Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
notes on "notes on the film" -- Kairos 15.1 (Inventio)
Transcript of notes on "notes on the film" -- Kairos 15.1 (Inventio)
or my supermetachat on an already metachatty look @ my short documentary, "i'm like ... professional"
In my recent Kairos publication, "'i'm like, ... professional': notes on the film," I created a visual ecology that might get after both the baseline experiential nature and affective intensity of . In "notes on the film," I framed the discussion by creating nodes that characterize some of the conventional encounters one experiences in the context of a film festival. Key nodes offer information regarding the film's running time and director identification; an introduction, press materials (related web presence and backstory), and a q & a. Finally, there are bonus features, self-promotionally forecasting a DVD release.
The term "film-composition" emerges from a larger project I have been developing coterminous with my work in DIYdigital filmmaking. The hyphenated term recalls Robert Connors' (1997) linkage of "Rhetoric" and "Composition" -- in COMPOSITION-RHETORIC: BACKGROUNDS, THEORY, AND PEDAGOGY -- a gesture that wanted to infuse college and university-level writing instruction (composition) with an appreciably sophisticated historical body of knowledge that might both elevate the work of composition and provide it with a more rigorous disciplinary history/identity as it perhaps took up the linkage.
affect-laden (see MIT Media Lab:
embodied (and) posthuman
immersive, distributed aesthetics
institutional(ized) and/vs. D.I.Y
"navigable space" (Manovich, 2004,
animated/animating (Manovich, 2004)
desire ("desire is the bait") (Lynch, 2008)
manifesto'ed (via M. Dot Strange)
not simple and indivduated but a shared, mutual desire OR "we have the best crew!"
I sense the need to both fancy up this discussion and to share the associations that woke me at 5:00 a.m. this morning, wispy tangents that teased me out of sleep. Fortunately, after coffee, these theoretical discourses seem relevant to explaining how I did what I did and why. For as I have been developing my work in digital filmmaking, I have been reading and studying film theory through a variety of sources. Waking this morning, I was thinking about the rhetorical choice of the film festival frame (from "notes"). Speaking from the position of a resistant institutional writer, I recall finding palpable inspiration in Gilles Deleuze's (1986) CINEMA 1: THE MOVEMENT IMAGE, especially as he argues that "... the screen, as the frame of frames, gives a common standard of measurement to things which do not have one" (p. 14), so the act of framing a discussion possessive of such multivectoring potential benefits from the seeming limitations of framing. For someone like myself, disposed to resist convention, I was especially intrigued by the potential I found in a venue such as prezi, as with the animated cinematic frame, which enables seemingly infinite choices regarding movement in and around an idea. My affection for prezi is, then, unsurprisingly related to an ability to move in what seem like "free" vectors of potential. , a conceptual cornerstone of cinematic meaning. , a central, enabling component of the metier of my longstanding affection, as well as the desired outcome of any good-faith rhetorical effort.
the frame: movement
the official line =
here, you will find a trace to the inspiration for my documentary's title, "i'm like ... professional." i neglected to mention this debt in "notes on the film," the kairos "topoi" publication. so but yes, DIY practices are not invulnerable to criticism re: The Usual Suspects ...
animating features ...
in opposition to all of this alleged "freedom,"
contrast chion (1994), who argues the frame as
territorializing because of its ocularist bias
w/r/t sound. also, Chion's emphasis upon
the necessary "added-value" of sound w/image.
see also chion's "syncrhesis." cinema as
"vococentric" or "verbocentric" (p. 5). really?
