Final Blog
Overall my experiences in class have been a positive one. Reflecting on how I’ve grown as a writer I am able to see several things. Upon entering the class I wrote in a manner in which I had little regard for the audience of what I was writing. In other words I didn’t necessarily take into account who my target audience was and how I could adjust my writing to suit their interests or to suit their level of understanding or expertise on a subject. But in formulating my ideas for these various projects I have come to realize that I have began to start formulating my ideas, writings, and presentations towards specific target audiences. For example, in my stencil project I didn’t necessarily make the stencil for a specific audience but rather an audience in general. In my two final projects I saw that I was tailoring my projects to the class in order to better help them identify with the project (Planet Campus) or to help them better understand the topic of activity theory in a way which would be most beneficial to them. Before this class most of my writings had been academic essays intended for professors who usually already understood the topic, however now I see myself formulating my essays more towards a broader audience who may have no prior knowledge of the topic being discussed. Another interesting note on my personal growth as a writer is in how I noticed my thought process changing in my blogs about the four stages of production of the various projects. In earlier projects I noticed a general trend of my projects reflecting initially what I thought and wanted to convey, whereas towards the end of the class I noticed that there was a lot more collaboration in my thought process in accomplishing the overall mission of the projects. For example, in the sweded video project the group had a very specific idea of what we wanted to create and we didn’t necessarily take into account the audience of the video. Towards the end of class the thought process was collaborative and centered on the audience first and then on how to portray our ideas to that audience in the most meaningful and productive manner. I also learned a lot about different forms of communication, whether it be through comics, photo-essays, academic essays, or podcasts and video media. Whereas before my main experience in communication was in speaking to others and writing academic essays, I found it fun to communicate through video and podcasts or without words at all in the sequential art project. I also found that these mediums could do the same job if not a better one than a “boring” essay, and that often times I had a lot more enjoyment in making arguments or representing ideas through less traditional mediums. I also found that the target audience enjoys these mediums more as well, and that the key to transferring information is through an enjoyable manner so that the information is absorbed and not merely “heard” or “read”. After I realized that information is better perceived through an enjoyable and sometimes interactive medium I found it interesting to see how easily an idea can be taught. Take for example the project Lochlan and I did on Activity Theory. We researched and learned to understand Activity Theory by reading academic essays and through research on the web which we both thought was very dry, however in portraying Activity Theory in class through a series of interactive activities, class participation, and through a audio/video/picture medium, in less than ten minutes the class had a good general understanding of what activity theory was. It was amazing to see how in ten minutes we could summarize hours of information in an enjoyable and fun medium and still accomplish the same end results. Another interesting thing I learned in class that I was previously oblivious to was text or font itself. As I am writing in Times New Roman (in Microsoft Word) I now realize the academic nature of this font based on the accents added to the characters etc. I also find it fascinating that based on the font alone the audience has very different perceptions immediately about the topic or the implications of the medium of communication. For example when reading in Times New Roman one automatically assumes the piece to be scholarly, whereas if I were writing in Arial or Comic Sans the tone of the communication would be very different. As such it is interesting to note that almost all websites use Arial or Courier New as a format to invite the audience in a more relaxed and casual environment almost putting the reader at ease. Another interesting thing I learned in class was about Activity Theory itself. While I had always held the view that almost everything was subjective and incorporated a person’s opinion it was interesting to learn that even in communication we rely on our personal experiences and interactions in how we communicate. It was interesting to see how even communication is subjective and can be broken down to the personal level for all mediums of communication. As such in class I have learned many skills that have made me more aware as a writer not just about who I am writing to or what I am writing about but also in how I present the information or in the style in which I communicate, and how the style itself can be just as critical to communication as the words themselves. This being said I am now more critical of my writing and even as I type these words I am now made aware of much more than I previously thought possible.
Stencil Project
Pre-Production / Brainstorming
When deciding upon a stencil to make I had trouble deciding originally on what topic I wanted to do. When I had settled upon the issue of gun-control, or even the issue of war and violence, I had to formulate how I wanted to portray this issue in a small stencil. I decided upon making a self-contradicting stencil; a peace symbol composed of weapons. Above this peace symbol I had the word “Peace” and underneath “Through Firepower”.
Making My Design into a Stencil
Making my design into a stencil was relatively easy. First I made my stencil in Adobe photo-shop by using various images I either had or found on the web and then adding a black circle and the comic-like text above and below the “peace symbol”. After finally arranging the pieces of the stencil where I wanted them I printed out several copies of the stencil on printer paper, taped one onto a piece of thin cardboard, and used an exacto-knife to cut out the black portions of paper thus removing the cardboard as well. I also drew an “X” across the printer paper onto the cardboard in case the tape moved I could re-align the printer paper on the cardboard. Since there was a circle in the stencil I had to leave two supporting pieces in the cardboard that would be filled in after the stencil is spray-painted.
