Social Narratives: Avatars and Media Engagement

The avatar has changed the notion of media engagement. This may be clearly illustrated by looking at an art exhibit (specifically; paintings). We can read about an art exhibit online. The level of engagement, for me personally, is determined by the font size and how much can be absorbed by reading off the computer screen. If we go one step further, we can print out the information about the exhibit. Again, speaking personally, this is a somewhat more engaging way of looking at the exhibit. With the copy in hand, I can high-light, underline, read or re read any portion of the article at my discretion. The article now has now taken on the property of portability, allowing my engagement to take place at home, at work and or on any mode of transportation while I am in transit. By the same token, I can also, in addition to or instead of the text, print out copies of the art in the exhibit. Yet another level of engagement would allow me to go to a web site to look at high resolution versions of the artwork. Still other levels of engagement allow me to discuss the artwork in a chat room (without seeing the work at the time of the discussion) or to read comments about the work, posted at a site where the work may be present but the authors of the comments are not present. The avatar has changed the level of engagement by not only allowing me to view the artwork online, but to also engage with any other avatars (people) that may be present at the site at the same time. This level of engagement closely approximates being at the exhibit itself. Some may argue that this is better than being at the exhibit because, according to certain social norms, one does not usually engage in a conversation with strangers at a venue such as an art gallery. These same norms, as applied to cyberspace, not only allow the engagement of conversations with strangers, but also encourage it. This, perhaps, can be seen as one of the advantages of anonymity in cyberspace.

The avatar can and should become a catalyst for documentary dissemination.

Distributed Narratives: Organization and Design

When traditional narratives, and by traditional I am referring to theatrically screened films and home viewed television, are presented to audiences viewing a production simultaneously in different locations there is no communication between the audiences. In addition, members of an audience collectively viewing a production at the same time and at the same place are also not in contact with each other. Furthermore, individual viewers of productions on television are not in contact with each other. Once the method of distribution changes to internet, email and text messaging so too does the level of audience interaction. The internet becomes a common denominator for simultaneous audience participation. Thus, the maker of the production viewed must take into account the venue of distribution and the desired level of interactivity. The desired audience reaction invariably has an effect upon the choice of email, text messaging etc. as the vehicle to deliver the production values. If we look at three types of interaction: human/human, human/computer and computer/computer, in some cases, one party seems to dominate the interaction. We may even refer to this domination as, “control”. By relinquishing control do we diminish the narrative quality of the interaction? Is a theatrical presentation [again, I refer to a film or video presentation] more of a narrative because the audience has no control over the production? If there is an equal amount of control in the three types of interaction cited, we then enable nine types of interaction. By deciding how much control to relinquish, the desired level of interaction is facilitated. With this end result in mind, the choice of one or a combination of the types of interaction can be made.

User Triggered Narratives: Organization and Design

The first consideration in organizing and designing your shooting for user triggered narratives would be, simply put, where will the shots be used. If the intended screening will be on singular or numerous (simultaneously viewed) computer screens, an eight foot wide image projected on a wall or as a two inch square image on a web site; then shot size (wide versus telephoto) and image quality (resolution) is worthy of prime consideration. If the final images are to be delivered in a linear or random format, then the continuity (ability of the shots to be edited in a seamless manner, i.e. without ‘jump cuts’) must also be taken into account.

User Triggered Narratives

In consideration of how non-linear and distributed presentation alters the work, one must first consider the demographic of the target audience. In the case of film, audience response can be from a specific demographic; based on age, urban setting, etc. This viewer response can be targeted by ticket sales, television ratings and, to a degree, DVD sales. The audience responds but does not interact with the material. Design problems may arise if the maker, of user triggered narratives, is unfamiliar with the audience and its level of engagement. Victoria Vesna talks of Marcel Duchamp as the pioneer of concept taking precedent over content [I believe she is referring to his urinal installation]. This idea of concept over content becomes increasingly important in user triggered narratives. The design of particular projects becomes more practical, since audience response to an event/concept can be easier to predict, and possibly control, than that of the content of the project. The challenge, for the practitioner, then becomes thinking of ways to design the concept so as to achieve a high level of audience engagement. Participation, or lack of participation changes the nature of the work because the audience becomes part of the work. As an example, a work devoted to promoting world peace that requires the audience to deposit money at the exhibit takes on two different meanings if the money container holds 29 cents as compared to hundreds of dollars. This, of course, pertains to physical space. Virtual space has other considerations: is the audience interacting with another person(s), such as an avatar, or are they interacting in a computer generated environment without the presence of other people? Does the author of the work want his audience to be aware of which of these two mentioned situations exist? One must carefully decide which best suits the needs of each particular project.

