As we've been making the videos for the final project in this course I've been trying to look for correlations between making a video, writing a paper, and drawing a comic. The truth is in preparing for all three I've found myself taking essentially the same steps: transforming a rough idea into a structured outline and eventually into a (more or less) polished final piece.
The big difference is that with essays I've gotten this down to an almost exact science. I've written so many essays in my life that I know exactly which steps to take and how to take them. With comics and videos the path is a bit less familiar. However, I've found the same approaches that I've used to prepare for an essay can be applied to videos and comics.
For instance, when preparing for the video we created an outline of the different scenes, characters, and props and a rough draft of a "script" that we built upon as we went.
As I was reading Alexandra Juhasz's piece "Why Not (to) Teach on Youtube" I was immediately reminded of Ong and Baron's description of the resistance people had to previous advances in technology with regards to writing. Just as with the written word and the computer, people are hesitant to incorporate Youtube videos into a wider application because it is unfamiliar and people generally have a hard time accepting things that they aren't entirely comfortable with into their lives.
As with Juhasz's students, my group often expressed feelings along the lines of, "I'd rather just write a paper" because the process of writing is much more familiar to us, even though it's no more demanding than writing a paper. It offers different obstacles which are unique to the medium, such as problems with cameras, scripting, acting, etc.
Though the same thing occured when we were analyzing pictures and comics. Things Scott McCloud talked about regarding comics were just as unfamiliar to me as many of the elements related to film, yet at the same time there was also a very strong connection in terms of processes that allowed me to use my foundation in writing principles to translate both image and video principles into a language I could understand and was familiar with.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
YouTube/Low-bridge videos
The merit behind the use of what Daniel Anderson refers to as "low-bridge approaches to multimedia" is ultimately decided based not on the result of these projects but the intentions. It only makes sense for education and classrooms to change along with technology. Whenever a new technology comes along which is affordable and accessible there will be those who immediately want to integrate it into every facet of society and those who deny its benefits.
We've seen this already when we read Walter Ong and Plato's "Phaedrus." Utilizing Youtube and other similar things in the classroom falls into a long list of progress in technology that has offered a sort of cultural and social revolution, as Michael Wesch shows in his video "An Anthropological Introduction to Youtube." The effects this had on society is undeniable, but its application in the classroom is at best controversial.
In his article "The Low Bridge to High Benefits" Daniel Anderson investigates the potential for Youtube as a teaching aid. "Could it be that low-bridge new media technologies provide the right mix of challenge and ease of use for instructors and students to develop a sense of control, creativity, and flow? The entry-level nature of low-bridge technologies ameliorates difficulties that can shut down flow, but the challenge of composing with unfamiliar forms opens pathways
to creativity and motivation." (44)
The point he makes in this paragraph is an interesting one which seems to draw its evidence from the social effects of Youtube. It is something almost everyone of my generation knows about, many of whom already utilize it. It only makes sense to take something which is an active part of both the cultural and social lives of students and use it stimulate learning. If you think about the difference between student made films and student made Powerpoint presentations really isn't very much.
However, with videos there is a definite aspect of disorganization. With the film project for this class I found that the need for organization was incredibly important: if one element is out of place the rest comes crashing down very easily. Unlike with writing a paper or preparing a project where you have a limited number of easily anticipated obstacles (developing a thesis, finding sources, collecting research, etc) videos provide a myriad of obstacles, many of which are unpredictable and new.
In any situation where technology plays a pivotal role there is the potential for disaster, whether it be user-created or inherent to the technology. Video assignments tend to be viewed as fun and easy in comparison to essays, so the expectations are that it's something which can be improvised without much thought. What I found is that our group utilized a number of traditional approaches to make this system more familiar: outlines, scripts, etc.
In her article "Why Not (to) Teach on Youtube," Alexandra Juhasz describes her experience teaching a class through Youtube.
"Of the many surprises and challenges of this class, it was most dumbfounding for me to find
how resistant my students were to the loss of discipline, authority, and structure in the classroom. They hated the amount of process this course demanded; disliked that I wouldn’t just
tell them stuff; were reluctant to do course work in a new format in which they lacked training;
and generally wanted me to take control so that they could attend to other things and more
clearly understand what they needed to do to satisfy me."
Our group faced a similar situation, where the familiarity and predictability of writing papers was more appealing compared to the amount of effort and energy it takes to make a movie. In the end I think both Juhasz and Anderson make valid points, but the technology and its application are both still in their infancy. If video assignments begin to become a normal aspect of education and are used often enough for students and instructors to become familiar and comfortable with them, they could become helpful educations tools. If anthing, the failure of Juhasz's class is due to students simply not being used to the medium. As with any new technology, the more it is used the more people become familiar with it resulting in useful applications.
We've seen this already when we read Walter Ong and Plato's "Phaedrus." Utilizing Youtube and other similar things in the classroom falls into a long list of progress in technology that has offered a sort of cultural and social revolution, as Michael Wesch shows in his video "An Anthropological Introduction to Youtube." The effects this had on society is undeniable, but its application in the classroom is at best controversial.
In his article "The Low Bridge to High Benefits" Daniel Anderson investigates the potential for Youtube as a teaching aid. "Could it be that low-bridge new media technologies provide the right mix of challenge and ease of use for instructors and students to develop a sense of control, creativity, and flow? The entry-level nature of low-bridge technologies ameliorates difficulties that can shut down flow, but the challenge of composing with unfamiliar forms opens pathways
to creativity and motivation." (44)
The point he makes in this paragraph is an interesting one which seems to draw its evidence from the social effects of Youtube. It is something almost everyone of my generation knows about, many of whom already utilize it. It only makes sense to take something which is an active part of both the cultural and social lives of students and use it stimulate learning. If you think about the difference between student made films and student made Powerpoint presentations really isn't very much.