Revising My Design
I didn’t revise my design but after spray painting it onto a T-shirt there are revisions I would make.
Post-Production / Critique
All in all my stencil turned out quite well onto the cardboard. After making a cardboard stencil I went outside and spray painted black paint onto a T shirt using the stencil. After I let it dry the stencil came out quite well except for the “Through Firepower” text underneath the peace symbol. If I were to remake the stencil I would make the “Through Firepower” text larger so it can be read after spray painting. Also, another critique of the stencil itself was that some people could or couldn’t see the intended peace symbol that the weapons were meant to form. While I wouldn’t change the fact that the inner-portion is composed of weapons I perhaps could have used different weapons to use with a cleaner “profile” to allow viewers to better see the peace symbol. However several others immediately saw the peace symbol so I’m not quite sure if this change would be absolutely necessary. However I did choose the weapons in the peace symbol for a specific purpose which I will discuss in my rationale below.
500 Word Rationale
The purpose of my stencil was to discuss the issue of political issue of violence, whether it be the “gun control” issue or the issue of war and peace. First and foremost however, my stencil was meant to excite people, whether they were offended by the stencil based upon their own viewpoints or if they were excited because they thought my stencil was in support of their cause. I felt that by choosing such a controversial topic I was sure to elicit these responses, and I wanted people to get excited about the stencil because it would elicit a thought process other than just simply looking at the stencil and then thinking about something else. For example, when Lochlan and I met up for the final project the topic of my stencil came up. Clearly it achieved its intended purpose of remaining in the minds of some of the classmates. This being said, my stencil was meant to be neither pro-gun nor anti-gun, despite my personal views, but rather illuminate the fact that, as horrible as it may be, weapons do exist and they are used in either violence or in the preservation of peace. For example, the greatest period of relative peace on earth was during the Cold War, in which the greatest weapons imaginable to mankind were aimed at each other. And when asking why they weren’t fired or no major war broke out between superpowers the answer is simple: mutually assured destruction. And thus in my stencil I wanted to portray how ironic it is that weapons themselves represent a huge dichotomy; they have the ability to kill and the ability to promote life. In response to the weapons themselves I chose three weapons, as viewed from left to right on my stencil; the Berretta M9 9mm pistol, the M16A4 service rifle, and the 5.56mm ball projectile. These are all weapons that are currently in use in the service of this nation to preserve and protect our way of life or to preserve and protect others way of life around the globe, whether it be in a war we are currently engaged in or through a deterrence factor. Politics aside however, my stencil was intended to elicit strong responses and if understood properly show the ultimate dichotomy of the fact that often times the tools of destruction are used to promote and ensure the tools of peace and prosperity.
Final Project Blog
Pre-Production / Brainstorming:
When Lochlan and I first were assigned to do activity theory as a final project we had no idea what activity theory entailed. Thus to gain a better understanding we chose articles from the assigned list and decided to meet up after reading them. We also did a little internet searching on the definition of activity theory to gain a better understanding of just what activity theory is and encompassed. Our first idea for a project was to do an infomercial or informative video in which we would simply teach the class about activity theory. Despite the merits of describing activity theory through this format we felt this would be too dry and boring and the class would lose interest after the first minute. Our second idea was to create a pamphlet and ask the class to socialize and interact with each other, however this medium of teaching seemed too loose and unorganized. And thus we arrived upon our final idea, an educational video which would incorporate class interaction and present the ideas in a structured format. We decided to start our presentation with a structured class activity, and then ask the students what they thought. We then decided to incorporate another activity that the class would do together to further demonstrate activity theory. Then we felt as if we should explain activity theory, incorporate some of the articles, and tie them together with our class activities. Then we felt that to end our presentation we would leave the class with questions to ponder. To do this we decided to use the format of video with pictures and sound, and also to use notecards to be passed out to the class for one activity.
Composing
Composing our project was relatively simple once we had brainstormed on how we wanted to present activity theory. Lochlan and I met up in the Armory and with his laptop used Audacity to create sound files of each of us taking turns talking into the microphone from a script we had written. During recording we noticed that some of the words or ideas came out wrong or were repetitive so we revised the script and did several takes. After the final Audacity file was complete we moved the audio file to Windows Movie Maker and incorporated a title, a black screen for most of the video, and also the pictures that were to be used for the class activities. We left periods of “blankness”, i.e. no sound or teaching, for the class activity involving the notecards. After we had incorporated all the elements into the video we watched it to make sure we liked the product, and then made up the notecards with random professions for the first class activity. After all this was done we uploaded the video to YouTube.com.