Group Project - Watching

Our [Elaine, Janis, Inger, Gail and myself] original idea was to translate the idea of watching and being watched into a visual installation incorporating a filmed sequence which would be projected. We were fascinated with the concept of who was watching who, which evolved into images of the watcher being projected and thus turning the watcher into the watched. The most appropriate location to shoot this project seemed to be in a washroom. We decided to have our subject [person] “hiding’ in a cubicle reading a pornographic magazine. The purpose of the installation wad context and not content, the porno magazine evolved into a skate boarding magazine. It would be impractical to stage the installation in the actual public washroom, we determined the way to have the viewers experience the feeling of being there was to create a box with a peep hole. by looking inside the box, two things would happen: the viewer would discover the irony of the fact that it was actually a skateboarding and not a pornographic magazine and as the viewer peered in their eye would be recorded (unknown to them) and projected as part of the installation.In planning the shoot, we decided to gather shots that could be used in both a linear and a random fashion, knowing that they would be randomly projected, via the MAX patch, at the presentation. We also knew we wanted as many camera angles as possible and decided to use multiple cameras for the shoot. One of the cameras was able to get “bird’s eye view” coverage while one of the other cameras was mounted on on a skate board enabling low angle dolly shots that went under the cubicle door as well as being able to dolly along the front of the cubicles. We intended for the person looking into the box to trigger the light [in the box] and the video camera, which was enabled by an Arduino board. Arduino can sense the environment by receiving input from a variety of sensors and can affect its surroundings by controlling lights, motors, and other actuators. The micro controller on the board is programmed using the Arduino programming language (based on Wiring) and the Arduino development environment (based on Processing). Arduino projects can be stand-alone or they can communicate with software running on a computer (e.g. MaxMSP/jitter). Special thanks to Steve Daniels for facilitating the process. After attending a lecture given by Lillivan (see Ryerson Lecture Series) the idea of creating a sound track from text files (email) sent between members of the group seemed to make sense. Thanks to the assistance of Alex Bal we were able to investigate a program called, “Soundhack” in order to try to accomplish this goal.

The final outcome of the installation differed, in some regards, from our original expectations. Instead of the eye making contact with the peephole as a way of activating the light and the video camera [inside the box], both [the light and the video camera] were left on. The final soundtrack was constructed by converting video images from the shoot into audio files, instead of converting text files.

The outcome differed from our expectations for several reasons. The sensor that detected the eye at the peephole in the box had a much larger angle of view than we had anticipated and read so much of the inner wall of the box that the presence of the eye was insignificant. The LED we used was bright enough to light both the eye and the magazine in the box, however, the field illumination was a much smaller angle than what we needed to light both the eye and the magazine. Consequently, a second LED was added to the inside of the box. converting video files (from the shoot) into audio files improved the quality of the soundtrack, much to our pleasant surprise. This was accomplished because of the increased smoothness of the juxtaposition of the projected images and the sounds.

The critique of the installation was an invaluable, informative process. I was able to learn many things as a result of its comprehensiveness: mechanically (where to place the projector, screen), physically (how to control the space so that viewers walked to the right place), theoretically (how the installation related to documentary practice) and ethically (what social norms were brought into question). The main thing I learned was that proper pre-production for an installation involves visualizing the end result in terms of placement of screen/projector and designing the path along which the viewers should walk and that It is only after these parameters are determined that one should think of what images [of the film] best suit the piece. In terms of the actual installation we produced, I would do a few things differently. the screen (only one screen would be used) would be placed in front of the viewer so that they could see the image while looking into the box. the viewer would be photographed in “white” (neutral) light while the other footage would be tinted, thus making the viewer more easily recognizable. the image of the viewer would be mixed in with the randomly ordered footage output by the MAX patch. The white light would also make it more obvious to other participants in the room that the viewer was now part of the footage. We were present in the room when the installation was presented and, furthermore, we were on a first name basis with everyone there. Thus, we inadvertantly relied on the instant recognition to let people know that the viewer was now in the piece. Also, I think using slightly more than just the eye might help with the recognition. As suggested by Alex Bal, it might be worth contextualizing how turning the watcher into the watched relates to the watcher being aware that they are being watched.

