Lecture: Digital Tech Culture

Digital tech culture has escalated faster and faster than anything. Accelerating more and more.

The media and the message has an interesting relationship. How does it improve it. How far can you push it. Can it reverse it. Does it make things obsolete. It brings so many possibilities. The ability to just undo something. It made type accessible to anyone and enhances learning.

The digital aesthetic draws a quick connotation.

The digital displays can't really take over. The visual message of analog symbols makes a quicker connection in our minds.

Tech will take over basically.

Tech is making us dependent. They are too clever and will kill us all.

Digital creates a disconnected world.

Anyone can do anything now. The digital world and Internet lets anyone be a creative practitioner. Anyone can make films. Meaning that there is so much more in terms of styles, cultures and opinions rather than just the mainstream media.

The digital revolution is the biggest step in human history.

Update on Focus of Quote

Since actually starting on my essay, I felt the need to change the direction I am taking my research. When I initially found my collection of sources, I must admit, I wasn't entirely clear on the task. I veered off into looking at media manipulation which, while I find interesting, simply wasn't very relevant to the task and to my own progression. I have therefore decided to look again at sources. I want to take this task and make it useful to me. I want to be able to say I really have learnt from it, not just completed it to get the grade. 

I love stories. I love writing stories. This is what I want to write about, and while my quote isn't directly about narrative, I believe that I can make it work in a way that I am already rather passionate about. I am planning to now look into the ways that stories translate from different delivery mediums and how some will not work in other mediums. I feel that this will be much more useful to me in being able to develop my story telling skills because I will take in mind the distribution media and tailor my narrative accordingly. 

Lecture: The History of Type

The history of type is quite an interesting topic. I have studied typography quite a lot in my last two years in sixth form and it was something that I liked the idea of but when I actually try to do it in practice, I don't feel I'm too great at it. I have looked into the history of it all before and I think it is rather intriguing to think about how language was created.

The first documented evidence of language and type is from approximately 3200 BC when glyph's were used as a way to symbolize items of trade. It was quite a long time later before they would start creating symbols used to describe other things. All languages must be negotiated and agreed upon by both parties for them to understand each other. The language mostly evolved through type as this is what is remembered and can be recovered. “The written word endured, the spoken word disappears” - Neil Postman. The way that these languages developed was also influenced by the method of delivery. For example, in places that were mass producing printed text, type became very clean cut and uniform whereas eastern texts tended to be more free flowing because they were done using brush strokes.

To be honest, I didn't really find this lecture as engaging or interesting as prior ones. I think this is because at least to me, I didn't think it was very exciting stuff. There was nothing that really made me think "Woah! That's cool". Nothing that really grabbed my total attention or made me think about something in a new way. I do like the idea of typography and I think some of the history of how the language was originally created was pretty interesting, but on the whole, I wasn't all that struck. Maybe because there wasn't really anything said in this lecture that had any relevance to me specifically as I am not overly interested in graphic animation.

Lecture: Visual Literacy

I found the ideas of this lecture rather interesting. I hadn't ever really thought about how these simple symbols can be interpreted in so many different ways just by changing certain small bits of context, but after this lecture I was really thinking about it quite a bit.

Visual literacy is the idea of having a vocabulary with our images. The idea that we can create a language of symbols. The example that really got me thinking was the one of the cross. A simple cross. This could mean quite a few things so if an 'X' symbol is placed next to this cross, it obviously becomes a plus sign. Whereas if it were to be changed to the colour green, it would be the first aid symbol. I really hadn't thought about this idea in any kind of depth before, but I find it incredibly interesting. 

The same thing worked with the toilet signs. Everyone recognizes the signs to toilets, even when other countries or buildings use different symbols to communicate the idea without words. Once we understand something, we can then really play with it and make it work to communicate something else. Pictures can be read just like words and they work across any language. The fact is that with these toilet signs, they are so simplistic, yet we all know what they mean.

This is even more interesting when we then think about different cultures as these can give new context to some things. An individuals own upbringing experiences could bring different meaning to a piece for them. 

Visual syntax essentially means the components that build up the symbols and images. The many elements that can affect the meaning. The combination of these parts collectively create context for the symbol.

Visual semantics is about how the symbol then fits into the external context of the people or the countries. The things like culture and tradition can give these different meanings. The syntax's are universal but semantics are the interpretation.

