VIS 201 Presentation

Allison Kuklinski

VIS 201 Presentation

Topic: Digital Cinema

I. Brief Description of Digital Cinema

-“Digital film, paintings, image processing & compositing and 2D & 3D animation combined

together.” - Lev Manovich

-Other thinker's definition

-Digital cinema has only been around for about 15 years

-It is using a different idea of the cinematic screen

-Returning the repressed form of cinema, the role of the manual construction of images

II. Evaluating/Analyzing the Work

How is digital cinema different from traditional cinema? What is special about digital cinema?

1) How it's Made - Editing
         -Soft cinema constructs its stories by putting together visual bits and pieces that are drawn from an ever expanding database

         -Think of it like architecture

Andreas Angelidakis's "Tetris Moutain"

          -This differs from traditional cinema because it uses a different process to create the resulting 

           aesthetics (software)

          -Traditional cinema doesn’t consist of a database to configure the final product, it only uses the

           sequences of shots filmed and editing techniques on a computer

          -Also, traditional cinema can’t configure a different story every time

2) Content
a) Screen (appearance of the film)
-Multiple screens or co-present windows vs. traditional one window frame 
-Windows on screen mix content of a clip and its 'formal' properties

"Absences"

"Mission to Earth"

"Texas"

VS.

A traditional movie screen

b) Narrative

-Difference in shot sequence and story line

-Monotone voiceover 

-The ends are left sort of ambiguous and there’s not too much of a traditional structure

c) How it's experienced by the viewer

-The viewer experiences intentional discontinuity editing

-Home-video aspect to it, looking like it's filmed by a handheld camera as it's shaky

-Relates to the aim of the constructedness feel of the film, emphasizing the craft of filmmaking and mechanical 

III. My Viewpoint/Argument

-Looking at Digital Cinema's relation to reality
-Subjectivity and consciousness have to do with the state of being
-Influenced by Piet Mondrian (Early 20th Century Dutch artist)

Piet Mondrian using De Stijl art

-So my opinion or theory is that Manovich is exploiting Digital Cinema’s new form and concepts to convey our evolving state of being

-In other words, he constantly recognizes the constructedness of the films and shows off the new use of software and digital cinematic advances, essentially relating it to what we’ve done as humans and how we keep evolving from our current state of being

Works Cited:

Baetens, Jan. "Soft Cinema. Navigating the Database." Image & Narrative. Web. 1 Nov. 2005. <http://www.imageandnarrative.be/inarchive/surrealism/manovich.htm>

Hannon, Julie. "Hip to Be Square." Carnegie Magazine 1 July 2008. Print.

Manovich, Lev, and Andreas Kratky. Soft Cinema: Navigating the Database. Cambridge: MIT, 2005. Print.

Manovich, Lev. "Form." Soft Cinema: Ambient Narrative. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://softcinema.net/form.htm>.

Soft Cinema: Navigating the Database (Texas, Mission to Earth, Absences). The MIT Press, 2005. DVD.

Digital Cinema VS. Traditional Cinema

Discussion Questions:
1) Using "Mission to Earth" as an example, what is new or different about digital cinema compared to traditional film-making? Consider the story, structure and appearance of the film.

I can definitely see a plethora of differences between digital cinema and traditional "Hollywood" film-making, especially since film is part of my concentration. I would divide these differences into categories of editing, content, and aim. 

To begin with editing, there's an instant difference that the viewer is directed to. Instead of a traditional Hollywood film where there would be a fade in or dramatic musical prelude, the film goes right into multiple screens and into the content. And the multiple screens aren't just like a split screen shot in a traditional film, there are many shapes that are respectively coordinated with content to fill each. We typically don't see this in traditional cinema, unless it would be a multi-person phone call or an action sequence that happens quickly. 

These screens are part of the form for soft cinema, called algorithmic editing. This means that "each video clips used in Soft Cinema is assigned keywords which describe both the 'content' of a clip (geographical location, presence of people in the scene, etc.) and its 'formal' properties (dominant color, dominant line orientation, contrast, camera movement, etc.)" (Manovich). 

