Week 07: Reflections

We got to talking about lists again this week. It was said that lists achieve much more when we think of them as something that aren’t ‘literary’ in a sense. Lists aren’t narratives. Think of micro-blogging, or sites like Twitter and Flickr as being list-building devices.

Bogost mentions the phrase ‘the tyranny of representation’ in last week’s readings. Adrian discussed why representation can be tyrannical by saying the act of narrating is actually an act of arrogance on our half.  You can only ever say a little bit about what you’re trying to represent. Narrating, by nature, includes and excludes (in a similar fashion to my discussion about the politics of definitions), however lists are vastly different because they don’t reduce things into meaning. They just simply are.

We talked quickly about why a company such as google hasn’t bought Korsakow (in conjunction with YouTube/online developments in video). Adrian pretty quickly dismissed this question, but touched briefly upon the fact that Korsakow is very different as software to something like YouTube – nothing in YouTube is about rethinking what video is/does, and in this sense it is ‘old media’ because they focus more on audiences and advertising. As an avid YouTube watcher myself, I reckon this is not necessarily true because there are communities of content creators who have incredibly creative takes on what they can achieve through their video medium. For example, one of my favourite YouTubers KickThePJ who studied digital film at university in England and is doing some really fascinating things regarding video content.

Another point which really struck home with me is how multi-linear our day to day activities actually are. When you think of the way we navigate the internet, we often have many tabs open, steam music, check the news, and reply to emails all at the same time. However, there’s no real mainstream idea who what multilinear means. We’re on the cusp of an enormous media change; the media landscape is so different to anything that’s ever been. But we’re still in the middle of the change, we don’t yet know what direction or form those changes are going to take. Twitter, Instagram and Vine are helping to popularise fragmented modes of media. The way we seem to be heading, as our media use becomes more and more niche, is towards creating building systems which do interesting things with these fragments we produce day in and day out.

(Image via flickr)

Week 05: Ontography

Last week’s Bogost reading was so damn beautiful I think I read it about five times. His discussion of lists was so well written and inspiring. It was one of those texts that articulates so many feelings that you’ve had for years but never knew how to communicate. I love coming across those.

I pulled out the quotes from the reading which struck me the most.

Lists, however, divide, or leave divided, the things they include. They offer only the relationship of accumulation…Lists refuse the connecting powers of language, in favor of a sequence of disconnected elements.

They [turn] the flowing legato of a literary account into the jarring staccato of real being.

Lists remind us that no matter how fluidly a system may operate, its members neverthe­ less remain utterly isolated, mutual aliens.

I was fascinated by his use of the word ‘ontography’, which I’d never heard before. I performed a quick google search, which led me to a few definitional pages. Amongst them was this definition: A description of beings, their nature and essence. The cataloguing of being. 

I stumbled upon Bogost’s blog and found a post where he was discussing ‘exploded views’ as one example of ontography. He speaks about Todd McLellan’s bookThings come apart’, where he dismantles and captures elements of an everyday object (see the chain saw above).

I decided to try and capture this type of cataloguing, instead focusing on the materials required to make a cup of tea.

photo 3

From Bogost’s book ‘Alien Phenomonology’ comes the quote:

Ontography involves the revelation of object relationships without necessarily offering description or clarification of any kind.

One object is simultaneously a part of another object and an independent object in its own right.

Bogost uses the word ontography as a term for composing works that help illuminate the existence and relationships between objects.

If I want to look further into this concept, this RMIT honours student’s blog has some great writing on ontography and object-oriented ontography (OOO).