Seminar: 14th October 2016

After being introduced to the selection of quotes in last weeks seminar, I have then made my choice to use this one: 

• There is a basic principle that distinguishes a hot medium like radio from a cool one like the telephone, or a hot medium like the movie from a cool one like TV. A hot medium is one that extends one single sense in "high definition." High definition is the state of being well filled with data. A photograph is, visually, "high definition." A cartoon is "low definition," simply because very little visual information is provided.

I chose this because I am really interested in the idea of exploring the way in which people see and read different types of media. What really makes one better than another? Why is something mainstream? Why some people do still prefer something that would be classed as a cool media? I want to explore the creativity vs the business side of said medias. Why is animation seen as a children's media? And how can we fight back against that and show that animation is just as, if not more, intelligent and creative than some other, more mainstream medias.

This quote is from a man named Marshall McLuhan. This quote is from a book titled Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man from 1964. I intend to read through this book from the link above. Especially the first section as this is what is mainly linking to the ideas I am wanting to explore. Some of the recommended key terms from eStudio that I have researched in order to find the following sources are: hot mediums, cool mediums, high/low definition. "The medium is the massage", sense, data, mass media and media studies.

_____________________________________________________________________________

In this seminar we were also introduced to the ideas of deep structured animation genres. These are as follows...

Formal:

Different forms of animation. Styles. Influences. Experimentation. Theme. Types and techniques of animation. 

Deconstructive:

Revealing. 4th wall breaking. Steps out of it's own boundaries. It doesn't aim to be totally illusional. Usually for comic effect.

Political:

Animation used to sell a political message. Common misconception that animation is for kids so it hits hard.

Abstract:

Not necessarily a thing. Colour. Image. Movement.

Re-narration:

Film is much more locked into reality. Animation can do absolutely anything.

Paradigmatic:

Tropes. Clichés. Stereotypes.

Primal:

Really conveying emotion and feelings.

_____________________________________________________________________________

When finding books write down the: author, date, title, place, publisher, classification.

The sources I've found to research are:

LCA Library:

Pierre Sorlin, 1995 - Mass Media. London and New York, Routledge. 302.23

Lee Wilkins, 2008 - The Handbook of Mass Media Ethics. New York, Routledge. 302.23

Stephen Cavalier, 2011 - The World History of Animation. London, Aurum Press Ltd. 778.5347

Google Books:

Arthur Asa Berger, 2012 - Media and Society: A Critical Perspective. Rowman & Littlefield.

William Merrin, 2014 - Media Studies 2.0. Swansea, Routledge

Roger Silverstone, 2013 - Media and Morality. John Wiley & Sons. 

Google Scholar:

Lawrence K. Grossman, 1998 - The Death of Radio Reporting: Will TV Be Next? Columbia Journalism Review

Karl F. Cohen, 2004 - Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America. McFarland.

Asa Briggs & Peter Burke, 2009 - A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet. Polity.

Websites:

https://www.theguardian.com/media-network

http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/

http://history-of-animation.webflow.io/

JStor:

Terry Anderson, 1993 - Terrorism and Censorship: The Media in Chains. Journal of International Affairs Editorial Board http://www.jstor.org/stable/24357089?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Noël Carroll, 2001 - TV and Film: A Philosophical Perspective. University of Illinois Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3333768?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Other Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImaH51F4HBw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByBz_hTJwfk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9wFi2a9YJU

I am excited to start doing some real research from these sources over the coming weeks. I find all this very interesting.

Lecture: The History of the Image

The 20,000 non linear History Of The Image

Lascaux caves are the earliest evidence of man made image. No one knows what it is about.

Rothko wanted his pieces to feel like an abbis. Like space. Looming into void. Killed himself.

Galleries always make thing seem more important than they may be.

If the institution bigs up the art then they make it important and they really are the visual communicators by giving it power. We're told that it's powerful. Gift shops also add to the power from capitalism and consumerism.

Stalin banned modern expressionistic art and just wanted everyman art. Therefore restricting expression and patronising the people.

Communicating ideas can be powerful for political and social use. Art can be a weapon.

Links back because it's all about doing art without thinking. It links us all.

Image immortalised everything.

Power. Change the world