Review

Assignment 2- Review

Name: Joanna Falalis (s3658580)

I declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the assessment declaration – https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/support-and-facilities/student-support/equitable-learning-services

Blog reflections

Week 5 – Legacy Photography (practice analysis)
https://www.mediafactory.org.au/joanna-falalis/2018/08/16/week-5-practice-analysis/

Week 6 – Legacy Video (practice analysis)

Week 6 Practice Analysis

Week 7 – Online Photography (practice analysis)
https://www.mediafactory.org.au/joanna-falalis/2018/09/06/week-7-practice-analysis/

Week 8 – Online Video (practice analysis)

Week 8 Practice Analysis

Review

1870 words

Prompt: How do the affordances of Instagram affect the way photos and videos are authored, published and distributed in the network?

Provide your own definition (in your own words) on ‘photography’ in relation to legacy and online media, by referring to the readings, additional research and the practice analyses completed in your blog.

Photography could be defined as capturing a still image on a technological device (known as a camera) which usually follows a process of authoring, publishing and distribution. This is evident in legacy photography (mentioned further in the Week 5 Blog) where images were authored off a device that required industry knowledge, published in print then distributed on a local or national level. The definition is also applicable to online media, in particular with Instagram; where content is authored on a technological device (usually a mobile phone), published on the medium and then distributed to hundreds/thousands of Instagram users (depending on the individual’s follower count)(discussed further in the Week 7 Blog).

Despite this, photography has evolved over time alongside the evolution of technology and society. Legacy photography predominantly involved an industry professional (either a journalist or photographer) using a camera at the approval of the media company or government (Horsefield, K. 2006). This was a practice that Henri-Cartier Bresson describes as “professionals equipped with large machines that allowed them to capture a better image of the world out there” (Cartier, Bresson, H)

Because of this, legacy photography usually involved capturing images for journalism or documentation purposes – usually to establish an important time in history.

Now in the world of online photography, the intentions to author, publish and distribute photographs have evolved over time. “In the age of the camera phone and wireless communication, we are all photographers now” (Henri Cartier-Bresson). Technologically, photography has not only evolved from large machinery to small, pocket-size devices (making them all the more accessible), their gradual decrease in pricing and slow integration into society is what inevitably revolutionised the purpose of photography. Instead of being used as an archival medium for journalists to document important stories, photography became a medium for a limitless amount of uses for the everyday citizen; parents began taking photos of their children, families began to take photos of their holidays, friends began to take photos of their parties, and now in the world of online media. On Instagram particularly, we are inclined to author photography tailored towards travel, fitness, selfies and so forth as they are the kinds of photos that afford more “likes”. This is a movement that is Daniel Palmer describes as “something new in the history of photography” (Palmer, D. 2014) and what is further described as “citizen journalism” (Berry. T. 2018)

2. Provide your own definition (in your own words) on ‘video practice’ in relation to legacy and online media, by referring to the readings, additional research and the practice analyses completed in your blog.

Video practice refers to authoring a moving image for personal or commercial purposes, usually following the process of publishing and distribution. This is definition is applicable to legacy video where government funded bodies and corporate media giants authored video content with the intention of publishing it on national television. Legacy video practice usually involved distributing content across national television networks/channels thus adhering to commercial use of video practices (Mentioned in the week 6 blog). The definition is also applicable to another aspects of legacy video where content was authored with the intention of challenging social norms or mastering the technology thus adhering to the personal motivations for authoring video content. Moreover, this notion of authoring content for personal and commercial purposes is also evident through instagram and online media. Everyday individuals usually use the platform to show off fitness exercises, food videos and events occurring in their personal lives while influencers make use of their luxurious lifestyles to author video content relating to cars, travel and fashion and therefore publish and distribute the video content for commercial purposes (described further in the Week 8 Blog).

Despite this, online video practice has evolved from a long history of legacy video practice. One that functioned in two phases – 1960’s & 1980’s.

In the 1960’s, camera equipment and technology became more affordable and more accessible to the general public, in a time of the “civil rights movement, beat poets, Vietnam war, rebellion use, politics, drugs and rock ’n’ roll” (Horsefield, K. 2006). Therefore, authoring video content was not just for commercial television purposes but was also for activism purposes, especially when a camcorder was at the hands of the younger generations. Video practice in this era described as “a creative tool (for) social activists who saw it as a weapon and a witness” (Horsefield, K. 2006).

While 1960’s video content creation became a symbol of rebelliousness and activism, the 1980’s evolution of legacy video practices involved “mastering the state of the art technology” (Horsefield, K. 2006). This is purely because the ownership of a camera had reached a level of normalisation in society and therefore “more post production equipment became accessible” (Horsefield, K. 2006) which, in retrospect, afforded more everyday individuals to experiment and create visual and aesthetic effects through video production. This is discussed further in the Week 6 Legacy Video Blog where visuals such as “slow motion, animation, scrolling text etc.” (Horsefield, K Pg 7) are analysed.