Also, the director uses discontinuity editing instead of traditional continuity editing. This means there's brief but recognizable cuts between the shots, and even a break of music. There's also an almost home-video aspect to it, looking like it's filmed by a handheld camera as it's shaky. It's an intentional editing technique that's emphasized, so that the viewer can recognize it as well, which leads us to the aim of the film-making, which I will explain later.

There's a monotone voice over throughout the entire film which typically doesn't happen in Hollywood movies, more so documentaries or informational programs. 

To move onto the content, this also differs from traditional film-making. In traditional film-making the viewer gets a typical story line with shots to match it. In "Mission to Earth," not all the time were there shots to match the voice over and story line going on, but rather random images. Also with the content, the story wasn't so clear and was left rather ambiguous at the end. The film relied on the voice over and the strange images and shots rather than traditional acting to convey and display the content and the themes of the film.

For "Mission to Earth," the content and tone of the film was rather unsettling, dreary and monotone, as the music and editing techniques (voice over, colors, shots) shaped it to be. 

And also as we talked about in class discussion, the voice over for the film is the same but there are always changes to the boxes with the circular patterns, making it a sort of database cinema, which is not what traditional does.

Lastly, for aim, we can clearly see there's a difference in the aim of the film-making. Traditional Hollywood cinema uses continuity editing and makes the movie seem like real life. With digital/soft cinema, there is an explicit draw towards the discontinuity. The film maker wants the audience to see the reality in the film making, which may correlate to the themes. In "Mission to Earth," though it may not be so realistic with a spaceship and whatnot, there's a realistic aspect of alienation and certain life struggles that the film is trying to convey. If the editing and the source itself is realistic and "rough" or "bumpy" like life actually can be, perhaps it can be portrayed better. Mainstream seems much less "made" than digital cinema. That's the constructed-ness aspect of digital cinema.

In any event, the story, structure and appearance of the film and of digital cinema is different from traditional film making through the editing, content and aim.


2) What other art forms (eg. early film, digital art, painting, websites, etc) does this film remind you of? Explain each similarity.

"Mission to Earth" actually reminds me of a music video that I studied in a film class. I can't remember name of the song, unfortunately. However, it reminds me of it because it contains many aspects that digital cinema and that "Mission to Earth" embraces. There was a mix of traditional film-making with some digital cinematic effects, like objects being placed into it. There was also a lot of graphic movement likewise the circles in the movie. They were also circles in the music video. It was also a more "hipster" like music video, so it wanted to emphasize the fact that it didn't need a big studio budget to make the film so seemed rather hand made and crafted, which said something about the band itself. Some of the shots and images added were rather random, likewise the ones in the film  we saw. 

Works Cited:

              Manovich, Lev. "Form." Soft Cinema: Ambient Narrative. Web. 3 Nov. 2014. <http://softcinema.net/form.htm>.

Technologised Bodies

Pre-Notes Discussion:
In what ways are bodies already enhanced (made more capable, beautiful) by technology (can use mechanical, physical, and chemical)?

I believe we can extend our bodies in many different ways. Whether it be internal or external, technology has come a long way to enhance us through capability, aesthetics, etc. First I'll begin with external enhancing technology. Glasses, for example, produce better vision and adjust to our sight sensory to make us more capable. The technological work put into wires and more for braces to straighten teeth is an aesthetic enhancing aspect. Next would be prosthetics or fake limbs. This crosses into internal as well, but it's shown on the outside. This helps out with capability of body usage. Similarly is hearing aids, as they use technology in a small device to let people hear what's outside to the inside. And lastly would be plastic surgery, where technology and surgical devices are used to enhance someone to be more "beautiful" or to fix something that could have happened at birth or in an accident. 

Next is the more internal ways our bodies are enhanced by technology. These include mainly medical devices such as plates and screws or pins in your body to hold together a new knee or hip or bone marrow or something of that sort. Also  there are pace makers with the heart. These are all for usage and enhanced capability.

