Reporting:
I did not attend this week’s second studio session. Thankfully, I had my partner, Peter, to catch me up to date with our work. The agenda was also put up on the module blog so I managed to continue my work from home. We were to discuss and finalise our probe for Project THREE sketches. I have been pushing back this project due to my other assignments so I am pretty much freaking out right now. I have messaged Seth, our lecturer, for feedback on our “things of interests” to see if they were acceptable. We were on the right track but Peter and I are always complicating things with new technologies.
Mindful of our old habits, Peter and I came up with the three ideas that would be (well.. at least to us would be) non-related to one another. Here is the list of it:
––
1. we are interested in the interactivity element from the 89 steps. so what happens if the elements are used in new online services on Periscope?
– how is Periscope interactive?
– how can Periscope be made interactive in different ways?
– will it only be in real time?
– how do we incorporate 89 steps to this?
OR
MEERKAT VS. PERISCOPE
– how would these services help in interactive online videos?
– what can these live streaming services work with interactivity aspect of 89 Steps?
2. youtube doubler – as a form as participatory
– what is this youtube doubler?
– what is this tool related to 89 steps? – location + playing with sound
– in terms of participatory, what can you do with this youtube doubler?
– what happens when viewers are allowed to create the narratives with given found footages?
3. online video in real time.
– Maria was walking up the stairs in real time. How can we make online videos in real time?
– With real time, it would be boring and long, how do you make it interesting in terms of non narrative/anti-narrative?
– using 89 steps elements, playing with audio and narrations, how do you make real time videos more interesting? (look in a different perspective)
––
While I was sending this email, I kept asking myself, is this really simplifying things? Is this how you relate back to the case study in terms of the location, the element of ascending the stairs in real time, etc.?
Relating:
Our ideas were literally all over the place. It is a difficult topic we have chosen but I am adamant that I can pull it off. After receiving feedback, I realised that we were thinking way ahead of the project. We complicated things instead of unraveling the case study. The issue here was that our understanding on relating back to the case study seemed different to what Seth had told us. Reading through Seth’s comments from the email reply, his questions prompted me to go back to the start. The questions guided me to understand what this studio prompt was all about. The first was “What did I like about 89 steps?” I started linking my interests to the suggestions he made for Peter and I.
Reasoning:
Seth prompting us to return back to the beginning of the research was a tremendous help in many ways. I had been trying to look for ways to backtrack and see where I went wrong for days and I did not know where to start anymore because we were so far into our research that I lost track of the relations to the case study. The next prompt was from our interests, what else could we make more interesting in terms of the narrative/non-narrative form. Being able to see the case study in another perspective, thanks to the prompting, we decided to change our three draft ideas.
This was the best possible way of solving this issue. I can’t think of any other possibilities.
