Reflection on my final project

When we were first given the task to create an essay on digital stories online I was slightly addled. I understood that we were meant to create an essay online via links and comments/text are our our ingenuity. What I had trouble grasping was how I would tackle the task.

For our other projects I had the idea lightbulb above my head right as we got started. For this project I had to delve deeper, give myself a greater challenge, and even more original then before (and trust me, if our class has produced projects that might be described as anything, they are original-not to mention ingenious).

Originally, no pun intended, I had meant to do something on the answering machine/phone booth program hosted by NPR. In the program listeners call in and tell their story, whether it be about a military experience, a loved animal, a relationship etc. I understood that these stories were personal and thus similar to digital storytelling techniques. I wondered how NPR had an effect on how they were told. It didn't go deep enough and it didn't have enough in common, for me, with the true medium of digital stories.

I watched about fifty digital stories on websites ranging from BBC's capture Wales to smaller scale projects produced for the sake of Southern California history. I checked out vlogs on youtube, personal tweets, and Facebook. I was having trouble finding a theme. While drowning in the sea of digital storytelling I had two ideas.

The key word in the previous sentence is drowning. Digital stories, both in their true form and even more so in vlog (etc) form, abound on the web. I began to see what Nick Couldry was saying in his article in the Digital Storytelling book. In the article, "Digital Storytelling, Media Research, and Democracy: Conceptual Choices and Alternative Frontiers", Couldry expresses his concern that digital stoytelling is doomed to remain an isolated phenomenon, "cut off from the wider distribution of social and cultural authority and respect". He also discusses the democratic potential of digital stories, whether they truly have this potential or whether there are too many problems with scalability for this potential to be realistic. I wanted to look into this. Because the stories exist in such copious amounts, but also because they are isolated and lack expertise, I feared that the democratic potential and ability for these stories to really give voice was greatly challenged. I began to theorize, however, that the stories might be able to overcome this and realize their potential is they attempted to combat the issues of scalability, address questions of expertise, and create some cohesion.

Next I realized that I wanted to address digital stories told in the vein of something pertinent to today. I decided on job loss, with the recession and extension of unemployment benefits in mind. I found a huge amount of these stories and selected a few. I compared and contrasted vlogs on youtube with more traditional digital stories lead by an expert hand. I created a blog and posted the chosen videos, looking for similarities and differences and questioning the ideas of whether they empowered, were democratic, gave a voice, or had real substance or weight. I did not use the traditional academic method of writing paragraphs to break and examine the videos. I found that, for me, this writing method did not work online as it did on paper. I wanted something more accessible and something allowing for more freedom of the viewer/critique of my blog. I decided to put in faux chats at the beginning of my blog and then sprinkled throughout, I created a fake facebook feed in which people question digital storytellings problems, I posted twitter messages from people lamenting job loss. I titled my blog Redundant stories in order to call attention both to the idea of redundancy as it is used in terms of job loss (in several countries "to be made redundant" means to be fired) and the idea that perhaps many of these stories are redundant, that they exist in too superfluous a nature. I found this method of writing or providing textual analysis to be more accessible, more fluid, and more likely to maintain attention and spur thought of readers.

In order to address the question of whether these videos can garner respect and have democratic potential I posted clips from the film "Up in the Air". The film, about a man who professionally fires people, included clips of real people who really got fired telling their stories or reenacting their reactions upon being let go. I believe that the fact that these digital stories appeared on a blockbusting, academy award winning, film said something about the potential. If digital storytellers, real people, could make their stories more accessible or if the media actually took interest, maybe their potential could be realized. Furthermore, the clips from Up in the Air gave hope. The hope that many of these people have when they make these stories- that someone will notice, that they will have some effect, that they will perhaps create change.

To conclude my video I made a vlog of myself. I filmed myself talking about finishing my digital story and acted similar to those who had been fired. I highlighted the themes of the vlogs and digital stories in my own tongue in cheek/semi-real analysis of my project. I wanted this to be included for reasons of self-reflexivity, to give a face to the name of me as the author, to provide cohesion with the form of digital stories and the idea of textual accessibility.