And lastly, I would consider this the "blurred lines" of technology enhancement, that touches for a short period of time. I'm talking here about biotechnology. This certain kind of biotechnology would be CT scans, PET scans, or MRI's. We're connected to this technology for a brief period of time, and though it's not embedded in us, it still produces results that enhance an overall understanding of a condition or issue. To me, that enhances our bodies and makes them more visible.

Further Discussion: On Eric Siu's "Touchy"

1) Describe this work in detail:

Eric Siu's "Touchy" is a device, essentially a human camera, and the person who is beneath it is "blinded constantly until a human touch enables the opening of the automated shutters. While a continuous physical contact is maintained between Touchy and a user, the camera shoots a photo every 10 seconds" (Vimeo). 

This project/device not only focuses on the relationship between humans and technology, but human interaction with one another as well. The video [work] that shows what Touchy does encompasses not only the use of the device, but symbolic and thematic issues about society as well, which I will discuss later on. 

I'll delve a little into the video that was made to promote this device. The video begins with the viewer (third person perspective) watching a young female noticing that the man in the video (Siu himself) can't see with his device on.  She touches him, and there's a camera sound. Then there's a close-up shot of her eyes looking into the camera. Interestingly enough, the viewer still doesn't see Siu's face. This was sort of a prelude and foreshadows what's to come later on in the video.

Then there's series of shots where Siu is trying to touch different objects and it's emphasizing how the technology is literally (as well as metaphorically) blinding him. This goes on until the female (same one as before) touches his face. We get a shot of the lenses opening up, emphasizing that human touch enables vision, light, a new perspective. The lenses opening are photos being taken and we see through the lens on the back of the device the photos taken. 


2) How does the work use technology to extend or change the abilities of the human body?

In this work, technology is used to change the abilities and extend the human body. First I'll talk about how it changes the abilities of the human body. So if we really look at it, isn't "Touchy" disabling the human body in a way? I would say yes. The fact that "Touchy" is taking away vision from the human is in fact disabling. But then again, by disabling the human, the human can gain another ability. When vision is taken away, I think humans gain the ability to long for that closest to vision, touch. They long to feel what they can no longer see. That happens with Siu, as his vision is lost, a human touch comes in and he can "see" again. He can capture that moment with a photo or perhaps metaphorically a memory. 

It extends the human body by making a camera. On "Touchy's" website it is stated that "The artist transposes the functions of a camera to a wearable helmet device comprising of a pair of automated shutters, a functioning camera and an interactive screen" (Siu, Concept | Touchy). The human feels what it is like to be technologized and essentially is a camera. The human body is extending in the sense that it's capable of producing something other than we usually do, technology itself. Of course we can produce technology, but not right away. There's steps involved. With "Touchy," the human produces a photo right away when vulnerable to touch. 


3) What issues does this work raise about today's society or about the effects of existing technologies or about the potential or possibilities that new technologies might have?

For me, there are multiple issues this work raises about today's society. First, I think this work is explaining that without human touch, we are nothing. We need interaction or else our world would be consumed of darkness, emphasized by the shutters on the camera. I think it's also commenting on the fact that sometimes technology is blinding us. We always look at our phones or other devices and are blind to the "real" world and don't interact personally anymore. An effect of technology is that physical communication is diminishing because of it. I also think this work is conveying that we can really use technology a "right way" to interact and live both in a technologized world as well as a human and interactive world with one another. The fact that Siu could see and the photos were taken once he experienced the human touch examines the aspect that we can use humans and technology (to work together) to create or screenshot a memory and a beautiful moment, and to really open up our worlds instead of shutting them out with closed lens. That's the potential or possibilities that new technologies can bring to us and help us realize.

Works Cited:

        Siu, Eric. "Concept | Touchy." Touchy. Eric Siu, 1 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Jan. 2014. <http://touchtouchy.com/concept/#sc>.

