After being on the air for ten years, This American Life, a documentary radio program on National Public Radio hosted by Ira Glass, exemplifies, for me, what a multimodal text is. Although I am not sure, whether or not, the program’s producers are aware of their use of multimodal concepts. As an artifact, This American Life is ripe for further examination. Three essential concepts discussed herein that are wedded to the program’s design, production and success, are those of lifeworlds, provenance and experiential meaning potential.
The New London Group, along with Mary Cope and Bill Kalantzis, in “A Pedagogy for Multiliteracies,” developed the concept of lifeworlds to describe how migrating social spheres, or discursive communities, overlap and rely on shared communication methods, deeming what type of semiosis is valuable. As I listened to the compilation, “New Beginnings: Ten Years of this American Life,” I recognized the varying discursive fields, first posited by Bordeaux, that work collaboratively to help define what it is to be an American. Each micronarrative, which is contextualized within its associated lifeworlds, places the listener into a very specific context – that of the subject. Each micronarrative, or mini-documentary, is part of the larger program narrative, and the collective of programs are part of an even larger and ongoing discussion of what it means to be an American. Additionally, the program relies heavily on the migration of social spheres, not only between those specific communities highlighted within each story, but also into the larger, diverse metanarrative1 of the United States of America.
Further analysis of “New Beginnings: Ten Years of this American Life,” enabled me to tease out additional multimodal concepts. Foundationally, the principles of provenance and experiential meaning potential are dependent upon psychological recollection cues, but each works in a very different way. Provenance is the beforehand knowledge of a mode, a medium, or a production technique. Essentially, a signifier, often with deeper social meanings, is imported from another place, another time, another culture, or another social group. When the signifier is utilized by an editor, as in this example, it can cue up a memory within the listener, as well as all the things one might associate with that memory.
When a program, such as This American Life imbeds a sound effect like a work whistle into its portrayal about blue-collar autoworkers, it is very possible that the listener may associate the sound with union work movements, or perhaps social unrest from outside of their immediate contexts. The object, in this case, a sound often associated with the shift changes at factories, is grounded in history, with a cultural and social idea of what the object signifies. Where one user might correlate the sound with the oppressive condition found in large industrial factories, conditions highlighted in the film depictions of Orwell’s 1984, or Sergei Eisenstein’s The Battleship Potemki,. Another listener might proudly associate the sound of a work whistle with many years of unionized labor. It really is dependent on what memories are recalled when the listeners first hears an imbedded sound.
Another multimodal principle found in This American Life, is experiential meaning potential. Where provenance might use a sound to incorporate connotation and significance, as highlighted herein with the work whistle example, experiential meaning potential is specific to the use of cultural memory that one attaches to specific mode. A piece that I recently heard on This American Life, which layers djembe beats behind Latino signing from South Texas and the Rio Grande Valley, relies heavily on a listeners ability to make connections between the incorporation of African drumming, as a mode, into Tejano music. The sounds, like the utterance of a word, will have a contextualized history that is known only to the individual listener, making each listener-experience unique. It is the uniqueness of the listener-experience, when compared to the forced visual representations provided by television and other primarily visual mediums that make This American Life such a distinctive user experience.
Although many more multimodal elements can be found being utilized for the design, production and dissemination of This America Life, the three highlighted herein are good examples why the program has had such success. The stories found in each program, highlight deeply personal experiences that the listener must associate with, in order for the program’s success. Each time the listener recognizes a sound, mode, or description of a lifeworld from their own uniquely personal experiences, the potential for catharsis increases greatly. It is the catharsis that comes from individual recognition, something often overlooked when artifacts are examined through a multimodal lens that makes This American Life, an increasingly accessible listener experience.
Works Cited
Cope, Bill, and Mary Kalantzis. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London: Routlegde, 2000.
Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Oxford University Press, 2003.
This American Life: National Public Radio, 2005. http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Archive.aspx?year=2005
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Soundscapes and Oration
At first, I did not believe that the sound/recording orientated websites are suitable artifacts for reflection, with regard to the Cindy Selfe piece, “The Moment of Air, The Breath of Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing.” The websites I visited did not deal with oration, as far as speeches and reading, which Selfe explores in her piece. However, after listening and trying very hard to be aware of the thoughts that the sounds evoked, my understanding of the reliance, Selfe and others attribute to language became clearer.
