vogwurk + werdwurk
glimpsed: [] melbourne time

documentating and discussing the problem making that is vogging with the tiresome quotidian of the desktop digital.
oh, i'm adrian miles, rmit melbourne and intermedia bergen.


Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


innland

3.2003

::myths and ::

drew davidson sent me an email today alerting me of a slashdot story on videoblogs. a lot of comments. many of the 'blogs are dumb' or 'vanity video' variety, but for such a geared up digital community they're surprisingly low bro when it comes to knowing the first thing about video. like the post that says you need a qtss server (or similar). nope, http is just fine for video blogging.

anyway, apart from feeling smug since my video blog is over two years old i remain dumbfounded that the only model people seem to be able to think of for video blogging is middle brow distributed talking heads. aka tv journalism meets reality tv stirred for the web. well, yes, this will work, and is viable, now. but isn't it little more than vanity video wannabes?

then i'm reading scott's blog today and he's discussing noah's talk down his end of the world oh my goodness he too makes the same mistake (and he should know better) in an aside about hypermedia and ted nelson:

all my vogs are quicktime video. quicktime video is pretty much the only environment that lets you script interactive video. well, there's DVD of course which is mpeg2, but really. quicktime is a file architecture that supports different file formats (over 100 graphics formats, i don't remember how many video formats) and it has a sophisticated whatver you call it in programming speak, where you can script extraordinary things. (write a movie that responds to xml, user events, other movies, any input you can script (mouse, keyboard, microphone, external files), and so on.

it isn't that myjop is to save quicktime from the flash kiss of death. it is to get people to understand that if you want to work simply with interactive video on your desktop, then quicktime is the environment. everything else still thinks it is television. i've an essay about this out later this year, in the meantime check out part one of a tutorial (also being published shortly):
desktop vogging.

myths and
::7 Mar 2003 16:13::


::ah, i thought so::

i've just been watching a british documentary (well one episode) on weather. rather impressive though problematic documentary style.

the beeb after all) unconscious response to reality tv what he shows and does must be experientially authentic. tonight's show was on cold, so our weather expert subjects himself to a cold room (-18¡C) for as long as he can tolerate it, sleeps in a snow cave in Greenland, gets blown away in the windiest place on earth, and climbs a glacier. he's handsome, bare chested a surprising amount of the time, and has that wholesome english spunk that is, well, spunky.

but that's not what i wanted to write about. one of things that got discussed was how london is the cold death capital of the world. heart attacks and strokes. in the cold outside blood vessels constrict to conserve heat and so internally the blood gets thicker, making it easier for a clot to form. then, a few hours later. death by natural causes. now in winter in london the number who die of these causes rises by 3000. and it's because the poms don't dress for the cold.

when i was first in london it was immediately after my first trip to bergen (hell, my first trip to anywhere in europe). bergen was 4¡C, and everyone in bergen dressed like it was 4¡C and about to snow. hats, gloves, gore-tex jackets (well, it was bergen, that was for the rain). as a first time visitor in a nordic country i dressed likewise, hell i think i even had one the fancy polywhatever long johns that i would usually only wear skiing in australia. norwegians are sensible about their weather.

london. 4¡C just like bergen. but everyone dressed like melbourne in winter (14¡c). no hats, no scarves, no gloves. no gore-tex to keep the wind out. and turns out they die for it.

ah, i thought so
::5 Mar 2003 22:23::


::and scott's got blog::

jill told me on the phone that scott rettberg's blogging. this is a good thing.

and scott's got blog
::5 Mar 2003 13:23::


::no wonder::

i found this in a story about a possibly corrupt texas lawman in monday's melbourne age:

um, in the recent words of scott rettburg (who has a similarly extraordinary account of recent morning tv in america), this "scares the shit out of me". perhaps this is quite intelligle to texicans. maybe even north americans (though surely not canadians?), for me it shows an extraordinary confusion about the separation of power, and the role of the state (and only the state) as an institution that, at arms length, has the authority to police. this is, literally, cowboy territory. and i didn't mean that as a joke. no wunder gyoorge dubberya thinks he doesn't need the u.n.

no wonder
::5 Mar 2003 11:17::


::oh, that process thing::

in this week's lecture we discussed what you might need to do to learn something in my hypertext subject. some more discussion is needed around the how this could be self assessed by students. we just ran out of time there to deal with the questions that arose and rather than bracket them off, or treat them as answered, they must be closed properly otherwise the whole thing really will not work. i've done the diary for the students again, but i've also written a much better introduction about what sorts of things ought to be thought about in assessing what you've done each week.

oh, that process thing
::4 Mar 2003 13:35::


::brouhaha::

mark bernstein has done an excellent job of bringing together responses to henning ziegler's essay on hypertext and cool. mark mentions david kolb's response, provides a link to diane greco's suitably acerbic commentary (and another one), and finally he connects to anja rau's discussion too. this is the same work that was originally distributed as a series of email essays to various new media lists, and to which i wrote a brief response to part one.

