Debate: in progress: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
(Created page with " A group of four individuals have a ‘live debate’ set up as a traditional/political debate. Their words are taken directly from online debates. The viewer sees a group of...")
 
No edit summary
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:


A group of four individuals have a ‘live debate’ set up as a traditional/political debate. Their words are taken directly from online debates.  The viewer sees a group of four well-dressed individuals standing in front of a black screen, each behind a podium.  
A group of four individuals have a ‘live debate’ set up as a traditional/political debate. Their words are taken directly from online debates.  The viewer sees a group of four well-dressed individuals standing in front of a black screen, each behind a podium. <div>


'''RESEARCH QUESTIONS'''
• What is the archetypal structure of online debates? i.e. main structural points
• does each individual personify a particular rhetoric style or personality style that emerges online? i.e. the intellectual vs the troll Alternatively, characters are interchangeable – people wearing different masks online
• to what extent is the debate coferent?
• What you write about is the gap between the triangulated points
• What we remember – obscene, vivid = find that point
• what is the tone? Progress from banal to serious?


'''STRUCTURE OF ONLINE DEBATES'''
-non sequitors
-insulting
-absurd strawman
-sweeping statements
-Voice of reason is pedantic and always drowned out
-godwin’s law


'''PHRASING OF DEBATES'''
'''RESEARCH QUESTIONS''' <div>
-Bracketed phrases
• What is the archetypal structure of online debates? i.e. main structural points<div>
-run-on sentences
• does each individual personify a particular rhetoric style or personality style that emerges online? i.e. the intellectual vs the troll Alternatively, characters are interchangeable people wearing different masks online<div>
-CAPS yelling
• to what extent is the debate coferent?<div>
-noises
• What you write about is the gap between the triangulated points<div>
-words drawn ouuuut
• What we remember – obscene, vivid = find that point<div>
smh/lmao
• what is the tone? Progress from banal to serious?<div>
-colloquial pretention
<div><div>
emojis – bring it out – could lead to something very surreal


'''TOPICS'''
-chicken vs egg
-TV shows/film i.e. harry potter vs LOTR
-moonlanding
-vaccination/holistic medicine
-gun control
-climate change
-cultural appropriation
-BLM
-feminism
-holocaust


""NOTES""
'''STRUCTURE OF ONLINE DEBATES'''<div>
don’t ignore the context of online
-non sequitors<div>
– i.e. the silent majority watching entertained
-insulting<div>
- interaction of people that would never normally interact
-absurd strawman<div>
-wide location of speakers (maybe actors are in different locations)
-sweeping statements<div>
-Voice of reason is pedantic and always drowned out<div>
-godwin’s law<div>
<div><div>


play with different registers\bring out the uncanny\
-guy citing facts – present it as government film i.e. how person means to present it
-then you have 14-year-old girl yelling at the docs from her bedroom
-then the spammer redirects you to an unrelated site
-investing the sign with meaning (in reference to avatars, online personalities)
-purest manifestation of the mass (Baudrillard)
-the translation of personality as spectacle


need topics to ground it  - prevent questioning of topic
'''PHRASING OF DEBATES'''<div>
build mind of the character to be able to write a script
-Bracketed phrases<div>
physical displacement in real time
-run-on sentences<div>
Tino Seghal – performers speak to audience
-CAPS – yelling<div>
postponement
-noises<div>
-words drawn ouuuut<div>
smh/lmao<div>
-colloquial pretention<div>
emojis – bring it out – could lead to something very surreal<div>
<div><div>
 
 
'''TOPICS'''<div>
-chicken vs egg<div>
-TV shows/film i.e. harry potter vs LOTR<div>
-moonlanding<div>
-vaccination/holistic medicine<div>
-gun control<div>
-climate change<div>
-cultural appropriation<div>
-BLM<div>
-feminism<div>
-holocaust<div>
<div><div>
 
 
'''NOTES'''<div>
don’t ignore the context of online<div>
– i.e. the silent majority watching entertained<div>
- interaction of people that would never normally interact<div>
-wide location of speakers (maybe actors are in different locations)<div>
<div>
play with different registers\bring out the uncanny\<div>
-guy citing facts – present it as government film i.e. how person means to present it<div>
-then you have 14-year-old girl yelling at the docs from her bedroom<div>
-then the spammer redirects you to an unrelated site<div>
-investing the sign with meaning (in reference to avatars, online personalities)<div>
-purest manifestation of the mass (Baudrillard)<div>
-the translation of personality as spectacle<div>
<div>
need topics to ground it  - prevent questioning of topic<div>
build mind of the character to be able to write a script<div>
physical displacement in real time<div>
Tino Seghal – performers speak to audience<div>
postponement<div>
 
 
 
[[Gun Violence example]]
 
 
[[Debate screenshots]]

Latest revision as of 17:57, 8 December 2017

A group of four individuals have a ‘live debate’ set up as a traditional/political debate. Their words are taken directly from online debates. The viewer sees a group of four well-dressed individuals standing in front of a black screen, each behind a podium.


RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• What is the archetypal structure of online debates? i.e. main structural points
• does each individual personify a particular rhetoric style or personality style that emerges online? i.e. the intellectual vs the troll Alternatively, characters are interchangeable – people wearing different masks online
• to what extent is the debate coferent?
• What you write about is the gap between the triangulated points
• What we remember – obscene, vivid = find that point
• what is the tone? Progress from banal to serious?


STRUCTURE OF ONLINE DEBATES
-non sequitors
-insulting
-absurd strawman
-sweeping statements
-Voice of reason is pedantic and always drowned out
-godwin’s law


PHRASING OF DEBATES
-Bracketed phrases
-run-on sentences
-CAPS – yelling
-noises
-words drawn ouuuut
smh/lmao
-colloquial pretention
emojis – bring it out – could lead to something very surreal


TOPICS
-chicken vs egg
-TV shows/film i.e. harry potter vs LOTR
-moonlanding
-vaccination/holistic medicine
-gun control
-climate change
-cultural appropriation
-BLM
-feminism
-holocaust


NOTES
don’t ignore the context of online
– i.e. the silent majority watching entertained
- interaction of people that would never normally interact
-wide location of speakers (maybe actors are in different locations)
play with different registers\bring out the uncanny\
-guy citing facts – present it as government film i.e. how person means to present it
-then you have 14-year-old girl yelling at the docs from her bedroom
-then the spammer redirects you to an unrelated site
-investing the sign with meaning (in reference to avatars, online personalities)
-purest manifestation of the mass (Baudrillard)
-the translation of personality as spectacle
need topics to ground it - prevent questioning of topic
build mind of the character to be able to write a script
physical displacement in real time
Tino Seghal – performers speak to audience