Presenting
Presenting the project in class was really easy for us to do since all we had to do was rely upon the video and pass out notecards. During the presentation however Lochlan and I decided that we wanted to elaborate upon our presentation and ask further questions in class and see what the students thought about activity theory. Thus while our presentation went mostly as we had envisioned it we also improvised slightly to make sure the class understood activity theory.
Post-Production / Critique
While I feel like the overall project was a success in teaching the students about activity theory I feel like there were a couple of things we could have done differently. The first and foremost is the space in the video left blank for the class activities. While we were presenting we ended up pausing the video to make sure the class had enough time for the activities instead of just letting the video play for the length of time we assumed the class would take in our composition phase. If I were to edit the project I would eliminate the blank spots and instead just pause the video. The only other critique is that during the ending questions we didn’t leave pauses to let the students think about the question before we asked the next question. If I were to edit the video I would either insert a slightly longer pause or just pause the video during the presentation and ask the students for their responses, similar to how we actually presented the video in class. Despite these critiques I feel like the video, the class activities, and the in-class questions did a good job of explaining activity theory and allowing the students to experience it for themselves.
Video Project
Planet Campus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkophwUw0wg
Four Stages
Pre-Production / Brainstorming
When originally tasked with the video project Parker and I sat together in class and tried to come up with various videos that we could shoot the same b-roll footage and then make an objective and subjective video from. We came up with various ideas but liked the idea of doing a “Planet Campus”, loosely mocking the BBC series Planet Earth, the most. We liked the idea because students in class could identify with the video easily, we could get random footage and discuss it the way in which we each desired, and the shooting site for the film was all around us. To incorporate the interviews we decided to find random students on the quad or elsewhere and interview them about their student careers and then ask them simple questions. After deciding on the topic we were to shoot Parker decided to do the objective view and I was to do the subjective video. Parkers video was to keep a neutral non-persuasive tone and just simply show the life of a college student, whereas my video was to be completely persuasive and make certain nuances that weren’t necessarily true but very well could have been. After deciding on who was to do what we came up with a list of footage we wanted to capture and the various locations to capture it, checked out a camera, and began filming.
Composing
Composing the video was relatively simple. Parker and I went to the various locations that we wanted footage from and began filming. We went from various places such as the quad to the library to classrooms to Green Street to the bars. What was nice about getting the footage was that the sound in the footage didn’t really matter because we were going to dub over the sound with our own voices instead. Finding people for the interviews proved to be a little bit trickier than we had expected, so instead we asked our friends the questions to see how they responded. After we had amassed the B-Roll footage Parker and I each made digital copies and then edited our own videos.
Editing
For my video I first had to briefly brainstorm about how I wanted to portray my subjective view and then think about how to order the scenes from the B-Roll footage to best tell a story portraying the subjective view. After I had written down all the scenes of B-Roll footage I ordered them to best suit how I imagined the narrator would present his argument and what scenes he would use to do this. After I had ordered the scenes I put them into Windows Movie Maker and published a video with no sound. After doing this I wrote down all the scenes into Microsoft Word, and left spaces between each scene. Then I watched the video and typed out what I wanted to say in each scene. After the first time through I watched the video again and talked as if I was the narrator and edited my script further and also made notes about the time lengths of some of the scenes. After this I came up with the final script, opened Audacity, and started recording while watching the video so that my narrating and the video coincided. Once I had the sound file that was to be dubbed over the film pieces I put both into Windows Movie Maker and edited the movie clips slightly to get a better matchup of sound and picture. After this I published the video to Youtube.com.
On an aside note there were some time-lapse videos in the final presentation which were relatively easy to make. For the quad shot, as an example, Parker and I set the camera up on a fixed point, hit record, and just waited for 20 minutes to capture the footage. Or in the Green Street “fly-by” we just drove down Green Street while recording. During editing there is a video-effect option which allows you to speed up the footage by increments of 2x, and I used this feature multiple times on one clip to get the desired time-lapse speed.
Post Production / Critique
I feel that the videos we ended up presenting were well done and portrayed an obvious objective video and an obvious subjective video. The other cool part of the final videos was that the footage both Parker and I used was almost identical and covered almost all our B-roll footage instead of some other videos in which it seemed as if the objective and subjective viewpoints each used half of the B Roll footage with little overlap. As such I think our videos did a good job of using the same footage with different audio to present our objective and subjective stances. On the critical side I noticed several things I may have changed. One of them is my lack of continuous narration during the quad time-lapse and this made the video somewhat awkward during that portion. Also I could have incorporated more interviews and less “personal” opinion, however I was the subjective viewpoint. Additionally I could have perhaps edited some of the footage out and still presented the same message to bring the video within the time limit.
500 Word Rationale
Parker and I chose the topic of Planet Campus for many reasons. While originally brainstorming we had come up with many ideas of video we could capture and present both an objective and subjective viewpoint on, however we felt that doing Planet Campus was the least offensive and the easiest to film as we were already on the university campus. Additionally we also felt that the students in the class would related much better to a Planet Campus style video because as students they all experience the arguments or the topics discussed in our documentaries. Parker and I also chose Planet Campus because we felt as if it were a topic we would enjoy filming, and since we are both students we could easily provide insight on the subject without too much research or relying on opinions that weren’t necessarily our own. (Even though our videos don’t necessarily represent our personal viewpoints.) As such I chose to represent the subjective viewpoint mainly because I thought the subjective viewpoint had the potential to be a funny social commentary on college life and provided me the ability to view college life through a cynical and sarcastic lens. Also I liked the task of doing the subjective video because I felt like it would give me greater freedom in editing the video and what I could allow the narrator to say. And while both of our videos could be viewed as subjective based on the viewer’s personal opinions the end products were pretty clear in which was objective and subjective. This is because Parker and I both used a fair amount of rhetorical conventions and tools in representing our viewpoints. For example, in my video, I spoke with an attempted British accent to try and imitate the “Planet Earth” series’ narrator. Additionally in my video the narrator made a lot of inferences about certain people that weren’t necessarily true but tended to have a cynical or sarcastic connotation. I felt that these added comic relief to the video while at the same time presented a more “devils-advocate” opinion on why students go to college. In terms of using image and motion as rhetorical tools we each used the same B-roll footage in almost the entirety of our own videos, and I feel like if there was no sound in the videos that they could both be interpreted as conveying the same meaning just with scenes in different sequences. However it is the use of sound and our voice as narrator which allowed the videos to be clearly differentiated between objective and subjective.
Ultimately my opinion on objectivity and subjectivity in video remains the same as it did before shooting this project. Especially after learning about activity theory I think it is impossible for any video that is purposefully shot to be truly objective. This is because whether it be the image represented, the motion being captured, or the sound being recorded, all of these are manipulated by humans with their own perspectives and experiences in some way. For the image it would be the directors, the producers, or perhaps the camera-man’s influence on what he or she was filming, and certain elements of the image could be left out which could potentially give the image a completely different meaning. For sound and commentary I think our videos show a precise example of how even through using the same images the sound and commentary can be added to give two completely different meanings, and even though one of us did an “objective” viewpoint and the other a “subjective” viewpoint they ultimately are both subjective because our personal influence and experience played into how we both edited our videos. As such perhaps the only truly “objective video” is from a security camera which happens to capture an event or a camera meant to record indefinitely that happens to record something extraordinary. Yet once this video footage is edited by humans it too becomes subjective and thus the terms objective and subjective are really relative to each other rather than absolutes. One video may subjectively display both sides of an issue, story, or phenomenon better than another subjective video, and thus one becomes “objective” and one “subjective”.
On our participation in the project Parker and I worked well together once again. We were both able to meet up when needed, had no problem contributing to the project in our individual ways, and were able to accomplish the task in the given time period. We both spent time together filming, discussing how we wanted to portray our own videos, and discussing which shots we thought we should get in addition to our previous ones. For most of the work on the project we worked together and worked apart only in editing and dubbing over our individual videos, which was part of the assigned project. Overall I felt as if we made a good team in class for projects that required a partner.
Ede Questions
1) Why is there a gap between practice and theory concerning collaboration as alleged by Eugene Garver?
2) Ede writes, “In this chapter we question this commonsensical view of the nature of authorship –a view that is directly related to the Western philosophical tradition of defining the autonomous individual as the source or foundation of all knowledge.” Is the proprietary nature of authorship solely a Western phenomenon? Is the individual the source of all knowledge or is knowledge gained by the expounding of ideas from various individuals?
3) How did the printing press and the Renaissance bring about the modern concept of authorship?
Hampe Questions
1) Do you necessarily have to have good footage to make a good documentary? Or is the most accurate real footage the best at conveying reality? I.e. though they are fictional films the Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield use first person footage to convey the message of fright and spontaneity.
2) How important are interviews in relaying a sense of reality on a specific subject? Hampe suggests pre-production planning and a some-what rigid organization yet says that while interviewing one must let the person being interviewed tell the story without asking leading questions. Would this ruin the pre-production planning and organization as the interviewee could talk about whatever they wanted and the footage would be useless to the overall story?
3) Can “docudramas” be used as a decent source of information to gaining a general understanding of the subject or should they be seen as purely fictional works that should be regarded as just that, fiction?