The first website I explored was Earth to Earth, a non-profit enterprise that soundcases natural environments and natural soundscapes through an electronic medium. It provided many recordings of the ambient noises that one might come across in upon visiting a variety of ecosystems. The first link led me to David Monacchi’s “States of Water.” Monacchi’s composition utilized the sounds generated when water reacts to its natural environment. I find it very interesting how a musical composition was developed from a non-composed source. Monacchi analogously replaced notes with water-born sound effects, resulting in an additive rhythmic effect of “recomposed” music. The water was utilized in such a way that composition became the mode and sound was delivery the medium. As I listened to “States of Water,” I found myself asking how Monacchi might translate his work into a reproducible, printable music score. How does one represent water’s natural reaction with a variety of environmental stimuli on paper? Could there be some reproducible esoteric note system developed to represent a natural phenomenon?
The second link led me to Kits Beach, a sound orientated website, where Hildegard Westerkamp narrates what she sees as she walks along the beach. Her oration and the beachscape sounds were juxtaposed, into what I found to be a very irritating recording. Her voice was incredibly invasive, as if she were trying to impose some poetic cliché on what I imagined to be a beautiful beach setting. Although this may not be the case, it made me feel an anxiousness. Was nature not allowed to speak for itself? Was I not allowed to determine what I was listening to on my own? However, upon second reflection, her description does offer truth to the scene. Just as easily, the beachscape sounds could have been recorded near the sight of an industrial disaster. Without Westerkamp’s narration, the listener would be completely reliant on their imagination, which could be more welcomed, but very possibly discordant with the sounds’ origin. Overall, I would rather allow my imagination to fill in the scenic gaps, than be reliant on her oration. I wanted her to stop talking so that I might listen more intently.
The last audio selection from Earth to Earth, was a link that led me to “Song of the Kanai ‘O’.” This website focused on what it termed “suspended sound,” which dealt primarily with the recording of extinct, threatened, or endangered species. I listened to the song of the Kanai ‘O’, an extinct Hawaiian bird. The recording of the extinct animal was layered over a recording of the Hawaiian forest, the bird’s natural habitat. I found the juxtaposition to be eerily fascinating. To be able to listen to an entity’s voice, one that no longer existed, was incredibly sad. As I listened, I thought about the last filmic recording of the Tasmanian Tiger, the last images of it pacing around a tiny enclosure. The recording of the Kanai ‘O’, seemed like a history of denial. The Kanai ‘O’ would never add to the cacophony of the Hawaiian forest. It would never know another sunrise or tropical breeze. It was the vestigial voice of an animal that was gone forever. As a listened further, I imagined what the bird might have looked like, and found that audio, without narrative or accompanying images became highly reliant on language for a complete visceral experience. And yet, I felt any oration would have been intrusive to my overall listening experience.
The last sound orientated website that I visited was Aporee. The website linked maps and user described environments from locations pinpointed on maps. As I listened, I recalled Selfe’s description of orality as communicative mode that embodies meaning through more than just the use of language, but also diction, intonation, pacing, volume, and word choice, among other things. The selection I chose was of a man describing his surroundings. He spoke a very dry, yet effectively descriptive German. It was not prosaic by any means. His terse description, relayed what he saw in his immediate surroundings – the warm sunlight, a sleeping woman, etc. Without the man’s narration, the listener would not be able to determine anything about the scene indicated on the map. The sound recording was much the same as any ambient urban environment, filled with the city noises that one tends to tune out.
What I learned from this reflective exercise, considering that nature of the sounds provided on the various websites, is that there is a good deal of reliance by humans on language, whether internal or external, to fill in the scenic gaps. All of my auditory processing, considering I was to associate the sounds provided with a natural source, were only synthesized through logic, through language dependent thought. I needed language to contextualize the recordings.
The first website I explored was Earth to Earth, a non-profit enterprise that soundcases natural environments and natural soundscapes through an electronic medium. It provided many recordings of the ambient noises that one might come across in upon visiting a variety of ecosystems. The first link led me to David Monacchi’s “States of Water.” Monacchi’s composition utilized the sounds generated when water reacts to its natural environment. I find it very interesting how a musical composition was developed from a non-composed source. Monacchi analogously replaced notes with water-born sound effects, resulting in an additive rhythmic effect of “recomposed” music. The water was utilized in such a way that composition became the mode and sound was delivery the medium. As I listened to “States of Water,” I found myself asking how Monacchi might translate his work into a reproducible, printable music score. How does one represent water’s natural reaction with a variety of environmental stimuli on paper? Could there be some reproducible esoteric note system developed to represent a natural phenomenon?
