Unfortunately, I was unable to attend this lectorial.
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend this lectorial.
As per usual, Dan’s lectorial was on-point. The inclusion of comedic slides in his presentation makes the lectorial much more enjoyable. This week’s focus is on media remixes. The reading that I want to focus this post on is Regressive and Reflexive Mashups in Sampling Culture by Eduardo Navas.
The reading details ‘mashups’ and ‘remixes’ and demonstrates the importance of the difference between the two in media culture, particularly in relation to critical thinking. Whilst the reading began with a focus on music, the reading progressed to media and the web in particular. In relation to the web, web 2.0 theories were pervasive as social media applications were discussed.
a recombination of content and form that opens the space for remix to become a specific discourse intimately linked with new media culture.
Navas, Regressive and reflexive mashups in sampling culture, p. 3
Remixes and mashups are seen/heard throughout society constantly and are considered imperative to our growing and changing media culture. Whilst people argue that remixes and mashups aren’t ‘original’, they do, however, note that they can be ingenious and revolutionary.
Institutions is a fiddly term. It can define an organisation or company, group of companies, collective industries and myriad of other things. To be honest, I do not really know where the line is drawn. Oh well, either way, this week’s focus is in institutions. Concerned with organising the structures of society, institutions have principles, values that underline social, cultural, political and economic relations.
ABC, HBO, NBC, CNN, FOX, SBS, HOMO… “These are a few of my favourite things.”
Television is love. Television is life. Publicity of television institutions in particular has grown exponentially in recent years – with the broadcast of world-renowned Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad. What is is about television institutions that excite us? Yes, the story worlds and narratives of the shows. But there are other aspects drawing us in: promotion and marketing, hottest celebs and, most compelling, authorial valuation. I have thought for some time now that the relationship between television institutions and audience has been influenced primarily by authorial valuations.
Oh my glob! Jonah from Tonga (ABC & HBO) is AMAZING! So great. Much laughter. lol.
– Society members who have no intelligent personal opinions
It is probably conceited of me, probably elitist of me, but I do not believe that people who believe Jonah was amazing have a mind of their own. Authorial valuation is a hilarious topic. Chris Lilley is a God, don’t get me wrong! Jonah, however, failed in comparison to its predecessors. There is a direct link between authorial valuation and television institutions and currently more-so than authors of film or novels. The age of television is now.
Who cares about audiences? Advertisers? Filmmakers? Academic scholars? This week’s lectorial on media consumption, in particular focusing on the idea of ‘audience’, was informative. In today’s modern media world, preconceived notions on media consumption are constantly being subverted and reconsidered as the audience’s involvement in media production and creation is changing; broadcasting now is contrasted by narrowcasting. Whilst institutions and technologies change and new ones come into play, the media environment changes respectively vis-a-vís audience’s knowledge, participation and expectations. On this media change, it is important to know what interpellation is in relation to a media audience.
The process by which individuals/readers are ‘hailed’ – in other words when the individual is prompted by a text to recognise him or herself as being a subject that belongs in a role
Throughout all forms of media – cinema, television, social media, visual art, advertising – the association and relationship the audience feels towards the text is always a primary concern. As the audience becomes more ‘active’ with media, so too must the depth of relatable material presented. This ‘active’ participation in media by the audience is generally associated with fan-made adaptations. In the lectorial, we watched Jonathan Krisel’s Portlandia episode “One Moore Episode” where the audience’s involvement in media is comically scrutinised. Centring around Fred’s and Carrie’s appreciation and then obsession with Battlestar Galactica, “One Moore Episode” is definitive in its intention: audience participation is at an all-time high and fans demand more and more from the media that they interact with.
The stuff of story is alive but intangible
Everything is Story and Story is Everything. Dan’s lectorial on Narrative and Non-narrative was enthralling and refreshing. With a primary focus on narrative causality, Dan introduced us to three functioning models of causality: character development, plot, and resolution. Causality, cause and effect, in narratives is the logical progression of one to the next (or a purposefully logical out-of-sequence progression). The ‘pattern of expectations’ was also discussed in relation to narrative storytelling. Dan’s lectorial was idiosyncratic as I noticed everyone was very much so captured by his charisma and quirky deliverance. Red Hot Riding Hood by Tex Avery was hilarious and related perfectly to the lectorial’s focus. Its very adult themes and narrative had me remembering Cory Edwards’ Hoodwinked!, an adaptation film that was very successful. For the group exercise on narrative structure and character prevalence, my group – encouraged by me – chose Disney’s The Little Mermaid naturally. My engagement and captivation was unparalleled; Disney titillates me.
We Have Decided Not To Die by Daniel Askill was the screened non-narrative short film. Its three-sector composition, eerie continuous music and repeated patterns across each sector can induce both narrative and non-narrative readings. Thematically and visually similar, the three sectors depict three figures that can be understood to be aspects of the same person’s psyche, aspects of multiple persons’ psyches or multiple narrative plots. The short-film is extremely interesting and due to these possible readings – and technically infinite if your mind has been destroyed by literary criticism – every viewer reads the short-film differently. My reading upon first viewing was as follows: the progression, deterioration and repetition of mental health for people suffering from anxiety and depression. My second viewing, however, ensued the following reading: a person’s struggle with split-personality disorder is improving as they ‘murder’ their split-personalities through the assistance of a psychologist and anti-depressant medication. In reflection of my two readings, I can see that firstly I am completely bonkers and secondly I have taken a reader-centred and psychoanalytical approach to the readings.
