Friday 8th May Studio (Week 9)

Unfortunately today’s studio was cancelled and so in preparation of the next studio, Errol and I continued to clarify and define our intentions for Project 4. As mentioned in previous blog posts, we are interested in creating almost a tool for Snapchat that allows an array of users to contribute content a host user (representing a community of people) in order to create a collaborative collection of skate content within Snapchat and thus, a hybrid from of skate video as an example of online video practice.

After further considering the logistics of this idea, we are reminded of Snapchat’s ‘Our Story’ function in which for the coverage of an event, Snapchat users within a particular vicinity can transfer content to a database-like user allowing many individual users to contribute to the same sequence of imagery (curated for appropriateness). This feature functions very similarly to our intention for the Prototype in the way that it allows multiple users to contribute content to the one piece of work. However, our Prototype would involve more aspects of curation and organising of content in order to produce what we would define as ‘effective skate video’ within Snapchat. Along with taking our discoveries from the previous Projects (as mentioned in the previous blog post), it seems important to create as much ‘skate video’ as possible using Snapchat in order to experiment with what techniques produce effective skate video, whilst exploring what happens to the narrative/non-narrative form. Being both involved in our own practice of skate video (and BMX video alike), Errol and I are familiar with traditional techniques of skate video capture. However, these techniques are relevant for the practice of skate video within a standard linear form. Meaning it will be interesting to discover how this might vary due to the affordances and constraints of Snapchat. I expect the 10 second clip limitation of Snapchat in particular, to pose the ability for new creative practices to be used within skate video, redefining the practice as a new hybrid form.

Project 4 Progress (Week 9)

Today Errol and I spent a good part of the day hacking out the brainstorming phase of project 4. We tried to break the process down as suggested by the class during feedback, rather than jump too quickly toward notions of technology and online tools specifically. As indicated in previous blog posts, we saw the importance of focussing on firstly theorising: what makes effective skate video in general?

This reminded me of our previous explorations, particularly during project 2. Where we analysed a variety of elements that contribute toward the form of skate video. Reflecting on previous discoveries, I was reminded that:

-A third person perspective is more effective for skate video

-Not acknowledging the camera is more effective for skate video

-Jump cuts create an appealing aesthetic

-Juxtaposition is important

-Music contributes toward the non-narrative aesthetic

-Linearity can be manipulated depending on the desired effect

To take these discoveries toward the development of the intended prototype, it is also important to consider the constraints of Snapchat.

Constraints:

-10 second duration limit

-Disjointed relationship between content

-Viewable for 24 hours only

-Mobile only

-Raw (no post production editing)

During this brainstorming process, Errol and I considered forgetting about notions of user collaboration in the interest of keeping it simple. Instead we could potentially focus on purely exploring how to make effective skate video using Snapchat. This would most likely appear in the form of an attempted recreation of linear skate video within Snapchat. That would result in a disjointed, deconstructed skate video which might technically work, however I don’t think this embraces Snapchat as an online service to closely address the aims of the studio. Therefore, considering the constraints of Snapchat, primarily the application’s 24 hour display slot, I was returned to notions of collaboration in the interest of embracing Snapchats constraints in order to present skate video most effectively in direct relation to the online service. By users having the ability to upload all of their content to a particular Snapchat user/database, which could then be curated and organised into categories. This way, a new category could be made available to users within each group, each and every day via the Snapchat story. This would excite viewers to keep regular involvement with the prototype, as well as create a new realm for skate video to function within, as an example of online video practice. In reference to exploring an alteration of narrative/non-narrative form, the narrative linearity is completely removed from skate video during this process, as the material is not ordered by correlations with time or any chronology.

I am looking forward to the Friday studio so we can clarify whether we are on the right track with project 4. We filmed a draft version of this concept so that we can present the idea during the Friday studio.

Questions for Friday:

  1. Is skate video within Snapchat – the hybrid form?
  2. Do we address the case study specifically in this prototype or just mention how our ideas developed from the case study to the project?

Monday 4th May Studio (Week 9)

Before today’s studio Errol and I had done some brainstorming to try and develop more concrete ideas for project 4. We had decided that Snapchat was definitely going to be used as the central online service for the exploration. Also, we thought about potentially designing a tool that allowed collaboration to occur between users, generating almost a database of skate video. The way content would be organised would follow a grouping of certain aspects, whether that be location, a type of skate stunt or some sort of aesthetic value.