A link to my final project

RedundantStories.

http://redundantstories.blogspot.com/

From Paper to Ethnography

As I mentioned in VRM class, the transition from writing a paper on ethnography to actually producing an ethnography is technically challenging but also essential in truly understanding the documentary medium. For our ethnography on the Day Laborer Cup we filmed first, saw what happened at the event and what we could record, and pieced the project together afterwards.

This method was particularly striking to me. The process of writing an essay, papers on ethnography included, is very regimented and institutionalized. Traditional academic essays do not generally allow for much creativity in voice or process, but rather call for a regulated format and working process. I really appreciated the practice oriented method of producing an ethnography. While we used sources and were dedicated to theory, this was largely (and clearly) an experiment in practice.

Making our ethnography illuminated the process and technical aspects of the medium that I believe would be necessary to know in order to adequately write a critical essay on documentary. In simpler terms, one must really ought have had experience in making an ethnography in order to write an essay on ethnography. The medium is more accessible, and being involved in the production process is much more possible, then if one were critiquing and attempting to be involved in feature films. With a small amount of of background knowledge anyone can make an ethnography.

The experience of getting involved with the people you are filming, becoming a subject yourself via your interactions and differences, transcends the traditional written essay in terms of praxis and working knowledge. In our reflexive portion of the film Marina made the comment that "we were documenting the undocumented." This notion is indicative of our experiences with making an ethnography. We were outsiders filming people who are traditionally unseen or invisible. Through our interactions as outsiders, however, we learned what it meant to be subjects.

Our intent was to present the footage of our event and leave the viewer to place meaning. We did not want to tell the viewer how to see the tournament. I understand that because we edited our own video we were showing the viewer pre-chosen portions of the event. We attempted to mitigate this effect, however, by showing a montage of long clips. We did not include short clips, sounds effects, outside music, or voiceover because we felt that this would detract from the true event.

The second portion of the video, in which we speak about our reactions and intentions, was deliberately included in a somewhat spartan way. We wanted the viewer to really feel the shock of transition as a way to mirror the way in which our two cultures collided. When the two portions of the film are placed together the viewer is jolted, placed in the same uncomfortable place as the videographers and subjects. Our ethnography was, because of this method, a ethnography critiquing the methods of ethnography.

The Tenth Annual Day Laborer Cup: An Ethnography

Anderson's newest commercial

Anderson's AmEx commercial.

Wes Anderson and Zizek

My classmate Sabbiaovale's recent blogpost on a commercial entitled "Mr. W" got me thinking. Commercials/advertisements that mimic independent film are an interesting conundrum. Whats even more interesting to me is the type of director who makes a much more nuanced and artistic film then is average in todays film scape, yet who still deign to follow the dominant media and capitalist ideology.

Take Wes Anderson (one of my favorites), for instance. Anderson produces films that employ the auteur method and fantastic cinematic skills, films that have solid character development, intelligent humor, and distinct technique. Anderson has the makings of a independent filmmaker, but like any filmmaker so-inclined in today's market (who wants their work to reach the masses), he must produce his movies though the major motion picture houses. This is the hard truth, but is still an interesting that Anderson makes this concession to the dominant power structure. I will get to this point later, through Zizek. What is more provoking is that Anderson has produced several commercials, one for American Express (credit cards, the plight of America) and one for ATT (wire tapping anyone?) Why is Anderson allowing himself this capitalist piggishness? I could accept films being produced by major studios out of necessity for distribution, but this is a much harder pill to swallow.

Anderson's AmEx commercial pays homage to Francois Truffaut and his "Day for Night". Though Truffaut's politics were complex, perhaps borderline anarchistic, he often sided with the French left (though he, admittedly, often attempted to rile them up as well). Truffaut signed the Manifesto of the 121, which nearly ruined his career. The lauded New Wave director was also involved in "les evenements Mai 1968" with leftist student protesters. Anderson paying homage to him through a commercial seems, therefore, a bit maladroit (to use a word from Truffaut's French). How can Anderson make such thoughtful films and ignore the fact that he is on bent knee to hegemonic capitalism?