The second link led me to Kits Beach, a sound orientated website, where Hildegard Westerkamp narrates what she sees as she walks along the beach. Her oration and the beachscape sounds were juxtaposed, into what I found to be a very irritating recording. Her voice was incredibly invasive, as if she were trying to impose some poetic cliché on what I imagined to be a beautiful beach setting. Although this may not be the case, it made me feel an anxiousness. Was nature not allowed to speak for itself? Was I not allowed to determine what I was listening to on my own? However, upon second reflection, her description does offer truth to the scene. Just as easily, the beachscape sounds could have been recorded near the sight of an industrial disaster. Without Westerkamp’s narration, the listener would be completely reliant on their imagination, which could be more welcomed, but very possibly discordant with the sounds’ origin. Overall, I would rather allow my imagination to fill in the scenic gaps, than be reliant on her oration. I wanted her to stop talking so that I might listen more intently.
The last audio selection from Earth to Earth, was a link that led me to “Song of the Kanai ‘O’.” This website focused on what it termed “suspended sound,” which dealt primarily with the recording of extinct, threatened, or endangered species. I listened to the song of the Kanai ‘O’, an extinct Hawaiian bird. The recording of the extinct animal was layered over a recording of the Hawaiian forest, the bird’s natural habitat. I found the juxtaposition to be eerily fascinating. To be able to listen to an entity’s voice, one that no longer existed, was incredibly sad. As I listened, I thought about the last filmic recording of the Tasmanian Tiger, the last images of it pacing around a tiny enclosure. The recording of the Kanai ‘O’, seemed like a history of denial. The Kanai ‘O’ would never add to the cacophony of the Hawaiian forest. It would never know another sunrise or tropical breeze. It was the vestigial voice of an animal that was gone forever. As a listened further, I imagined what the bird might have looked like, and found that audio, without narrative or accompanying images became highly reliant on language for a complete visceral experience. And yet, I felt any oration would have been intrusive to my overall listening experience.
The last sound orientated website that I visited was Aporee. The website linked maps and user described environments from locations pinpointed on maps. As I listened, I recalled Selfe’s description of orality as communicative mode that embodies meaning through more than just the use of language, but also diction, intonation, pacing, volume, and word choice, among other things. The selection I chose was of a man describing his surroundings. He spoke a very dry, yet effectively descriptive German. It was not prosaic by any means. His terse description, relayed what he saw in his immediate surroundings – the warm sunlight, a sleeping woman, etc. Without the man’s narration, the listener would not be able to determine anything about the scene indicated on the map. The sound recording was much the same as any ambient urban environment, filled with the city noises that one tends to tune out.
What I learned from this reflective exercise, considering that nature of the sounds provided on the various websites, is that there is a good deal of reliance by humans on language, whether internal or external, to fill in the scenic gaps. All of my auditory processing, considering I was to associate the sounds provided with a natural source, were only synthesized through logic, through language dependent thought. I needed language to contextualize the recordings.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Blogging’s egalitarian Aspect
“The political sphere often referred to as an arena, for reason we can all surmise, has become a linguistic battle ground. It has elements of abusion, collusion, and sabotage that read better than any espionage novel. However, it seems that the long-held perception of mainstream media as Goliath, and the internet politico as David, is no longer an inveterate social construct. The claim can be made through simple deduction and inference by posing a question. Who authors the discussion? Although I focus herein on political blogs, the topic of a blog seems to be of little consequence in deciding who is allowed to participate. As W.D. Barton states in “The Future of Rational-Critical debate in Online Public Spheres,” “communities rather than individual users author blogs.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/technology/07blog.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)
In the political spectrum, blogs have a marked egalitarian effect, removing the gate keeping powers that ensure the top-down messaging, which mainstream media has become so reliant on for its maintenance. However, the caveats to the egalitarian aspect to blogging are many, especially upon critical analysis of the sourcing, both of the text and the authors. Who is writing what, and for what purpose? To answer this question, one should consider the following statement. The benefit of blogs is that everybody can add to the conversation: the problem of blogs is that everybody can add to the conversation. Both the benefit and problems with blogs comes from the structure of blogs, the very nature of them.
It is true that blogs do have an egalitarian, class-neutralizing effect on discourse, but they also are inherently problematic, because anyone can add to a blog or thread, including those working to plant abjectly false or pernicious information into the political realm. Additionally, the ethos of the blogger is always in question, mainly because of a well-documented history of political saboteurs who may be opposed to a particular viewpoint. If anyone can post in a political blog, then who is left with the charge of monitoring/mediating the discussion and the efficacy of the sources? Unlike discussion boards, blogs are open for all entries, both on and off topic. It is a self-monitored, neo-anarchistic system that thus far seems to have worked pretty well.
