lag whilst still starting the sequence promptly. After reviewing our second attempts we noticed the issue occurred again, however not as badly. Instead of shooting the sketch again we decided that this served as a constraint that was useful for the discussion of the sketch in the associated reflection.

In regards to Periscope, the supposed android copy is called Stre.am and again similar to the previous contrast, Stre.am (unlike Periscope) doesn’t allow the user to re-watch content. This posed difficulties in the capturing of our sketch as Stre.am was strictly a mobile phone device and due to our inability to screen capture my mobile phone, we were limited to the stream being displayed once and one time only. To manage this issue, we ended up positioning a camera on a tripod filming the mobile phone display of one phone as it received a live stream from another phone. The streaming phone was used to capture Errol performing the sequence of skate tricks in real time as the content was being viewed by the camera on the tripod. Due to the strain of network connections between the devices involved in this process, this sketch became one of trial and error, as well as accurate timing to capture systematically.

In relation to our probe, since our group wanted to experiment with the effect of producing skate video through a variety of online tools and services, we had to create a type of skate video to be used across the variety of mediums. Skate video narrative is structured by the presentation of tricks and events captured whilst conducting skateboarding activities. To create a similar form of video to be used throughout our experimentation, we scripted a sequence of tricks for Errol to perform on his skateboard. In order to allow for deconstruction of the narrative sequence (given the duration constraints of online services such as vine and snapchat), we scripted 4 distinct actions/tricks throughout the sequence. These tricks had to be simple enough to be performed on a number of repeated instances and shouldn’t require extended amounts of time, given the disposability of a sketch. As a result of our scripting, this linear skate video was developed for implementation across a range of online tools and services.

Upon more feedback from Seth, our Probe has been reshaped and edited and now stands as:

FINAL PROBE

Working from the case study example ‘Art in the Streets’, which fused the online video practice of ‘skate video’, with documentary interviews to profile a graffiti artist on the web, for a contemporary art exhibition. Our group plan to explore how skate video is transformed when it is produced in different online tools and services. We plan to see what happens to a typical linear skate video when it is re-appropriated into different tools and services, like for instance Vine, Snapchat, Cowbird, etc.

How do the affordances and constraints of the tools and services used effect the narrative/non-narrative form of skate video? How do these varying tools and services transform the way skate video is portrayed to an audience?

Upon feedback received as per the previous post, my group has shaped our final probe that was used to inform the sketches below:

RE-DRAFTED PROBE

What happens to the narrative / non-narrative structure in skate video when it is produced in different online services and tools?

FINAL PROBE

Working from a case study that examined an example of online video practice called ‘Art in the Streets‘ by Julian Melanson, which created a hybrid of skate video and informative documentary regarding street art. Our group plan to explore how skate video is transformed when it is produced in different online tools and services. How do the affordances and constraints of this process effect the narrative/non-narrative form of skate video, or how the narrative/non-narrative form of skate video is portrayed to an audience?

ORIGINAL 3 IDEAS OF INTEREST

Here

FINAL SKETCH IDEAS

1. Snapchat story – what happens to skate video when it is produced through Snapchat story?

2. Snapchat messenger – what happens to skate video when it is produced through Snapchat messenger?

3. Vine – what happens to skate video when it is produced through Vine?

4. GIF – what happens to skate video when it is produced using GIF?

5. Cowbird – what happens to skate video when it is produced through Cowbird?

6. Periscope – what happens to skate video when it is produced through Periscope?

7. Meerkat – what happens to skate video when it is produced through Meerkat?

8. Flickr – what happens to skate video when it is produced as an image through Flickr?

9. Instagram – what happens to skate video when it is produced as a series of images through Instagram?

10. Soundcloud – what happens to skate video when it is produced as an audio file through Soundcloud?

11. Twitter – what happens to skate video when it is produced in script form through Twitter?

12. User selected songs – what happens to skate video when it users can select the music?

13. Timeline commenting – what happens to skate video when it users can comment at specific duration points throughout the video?