(note my resistance, but then, my experience,
which always begins w/ an audio track). or, as chion
has it, the necessity of "the audiovisual contract"
that obtains despite his assertion that "visual and
auditory perception are of much more disparate
natures than one might think" (9). the contrasts
generate productive tensions (?) even as
they articulate coherent a.v. experience.
my first docmentary materialized [from my] desire. but also ...
my sense that i *could* make a film at all, my exigence ... was enhanced when i first heard the (then) not terribly popular JEM track, "they." musically and thematically, the track resonated the themes of my documentary, "proposition 1984." I was quickly high on sound and my sense that it possessed the ability to activate
a critical, desiring rhetorical sensitivity, as well as to
enable a way of seeing. ala
chion's (1994) "ear that is
in the eye" (p. 135)??
as w/ "i'm like ... professional"
In the midst of various mid-life "decisions," I had been reading a good bit of self-help literature, and everything told me to be 100% honest as a first step. Now, honesty should not be difficult, but my awareness of how our discipline perceives and practices "rhetorical awareness" had long confused me w/r/t "honesty." That is to say, the lines between "rhetorically strategic" and "dishonest" have often been difficult for me to negotiate; these concerns have always informed my professional concerns, regarding, for example, the roles of the personal in first-year writing classrooms. Interestingly, the documentary work I explore in "i'm like ... professional" may be categorized as "personal cinema." In fact, M Dot Strange's WE ARE THE STRANGE, the main film profiled in "i'm like ... professional" is, in particular, referred to in these terms (see the VARIETY comment from John Anderson, which you will find @ 4:49 in the film). Apparently, not only should we write what we know; we cannot help but write what we know.
[aka "rhetorically questionable"] first lines for pargraph #2
yes and but one might easily argue that the page or the paragraph carries the same potential. but the cinematic frame -- the frame a filmmaker designs -- enables more complexly affective animation of one's rhetorical purpose, it seems to me.
see also Walter Murch's (1994) oft-cited comment
on the "stolen" primacy of Sight over Sound --
oh hell, allow me to recreate it, here:
We begin to hear before we are born,
four and a half months after conception.
From then on, we develop in a continuous
and luxurious bath of sounds: the song of
our mother's voice, the swash of her breathing,
the trumpeting of her intestines, the tympani of
her heart. Throughout the second four-and-a-half
months, Sound rules as solitary Queen of our
senses: the close and liquid world of uterine
darkness makes Sight and Smell impossible,
Taste monochromatic, and Touch a dim and
generalized hint of what is to come.
Birth brings with it the sudden and simultaneous
ignition of the other four senses, and an intense
competition for the throne that Sound had claimed
as hers. The most notable pretender is the darting
and insistent Sight, who dubs himself King as if the
throne had been standing vacant, waiting for him.
Ever discrete, Sound pulls a veil of oblivion across
her reign and withdraws into the shadows, keeping
a watchful eye on the braggart Sight. If she gives
up her thrown, it is doubtful that she gives up her
crown. [sic] (1994, p. vii-viii)
I didn't want to write about it. I didn't want to talk about it. I want(ed) the film to be The Thing, the live screening as rhetorical act and artifact, situated within a venue of smart and appreciative audience members who would comprehend and enjoy absent my contextualizing discourse, without me tarting it all up. This desire is certainly about my hope regarding the text's aesthetic, pleasure-inducing, and rhetorical merits. Of course I was and am equally invested in performance, in delivery, in the live scene of articulation. But then, in our field, in academia, publications matter, and I was afforded an opportunity to publish the film. And so despite my sense that the screening had been The Thing, I agreed, feeling only slightly unfaithful to what felt like my worthwhile intentions.
Jon McKenzie's "The Liminal Norm" whispers persuasively on the value and complexity of The Performance as sufficient. He identifies a first wave of Performance Studies with embodied social experiences of performance that "instantiate [its] transformative power." A second wave, argues McKenzie, involves "mediated encounters, parodic appropriations, bodies constructed by and through discourse." Between the two waves is "the challenge of efficacy" which "turns itself outside in: from transgressing a totalitarian power from an outside site to resisting hegemonic power from within that very power arrangement," (p. 26), all of which are American dreams or at least partially descriptive of the desire of cultural studies composition.