Overall, I believe that the openness of political blogs is beneficial. Blogs allow for open discussion, and although they may be subject to erroneously provided information or malicious disinformation, the user/reader is forced to call into question the viability and accuracy of every post. In contrast, a discussion board user and the conversations in which they are allowed to participate are controlled by a moderator. Such a facet of discussion boards prevents open dialogue, positions the moderator as a gatekeeper, and makes for an environment where the moderator can control the conversation through the threat of excluding members.
I will state that blogging’s benefits far outweigh its detriments, all of which encourage users to engage in public, political discussion that is very accessible, free from identification, if the user chooses to register under an alias, and for the most part, free from corporate controlled production and dissemination of political information.
The blogosphere, as it stands, is a fairly democratic, self-regulated political forum. Will this always be the case? Bloggers should become concerned when free transmission of digital information begins to be limited. Currently, the cost for web hosting and access, although prohibitive, are low enough to enable a high flow of information, where user can produce, disseminate, and host their own their own webspace/weblog, something that was unheard of and unwelcomed just decade ago. I equate it to publicly controlled water systems, whose maintenance and flow is regulated by the community. It is only when water systems have become privatized has the flow of water been threatened. This analogue translates well to the flow of information. When people can no longer communicate at will, then there will be cause for concern.
In the political spectrum, blogs have a marked egalitarian effect, removing the gate keeping powers that ensure the top-down messaging, which mainstream media has become so reliant on for its maintenance. However, the caveats to the egalitarian aspect to blogging are many, especially upon critical analysis of the sourcing, both of the text and the authors. Who is writing what, and for what purpose? To answer this question, one should consider the following statement. The benefit of blogs is that everybody can add to the conversation: the problem of blogs is that everybody can add to the conversation. Both the benefit and problems with blogs comes from the structure of blogs, the very nature of them.
It is true that blogs do have an egalitarian, class-neutralizing effect on discourse, but they also are inherently problematic, because anyone can add to a blog or thread, including those working to plant abjectly false or pernicious information into the political realm. Additionally, the ethos of the blogger is always in question, mainly because of a well-documented history of political saboteurs who may be opposed to a particular viewpoint. If anyone can post in a political blog, then who is left with the charge of monitoring/mediating the discussion and the efficacy of the sources? Unlike discussion boards, blogs are open for all entries, both on and off topic. It is a self-monitored, neo-anarchistic system that thus far seems to have worked pretty well.
Overall, I believe that the openness of political blogs is beneficial. Blogs allow for open discussion, and although they may be subject to erroneously provided information or malicious disinformation, the user/reader is forced to call into question the viability and accuracy of every post. In contrast, a discussion board user and the conversations in which they are allowed to participate are controlled by a moderator. Such a facet of discussion boards prevents open dialogue, positions the moderator as a gatekeeper, and makes for an environment where the moderator can control the conversation through the threat of excluding members.
I will state that blogging’s benefits far outweigh its detriments, all of which encourage users to engage in public, political discussion that is very accessible, free from identification, if the user chooses to register under an alias, and for the most part, free from corporate controlled production and dissemination of political information.
The blogosphere, as it stands, is a fairly democratic, self-regulated political forum. Will this always be the case? Bloggers should become concerned when free transmission of digital information begins to be limited. Currently, the cost for web hosting and access, although prohibitive, are low enough to enable a high flow of information, where user can produce, disseminate, and host their own their own webspace/weblog, something that was unheard of and unwelcomed just decade ago. I equate it to publicly controlled water systems, whose maintenance and flow is regulated by the community. It is only when water systems have become privatized has the flow of water been threatened. This analogue translates well to the flow of information. When people can no longer communicate at will, then there will be cause for concern.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Blogging and news media
For those who are immersed in technological environments, with ever-increasing computing speed, continuous multimedia software improvements, and the increasingly ubiquitous nature of the word wide web, the ownership of news and the power to create it has been significantly challenged. The writing herein is focused on the effects that blogging and the emergence of the blogosphere have had on mass media news outlets and the perception of the news consumer. To deny that there us a still a staunch vanguard of gatekeepers, especially in the release of academic and political information, as book critics, peer-review journals, and editorial staff, would be myopic if not naive. There does exist at every avenue of entry into the dissemination ether gatekeepers, but like a prairie dog, the news blogger as found the back way into the media den. Bloggers have circumvented the gatekeeping practices of large media outlets, allowing many voices to contribute to the conversation, ultimately elevating the notion of community. Today, everyone has the opportunity to enrich the news dialogue, whereas even twelve years