I enjoy both narrative and non-narrative stories; I get certain unique satisfactions out of each of them. I suppose it is often dependent on my present mood and present situation when watching these films that determines my preference. For Project Brief 4, I would like to present non-narrative concepts through narrative storytelling. We shall see.
In week seven’s lectorial, Brian introduced the topic of ‘texts’ in media. What is a text? One quote that was included in the lectorial presentation was:
‘Material traces that are left of the practice of sense-making, the only empirical evidence we have of how other people make sense of the world’
This ambiguous description is not entirely easy to determine the actual definition of a ‘text’. Considering my personal opinion of what a ‘text’ in media, I would write the following definition:
A determined constructed idea or artefact through media-related mediums that’s definement as a ‘text’ is imperatively dependent on the analytical possibilities of itself
After a brief but broad introduction into what a ‘text’ is, the lectorial moved onto an interesting topic that is familiar due to previous study of it: the semiotic tradition of analysis. Learning about the semiotics of textual analysis in 2015’s Lectorial 7 allowed me to recall my learnings of it from 2013. It is one of those things that is so distinctive – so intellectually stimulating – that your understanding of it never wanes. I learnt about the semiotics of textual analysis in Senior English Extension, where I was also privileged to be taught modernism and postmodernism, psychoanalytic theory, and structuralism and post-structuralism (which was coincidentally also mentioned in the lectorial). ‘Sign’ is the term that has etched itself onto my mind vis-a-vis semiotic analysis. The relationship between ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’ is something that is pervasive across all media ‘texts’. Perhaps I will revisit semiotic analysis theory for Project Brief 4?
Time for Brian to sit down; Jasmine’s turn.
The second half of the seventh Media One lectorial focused on the introduction to sound in media and its ubiquitous nature in everyday society. The first focus on sound and of vital importance regarded the perspective of sound in relation to our ears’ altering of reality, as the ears:
…hierarchise elements of what is represented
This hierarchy of sound can be easily understood through mind-altering substances internal functions on the brain (the legality of which is irrelevant); the ears are at their highest strength in hierarchising sounds.
Today’s lectorial was tiresome but great. The tumultuous arguments on ‘Reel Friends’ between the left and right sides of the room was stimulating. After a guest speaker gave a presentation on functions of RMIT’s website (including Library search haha), we delved into collaboration in media. What is collaboration? Is collaboration in media the most important aspect? Without a need to go into too much detail, effective and professional collaboration within a group in media-making will obviously result in a more rewarding experience and better-furnished product.
Week 5’s readings centred around the notion of ‘collaboration’ and what the term means in the media and social-media industries. Due to this topic being pushed backwards to Week 6, however, I will discuss the readings in next week’s lectorial post.
Week 5’s lectorial focused on academic writing and in particular, comprehension of it through structured reading and writing practices. Something that stood out for me was the following phrase:
Skimming is a necessary/legitimate step of doing it ‘properly’ (not an indication that you can’t!)
To the people who question my reading speed, take that! Skimming an academic chapter/ article is a proper way of reading and understanding academic writing. Comprehending the structure, visual clues and functions of academic writing, the purpose and meaning of the writing can be easily understood.
On a side note, a discussion on Project Brief 3 was generated again and everybody was discussing their ideas and how they have pre-interviewed their selected persons for their portrait over the mid-semester break… I have not yet decided on a subject. Perhaps procrastination could be my subject? Food for thought. I have several ideas in mind and will have to get a move on obviously.
Week 4. Trying to get my head around that. This week’s focus in Media One revolves around editing in film and media. The reading – Scott McCloud’s ‘Blood in the Gutter’ from Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art – augmented the focus on editing and focused on the conceptual ideas at “the core of the edit”. I really enjoyed the reading as its ideas on meaning lying “between the panels” was complimented by Liam Ward’s presentation on the similar ideas on film and television. He spoke of an edit “breaking down the components” creating meaning and unintentional breaking of components should not be disregarded entirely. The notion that editing completely changes meaning is both correct and interesting. The six different types of panel-to-panel cuts in comics written by Scott can be brought over to Liam’s meaning-making through editing views on film and media.
In Media One’s third lectorial, three guest speakers presented: Anne Lennox, Kyla Brettle and Paul Ritchard. The lectorial’s focus was on media as a ‘public practice’ through engagement with the world and others. The presentations were informative, interesting and pedagogical. I will comment on the three presentations separately.
Anne’s primary focus during her speech revolved around copyright in medias including film, television prose, the internet and music. Copyright in the context of international patenting, moral rights and infringements to copyright were also discussed.
Kyla’s delivery of her presentation on travelling, opportunities and international media was phenomenal. She spoke of her own life experiences in travelling to Kabul and making hard-hitting documentaries. Kyla’s primary message was to put ourselves ‘out-there’ as media practitioners, accept offers we would not normally consider inclusive of our comfort zone and do whatever it takes to succeed.
Paul initially introduced us to the ‘film-tv blog’ on the Media Factory website which is a broader blog in terms of film, television and new media at RMIT. He spoke of serendipity and ‘happy accidents’ in terms of filmmaking and media making.