Zizek, who I have been reading lately, would say that Anderson's take on art distances him from capitalist ideology but binds him to it at the same time. The distancing may be cynical, but it can also be defensive distancing. Cynical distance is just one way to blind ourselves to the structuring power of ideological fantasy. Anderson overlooks the gap between his belief and his actions. In the simplest case this overlooking is a matter of Anderson seeing through the illusion in general terms but failing to see how the illusion guides him.

In more simple words, Anderson (as an intelligent and successful filmmaker) can certainly see that he is aiding and abetting capitalism, but likely chooses to ignore it or view it cynically as a necessity to make ends meet.

Zizek presents a quote from Pascal which brilliantly reveals his theory.

"The heart has its reasons which reason does not know."

In reality, Anderson ought to be questioning why he does what he does, as we all should. We ought to question, as Zizek suggests, how to break this cycle.

Ads and Myths

A professor recently explained to me that the study of advertising and its effects on the populace is not looked highly upon in academia. The professor went as far to say that "if you don't want to get tenure, study advertising."

I'm not sure how to begin expressing my disappointment with this sentiment.

I've mentioned before that the average American sees somewhere around 5,000 ads a day. There is no doubt that Ads effect us in significant ways. An argument could be put forward to assert that ads control the majority of our lives. I think this dramatic, but I have heard it done.

Even if we see ads as ridiculous and silly, which we often do, their power over the public is undeniable. Zizek theorized that even though we might make fun of an ad or television show, we still pay attention to it. He believed that we were still truly effected. You may make fun as you watch and look, but you still watch and look. You are still listening to the messages of the hegemonic structure.

The question is how do these proclamations of the material effect us? Perhaps more pointedly, how do the ads present meaning.

Little recent work of merit has been done on this question. As aforementioned in different words, academics won't study something that will detract from or ruin their career.

What we are left with is the somewhat dated work of Judith Williamson ("Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising").

Through William’s take on advertisements we look for and are shown a second, latent and hidden, but also unconscious, meaning.

We are lead to rationalize the signified by means of the signifier.

Through this idea Williamson presented the idea that ads are not simply transparent vehicles of their messages. Although Williamson believes that ads present information which is frequently untrue and attempt to persuade people to buy useless or unnecessary products: she believes this criticism to be the greatest obstacle in understanding the role of ads in society. This take on ads only looks at the overt content rather then the ads form. In other words, ignoring the content of the form.

Here Williamson drops words content and form because, when used as a pair, they already assume that conveyors of messages are significant things in themselves and that it is messages which exist in the realm of the ideal. Replaces content and form with signifier (the object) and signified (the meanings attached to said object).

This move is perhaps a jab at Theodor Adorno, who spoke in terms of signifier and signified.

Williamson gives an example of a tire advertisement in order to show HOW ads mean rather then WHAT they mean. Herein we can begin to see how they affect us.

This ad shows a car stopped on a line at the very end of a pier. The ad celebrates good year tires for being able to still stop on a dime (or line) after doing 36,000 miles. With all that wear and they still stop!

According to Williamson:

The rational message here describes actual tests and results and gives a logical argument to show that the tires are safe and durable. Here the jetty equals risk.

The significance of the jetty is, HOWEVER, the opposite of danger and works in a way that is not part of the rational narrative of the ad.

The Jetty itself resembles a tire (it is rounded and black) and has some tires attached around its outside, it is a picture of strength against water and erosion. The strength of the jetty equals the strength of the tire.

It turns out that the Jetty is merely part of the apparatus for conveying a message about tire durability.

It works on almost an unconscious level, it is not overt or clear at first glance. There is a irrational leap on the basis of the correlation between the two objects (tire and jetty) made on the basis of appearance and juxtaposition.

The signifier of the overt meaning in the ad has its own function, a place in creating an additional and less obvious meaning.

Williamson's argument presents three crucial points here:

1) The meaning of the signifier involves a correlation of two things: the significance of the jetty is transferred to the tire. This is non-sequential: they are not aligned by in a narrative or through argument but by their place in the picture.