ago, most, if not all, media consumers were dependent on large media outlets for their news content. At the very heart of blogging is the egalitarian aspect of the practice. Any textually literate person can start a Weblog with virtually no technology or web development know-how. The result, which is espoused by many as the major benefit and many others as the major problem, is that the forums in the blogosphere are open and anyone can take the podium. No voice can be shut out. What I believe is an added benefit, but others may regard of the easing of the parameters in place to prevent poorly sourced information from being published, is that blogging has an instantaneity inherent in its very design. The time from draft to dissemination is immediate. Equally fast, is the response time of readers, who are never limited by the partial functions of newspaper editors who subjectively decide what is fit to print. Farrell points out in, “The Blogosphere as a Carnival of Ideas,” that blogging allows for both readers and news writers to “generate [a] topics previously barred from discussion.” Admittedly, the amount of input, commentary from outside the news media, raises questions about viability. Paul Andrews, a well-known news blogger, has already addressed the question of viability, claiming that, although it is extremely important, the major impetus for blogging increases is due to demand. He attributes the rise in, “blogs and other forms of online journalism… because of the rapid decline in the credibility in the news media.” So the question remains, if blogging is a legitimate form of journalism, or is it the result of a bunch of hacks that are fed up with mass media news? It could very well be a combination of both. The lack of scholarly sources or the self-reflexive sources provided by bloggers has been used as a means to discredit news blogs as well. I have given the notion of credibility in news a good deal of thought. Often “serious” news journalists are asked to reveal their sources. In fact, up until the recent activities of Bush 43’s administration, news journalist could provide their sources with a veil of anonymity, in order to promote those who might not come forward to reveal news relevant information. It is an unstated practice that journalist always corroborate their sources. This has been taken for granted since the early part of the twentieth century, during the era of yellow journalism and the robber tycoons. Moreover, print journalism rarely if ever uses in-text citation. There must be some other reason why they are considered reliable and credibly and it is do to the provenance of the organization from which their work emanates. A journalist from the New York Times has the newspaper’s many years of journalistic integrity for clout. Perhaps in years to come, new blogs will have established that same clout. However this does not belie the question. With the corporatization of media outlets and the growing demand by shareholders for those outlets to deliver audiences to consumers, who is the most credible source for news? All major news outlets are subsidiaries of for-profit global organizations. In contrast, most news and political blogs are operated with little or no profit margin or potential? This raises another question. If there is a distinguishable civics cause behind news and political orientated blogs. Is it the blogs or the motivations behind their inception that are entirely new? The blog is here to stay. However, a settlement also is needed for blogging with all of its benefits to move from the realm of arm chair quarterbacking to legitimate news sourcing. This will take time, and hopefully, there will be a divestment between the narcissistic blog that masquerades as a news source and the blogs that offer a credible alternative to mainstream media.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Blogging conventions
What do these readings suggest about the rhetorical conventions expected and/or accepted in the blogging discourse community?
To me, the most interesting about the blogging community is that even in a forum where anonymity is revered there are rules to which members adhere. Although the establishment of conventions within the blogosphere should not surprise me, I found after the readings that in the seemingly chaotic milieu of any internet environment, bloggers have established a high degree of order.
First, there is a well-established lexicon that bloggers use as part of a very large discourse community. My personal favorite term, one that reminded me of some of my more ideological friends, was barking moonbat. There seems to be a convivial nature to the terminology, which allows bloggers to be critical of those within the community without being overtly offensive. Second, bloggers have a very clear way in which they cite sources. In Blogging for Dummies, Brad Hill notes that the preferred practice is to cite sources using the url, as opposed to using the academically complicated practice of citing an entire source within and at the end of a text. Although it could be argued that this is to lax of a genre convention, it has a two-fold benefit. It requires that the reader of the blog peruse an entire source to find the referred to information, and it enables the blogger to produce and disseminate a continuous stream of thought as they write. Blogs are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, dynamic and immediate. This citation convention makes for quick dissemination of information.
Although not exactly part of the blogging conventions, one thing I would like to note is Hill’s reference to blogging consequence. In a medium that celebrates anonymity, firings due to bloggers writing about on-the-job practices is becomingly increasingly more common. This raises the questions of violations of free speech and rights to privacy. Do they apply in personal web spaces?
To me, the most interesting about the blogging community is that even in a forum where anonymity is revered there are rules to which members adhere. Although the establishment of conventions within the blogosphere should not surprise me, I found after the readings that in the seemingly chaotic milieu of any internet environment, bloggers have established a high degree of order.
