Tag Archives: habermas

Week 04: Reflections

A key point from today’s symposium was the hybridisation of the media. A lot of content can no longer just be called a singular form (such as TV which is now a multi-media product; a conglomerate of elements; entangled with online websites, advertising, and interaction). Adrian made an interesting point about reality TV saying it was where computer games meet television. The logic of these shows all involve a quest, or levelling up. They mirror our experiences, which is why we find it compelling.

We then went on to discuss the Habermasian notion of the public sphere, and what impact mobile technology has had on it. Someone pointed out that phone conversations used to happen in private phone booths, but now conversations are conducted in public spaces, allowing those around you to hear at least 50% of the conversation. Armand Mattelart, a Belgian media theorist, even goes as far as ‘participating’ in these conversations that play out around him, explaining to the person on the phone that they shouldn’t think that their conversation is private. We have very changed ideas on what public spaces now are. Whereas they used to be the coffeehouses of 19th century Europe, we have been trained to direct our sites of discussion more inward, with a current interest in the self. This can be seen with Apple’s branding, how they individualise each of their products to ‘belong’ to you (iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc). Adrian think we can build tools that either restrict our access/ability to look outside our own world view, or that enable this: it’s very much about how you approach it.

We spoke about the democratisation of media, and the accessibility which is unlocked as a result. Seth sees this as creating more opportunities, as more people have the possibility to make films now. However Adrian warned us of a conservative minority voice that exists in someone like Andrew Keen’s writings about how amateur production is eating away at professional production. I really don’t like this style of argument, and find it elitist. Whilst I understand what he means, I think so much more could be achieved creatively by accepting and embracing the possibilities that new ‘types’ of filmmakers can bring to the profession. It allows for more voices, more diversity, and ultimately more communication. We were also warned that this discussion relies on a very privileged definition of ‘films’ and ‘filmmaking’ – do we call ourselves filmmakers if we only use our iPhone? No. If we write a letter, are we a novelist? No. If you know stuff, are you an expert? No.

We went on to speak at length about narrative, which led me to write this blog post which looks into it further.

(Image via flickr)

Week 02: Reflections

There was no symposium this week due to the Labour Day public holiday. However, in class we viewed and discussed the first constraint items we have been asked to film. We also composed the questions for next week’s symposium. Some things that were mentioned during the class were that:

  • The constraint task taught us to stop looking for ‘the typical’.
  • We had to question how to make something interesting.
  • People found circles to be more fluid, whereas squares indicated restrictions and structure.
  • Are squares benal?
  • Did the time constraint of 6 seconds per clip force to you create single shots by default? Perhaps try filming multiple shots to see if this will work better for you.

Adrian posted that the theme of this semester is ‘relations’ which has prompted me to consider what this actually means. Are relations instant, and exist before we figure them out ourselves? Or are the a complex assemblage of meaning build on top of meaning built on top of meaning?

In the Sørenssen, there is a long discussion of Astruc’s vision of film becoming a fundamental tool for human communication. I really like the idea of the author who writes with a camera instead of a pen.  Even though Astruc’s ideas were written over half a century ago, it is so interesting to see that his influence is still significant to this day. I was particularly tuned in when reading about what was being said about the gap between access to equipment (and capital) and quality/distribution. Obviously as a young media professional, this is something I think about quite frequently. But the IM1 course is making me think about whether this is necessarily true – maybe all you really need is a camera and the internet.

There was also a good discussion about the new technologies of making – specifically focusing on YouTube and the case study of user ‘geriatric1927’. I think there is something very fascinating about the certain type of community that is forming around YouTube and its content creators. The platform is becoming so powerful, but I think it will be really interesting to see where it goes in 5-10 years.

I also love a good chat about old mate Habermas, who I’ve encountered many times in my time as a communications student.

I didn’t get on so well with the second reading, as my only experience with QuickTime is that it is the default app that opens all of my video files. I’ve never thought about it and its capacities until now, but perhaps I will have a more critical eye after reading Sobchack’s piece. I think his concept of moving image films being called ‘memory boxes’ is intriguing, seeing as “human memory and its re-collections don’t compute so neatly… [it is] more associative than hierarchical, more dynamic than static, more contingent than determined” (p4). This is one phrase that has helped me see just how non-linear we are as humans.

(Photo via flickr)