the liminoid nature
of the live screening
For "notes on the film," I wanted to create an audio-visual ecology that would animate the mulitvalent experience of DIY filmmaking. Working in Prezi enabled me to capture the affective intensity of the work, the tendency to sense oneself vortexing out but at the same time to contextualize with enabling new media tools. Yes, "enable" may seem an unfortunately critical term, and yet, I see it as complexly appropriate for describing the giddy and liberating communicative joy of working in digital filmmaking, in Prezi, in filmmakng communities, and within the generous context of Kairos. All of the above lead me to sidebar into a term that resonates with these recent experiences; and although the term "techno-ecology" isn't likely to require explication, I am happily re-entering its orbit after much time "away," and so I want to list a few of its animating features as a way of honoring it and supporting my claims regarding the intense and engaging value of DIY digital filmmaking, the Kairos community, and Prezi-as-enabling-new-media-tool.
... plagiarism (yawn); sloppy citation (ok),
the Keyser Söze of academic writing
instruction, yes. but you must know that
i had cleared using the term with Strange;
sometimes, the familiarity and camaraderie
of working within a DIY ecology perhaps
contributes to these ostensibly "criminal"
notes for the book ... please to ignore.
or indulge. whatever moves you.
Bartelm, E. (2005). Reshaping spectatorship: immersive and
distributed aesthetics. FIBRECULTURE 7. Retrieved
June 30, 2010 from
Chion, M. (1994). AUDIO-VISION: SOUND ON SCREEN.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Daft Punk. (1996). Around the world. Gondry, M. & Jonze, S.
(Dirs.). Retrieved April 17, 2010 from
Deleuze, G. (1986). CINEMA 1: THE MOVEMENT-IMAGE.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Fadde, P. & Sullivan, P. (2009). Video for the rest of us?
Toward sustainable processes for incorporating video into
multimedia composition. In D. Selfe, D. N. DeVoss, and H.
McKee (Eds.) TECHNOLOGICAL ECOLOGIES &
SUSTAINABILITY. Retrieved June 30, 2010 from
Ganley, B. (2009). Ecotones and crossroads: Reimagining the
spaces of learning in an in-between time. Computers &
Writing Conference. UC Davis. Davis, CA. 19 June.
Hayles, N. K. (1999). HOW WE BECAME POSTHUMAN:
VIRTUAL BODIES IN CYBERNETICS, LITERATURE,
AND INFORMATICS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
kyburz, b. l. (2010). i'm like ... professional. Kairos 14.2.
Retrieved June 30, 2010 from
LCD Soundsystem (2005). Daft punk is playing at my house.
Retrieved April 17, 2010 from
Lynch, D. (2008). CATCHING THE BIG FISH: MEDITATION,
CONSCIOUSNESS, AND CREATIVITY. New York:
Manovich, L. (2002). THE LANGUAGE OF NEW MEDIA.
Retrieved June 28, 2010 from
McKenzie, J. (2004). The liminal-norm. In H. Bial (Ed.) THE
PERFORMANCE STUDIES READER (pp. 26-31). New
MIT Media Labs: Affective Computing. Retrieved April 16,
Rage against the machine. (1992). Know your enemy.
Retrieved April 17, 2010 from
Selfe, D., D. N. DeVoss, & H. McKee. (2009). Collectives,
common worlds, and the idea of sustainability: An
introduction. In D. Selfe, D. N. DeVoss, and H.
McKee (Eds.) TECHNOLOGICAL ECOLOGIES &
SUSTAINABILITY. Retrieved June 30, 2010 from
Spinoza, B. THE ETHICS. (1883). Trans Elwes, R.H.M. MTSU
Philosophy WebWorks Hypertext Edition © 1997. Retrieved
June 29, 2010 from
Warhol, A. (1964). EMPIRE (film). Retrieved June 29, 2010,
Weisinger, H. (1948). The motion picture and the teaching of
english. COLLEGE ENGLISH, 9.5, 270-275.