First, there is a well-established lexicon that bloggers use as part of a very large discourse community. My personal favorite term, one that reminded me of some of my more ideological friends, was barking moonbat. There seems to be a convivial nature to the terminology, which allows bloggers to be critical of those within the community without being overtly offensive. Second, bloggers have a very clear way in which they cite sources. In Blogging for Dummies, Brad Hill notes that the preferred practice is to cite sources using the url, as opposed to using the academically complicated practice of citing an entire source within and at the end of a text. Although it could be argued that this is to lax of a genre convention, it has a two-fold benefit. It requires that the reader of the blog peruse an entire source to find the referred to information, and it enables the blogger to produce and disseminate a continuous stream of thought as they write. Blogs are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, dynamic and immediate. This citation convention makes for quick dissemination of information.
Although not exactly part of the blogging conventions, one thing I would like to note is Hill’s reference to blogging consequence. In a medium that celebrates anonymity, firings due to bloggers writing about on-the-job practices is becomingly increasingly more common. This raises the questions of violations of free speech and rights to privacy. Do they apply in personal web spaces?
Monday, September 8, 2008
What is New Media
To realize what New Media is, the definition of what “old” media, or rather standard media, must be settled. Standard media can be defined as any media that relies on an analogue, humanly manipulated form of semiosis. New media, in contrast, must then be a form of semiosis that is reliant on digitization of old modes, and the incorporation of multimodality and modularity into its conceptualization, design, and productions. Additionally, new media requires the use of multiliteracy requisite knowledge by the end user, someone who is capable of reading the artifact, but not necessarily able to produce such an artifact on their own. Lastly, new media must have translation ability, what Manovich calls variability. This principle feature allows designers to move semiosis from one mode to another, and between modes. This component enables to producer of new media to situate meaning in a variable, arguably pastiche-like artifact.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Writing with Video
“What ideas from these readings are most relevant to you professionally, in what ways, and why?”
After reading “Writing with Video”, I am trying to work out how a filmmaker, or someone steeped in the business of making films might regard the academic/scholarly interpretation of video composition. Professionally speaking, I have been writing and producing many types of multimedia products for many years. One of my greatest passions has always been the filmmaking process, from conception through to the completion of a distributable filmic product. I believe this will always be true. Throughout the reading of the article, I found myself asking, whether or not, the collected authors had been to the movies in the past couple of years, if ever, or had they become too entrenched, mired in the want to do something other than composition studies, so much so that they myopically co-opted an entire disciple – namely film studies?
There is a reductive nature to academia that can be enlightening, but can be just as equally blinding. In the article, “Writing with Video,” Lovett, Purdy, Gossett, Lamanna, and Squier, in a concerted effort, push for university composition programs that diminish, through pedagogical design, “the adversarial nature of text vs. media.” (Lovett, et. al., p. 3) There aim is to inform students how any communicative form, designed in any mode, and disseminated via any medium, shapes meaning. It is an ongoing effort to, “raise students’ awareness of video as doing rhetorical work,” and “to have students recognize the multiple modes available to them in meaning making.” (Lovett, et. al., p. 5) The resultant production by students, as highlighted throughout the article, are a series of student produced videos, usually dealing with some issue from outside the discipline of composition studies. One particular video highlights a professional frustration on my part, albeit a very small one. Valerie, a student whose work was referred to within the article, and who is the author/designer of “Dis-Orientation-Asian,” surmised her experience to the researcher group. She asserts that, “students benefit not only when they have the opportunity to engage in the composing process with new media, but also when they see these processes modeled at institutional levels. Writing with video provides such a model.” Perhaps it is due to her lack of experience in multimedia production, hence the overtly clichéd description of her video piece, but her summation exposes the assumption that filmmakers, sound designers, film music scorers, art designers and directors, all working under the instruction of a director and group of producers, are unaware of the rhetorical processes at work in the products of their business. The article exposes something else. Namely, that renaming something, in this particular case, film/film studies as “Writing with Video”, does not make it new or revolutionary, but rather a co-opting and attempted reification of a well-established idea, practice, and discipline.
It seems that the authors behind “Writing with Video” are missing what is obvious to many in the film industry. The cohesion of multiple communicative modes, each with its uniquely varied emotional draw and stimulus, be it sound, color, etc., adds a richness, intertextuality reliant on provenance, and a multiplicity of pathos to a narrative film far beyond the written artifact. Filmmakers understand this facet of their discipline, their profession. This is why during the filmmaking, video game designing, etc. there are several departments who are headed up by experts in their respective fields.