However, with videos there is a definite aspect of disorganization. With the film project for this class I found that the need for organization was incredibly important: if one element is out of place the rest comes crashing down very easily. Unlike with writing a paper or preparing a project where you have a limited number of easily anticipated obstacles (developing a thesis, finding sources, collecting research, etc) videos provide a myriad of obstacles, many of which are unpredictable and new.
In any situation where technology plays a pivotal role there is the potential for disaster, whether it be user-created or inherent to the technology. Video assignments tend to be viewed as fun and easy in comparison to essays, so the expectations are that it's something which can be improvised without much thought. What I found is that our group utilized a number of traditional approaches to make this system more familiar: outlines, scripts, etc.
In her article "Why Not (to) Teach on Youtube," Alexandra Juhasz describes her experience teaching a class through Youtube.
"Of the many surprises and challenges of this class, it was most dumbfounding for me to find
how resistant my students were to the loss of discipline, authority, and structure in the classroom. They hated the amount of process this course demanded; disliked that I wouldn’t just
tell them stuff; were reluctant to do course work in a new format in which they lacked training;
and generally wanted me to take control so that they could attend to other things and more
clearly understand what they needed to do to satisfy me."
Our group faced a similar situation, where the familiarity and predictability of writing papers was more appealing compared to the amount of effort and energy it takes to make a movie. In the end I think both Juhasz and Anderson make valid points, but the technology and its application are both still in their infancy. If video assignments begin to become a normal aspect of education and are used often enough for students and instructors to become familiar and comfortable with them, they could become helpful educations tools. If anthing, the failure of Juhasz's class is due to students simply not being used to the medium. As with any new technology, the more it is used the more people become familiar with it resulting in useful applications.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Peer Review Recap 3
This blog post is so late because I was waiting for the other members of my group to upload their essays to Google Docs. None of them ever did. This is nothing against them personally, but I really can't offer any advice if no one does the essay until the night before. I had mine done and both Hannah and Nick offered very helpful advice and suggestions which I used to improve my paper. I tried to help them as much as I could, including making comments on an outline Hannah had of her paper. I guess this is just one of the perils of the peer editing process. Cest la vie.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Reading and Writing about Comics ala McCloud, Part 2
For this post I chose to talk about Allison's blog. The comic she discussed was called "The Silencer," a comic about two boys who find a pistol while fishing.
One interesting thing I found about her post was that she discusses the inherent differences between internet and print comics. One point she touches on is how the internet offers more possibilities for comics than printed medium. She explains: "Instead, I would argue that the web allows for "infinite gutters", requiring more closure and direct participation from the reader, not eliminating the need for it."
Now, this is deviating from the purpose of the post a bit, but I found this to be very interesting. Obviously "Understanding Comics" was written before online comics were around (or were at least very popular, accessible, etc). Allison discusses briefly McCloud's idea that there is a big distinction between single panel cartoons and more elaborate comics. Though she later disagrees with her own assertion, she makes the claim that McCloud might argue that her comic "The Silencer" is closer to a cartoon than a comic.
What's interesting about this is the idea that the medium really has changed. McCloud seems to have an almost condescending attitude to cartoons while viewing comics as vastly superior. In the age of the internet web based comics really seem to be changing a lot. Today the medium really has abandoned a lot of the contraints it once had, and allows comics like "The Silencer" to exist. In truth each "panel" of the comic is roughly the same size as a standard three-panel comic you would find in print. This means that each panel is very fractured in terms of time, setting, plot, etc--but in the end each provides a lot more detail that, when taken in larger context, makes the comic as a whole much more enjoyable.
The very design of internet comics seems to go beyond McCloud's definition of "Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence..." By being able to play around with how readers see each panel, a single comic can really be just about anything.
Allison discusses how "The Silencer" seems to be a blend of realistic and cartoony images--another hallmark characteristic of internet comics. Far more options in terms of design are available to artists, meaning that the scope of comics--as well as the variation of panels within comics--can be extremely broad. This allows a comic like "The Silencer" to play around with how it delivers its storyline.
One interesting thing I found about her post was that she discusses the inherent differences between internet and print comics. One point she touches on is how the internet offers more possibilities for comics than printed medium. She explains: "Instead, I would argue that the web allows for "infinite gutters", requiring more closure and direct participation from the reader, not eliminating the need for it."
Now, this is deviating from the purpose of the post a bit, but I found this to be very interesting. Obviously "Understanding Comics" was written before online comics were around (or were at least very popular, accessible, etc). Allison discusses briefly McCloud's idea that there is a big distinction between single panel cartoons and more elaborate comics. Though she later disagrees with her own assertion, she makes the claim that McCloud might argue that her comic "The Silencer" is closer to a cartoon than a comic.
What's interesting about this is the idea that the medium really has changed. McCloud seems to have an almost condescending attitude to cartoons while viewing comics as vastly superior. In the age of the internet web based comics really seem to be changing a lot. Today the medium really has abandoned a lot of the contraints it once had, and allows comics like "The Silencer" to exist. In truth each "panel" of the comic is roughly the same size as a standard three-panel comic you would find in print. This means that each panel is very fractured in terms of time, setting, plot, etc--but in the end each provides a lot more detail that, when taken in larger context, makes the comic as a whole much more enjoyable.
The very design of internet comics seems to go beyond McCloud's definition of "Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence..." By being able to play around with how readers see each panel, a single comic can really be just about anything.
Allison discusses how "The Silencer" seems to be a blend of realistic and cartoony images--another hallmark characteristic of internet comics. Far more options in terms of design are available to artists, meaning that the scope of comics--as well as the variation of panels within comics--can be extremely broad. This allows a comic like "The Silencer" to play around with how it delivers its storyline.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)