Wise, J.H. (1939). The comprehensive freshman english course
-- reading, speaking, and writing -- at the University of
Florida. ENGLISH JOURNAL, 28, 450-460. Republished in
(1953). COLLEGE COMPOSITON AND
COMMUNICATION, 4.4, 131-135.
reflections on form and content:
Shaping the Webtext and/as Transcending Resistance
Here, I want to reflect upon my decision to use Prezi as a tool for approximating movement, spatial relations, and how the tools available in this venue helped me to dismiss my initial resistance to writing about the film instead of simply publishing the film as the rhetoric, as the argument.
I was advised to remove these arrows because they are not active links. However, after explaining, I was encouraged to keep them but to ... explain. My intention with the hand drawn arrows is to foreground the ways in which Prezi (like many webtexts) *seems* to enable us to move "freely" through a text even as most of us use Prezi by inputting a preset path. The arrows are my attempt at irony from a metacritical perspective; even as I use Prezi in conventional ways, I want to mark these conventions for reflection (hand-drawn though they are, they are still directional arrows = conventional). It is a way of saying, "I'm in, but look at how funny this really is." And then, it also highlights the DIY issues I'm promoting; I intentionally avoid the Prezi-designed arrows.
So but I decided to posse up and write it out because if DIY filmmaking had a chance of making it in the academic context of composition, it needed to articulate itself from within sites of its emergence and circulation. It needed to perform its informing logic in its generic, albeit dynamic terms. Prezi helped me to create a series of dynamic tensions that describe the process of DIY digital filmmaking as well as the festival experience (where one often experiences DIY films).
enabling cinematic tools
invention and dynamic aesthetics
So but beyond my giddy high regarding moving arguments, I was also somewhat concerned about how the festival frame might read. I worried that it might limit my potential to promote film-composition -- the institutional (academic) discussion of DIY (Do It Yourself) filmmaking -- because of how it situates itself beyond the academy. Nevertheless, I imagined and continue to hope that situating the film in its (fake) authentic context resonates more fully the potential of film-composition to engage us, to engage us with our students in work that matters both within the academy and without. As well, creating a flexible context for talking about film-composition suggests its productively interdisciplinary nature.
How will we, in film-composition, come to value both the content as well as the forms of student expression and argument in the lavishly multimodal present? In what sorts of venues will our work generate the kinds of affective intensity we experience in pleasurable movement? What sorts of scholarly and pedagogical projects will engage us most (fake) authentically in the complex present? It seems to me that these sorts of questions are vital for composition today.
One quick answer -- we know -- is that dynamic, multi-track texts (seem to) rule.
Speaking of trying and doing, I want you to know this: I did not want to explain the image above, but Inventio editor Madeleine Sorapure encouraged me to do so. And while I was initially pained to follow this lead because it wants more rather than fewer words, here goes: I have been arguing for some time that we are overly verbose in rendering our arguments, arguments that might be better actualized with *fewer* words and perhaps a carefully selected image, video, or other hybrid, multimodal form. This image says much of what I want to say about multimodality, teaching, freedom, and more. I used the image above in a short film I screened at The 20th Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and Composition: Rhetoric and Technologies, 2007. For the conference, the film's title was "Beyond Words (On a Page)", but more familiar to me is the title "Remove to Dispense," because this title foregrounds a shifting sensibility that seems necessary for certain kinds of arguments (i.e, filmic) to gain academic validity.
My first impulse was to simply send it, but I was encouraged to write about it, as well. I had discussed the possibility of publishing the film itself, alone, in the "Disputatio" section of Kairos, but editor Cheryl Ball suggested that she envisioned the work as a "rich, ripe 'Topoi' piece," perhaps intuiting that what seemed so obvious to me may be more valuable and circulate productively if/when rendered in a more conventional rhetorical scheme (written discourse). Who could dismiss such encouragement? Not me. And but so ... what of my earnest desire for the sufficiency of the film's performative efficacy? This desire is vital; it yearns for us to draw more from Performance Studies.