Let us, as an example, look at narrative prose and the act of writing well. Narrative prose does not require expertise in all the modes to be used in the creation of a particular multimodal artifact. It requires mastery in one mode, writing and all the process that lead up to a well-received completed piece. In contrast, a multimedia text requires a much broader skill set, or literacies, if you will, especially with regard to new technologies. To master and subsequently utilize all that is required in creating a multimodal artifact, in my example a feature film, however possible, would require a Herculean effort by the rhetor/filmmaker. Filmmaking is a perfect example as to why the developers of “Writing with Video” are missing the point. Asking students to compose via multiple jobs/literacies, as an adjunct, some might say a replacement, for a written composition, ensures that they develop skills to produce a finished product, but does not require, nor affords them the time or resources to develop any of these skills to an expert level. One of the major objectives of any worthwhile filmmaking program is to teach its students that multimedia production is a collaborative effort, which uses many rhetorical approaches from a variety of disciplines, to arrive at a hopefully well-received finished product. After reading the article, I would say that “Writing for Video” is an exposure course, and if not, it should be reconsidered as one. It should be regarded as an introduction to the literacies and their accompanying communication technologies available to the rhetor.
Professionally, I have come to realize what filmmakers have known for years that creating any multimodal text is a collaborative effort. In fact, Lovett, et. al., admit that “Writing for Video” is a course were students are aware of the accretion of disciplines, and the benefits of collaboration. “Composition courses enroll students from across the university, Writing with Video has helped bring art and design expertise in the visual to a wider cross-section of students. Students have enrolled from art and design, education, communications, computer science, cinema studies, English, psychology, business, and engineering.” This sounds like the putting together of a crew.
Erin, a student who produced a documentary video about and appropriately titled, “No Child Left Behind,” espoused about the difficulties of the project.” I found myself thinking it was easier to do a paper.” (Lovett, et.al. pg. 12) This statement is professionally relevant to me in several ways. As a writer, I have spent several years, my longest to date being four, conceptualizing, researching, developing, and pitching screenplays. I use this example, because writing, composition and all that it entails, is just one part of the film/video, multimedia – whatever you want to term it – project. Any working filmmaker today would argue against auteur theory. There is just too much work to be done when developing a multimedia project of significant magnitude. “Writing with Video”, or producing any artifact that is the result of a combination of modes, forces the writer/rhetor/designer to posses a much broader skill set, and possibly, expertise in no single mode within that set of skills. This is exactly why a filmmaker, as a useful example, builds a crew of experts in sound, lighting, construction, electrical, cinematography, art direction, acting, etc., because it has been well-established in film studies that that the adept creation of a multimodal text is the consequence of a collaborative effort. “Writing with Video”, seems to be both positive and negative. As replacement for composition studies, it is a disaster. Any multimodal artifact is conceptualized via a progenative mode and medium, which is usually writing and text. To inform students about the development about multimodal text as a replacement for writing is to deny any possibility of the student becoming an experienced producer of narrative via text, where it usually begins. The idea “Writing with Video” is great, but it has already been done. Any freshman can flip through a course catalogue and find film and convergent media that have a strong foundation in teaching the uses and rhetorical processes of multimodal texts.
"Writing with Video: What Happens When Composition Comes Off the Page?" (with Maria Lovett, Katherine E. Gossett, Carrie A. Lamanna, and Joseph Squier). Reading (and Writing) New Media: A Collection of Essays and New Media. Ed. Jim Kalmbach and Cheryl E. Ball. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
After reading “Writing with Video”, I am trying to work out how a filmmaker, or someone steeped in the business of making films might regard the academic/scholarly interpretation of video composition. Professionally speaking, I have been writing and producing many types of multimedia products for many years. One of my greatest passions has always been the filmmaking process, from conception through to the completion of a distributable filmic product. I believe this will always be true. Throughout the reading of the article, I found myself asking, whether or not, the collected authors had been to the movies in the past couple of years, if ever, or had they become too entrenched, mired in the want to do something other than composition studies, so much so that they myopically co-opted an entire disciple – namely film studies?
There is a reductive nature to academia that can be enlightening, but can be just as equally blinding. In the article, “Writing with Video,” Lovett, Purdy, Gossett, Lamanna, and Squier, in a concerted effort, push for university composition programs that diminish, through pedagogical design, “the adversarial nature of text vs. media.” (Lovett, et. al., p. 3) There aim is to inform students how any communicative form, designed in any mode, and disseminated via any medium, shapes meaning. It is an ongoing effort to, “raise students’ awareness of video as doing rhetorical work,” and “to have students recognize the multiple modes available to them in meaning making.” (Lovett, et. al., p. 5) The resultant production by students, as highlighted throughout the article, are a series of student produced videos, usually dealing with some issue from outside the discipline of composition studies. One particular video highlights a professional frustration on my part, albeit a very small one. Valerie, a student whose work was referred to within the article, and who is the author/designer of “Dis-Orientation-Asian,” surmised her experience to the researcher group. She asserts that, “students benefit not only when they have the opportunity to engage in the composing process with new media, but also when they see these processes modeled at institutional levels. Writing with video provides such a model.” Perhaps it is due to her lack of experience in multimedia production, hence the overtly clichéd description of her video piece, but her summation exposes the assumption that filmmakers, sound designers, film music scorers, art designers and directors, all working under the instruction of a director and group of producers, are unaware of the rhetorical processes at work in the products of their business. The article exposes something else. Namely, that renaming something, in this particular case, film/film studies as “Writing with Video”, does not make it new or revolutionary, but rather a co-opting and attempted reification of a well-established idea, practice, and discipline.
