Coffee and Project Four

For the last hour of our studio on Friday, Seth took us out to a cafe to discuss each groups directions for project four individually, and to offer help to those who were still a bit lost or confused as to where their prototype should be going.

Naturally, as I mentioned in my last post, my group is a little lost after the feedback we got on Monday. We hadn’t really developed our ideas much further, other than deciding to take a step back and lose the idea of creating hybrid videos through mixing in cinematic genre elements with online video, as per suggested by the panel. We also decided that it would be a good idea to stick to a very obvious form of online video such as online video review, tutorial or skate video, as opposed to forms of online video such as micro-horror or sketch comedy that share some of their elements with more traditional media that is found offline.

To be honest, Seth seemed a bit vague as to where we should take our prototype too, however he did offer that we could take quite an experimental route and perhaps do something similar to Sam’s original case study of a Seinfeld supercut (every shot of nothing) but in a way that points something out about a genre of online video. We liked this idea, however we don’t really see it working as a prototype on its own due to its somewhat limiting nature. It would be mixing two genres of online video (supercut with the genre being deconstructed), the parody coming from the supercut’s form, and whilst it would comment on the form and style of the video, it seems like quite a step backwards from our previous work as it would only be able to comment on something quite specific about the form of the genre being explored.

Instead, after more discussion, my group were thinking we could perhaps establish a YouTube channel (for example) as a prototype, which would be focussed around something such as an online video review series. This would allow us to be both experimental and broaden the scope of the task. It would answer our probe by using parody, as we would review real life as a continuation from project three, and the new idea of reviewing real life events/things/etc. (an idea brought up by the panel) would point out things about the style and form of the genre as we’d be forced to adapt the form to unconventional topics for an online video review.

This would also create a hybrid video form, as we’d be mixing online video review with anecdotal material, creating a new form of video. The channel would be centered around a making-of format, where we experiment with the different elements of the genre to create our final concept for the show, and working towards creating a final piece (an episode from the show or snippet from the finalised format for the show).

We could also work with interactivity and across platforms such as Facebook, just as many successful online creators would do to cross reference their work and promote their content as a way to explore this aspect of form.


One Comment

  1. Great to see you writing out your thinking!

    However, I need some clarity. Your group focus has been to use parody to deconstruct and analyse aspects of online video practices (Namely product video reviews in the first instance, then other OV practice in P3).

    From my perspective this means that you would have learnt something interesting about a OV practice by employing this technique. i.e what did you learn about product video reviews? skate videos etc – by parodying them…?

    I would be taking something that you discovered and using that to:

    1. Make product video reviews more effective
    2. Use that discovery to create a hybrid narrative/non-narrative form of online video practice.

    To me the 2nd point is more interesting. The ? in regards to the 2nd point is deciding on what type of online video practice you propose to work with – experimental, skate, tutorial etc etc

    Potentially ‘experimental’ as it gives you lots of scope and room to move.

    This may involve asking questions? i.e using your everyday anecdote focus

    What type of narrative/nonnarrative do we create to profile everyday activities?
    What aspects of a product video review can we work with? product close ups? character presentations/narration? etc etc

    Now, I can see a works emerging – i.e. If someone is cleaning their teeth – how can we use the toothbrush as a type of product to communicate something about that daily activity like in a product video review?

    This means you are using aspects of the product video review to communicate everyday activities. The ? now is are yo doing this for entertainment? are you aiming to produce comedy? Do you want to create a comedic form of online video?

    What is important is that you are using aspects of an online video practice to create a comedic work rather than cinematic genres like a western.

    You would present your prototype as a number of videos that explore a comedic form of online video practice using aspects of product video reviews. Could these be shown on TV – yes – unless the next step is to create what you discover (the approach towards narrative/nonnarrative form in an online video service/tool i.e. vine, snapchat etc – Then the constraints of that service/tool will effect how it is structured. Maybe you are aiming to produce some comedic type video memes? video review meme parodies? – am mix a hybrid

    what does a video review parody meme look like? as a form of online video comedy?

Leave a Reply to sethkeen Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *