Re: [-empyre-] some questions about vogs



At 09:12 AM 6/19/2002 +1000, Adrian wrote:
ok, i think of hypertext links as like performative speech acts (they're promises). i think of hypertext links as being the *same as* film edits. film edits are also promises. as performative speech acts they have force (they're like order words) and so inside their promise that they make sense there is also this excess of force that means they will make sense. this force leaks out each side of the edit/link which is why the meaning of the before and after can change, without changing what the before and after is. ie the kuleshov effect. same content different meanings yet the thing (the image in that case) that effects the meaning (the edit) in no way changes the image itself. same thing happens in link node hypertext particularly where complex structures are invovled.

so, this is what i mean by performative. links/edits are promises. in hypertext links are user and/or machine enacted, but still performative. in a vog some awareness of this is good so that they just don't do party tricks, but require the user to do something.

though i also like the second meaning of performative where when writing a vog you sort of open yourself to this. it's not about joining a to b but letting the medium perform you as you build in/with it.

Adrian, I like this notion of links as promises quite a lot, partly because it jives so much with recent discourse about links as the currency of the web, especially in blogging communities. For what is currency but a promise of value? But I also find it intriguing that the moments of the message that are these promises--film edits, hypertext links, etc--are the exact moments that the technology of the medium is most noticable: when we KNOW we are experiencing a construct.



a vog uses available technology (like a blog)
a vog is desktop based and network distributed
(like a blog)
a vog is more about writing the day to day than
pomp and ceremony (like a blog)
a vog is about letting people write content
(like a blog)

What made blogs so popular was the ease to publish. Practically anyone who could write and use a browser was a potential blogger, without the need to learn new technologies. Don't you think that vogs demand much more from potential voggers, with a much steeper learning curve, setting them apart from the blogger movement?

no i don't. i've just finished writing the first part of a tutorial about how to use quicktime pro to build a movie collage (looking for somewhere to publish it right now). using only quicktime pro (US$30) i have non new media students making collaged vogs in one class. it is easier than html. (seriously). and you can do it all in quicktime pro (not the sprite tracks, but certainly layers, text tracks, and some limited forms of interactivity).


it would also be not very hard to make a tool that would provide most of the functionality with a simple interface. (in fact i'm trying to get funding for such a tool for cinema studies teaching, but it would also be perfect for simple vogging, hadn't realised that - *thank you*!)

I'm trying to reconcile this with your earlier posts about blogging, where you focus on blogs as a sort of embodiment of process. Aren't vogs, no matter how easy to make, more about product, about the creation of user experience?


Best,

Brandon Barr
University of Rochester
http://brandonbarr.com/





This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.