        Siu, Eric. "TOUCHY, A Human Camera." Vimeo. Vimeo, LLC, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 1 Jan. 2014. <http://vimeo.com/38584876>.

Video Games: Just Playing?

When considering shooter games and what I personally think are the best to worst, I think Doom/Postal is the best, Remission second best, and then America's Army and Under Siege as the worst.

Why? Firstly, I think Doom and Postal is a bit violent, but it's also claimed as satirical. Living in America, I realize that satire and reliving certain events and mocking them or using them for entertainment is a part of our culture, so I can understand this more. Secondly, Remission I think is great for education for cancer patients and even their family or friends. I also think it gives the child hope for curing cancer and beating it. However, I see a few implications with this game. Our group discussed that yes, a child should know about their reality and cancer. But perhaps sometimes they need to take their mind off of it and should be playing other video games or doing other activities besides dwelling on their illness. Secondly, I see a bit of false hope in this game. That yes, they can be killing cancer cells, but in reality, perhaps there is no cure if they are terminally ill or have a cancer that is not yet curable. I would rather see them out doing something with the time that they have rather than staying inside on a game. Lastly, I see America's Army and Under Siege as the worst shooter games. Though it's proven effective, I don't really support the game America's Army for recruiting American soldiers. I also don't like how they target a specific race. Yes, I understand that that's factual and complies with the ongoing Middle East conflicts, but if we want to establish peace among these people and teach the younger generation another way besides war, we shouldn't be target specific. Also, as for Under Siege, I don't like the fact that it implies war and killing between the Arabs and Israeli people for Palestine. Thus, because these games have a strong political and ideological purpose, it makes it a problem.

One of my group members, Nicola, recalls playing video games when he was a bit younger. He claimed the different games were in fact killing games, but were rather innocent. It wasn't about killing people, but rater mythical creatures and so forth. What really infatuated me about Nicola's recollection was his face when he was remembering these games. When he remembered one, his eyes would light up as he recollected the different aspects that went along with the game and how to win, like reliving his childhood and the sort of play he used to enjoy. He liked that it was rather innocent, and that his parents coincided with the fact it was innocent and just fun aside of violent.

Digital Media and Social Activism

This is certainly the age for digital media. The fact that many people undergoing social activism embrace and utilize this tactic, if you will, can be both positive or negative to the event. It could also simply just be informational.

The event that I have chosen to research is the ongoing (still continuous) protests between the anti-mosque and pro-mosque groups in Sunshine Coast, Australia. Essentially, an Islamic community wants to set up a mosque and many people don't want that as they feel it's a threat to not only their community but to their "free country." The threats include "beheadings, the introduction of sharia law, the loss of rights for women and the undermining of the Australian way of life" (Furler). However, alongside of the Islamic community is a strong support system of young Australians that are in favor of a free, religious country. And they believe since the country is democratic, any religion should be free to practice and build where they please.

Just as a statistic, "More than 500 people converged on land near the Stella Maris Catholic Church to protest the mosque plan," (Furler) just on the September 20, 2014 date.

The obvious hoped-for outcome of the event is that each side wants their own way. The anti-mosque protestors don't want the mosque or Islamic community because of a alleged threat, and the pro-mosque protestors believe it right to let them build. A compromise where each side would get what they want would be ideal to avoid the protests, but we'll see where this goes.

Some of the event participants stated completely opposite things. A pastor that is against the mosque, Benny Tan, was "preaching" to the crowd about the group being manipulative. He said, "That's just a ploy to win us over and because they are smaller in numbers. But as they grow in numbers and in confidence, you try to stop them then," (Furler). Tan claims he knows this because he's lived in an Islamic country for over twenty years and has experienced it "firsthand."

In the video provided below, an anti-mosque protester yells to a young woman (presumably Islamic), "Why don't you go back to where you're from?" (Furler) And pro-mosque protestors yell that it's a free country and religion shall not come between equal rights.

Digital media is a large part of this social activism event and there are a plethora of devices and sources used to promote the event, support/not support the event, and/or to just put out the facts.