14. Trick voting – what happens to skate video when it users can vote for the quality of specific actions in the video?

During today’s studio, we presented where we are up to in regards to project 3 to the class. I found the encouragement for peer feedback to be useful because the way that certain students tried to contextualise and explain the work of others, in my opinion helped pose potential improvement or even advance the level of understanding in the presenter. In presenting our probe and sketch drafts:

DRAFT PROBE

What happens to skate video when it is interacted with via different online tools and services?

We were given feedback indicating that the word ‘interacted ‘ should be changed. Whilst we are interested in introducing elements of creativity, the question is too open ended and undefined as it stands. It also seems we are interested in how different tools and services may impact the creative process (in regards to constraints). This also highlights a need for more specification upon what we expect to change, what creative elements? For this reason, the probe was reshaped to remove ‘interacted’ whilst keeping a possibility to explore interactivity as an online tool. In addition, the narrative / non-narrative creative elements were implemented into the probe, which I think much more effectively addresses the studio prompt and the purpose of project 3.

RE-DRAFTED PROBE

What happens to the narrative / non-narrative structure in skate video when it is produced in different online services and tools?

Today’s studio was also helpful in encouraging the students to consider the relevance of what each group is exploring. i.e. Why does it matter? Which immediately makes me think of referring to the studio prompt as a point of reference to exemplify relevance to the course.

Studio prompt: How can video, computers and the network be used to redefine online video practices?

Exploration of our probe is thus making a contribution as to how skate video (an online video practice) might change when distributed among different online tools and services (including different forms of video, computers and the network).

Reading the outline for project 3, I noticed an emphasis to direct our experimentations toward future explorations in the project 4 prototype. Not knowing exactly what the 4th project entailed I can only assume it is to create an innovative practice of online video or something along those lines. Conveniently, out of excitement during the project 3 sketching phase, I was struck with an idea to incorporate a new level of interactivity into skate video to create a brand new form of online video practice.

Prototype Idea:

Imagine if every mobile phone user of a particular application had the ability to capture their skateboarding actions and daily journey, which were instantly uploaded to an online database so that a variety of user submissions were organised via a kind of algorithm to create an online video. For example, video submissions could be organised in regards to location, time, genre or some other form of categorisation. This would enable people from all around the globe to interact with each other to create a unique narrative/non-narrative hybrid form in the way the material was structured.

These are just some ideas that I am interested in, however I would imagine that to build something of this complexity ourselves would likely become challenging due to our little experience in/and the scarce availability of the tools and programming required to create such a prototype. Although I am particularly interested in this idea so after disussion with Seth, I realise that it is possible to pursue technically complex prototype ideas by instead creating a prototype with the available tools and services to build something that itself presents the idea and form of the complex idea. This excited me to further pursue notions of skate video interactivity with the inclusion of optimising a variety of online tools and services, which would be more tangible upon reflection of project 3.

Bordwell and Thompson’s Film Art: An Introduction section on ‘the concept of form in film’ is an important study of terminology for the interest of this studio. Although it refers to film form quite specifically, these notions are completely transferable to discussion of any artwork, including online video practices and the clarity the authors create regarding artistic form is useful for our exploration of narrative/non-narrative form in skate videos. First form can be understood as the overall system of relations within a work. Meaning the way that all the elements of a piece relate to each other, whether visual, sound, cause and effect, action, reaction, motivation, etc, contribute toward the form. It seems the reason form exists as a concept can be connected to the way the human brain works. Constantly in everyday life we seek order and significance and so art also prompts this seeking process. A key factor that contributes toward a work’s form is the way the audience navigates the work. For example, a set of certain events displayed in succession may create a particular expectation in the audience for the events to follow. How this expectation is created and whether the expectation is gratified or cheated, assist to define a work’s form. In addition, the implementation or resistance of conventions structures the form.  Finally the form creates a context for both emotion and also meaning to be portrayed to the audience. It seems most important from this text in relation to our practice, is the notion that the audience will actively compare aspects of a work to real life and their reality. Through this comparison, whether the organisation of the work gratifies their expectation, cheats it, whether it creates a feeling of a particular emotion or conveys a particular meaning, delineate the form.

