User:Emily/20151203: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Steve's suggestions: | |||
*outline your work at the start, what, why, how, | |||
*the motivation for this is the '''hybrid objects'''. | |||
*How did the hybrid objects come about? | |||
*this has led me to an interest in... [in what?] | |||
*what is your work doing, what did you do to make your work? | |||
To Do List: | |||
*what chioces did you make? | |||
*why did you make them? | |||
*Take three works(tenant, shining, lighter) | |||
*describe how you made them | |||
*and discuss why you made the choices you did | |||
*how do these choices relate to the work you want to make? | |||
*To answer the questions above and also sort myself out | |||
For the first year I had mainly worked with video assemblage based on cinema materials. At the same time I also look at works from [User:Emily/NOTES for Own Research & Resource 04|Robert Ochshorn], more technically and visually display video works. For the second year, I started to gathering footages online from news media, surveillance footage, Youtube, etc., and also consider how video re-assemblage can shape our ways of watching.<br> | |||
The reason why I make them is because I take the role as an active viewer as when I made The Tenant and The Shining as well as when I was proposing the MacGuffin. As an active viewer, I try to highlight the attractive features I saw in the material but not contains in original linear narrative. In the later phase, I shift to look at footage not only from cinema which are well refined but also from worldwide web and question how we see things through other people's eyes, how could I provide cinematic visualization for data online. <br> | |||
In The Tenant and The Shining, I see potential of oscillation in those long shot, both because of the suspensions that long shots hold and also because of our limited store for fast memory. Based on my understanding of the grant narration, I come up with the reversed shots shown together with original footage. It may sounds tautology with two identical content, but our eyes actually perceive an third understanding. This is so attracting in the multi-linear sequences. <br> | |||
Then considering about watching videos online, the experience bears similarities for me. I am the kind of person who would open several video windows, at times I would just adjust their volume but watching at least two images simultaneously, sort of doing live montage perceiving information in a mode that one plus one is more than two. So for the work I want to make is a hybrid mode of watching, and I want to create my watching interface to investigate how I could watch through other's eyes; how I information are mediated when I re-assemblage them. <br> | |||
<!-- | |||
In my graduation project, hybrid objects namely, firearm|camera obejcts, will be made (physically). They are not defined as their functions but symbols reflecting serveral (mis)recognised situations. Together there are stories and a video will be presented as well showing in what scenarios they have been made. Both the objects and the stories are half fiction, half real. With the thesis on my project ("name is coming up"), I will exemplify the linkage between cameras and firearms both technically and culturally which inform me to make these hybrid objects. Then walk through how and why I made these objects together with hybrid stories. In all the thesis will be my project report and explain that those objects function as symbols in my video and formulate the non-linear video. | |||
====The Body of the text==== | |||
:explain the linkage of cameras and firearms both historically and technically. | |||
:Go through my examples/objects (as listed below still in refinement of raw material). | |||
:The report is about my creation inspired by social phenomenon and myth, which is a hypothesis but without informing spectators. | |||
====Conclusion==== | |||
To make my question more clearly, and then think about this | |||
---- | |||
One question or issue | One question or issue | ||
:To investigating not a subject but a question -> how we produce semiotic objects(specific as below) and how they function in mediated discourse. | :To investigating not a subject but a question -> how we produce semiotic objects(specific as below) and how they function in mediated discourse. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 45: | ||
:History linkage of cameras and firearms both technically and culturally. | :History linkage of cameras and firearms both technically and culturally. | ||
:Contemporary examples and the emergence of this social semiotic. | :Contemporary examples and the emergence of this social semiotic. | ||
:The thesis will be a project report walking through the stories via objects. | :The thesis will be a project report walking through the stories via objects that I make. | ||
Bibliography & Articles: | Bibliography & Articles: | ||
| Line 42: | Line 75: | ||
::1968 Saigon Execution photographed by Eddie Adams, he writed "Two people died in that photograph: the recipient of the bullet and GENERAL NGUYEN NGOC LOAN. The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapons in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. ... What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?'.... This picture really messed up his life. He never blamed me. He told me if I hadn't taken the picture, someone else would have, but I've felt bad for him and his family for a long time. ... I sent flowers when I heard that he had died and wrote, "I'm sorry. There are tears in my eyes." | ::1968 Saigon Execution photographed by Eddie Adams, he writed "Two people died in that photograph: the recipient of the bullet and GENERAL NGUYEN NGOC LOAN. The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapons in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. ... What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?'.... This picture really messed up his life. He never blamed me. He told me if I hadn't taken the picture, someone else would have, but I've felt bad for him and his family for a long time. ... I sent flowers when I heard that he had died and wrote, "I'm sorry. There are tears in my eyes." | ||
:More footage | |||
::ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS (1985) - Bang! You're Dead! http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvikc3_alfred-hitchcock-presents-1985-bang-you-re-dead_creation | |||
--> | |||
Latest revision as of 01:44, 16 January 2016
Steve's suggestions:
- outline your work at the start, what, why, how,
- the motivation for this is the hybrid objects.
- How did the hybrid objects come about?
- this has led me to an interest in... [in what?]
- what is your work doing, what did you do to make your work?
To Do List:
- what chioces did you make?
- why did you make them?
- Take three works(tenant, shining, lighter)
- describe how you made them
- and discuss why you made the choices you did
- how do these choices relate to the work you want to make?
- To answer the questions above and also sort myself out
For the first year I had mainly worked with video assemblage based on cinema materials. At the same time I also look at works from [User:Emily/NOTES for Own Research & Resource 04|Robert Ochshorn], more technically and visually display video works. For the second year, I started to gathering footages online from news media, surveillance footage, Youtube, etc., and also consider how video re-assemblage can shape our ways of watching.
The reason why I make them is because I take the role as an active viewer as when I made The Tenant and The Shining as well as when I was proposing the MacGuffin. As an active viewer, I try to highlight the attractive features I saw in the material but not contains in original linear narrative. In the later phase, I shift to look at footage not only from cinema which are well refined but also from worldwide web and question how we see things through other people's eyes, how could I provide cinematic visualization for data online.
In The Tenant and The Shining, I see potential of oscillation in those long shot, both because of the suspensions that long shots hold and also because of our limited store for fast memory. Based on my understanding of the grant narration, I come up with the reversed shots shown together with original footage. It may sounds tautology with two identical content, but our eyes actually perceive an third understanding. This is so attracting in the multi-linear sequences.
Then considering about watching videos online, the experience bears similarities for me. I am the kind of person who would open several video windows, at times I would just adjust their volume but watching at least two images simultaneously, sort of doing live montage perceiving information in a mode that one plus one is more than two. So for the work I want to make is a hybrid mode of watching, and I want to create my watching interface to investigate how I could watch through other's eyes; how I information are mediated when I re-assemblage them.