So despite all this aching and yearning for something new, something minimal and precious, the reflective opportunity of this writing has been generative, both enabling the film's perpetuation and complicating the originary concept regarding the sufficient rhetorical efficacy of the performance. In fact, writing about film even as one engages complexly in the act of filmmaking seems to enable a form of critical reflection and shiveringly intense rhetorical awareness that makes so promising for rhetoric and composition, for the work of teaching writing, composing, and design in increasingly multimodal processes of text production.
But McKenzie disrupts the familiar narrative; he clarifies that despite the ways in which certainty often bullies its way into projects informed by such desires, ambiguity is The Way. That is, McKenzie affords that above all other animating concepts, "liminality remains one of the most frequently cited attributions of performance efficacy" (p. 26). McKenzie calls upon Marvin Carlson's formulation to move the concept along:
[Performance] is a specific event with its liminoid nature
foregrounded, almost invariably clearly separated from the
rest of life, presented by performers and attended by audiences
both of whom regard the experience as made up of material to be
interpreted, to be reflected upon, to be engaged in -- emotionally,
mentally, and perhaps even physically. This particular sense of
occasion and focus as well as the overarching social envelope
combine with the physicality of theatrical performance [perhaps a
live screening?] to make it one of the most powerful and
efficacious procedures that human society has developed for the
endlessly fascinating process of cultural and personal self-
reflexion and experimentation (as cited in McKenzie,
2004. p. 27)
With McKenzie's notion and Carlson's elaboration of performance efficacy in mind, I reflect upon my desire that the film be The Thing. I want you to understand how it felt to be there, having made this thing and to experience the response of the audience, but words will likely fail me. But so, trying ... I recall the first 3 minutes of the CCCC's screening of "i'm like ... professional" in San Francisco, 2009. I recall the heartshaking joy of recognition: they were laughing. They were laughing at what I'd intended as humor. They laughed at the slightest provocation. They seemed to read the critical edge, the tensions, the parody, as well as the academic self-scrutiny along with the criticisms implied in the exploration of high/low, academic/popular, and so on. NOTHING will ever replace those 3 minutes. N-o-t-h-i-n-g. So there's that. What we do with that, I don't know.
I am here writing, again, about this Thing, this performance, this rhetorical moment and its performative efficacy, and I worry that the writing may saturate the memory, diminish the vibe. To some extent, this has already happened. Yet, vectoring alternatively, I am grateful for the opportunity to express these sentiments and what they may mean for what we are doing and where we are headed in terms of literacy, what counts as academic rhetoric, and what works to move us, our students, our constituents, and our ideas.
I first encountered Prezi at the 2009 Computers and Writing Conference, where the now-infamous Barbara Ganley Prezi gained noteriety for its audience "issues." I had been struggling with Ganley's seeming naivete regarding her audience, but at the same time I found Prezi shiny and magical, and I could not wait to use it myself.
For "notes on the film," I discovered Prezi's special nature; it generated my ability to approximate how a person experiences or moves, in this case, through a festival, how a patron moves through a festival's textual artifacts (a film guide), as well as more clearly embodied experience, like a film screening (intro, q&a). This capacity evolved for me a giddy and liberating sense of potential, similar, perhaps to the potential for making an argument cinematically, say, via digital filmmaking. Thus, my earlier resistance seemed completely (instead of only partially, instead of merely "you have a chance to publish this") foolish. I had some reservations about how one might publish the Prezi, but I proceeded to present the idea to Kairos editor Cheryl Ball, and she assured me that we could figure out how to publish the Prezi (we did, with the aid members of the Kairos editorial team, Stephanie Vie and Doug Eyman).
In the case of "notes on the film," I sought to capture the tensions that exist between institutionally privileged modes (the film festival as primary venue for promotion and distribution-seeking) and acts of self-promotion that often happen at the edge of the frame, teasing convention in ways that provoke critical reflection upon what convention both enables and disallows. It wasn't difficult to follow M Dot Strange's lead on these matters. In fact, my initial interest in his work was all about the fringe experience and the promises of working at the boundaries of convention. Digital filmmaking and DIY practices were clearly working and succeeding at both ("success" here is measured in terms of fan appreciation, strength of affective intensity associated with the work, DVDs sales, "buzzworthiness," and more).