It seems that the authors behind “Writing with Video” are missing what is obvious to many in the film industry. The cohesion of multiple communicative modes, each with its uniquely varied emotional draw and stimulus, be it sound, color, etc., adds a richness, intertextuality reliant on provenance, and a multiplicity of pathos to a narrative film far beyond the written artifact. Filmmakers understand this facet of their discipline, their profession. This is why during the filmmaking, video game designing, etc. there are several departments who are headed up by experts in their respective fields.
Let us, as an example, look at narrative prose and the act of writing well. Narrative prose does not require expertise in all the modes to be used in the creation of a particular multimodal artifact. It requires mastery in one mode, writing and all the process that lead up to a well-received completed piece. In contrast, a multimedia text requires a much broader skill set, or literacies, if you will, especially with regard to new technologies. To master and subsequently utilize all that is required in creating a multimodal artifact, in my example a feature film, however possible, would require a Herculean effort by the rhetor/filmmaker. Filmmaking is a perfect example as to why the developers of “Writing with Video” are missing the point. Asking students to compose via multiple jobs/literacies, as an adjunct, some might say a replacement, for a written composition, ensures that they develop skills to produce a finished product, but does not require, nor affords them the time or resources to develop any of these skills to an expert level. One of the major objectives of any worthwhile filmmaking program is to teach its students that multimedia production is a collaborative effort, which uses many rhetorical approaches from a variety of disciplines, to arrive at a hopefully well-received finished product. After reading the article, I would say that “Writing for Video” is an exposure course, and if not, it should be reconsidered as one. It should be regarded as an introduction to the literacies and their accompanying communication technologies available to the rhetor.
Professionally, I have come to realize what filmmakers have known for years that creating any multimodal text is a collaborative effort. In fact, Lovett, et. al., admit that “Writing for Video” is a course were students are aware of the accretion of disciplines, and the benefits of collaboration. “Composition courses enroll students from across the university, Writing with Video has helped bring art and design expertise in the visual to a wider cross-section of students. Students have enrolled from art and design, education, communications, computer science, cinema studies, English, psychology, business, and engineering.” This sounds like the putting together of a crew.
Erin, a student who produced a documentary video about and appropriately titled, “No Child Left Behind,” espoused about the difficulties of the project.” I found myself thinking it was easier to do a paper.” (Lovett, et.al. pg. 12) This statement is professionally relevant to me in several ways. As a writer, I have spent several years, my longest to date being four, conceptualizing, researching, developing, and pitching screenplays. I use this example, because writing, composition and all that it entails, is just one part of the film/video, multimedia – whatever you want to term it – project. Any working filmmaker today would argue against auteur theory. There is just too much work to be done when developing a multimedia project of significant magnitude. “Writing with Video”, or producing any artifact that is the result of a combination of modes, forces the writer/rhetor/designer to posses a much broader skill set, and possibly, expertise in no single mode within that set of skills. This is exactly why a filmmaker, as a useful example, builds a crew of experts in sound, lighting, construction, electrical, cinematography, art direction, acting, etc., because it has been well-established in film studies that that the adept creation of a multimodal text is the consequence of a collaborative effort. “Writing with Video”, seems to be both positive and negative. As replacement for composition studies, it is a disaster. Any multimodal artifact is conceptualized via a progenative mode and medium, which is usually writing and text. To inform students about the development about multimodal text as a replacement for writing is to deny any possibility of the student becoming an experienced producer of narrative via text, where it usually begins. The idea “Writing with Video” is great, but it has already been done. Any freshman can flip through a course catalogue and find film and convergent media that have a strong foundation in teaching the uses and rhetorical processes of multimodal texts.
"Writing with Video: What Happens When Composition Comes Off the Page?" (with Maria Lovett, Katherine E. Gossett, Carrie A. Lamanna, and Joseph Squier). Reading (and Writing) New Media: A Collection of Essays and New Media. Ed. Jim Kalmbach and Cheryl E. Ball. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)