what mark has done here is an excellent example of a blog at work, the manner in which it offers commentary, inserts itself within a network (and in that process simultaneously forming the selfsame network - one is not prior to the other), and participates in a knowledge community. and this community is not formed by the commentary (that is the model of broadcast media and i certainly don't think tv news or the newspaper forms community) but by the manner in which the commentary connects rhetorically and literally to others. (that's probably a big 'o' other for all you post lacanian cultural studies types, though that's passé now, so it probably ought to be levinas' other, which come to think of it could be a rich possibility for blogging theory.)

i'm using zeigler's essay and the critical response to it in my hypertext class this year. partly because in previous years i have had too many students making the same mistakes that ziegler makes, and also because we are using blogs as models of hypertext and as reflective journals, and so mark's work provides an exemplar for the sorts of things they might like to think about in relation to blogs, hypertext, and theory.

brouhaha
::4 Mar 2003 11:54::


::schematic notes::

[brief outline of notes for a lecture to third year media studies students about online aesthetics]

  • pick up your biro
  • find a clean page
  • write down the three things you think are important to a good web project
  • call this list one

most of you have some familiarity with the 'aesthetics' of radio and television. perhaps a bit with cinema. what i mean by aesthetics in this context is simply the sorts of creative (and other) assumptions that we make when we think about tv and radio. since i don't know a thing about radio i'll use tv and cinema (i figure most of us have some familiarity with tv and cinema so the points will make a bit of sense).

most of the cinema that we know is narrative, and probably realist. this means it conceals how it is made, or its own processes of production. whether this is the technology used, acting methods, actors, locations, continuity editing, and so on. it hides from us (and itself) that it is a manufactured thing. this is sort of diluted in our late postmodern times with a very high degree of self reflexiveness, but essentially narrative rules.

the same can be said for tv. however, there are big differences between tv and cinema. cinema is, principally, an art or medium that is about time, tv on the other hand is primarily a medium about space. there is no such thing as live cinema, but there is certainly live today. and tv's 'liveness' isn't about manipulating time, it is about the erasure of space (for instance distance).

this is probably one of the major differences between video art and film art (and why tv is much more akin to cinema than video).

so, from your point of view, and experience, cinema is something that is about narrative that wants, loves, craves immense screens. dark rooms. audiences that surrender themselves to these rules and rituals.

tv on the other hand is a familial and domestic experience. the screen is smaller, the light is on, conversation is common, and tv is contituted by regularity and flow. (many of the qualities of popular radio.) tv in many ways recognises that the space of reception is social and domestic. (this is also strongly expressed in how tv's look.)

so when we come to the web, the most common thing we do is use these standards or assumptions to think about what we ought to do on the web. now we all know that the web is a different thing (just remembering for the moment that the web is not the internet, just one part) to books and cinema and tv and so on, but we don't really know how different.

this isn't just a problem for this class, it is a problem for most people who think they're designing content for the web most of the time. this is very much the case in video and audio, which i'll talk about more specifically next lecture, where existing assumptions of televisual content and style are still the dominant form of audiovisual content online.

and it is hardly surprising that we're not sure what to do online here, because most of you, most of the time, use 'industry practice' as your benchmark. so you sort of work backwards when it comes to new media online, which makes it rather hard to be creative or inventive.

so, the web. well, a good way to start is to just pay attention to what a computer is and how you use it (what would my list for tv look like?):

  • pick up your biro
  • find your no longer clean page
  • write down all the things you think are important in relation to what you do on and with a networked computer

these are the things on my list:

  • screen based
  • mutliple windows
  • many activities at once
  • requires user action
  • multiple activities
  • domestic
  • small scale
  • limited bandwidth (screen, network, time)
  • usually a location of work and other activities
  • outside of gaming is probably never used for one thing at a time
  • requires literacy about computers
  • requires literacy about networks
  • the whole is greater than the sum of its parts
  • multivocal or polyvocal
  • personal
  • distributed
  • acentred
  • rhizomatic
  • rapid change
  • users have a lot of authority (that's why they get a special name)
  • multilinear

and just as in film and sound work there is an immense range of styles, practices, and experiments. everything from the web equivalent of nobudget independent production work through to high end big budget productions. and just as in your own practice, you need to be able to recognise these differences and know where and why your work is located.

Online Caroline

FilmText

jodi

US department of Art and Technology

Brandon Barr

Rick Doble

They Rule

My Favorite Babe

  • pick up your biro
  • find a your page
  • write down the three things you think are important to a good web project
  • call this list two
  • compare to list one

schematic notes
::3 Mar 2003 10:21::


adrian.miles@uib.no | adrian.miles@rmit.edu.au