But there's more. You see, while I do use presets to suggest how a reader might navigate the webtext, I also provide "asides" (leftover from my love of the often snarky parenthetical aside of the Personal Essay, a form that can, when done well, create a delightful hybrid but one that is often maligned in composition). So but I use the "subversive" arrow also in what might be considered fairly un-sexy ways. I create an aside, but it is often also a marker for myself as a writer, as well as a hidden rabbit I leave for readers who may vibe out with what I am intimating and contact me, confirming, challenging, or productively assisting me in elaborating on a hunch. And so because these asides are literally asides, I don't want to take the reader too far out of the preset path; I place them just within reach of the node, suggesting that one may move slightly aside in order to see a bit more. Again, perhaps, I want to create desire as a way of sustaining my own desire to explore expansively. More simply, I want to generate cinematic desire because of the nature of my own desire. As Spinoza rightly explains, desire is in many ways about perpetuating desire, a kind of striving that helps us to maintain critical awareness, consciousness; thus, desire is essential to being (Ethics, Part III). And now, I have worked out that my resistance to convention -- which is in many ways conformity (they *are* arrows, after all) -- is not resistance, after all, but a part of being (thus, conventional?). Nothing to see here, folks ...
How does this relate to the film or film-composition or "i'm like ... professional"? I see it as a continuing reflective gesture that helps us appreciate how multimodal work animates critical reflection and heightens critical sensibilities. I might here also note that after the live screening of the film, I reflected upon just how strongly I did not want to use title cards or text in the film but that the text (although very minimal) had "magically" cooperated with sound and image in ways that generated the positive audience response. As I left the screening, I laughed at just how I had resisted the move that ultimately signaled my complicity with genre conventions. I think I'm so punk (ha!). But so I realized that my resistance created space for potential, for even as I knew I would have to default to certain conventions, resistance vibrated liminally with pleasure.
How is this relevant to my desire for the self-sufficiency of "i'm like ... professional" and my decision to elaborate on the film in both "notes on the film" as well as in this process piece? Again (I will say this frequently), the *desire* for this self-sufficiency seems productively to inform my aesthetic and rhetorical choices even as it liberates me from focusing too much attention on the academic, institutional nature of my audience. Such a stance seems to countermand the familiar instruction regarding how we must "know" (as if this were ever truly possible) and craft our work specifically for a particular audience. Most of us know that some students happily attempt to plug into this kind of instruction while others resist it (often with very good reason) despite knowing the potential consequences (i.e., poor grades). Such instruction seems to compromise too much, for me, particularly in the context of emergent literacies where new forms and methods complicate our allegiance to comfort or certainty and instead beg for ambiguity and simple efforts at trying, at doing.
More specifically, the image is a cellphone picture of a cardboard tab, the kind used to hold toilet protector sheets in their sleeves. In 2007, while at the MoMA and immediately following 1/2 hour of watching Warhol's film, "Empire," I went to the bathroom and found the tab on the floor in front of me. There were many of these scattered about, clearly from a day of "heavy use" in the Ladies' room, but this one was aligned so perfectly in front of me -- and I had just watched the Warhol, Warhol who is master of rendering art from the everyday -- and I picked it up, assured that my aesthetic sensitivities were *correct* or at least valuable. The film that I made, "Remove to Dispense" was about using images and very few words to argue for the value of multimodal text production that might make magic of our everyday (personal) desires and concerns. Warhol's film fell into the minimalist mode I most enjoy; it was a production *of that kind*, not overly verbose. And so as I reflected happily on my work, Warhol had it far better: 8 hours of a shot of the Empire State Building at night, as if to say, "What do YOU think?" Argument as invitation to contemplation, as emergence. V cool.