2) This transference requires US to make the connection. The transference of the strength of the jetty to the tire does not happen until we make it.

3) The transference itself is based on the fact that the first object, the jetty, has significance to be transferred. We are invited to make meaning, the ad does not initially do this for us.

Here we can see that the way in which we are effected by ads is more in the realm of the unconscious.

I find this extremely interesting. This suggests that ads role as "hidden persuaders" (a long argued theory before Williamson's article) is more nuanced.

Williamson's theories are enlightening and, for me, life changing. I am now slightly more educated about how advertising works. Although I have not completely answered the trophy question of how ads effect us and HOW they mean, I believe Williamson's argument takes us on the right path.

(POP)ulism Film

(Pop)ulism

The process of creating a visual essay is daunting, especially for the beginner. When first presented with the task in my visual research methods course, I found it more than a little daunting. The freedom to create, and critique on endless subjects, within a visual format seems very liberating. Conversely, such freedom is also trying when commenting via a new and unfamiliar medium. Perhaps the most difficult task in this transition from paper to video is knowing where to begin. More specifically, one a might ask, what is expected of an essay that is predominantly visual?

The answer to this question is the most refreshing aspect of the transition from the written to the visual. The visual essay, still in an embryonic stage of use and development in the academic community, is a medium as of yet lacking definitive structure and rigid routine. Whereas the visual essay is moldable, the current expectations of the traditional academic essay are quite established and unyielding. The visual essay has more of an ability to truly express the writers voice because of this freedom to build.

Producing a visual essay was, for me, one of the most engaging and plain fun excursions in my academic career to date. The fact that one has ample room to play with form, voice, reference, and style turns out to be freeing rather than confusing.

It is easier to truly engage the viewer/receiver in a visual format. With tools like sound, framing, and narration emotion is easier to capture. The visual medium makes for heightened suspense, anger, sadness, what-have you, as more of the senses are brought in to play. One does not simply read or look. One must listen as well.

Personally, one of the biggest obstacles I encountered in producing my visual essay was my own technical ability. Although I knew that it was not necessary for the project to be professional level material, my desire to do my best work required me to make my best attempt at editing a short film. I spent countless hours compiling clips and music form the internet and elsewhere and was then faced with the task of creating some semblance of academic form. It was frustrating at first, even a program as simple as iMovie can be challenging when it has never been used. After a few hours of working with the program, however, I was able to mix, mash, and create with much more ease.

Showing the film to the public was another interesting and slightly scary aspect of this project. Most usually, a professor and the student author are the only ones to read a class paper. Part of the idea of the video essay, for me at least, is that it is more accessible, a more operable medium for the public. Thus it was very important to put my work onto the youtube and here on my blog! I hope that my readers enjoy the film, and I welcome any and all comments.

What do Fish and Automobiles have in common?

The title of this entry seems to suggest I'm about to tell a bad joke. Maybe I am!

I can't seem to avoid ending up behind cars touting fish on their bumpers. Apparently some of these fish stand for Jesus, some stand for Darwin (the ones with little legs), and some stand for Christianity eating Darwin (a sticker of a Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish, which seems to

unknowingly say something about natural selection).

This is what I see. This is visual culture on a day to day basis.

We define ourselves by fish on our bumpers. My question is thus, what use does the contemporary left (the people who, I have to assume, sport these Darwin fishes on their cars) have for Darwinism?

I understand that many people who consider themselves politically liberal support Darwinism because they see it as the opposite of the know-nothing brand of Christianity. Marx

himself, while he was quite disparaging about the English literary approach of Darwin, accepted "On the Origin of Species" as a refutation to "the opiate of the masses"-religion.

What is interesting to me is that Darwin polished and presented the idea of survival of the fittest. The idea that the strongest and most adaptable species survive to pass on their seed. Does, as Kropotkin suggested, mutual aid (to put it plainly, helping each other out) have a significant role in Darwin's theories? Do the the social policies of the left (which I myself am a big supporter of) have a role in Darwinism?

I understand the danger of confusing Darwinism with Social Darwinism. But the question remains.