In as far as incorporating new media into my own practice, I look forward to creating more installations. However, when dealing with the Holocaust, as I now am, I am reluctant to create a virtual Holocaust in Second Life or to simulate life in a concentration camp in an installation. There are certain possibilities regarding the creation of an installation relating to the Holocaust, but they must be clearly thought out. It would be disrespectful, in my opinion, to do anything that would detract from the content of their stories, no matter how spectacular that detraction happened to be.

The elements of new media serve as both the syntax and the morphology of a language capable of divulging new types of documentary narratives.

Ryerson Lecture Series: September 13, 2007 – Dr. Blake Fitzpatrick

Disaster documentary.
Documentary suggests fullness…. reality.
Atomic Photographers Guild.
Brixner – 50,000 fps
Matashikei – 5 frames
Trinity site.
Robert del Tredicci
“Muidar”
Photo within photo – holding a photo of what’s inside.
Kafka: “We photograph things in order to get them out of our minds.”
‘Before and after’ as a way of re-introducing subject.
Documentary photography: “lost trace.”
When are before and after photos complete?
What happens when all witnesses are gone?
Coming back is standing in for the object. Invisible witnesses.
A witness versus an observer. A witness takes on the responsibility of testimony.

Ryerson Lecture Series: September 20, 2007 – Michel Brault

“Les Raquetteurs” (“The Snowshoers”) 1958, 35mm
Budget was 3000’ (30 minutes), 30,000’ used.
Tape recorder was spring-wound.
Cinema verite (cinema direct?)
His first sync sound shoot.
B Cam was a Cameflex.
Banier shot as 2nd unit.
Filmmaking as a way of sharing knowledge.
“La Lutte” (1961)
“People’s Theatre”
5 cameras (1 night)
“Documentary filmed the truth.”
“Documentary is more a lie than (fiction) drama because drama realizes it is staged.”
“Les Ordres” used 200,000 feet of film.
CFDC 125,000 (Bal Private)
10,000 over budget, one scene to be scrapped. Michel suggested shooting entire film in B&W to save $20,000. Distributor wanted colour.
Life in prison – B&W. Outside prison (beautiful) – Colour.
Michel decided to do the opposite.
Shooting documentaries showed Michel how to block.

Ryerson Lecture Series: September 20, 2007 –Arnie Kislenko

Invisible versus visible evidence.
Security officer with Canadian Immigration.
Claims not to have worked with U.S. agencies.
Not a media expert.
“We hate everyone equally.”
U.S. Freedom of information Act: “who guards the guards?”
Canadian Security:
Privy council office
SIRC
Department of National Defense, Canadian Forces
Intelligence Branch
CSE
“Torture goes on.”
Canada “Ministerial Certificate”, 28 issued since 1978

Ryerson Lecture Series: September 25, 2007 – Steve Marx

Hollywood’s Truthtellers
Remarks in relation to two films:
The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance (John Ford, 1962)
Written on The Wind (Douglas Sirk, 1956)
Railroad is a “thing”, primary theme is ‘actual” beginning of film.
Filmmakers are the primary audience for the nuances.
To tell the truth you have to give falsehood very strong arguments (you risk total misunderstanding).
America became a great place when the train came, i.e. when the great people came.
Ford changes visual style to that of a character talking (seen as a fault by film critics).
Disorder contained in an orderly fashion.
Silhouette: two dimensional character.
The newspaper editor isn’t “real” until he gets hurt.
“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
The real truth matters.
Fred Camper at M.I.T. influenced Steve’s choice of films to illustrate truth.
Part of telling the truth is being true to the medium you work in.
Manny Farber: “White Elephant and Termite Art, “ eg. Paul Cezanne

Ryerson Lecture Series: September 27, 2007 - Mary Ellen Mark

Part of Kodak Lecture Series.

Auditorium evacuated for reasons of fire safety.