The term "film-composition" is designed similarly to link our longstanding desires to find ways of working with film and other multimodal texts and their production as valid work appropriate for composition classrooms. My research reveals early expressions of this desire as far back as 1939, when J. Hooper Wise (1939/1953) argued that, beyond Literature, both movies and television were appropriate classroom content (p. 131). Wise simply articulated what seemed possible, but in the 1948 COLLEGE ENGLISH article, "The Motion Picture and the Teaching of English," Herbert Weisinger (1948) "plead[s]" (p. 270) his case, full of illogical but lovable affect. My work in film-composition -- as filmmaker, compositionist, and rhetorical theorist -- validates and attempts to "complete" many of these early arguments via experience, reflection, and the integration of contemporary theories of affect, composition, film, and rhetoric.
In other words film-composition is a project designed to imagine digital filmmaking in composition as valid rhetorical work, as end-text rather than merely as activity aimed at the production of print texts *about* the process(es) of generating a digital film or other multimodal text. This sort of critique is important for film-composition because of the DIY filmmaker's desire to render meanings with the tools afforded by film and its conventions (as well as its subversions), possibly absent institutional support or validation. And because these conventions are nearly constantly shifting -- certain moves flowing in and out of both academic and popular consciousness -- we need to participate in film production in ways that sensitize us to the desire for and manifestation of these shifts. Just as in 1948, presently, our conventional academic training in "what counts" as a "rhetorical move" of some value is challenged in dynamic and promising ways by the animating affects of film and film-composition. This feels both dire vital.
Right now. Like this ...
Perhaps it was the very conventional act of reading a canonized scholar, Deleuze, in the context of producing the film and its visual ecology that compelled me to further embrace rhetorical conventions regarding the frame. In other words, contextualizing a potentially vast exploration on cinematic production, meaning, and value within a visual ecology capable of approximating the dizzying film festival experience and its affects created both limitations and a sense of vast uncertainty. Thus, my rhetorical choices were guided by the situation of my academic *and* extra-academic experience, transcending the perceived boundaries between my professional and personal lives in ways that felt liberating, in particular because of my growing awareness of Deleuzian concepts of cinema and in particular his contention that "the frame ensures a deterritorialisation of the image" (p. 15). So despite my initial disinclination to write *about* the film, the framing and movement potential in Prezi revised my disposition. At the very least, I sense that writing in prezi aids me in successfully vibing out around/near/within the animating concepts you've come here to explore. If nothing else, i will certainly hope to entertain you (it's related. trust). enjoy ... and contemplate, if you must ...
"Affective Computing is computing that
relates to, arises from, or deliberately
influences emotion or other affective
phenomenon" -- MIT Media Lab
"embodiment makes clear that thought is a much broader cognitive function depending for its specificities on the embodied form enacting it. This realization, with all its exfoliating implications, is so broad in its effects and so deep in its consequences that it is transforming the liberal subject, regarded as the model of the human since the Enlightenment, into the posthuman" (Hayles, 1999).
"The complexity of teaching and creating video
can be simplified ... by focusing on one or a few
components in a limited production process"
(Fadde and Sullivan, 2009)
"On the surface, discourses of immersive aesthetics and distributed aesthetics may appear incongruous. The terms evoke different media, creative processes and modes of audience engagement. On one side stands the ideal of immersive aesthetics in Virtual Reality (VR) art and screen-based installation. On the other side, shimmers the fluid ideal of distributed and dispersed aesthetics that circulate around discourses of net.art. Distributed aesthetics implies creative modes of operating in, and experiencing, the spatial and temporal flows of information networks. While there are differences between these aesthetic forms and experiences, immersive and distributed aesthetics also share similar interests in transforming and extending notions of the body and perception through technological mediation" (Bartelm, 2005).
see "i'm like professional ... notes on the film"
"... navigable space is another key form
of new media. It is already an accepted
way for interacting with any type of data;
an interface of computer games and motion
simulators and, potentially, of any computer
in general" (Manovich, 2004, p. 219)
"Perhaps one of our central motivations in this effort
is recognizing that the language we use is not necessarily
our own" (Selfe, DeVoss, and McKee, 2009)