Reporting

During today’s studio, Seth pointed out that a basic study and understanding of online video would be to make a linear video and upload it to Vimeo. Whereas this studio encourages us to create something new and different that is innovative in regards to where online video is heading or evolving. This is relevant to me because I often find myself pondering on the thought of doing a practice-led course such as the Screen and Media course here at RMIT, as a substitute for the more theory-led Media course. Why do I often think like this? And is this distinction between practice-led and theory-led that significant in relation to my career?

Relating

I think these notions are premised on my introduction to media being prodimentaly technical and practice based. In addition, in many areas of education I tend to enjoy learning the practical skills and experimenting with where I might take them as a means of practice based exploration. In contrast, the higher education, theory based learning model entails a type of learning that I thought I am naturally less intrigued by. Thus questions are raise as to whether I would prefer a more practice based introduction into my intended career as a videographer.

Reasoning

The reason I was so taken back by Seth’s analogy, is that it finally clicked for me the difference between higher education, theory-led learning modules and more practice-led pathways to a career in the media industry. Our discussion of the changing world of online video and evidence of just how much media practices have altered, even in recent years clearly indicates the importance of an innovative approach to future media practice. Whilst I was so caught up in an aspiration to create linear videos that may address the current needs to the media consumer, this will not necessarily function as a successful stable practice in years to come. Another perspective to consider could be the fact that future media practices could be unpredictable and potentially by practice-based experimentation, a media practitioner may encounter  an innovative example of media practice.

Reconstructing

This notion highlights the usefulness of the Online Video Experiments studio itself as it is designed to balance practice-led experimentation with theory-led exploration. To reconstruct my approach to the recurrence of this issue, I think it is important to contextualise notions regarding the usefulness of an education module not only within a present text, but also within a future text. Furthermore, if a similar issue was to arise again, I would suggest seeking relevant theories to help broaden the scope of the issue beyond my individual concerns, to gather alternate perspectives for consideration.

To demonstrate how we got from the case study to our probe:

We brainstormed 3 main areas of interest that arose from our project 2 exploration and we narrowed this down to one idea which was: playing with the structure of skate video.

From there, attempting to develop sketch ideas, we noticed a recurring theme of media platform based explorations, along with notions of interactivity.

This directed us to think about what would happen to skate video if it were produced across a range of online platforms but we also wanted to include elements of interactivity.

As mentioned in another post, our first probe draft was too focused around interactivity which expanded the required exploration beyond the scope of this project.

So in order to include interactivity but focus more heavily on the actual specifics of the media platforms themselves (the affordances and constraints), a final probe was developed, allowing both to be explored in closer reference to the aims of the studio.

Reflecting upon our chosen question and formation of sketches from the previous post, my group has taken a particular interest in incorporating elements of interactivity within skate video, whilst also continuing to explore what effect different online tools and services might provide skate video. For this reason our probe was reconstructed and now stands as:

What happens to skate video when it is interacted with via different online tools and services?

This new probe prompted the formation of new sketches and alteration of previous sketches, that now perhaps more closely address the studio prompt in regards to experimenting with a narrative / non-narrative form.

The sketches now stand as being:

1. YouTube – what happens to skate video when YouTube annotation links are present?

2. Timeline commenting – what happens to skate video when timeline commenting is enabled?

3. Reply Videos – what happens to skate video when YouTube’s ‘reply video’ function is optimised?

4. User Selected Songs – what happens to skate video when the user can select the song?

5. #Tags – what happens to skate video when tags are optimised?

6. Voting System – what happens to skate video when users can vote on quality of tricks/video?

7. Twitter – what happens to skate video when it is distributed in script form via Twitter?

8. Snapchat – what happens to skate video when it is distributed through Snapchat?

9. Vine – what happens to skate video when it is distributed through Vine?

10. GIF – what happens to skate video when it is distributed via GIF?

11. Photos – what happens to skate video when it is created solely from photos?

12. Sound – what happens to skate video when it is created solely from sounds?

13. Hybrid Context – what happens to skate video when it mixed with video review?

14. Cowbird – what happens to skate video when it is distributed through Cowbird?