First off, Sarah Joseph states in her essay that "'Web 2.0' refers to Internet platforms that allow for interactive participation by users. 'User generated content' is the name for all of the ways in which people may use social media" (Joseph, 2012, 146).

There is much user generated content in this protest. First, the website and online newspaper column that I have based some of my research on has user generated content. It contains two ways for interactive participation by users. First is the "reader poll" on the page it's a poll that asks "Does Australia have freedom of religion?" and a few multiple choice answers. Secondly, there is a spot for comments. This way, people can place their opinion on the event, or add facts. For example, user name "SunMan" stated that he was at the event and posted, "I was there today and it was a very well controlled event. Thank you our Police. There were more anti-mosque supporters than I expected" (Furler).


Joseph also states, "Finally, people share information on social networking sites, of which Facebook and Twitter are among the most popular. These sites are very versatile, enabling the sharing of text, pictures, videos, audio files, and applications" (Joseph, 2012, 148).
Not only was this on websites such as blogs and online newspapers, but it was posted on Twitter. As the photo shows below, a photo was being tweeted about a sign at the protest. Though the sign had a stand point, the tweet seemed to be purely informational. 

There's also a Youtube video of the event which shows the two sides fighting verbally and the police involvement. 

Again, the involvement of the social media was all informational, perceptional and even opinionated. Informational when the reports stated what happened, how many people were at the event, and other factual statements that weren't bias. Perceptional because when looked at it in a rather abstract way, social media can be negative or positive, but it's really  just the way the reader or viewer perceives it, the social media is just the medium. For example, one may get post a tweet about the event from a certain side that seems negative to the other, but to them it's positive or vice versa. Social media also played a role of reporting the event and even publicizing it in a way. 

Thus, throughout the use of social media via many different sites and sources, whether it be photos, videos, blogs, etc., this event among many others today has been and continues to be publicized and put into different perspectives for the people who may or may not be involved in the event.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/videos/mosque-protesters-clash-police-watch-2/24277/

Works Cited:

Furler, Mark. "Mosque Protesters Warn of 'Beheadings' at Rally." Sunshine Coast Daily. Sunshine Coast Newspaper Company Pty Ltd 2014., 20 Sept. 2014. Web.

Furler, Mark. "Ugly Scenes at Sunshine Coast Mosque Protest." Brisbane Times. Fairfax Media, 20 Sept. 2014. Web.

Joseph, Sarah. Social Media, Political Change, and Human Rights, 35 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 145 (2012), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol35/iss1/3 

Digital games - But are they Art?

1) What is art? (What are some of the things that make art, art?)
-Refer to Adams

I've taken art classes, I've studied visual and aesthetic aspects of films, and I've studied "literary" art. And every single one of those subjects take on a different meaning of what "art" is. I can't exactly give a dictionary definition of art. I believe art is highly interpretive. I don't necessarily believe that art can be given a concrete definition. I believe everyone can have a different and their own definition of art.

To me, what art is, is purpose. I believe artists don't simply just "do," but rather create and have a view and meaning about their artwork. Art also must encompass aesthetic aspects. I would say art is a purposeful, crafted work with aesthetic.

I'm really open to the art field. I believe many things are a piece of art. A painting, a video game, even a computer I think is a work of art. There's a creator, and they have an end goal and purpose to the piece of art. It's rhythmic and technical put-together is a work of art to me, as it produces a working product that not only aids humans, but causes humans to think, challenge, create, and so much more.

My group and I agreed with Ernest Adams in the sense that art has to be "interactive, have content/a message, aesthetics, ideas, etc." (Adams) However, we also disagreed in his concrete answer. It's too black and white the way he puts limits on the video games as art. We believe that art is interpretive and can't have a clear definition, only to the one who is defining it.

Attached below is the YouTube link for my group's response; enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77eEFMkCu6o

To deepen my discussion further, I'll look at another definitions of art, not just Adam's. 