In terms of Online Video practice (explored further in the Week 8 Blog), many times, online video is spoken about in reference to “Videoblogging” or “Vlogging” (Berry, T. 2018). This is a concept that emerged in the online communities prior to YouTube’s transcendence and opened up a world of possibilities for videographers of the early 2000’s. It is a revolution in which is described as “the emergence of new forms of amateur online communication, sharing and culture, crystallised in the practice of what they began to call videoblogging” (Berry, B 2018) This notion of “sharing” that differentiates online video to legacy video makes reference to the “participation culture” that is deeply engrained in the purpose of big social media channels like Youtube and Instagram . Participation culture namely; “being able to participate as a peer within the merging knowledge networks that are now the product of the internet” (Miles, A. 2012). This meant that not only could audiences afford to “like” and “comment” on videos forming little networks, but now this mean’t that they are no longer silenced or passive like they were in the legacy video era which not only demonstrates a new-found power for audience members but also demonstrates a technological constraint of legacy video. This demonstrates that online media production is no longer passive, adhering to Chandlar’s & Munday’s “Active Audience Theory” being “The view (particularly associated with mass-media usage) that audiences are not merely passive receptacles for imposed meanings but actively (albeit often unconsciously) involved—both cognitively and emotionally—in making sense of texts.” (Chandlar, D & Munday, R 2016).

3. What differences and similarities did you discover between the way legacy and online photos are authored, published and distributed?

Similarities:

- In both eras do we take a photo to tell a story – Modern day of family holidays, selfies, fitness photos in comparison to post war images, images of people that made the news etc.
- The process of authoring, publishing and distributing content still exists .
- Photos are still used for activism, recounting a powerful moment in history or for archival purposes

Differences:

While the process of authoring, publishing and distribution is the same, the way in which we do it is different. Instead of authoring photography on “large, heavy machinery” (Horsefield, K 2016.) publishing it in print, and distributing it locally we now author it on mobile devices, publish it online and distribute it worldwide instantly.

- In legacy photography only “photojournalists” (Zylinska, J. 2016) could author publish and distribute photography, now “development of phones and now as a mode of everyone as a photographer” (Wells, L. 2015)
- Used to take weeks somethimes months to develop images, now it can take seconds. That’s because the medium has evolved alongside technology and has recognised the demands for efficiency in imagery development. This meant that the production of mobile phones also came with the tools that could afford to edit and develop images.
- Legacy photography was authored for more archival purposes. Used mostly for intentions relating to capturing significant moments in history or storytelling/photojournalism purposes. Now it has become a “household want” (Wells, Liz. 2015) which meant normalisation and deformalisation of its key purpose e.g selfies, travel, family, fitness.
- Online photography (and videography) usually always have a network of participation culture surrounding it because the mediums they are posting on have affordances that encourage audiences to interact with the author (through commenting, liking etc.), thus creating a little network of those who share similar ideas. In legacy photography this was a lot harder to do so as everything was analogue and communication was handwritten/telephone so forming “network literacies” (Miles, A. 2012) were a prolonged and tedious task in comparison to the fast paced nature of the internet.
- Legacy photojournalists (and videographers) only had a limited amount of places to publish their photos (and was usually always in print). Contemporary photographers have an abundance of choice when it comes to publishing content (Online: Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Independant Websites. Print: Magazines, Newspapers, Books, Folios)

4. What differences and similarities did you discover between the way legacy and online videos are authored, published and distributed?

(Other than the similarities and differences outlined above)

Similarities:

(Late) legacy video production and online video production are both accessible to everyday individuals. 1980’s video production demonstrates that “video practice boomed” and became a “handy low cost tool” (Horsefield, K. 2006) for individuals. Now if you have a mobile phone, chances are you are able to record off of your camera too.
Both legacy video and online video are authored for a range of different purposes “activism, feminism, anti war sentiments, racism, global trade or other emerges issues questioning, stirring up, provoking, engaging, educating, inventing, informing and articulating new ideas” (Horsefield, K. 2006)
Both legacy and online video practice require editing require shooting, editing, rendering etc.

Differences:

Early Legacy video was filmed on large equipment that only industry professionals or “government and corporate media giants” (Horsefield, K) had access to. Online video (and photography) practice can occur on a pocket-size mobile phone.
The medium itself has advanced significantly. Instead of manually rolling the tape on the camera to take a shot, all that we need to do is press a button.
Legacy video practice has moved on from creating content solely for national television or film and is now created for an abundance of reasons such as; vlogging, Youtube, share personal stories, activism, fashion, travel, DIY videos and so forth.
Online Video (especially Youtube) has an element of “participation culture” (Miles, A. 2012) that legacy video does not, as the online mediums afford for users to connect with each other easier through “likes” and “comments” etc. thus “working through a notion of community” (Berry, T. 2018). In legacy video, this was not an option to audiences of national television, therefore forming networks around legacy video was far more difficult due to the analogue nature of the 1980’s further demonstrating the technological constraints of the evolving notion of “videography” at the time.

References:

Berry, Trine Bjorkmann. ‘Situating Videoblogging’. Videoblogging before YouTube, Institute of Network Cultures, 2018, pp. 9–22,

Chandlar, D & Munday, R. (2016). “A Dictionary Of Media And Communication“. Published By Oxford University Press.

Horsfield, Kate. Busting the Tube: A Brief History of Video Art. Video Data Bank, School of Art Institute of Chicago, 2006, pp. 1–9,

Miles, Adrian. Soft Cinematic Hypertext (Other Literacies). RMIT University, 2012.(Network Literacy: The New Path to Knowledge 201-208)

Palmer, Daniel. ‘Mobile Media Photography’. The Routledge Companion to Mobile Media, edited by Gerard Goggin and Larissa Hjorth, Routledge, 2014, pp. 249–55.

Wells, Liz. Photography: A Critical Introduction. 5th ed., Routledge, New York, 2015. (pp. 9-27

Zylinska, Joanna. (2016) “Photomediations: An Introduction” (pages 7-16) in Photomediations: A Reader