Today’s studio was a self-directed feedback session in which each group got to brainstorm with the class, their ideas for the final project and help clarify their intentions in line with the aims of the studio. Upon presenting our progress, Seth assisted us to clarify and explain how the idea had been generated and what it meant for the development of a prototype. It seems the idea received positive feedback in terms of its quality in general, however it may be a bit too extensive for the allotted time frame and scope of the project. Really, all that is expected for this project would be to address a probe along the lines of:

How do we make skate video effective in Snapchat?

Rather than:

How do we make a collaborative skate video tool using Snapchat?

Errol and I are still keen to produce a collaborative tool but considering the prototype has to be designed to a point that it could be gven to a programmer, we just have to clarify how we are going to do that exactly and whether it can be done within the next few weeks. Most importantly, it seems we have to start from the raw online service and firstly determine how to capture skate video well in Snapchat, to provide the foundation before we progress toward any notions of collaboration and tool invention.

20150504_105233

Ditching Live Broadcasting (Week 8)

The feedback received both after our presentation of project 3 to the class, as well as to the RMIT panel consistently referred to a critique of the intended future directions surrounding notions of live broadcasting as a key focus. This was useful feedback because it made Errol and I reflect on how strongly we felt about pursuing live broadcasting. After more discussions we realised that we were primarily interested in live broadcasting for reasons too closely aligned with admiration of the technology, which takes the path of exploration away from the intentions of the studio regarding narrative/non-narrative form in reference to the case study specifically. For this reason, we looked back through all of our other sketches and tried to decide upon a new focus for the project. After brainstorming many of the sketches possibility to be selected (in order to increase the potential for creativity and not pick the first option – speculative sketching), we decided upon the use of Snapchat as a medium for our exploration. This reserved features of live broadcasting that we were interested in, such as the inability to re-watch content, but at the same time didn’t restrict us to live streaming of material. The many affordances and constraints of Snapchat would provide a perfect foundation for our exploration and so from here, we need to go back to the case study and brainstorm what we want to explore in project 4, go crazy making stuff with Snapchat and see what discovery we can make to produce a prototype.

Friday 1st May Studio (Week 8)

Reporting

Today’s studio was very valuable because Seth spent a good portion of the session clarifying important terms to help us specify the focus of our explorations more succinctly and accurately. We were made aware of the distinction between narrative and non-narrative structure, which furthered my understanding of these concepts. In addition, we explored multiple types of form that belong to both narrative and non-narrative structure, being sure to clarify their differences. A few examples of the types of form we discussed are: linear narrative, linear non-narrative, multi-linear narrative, categorical form, experimental form and associational form. One of the notions raised that I found particularly interesting was the fact that a text can be non-narrative, whilst being structured. I had originally thought that anything that followed an identifiable story line or chain of events would be considered narrative as opposed to non-narrative. However today’s studio indicated that doesn’t have a chain of cause-effect relationships but is still structured around the presence of a recurring element, is considered a non-narrative. For example, the categorical non-narrative organises content into a taxonomy (group of like content). This distinction is relevant because it underpins the language used in this studio, as well as provides vital context for the intention of the project explorations.

Relating

I have previously found the specifics of terminology regarding narrative to be slightly confusing and I have encountered a similar discoveries/clarifications during cinema studies last year, in which we also looked at the work of Bordwell and Thompson. The conditions were very similar in the sense that it took for me to read their description of film form and their notions surrounding narrative structures to highlight my confusion and clarify my understanding. So similar to the last time this confusion occurred, it is important for me to look again closely at the work of Bordwell and Thompson to understand specific terminology, which can be related to our own practice in project 4, as well as this studio in general.

Reasoning

I would connect the potential misconception of narrative terminology, to the flexible use of the term narrative. Naturally, in discussion about narrative during this studio and media practices through university, I have noticed the term narrative be used to describe an array of concepts surrounding story, character intention, action motivation, sequence of images/elements, etc. Meaning without specifying the requirement for narrative to refer purely to structure, ambiguity arises.

Reconstructing

In the interest of minimsing ambiguity in our exploration of skate video, it is crucial to understand exactly what type of form we are analysing and how the form is positioned in relation to other areas of structure, etc. As much as I tried to incorporate as much practical elements as possible into the exploration of project 3, it appears important in future to balance a practice-led enquiry with a theory-led inquiry. Meaning theoretical research regarding the terminology and framework surrounding skate video or narrative/non-narrative linear structures will be useful for the development of project 4 to address the aims of the studio with more clarity.