I seem to continuously run into texts that suggest we humans are not so grounded in our political beliefs. Populists on the right and left certainly tend to be birds of a feather, as presented in my upcoming video essay. The hard line creationist religious right and post-modern pushing academic left have forged, in the words of Ricard Dawkins, "a pernicious alliance". Darwinists with Darwin fishes on their Prius and Christians with Jesus fishes on lifted semi trucks seem to both unthinkingly have some perverted things in common. Namely, they both have a love-hate relationship with Darwin (though neither seem to know it).

The right would twist his words to promote social Darwinism, making it alright for the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. The left twist the same words to eschew religion completely.

My degree in anthropology leads me to this exceedingly erudite conclusion- we are one confused species. Or, even more academically speaking, big brain=big befuddlement.

Sensory Ownership

It's a nightmare. Or, more to the point, it's a capitalist's dream.

Scratch that, it's reality. So much of what you touch, smell, taste, hear, and see, is owned.

Forget sensory overload, think sensory ownership.

Perhaps you come to the table with some knowledge of intellectual property law. You are, in that case, a rarity. Most corporations tend to act under the premise that we, the general public, know little or nothing of cultural ownership. Sure, most of us are faintly worried about downloading a song or movie "illegally", but most of us are completely unaware to the extent of which our world is owned.

The facts:

McDonald's has a trademark on the smell its french fries. Harley Davidson has made attempts to trademark the sound of its engine ("potato, potato, potato"), likewise MGM owns the sound of its lion roar. According to an article from National Geographic, "20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities." You heard right, the very things that make us who we are, are privately held. Everywhere your eyes fall, you see ownership. From product placement in films (007 drives the car of the highest bidder, Jennifer Aniston drinks that Smartwater for a reason) to the green on BP's gas stations and the green of starbucks cups(no other similar company may use it). Chocolate isn't safe either, Toblerone owns the rights to using a triangular shape in the candy market in Europe.

According to the NY Times the average American sees somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 advertisements a day. While Stewart Hall and contemporary cultural studies theorists are correct in asserting human agency when it comes to the creation of meanings in consumption, it's difficult not to be bought and sold when you see logos and slogans everywhere you turn.

All this seems very disheartening, but there is hope. Power comes in numbers as well as with dollars. The more people who become aware of such laws and make attempts to fight them, the more likely the government and large companies are likely to respond. As explained in my previous post, one can always turn to the media a la Sut Jhally. Or

Take a page out of de Certeau's book and do a bit of textual poaching, turn the whole system on its massively inflated head.

Kembrew McLeod's California

Dream Worlds Part One

Background: Use me, fairly

In 1991 Sut Jhally, lauded media studies scholar at University of Massachusetts Amherst, produced a documentary entitled Dreamworlds. The film criticized the image of women presented in music videos (specifically those shown on MTV,) with a conclusion that many music videos present women as objects of male domination and concurrently promote sexual violence (Jhally on MTV, 2008). Jhally supported his argument by placing images of popular music videos alongside film rape scenes in order to highlight the similarity of woman’s portrayal in the two.

MTV obviously saw this as bad press: while sex sells, being accused of objectifying women so horrifically does not. The cable television network attempted to halt usage of the film by issuing a cease and desist letter to Jhally and UMass Amherst on the grounds that “Dreamworlds” used clips of copyrighted, or MTV owned, music videos. Jhally replied to MTV, stating that he was not in copyright violation, that under the copyright law of 1996 he was able to use copyrighted material for the sake of teaching and academic criticism (Jhally on MTV, 2008). Furthermore, Jhally threatened to take the case to the press, which would reveal MTV as a corporate bully bent on saving face and money rather then promoting education. Jhally, as they say, “called MTV’s bluff.”

The network retreated from its lawsuit and, fortuitously, though the process the Media Education Foundation (MEF) was born. The goal of the MEF is to - produce and distribute documentary films and other educational resources to inspire critical reflection on the social, political, and cultural impact of American mass media (MEF mission statement). Jhally triumphed over the media giant, and came out with a nonprofit organization promoting Fair Use and critical reflection to boot.