Leo Tolstoy, a highly famous philosopher, stated in an essay that "Art is beauty," (SAI). To further this, he said that art is "1) The individuality of the feeling transmitted. 2) It's clarity. and 3) The sincerity of the artist - ie, the the degree of force with which the artist feels the emotion he transmits," (SAI), 

I agree that art is beauty, or like I said, has an aesthetic. I don't think I can take any concrete object and say it has aesthetic. For example, I look at the white board in front of me right now in class and don't think that is art or has aesthetic. Sure, it's crafted, and has a purpose, and a "design" but not one that's art and that was contrived to be a piece of artwork.

He states that art is the individuality of the feeling transmitted. This I disagree with. I know that a lot of artwork transmits feelings, which is an aspect of art, not a definition, to me. Not all art to me transmits feelings. Like I said, a computer is a piece of art to me, but it doesn't transmit feelings. Art being clarity I also believe is an aspect, not a definition. Since I think so many objects and paintings and crafts and works of art as a whole are so differentiated, not all are clarity. Though I stated that art has purpose, sometimes it can be interpreted differently from the artist and the observer/user. To the user, it may not be as clear like to the artist and vice versa. And lastly, art is the sincerity of the artist I agree with to an extent. The sincerity to me is the meaning and purpose or emotion the artist wants to transmit or convey, but not every artwork may have an emotion. 

Now with using a philosopher's definition, my definition, and a scholar on digital games' definition, I want to focus on "are digital games art?" a little bit more. My answer is that yes, they are art. They (at least that I know of) have a purpose to the game, some sort of end goal, and they have aesthetics. They're digitally constructed and it takes a lot of effort to make them into a certain medium. No, not all may transmit emotion to the user or viewer, but does that not make it art? It was crafted and therefore to me is art. The fact that some games do comment on political or social issues or values like the game Postal gives it even more of a purpose, not just the shooting and the actual game, but the aim to make a satire of the events that went on. 

Works Cited:

"Art Essays: The Meaning of Art as Viewed by Various Philosophers." Society for Art of Imagination (SAI). Society for Art of Imagination, 1 Jan. 2007. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <http://www.artofimagination.org/Pages/ArtEss.html>.

Ernest W. Adams (2007) “Will Computer Games Ever Be a Legitimate Art Form?”. In Clarke and Mitchell (eds), Videogames and Art, 255-264.

Modern Times, Then and Now

1) How is new technology affecting the Charlie Chaplin character?
Technology is affecting the Charlie Chaplin character in a few ways. First of all, the new technology is making his character feel more powerful. He realizes after he goes crazy that the assembly line machine is so powerful and demanding, that when they turn it off, he turns it back on because he knows that they will run back and work on it instead of chasing him. So not only does the new technology make him more powerful in that sense, but it conveys the importance of the new technology itself. Secondly, the new technology affects his character in the sense that he is becoming more like a machine. His moves are quick, concise, and machine like. He even starts to do the wrench actions without working the assembly line. Lastly, the new technology is affecting the Charlie Chaplin character by making him more disobedient or in-tact in a sense. He doesn't listen to his boss or co-workers because he's preoccupied by the new technology and it changing him.

2) Is there any similarity between his experience with new technology and ours now?
There are a few similarities between Chaplin's experience with new technology and ours now. For example, the technology is very controlling of his life; he needs it for a job, similar to today as many need jobs with technology requirements. Also, it controls him because he goes crazy from the machine, and some people do in real life, or they imitate examples of technology. For example, his character chased the women around with the wrenches he used on the machine, likewise a mass killer killing from reenacting a video game. Lastly, the disobedience of his character to the boss/co-workers could be likewise children being so infatuated with new technology that they don't listen to their parents or teachers, etc.

3) Include a clip of the film in your post or screenshot

In figures one and two, we see Chaplin's character "going crazy" in a sense, or him becoming more like the machine and more disobedient.

In figure 3, we see Chaplin's character understanding the importance of new technology because he runs to turn it back on as he knows his co-workers will have to tend to the products on the machine and won't chase him.