If you haven't seeen this already...

Hi everyone,

I hope your break went well. If you haven't heard about Justin TV yet, you should check this out. It's basically a guy who's strapped a camera to his head in order to stream his life 24/7 over the internet. You can text message him and chat live with other "spectators." He's in San Francisco now, so a lot of local blogs have been talking about it. Laughing Squid has provided good coverage here, here and here, and someone has even created a Justin TV Guide.

The whole phenomenon seems to bring up a lot of issues around temporality and real time which we talked about in relation to the Virilio articles.

I'd be interested to hear what people think.

Brainstorming

Here are some helpful tips on brainstorming your final research paper topic:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/brainstorming.html

The Verisimilitude Problem

Timecode is one of the few films I can think of that truly attempts to tackle the problem of realistic representation. It does this in three ways, none of which are announced until the end of the film. First, it gives four different perspectives of the same basic space. The quandrants don't simply follow a single character around. They are slightly more dynamic-- a character can change quadrants or be in more than one at the same time. This gives the illusion of uncontrived observation; that is, in a fiction film, multiple dynamic perspectives are basically inconceivable. The second motif is that of a continuous shot. The cameras are more "natural" than those in most films because they are bound by the movements of the cameramen. They picture cannot cut from one character to another or from location to location. The camera has to visibly turn to each of its focuses, and it has to actively travel to each desired location. This is much more similar to the properties of human eyesight than the camerawork in most films. The third motif is that of improvisation. The actors aren't following a script, so the language is more real. They make mistakes, stutter, struggle with words, etc. Futhermore, they are more engaged with their environment and supporting characters. This type of acting simply requires more focus, and more focus leads to a better understanding of the diegesis.

With each motif comes commendable elements of verisimilitude; however, each has its problems. The four-quadrant approach is a complicated one, since there are more than four characters on whom to focus. The film gest around this issue in a few ways. First, it delegates specific properties to each quadrant. The upper-right screen, for example, has very little action and is highly auxiliary to the central plot of the film. It consists mostly of bland walking and unheard conversation, though it consistently focuses on a single character. The lower-left screen is in many ways the opposite. Much of the action takes place in this quadrant. Not only that, but it refuses to focus on one character for very long. Various characters use this quadrant to separate themselves from supporting characters in previous quadrants they occupied, such as Hayek's character separating herself from her spouse. The lower-right screen is the screen of the central plot, focusing mostly on Alex, the main character, and his interactions with nearly all of the supporting characters. The upper-left screen focuses on a single character in a single location, heightening the dramatic effect of the ending, in which said character finally gest out of the car and walks into the office.

The problem with improvisation is that it SOUNDS like improvisation. It's an extremely frustrating endeavor for the audience, as many conversations are repetitive or awkwardly paced. Sometimes there are long moments of silence in the middle of dialogue, testing the viewer's patience. Futhermore, 97 minutes of improvised action makes for very long periods of boring action. A good portion of the dialogue is useless and unnecessary, leaving one to wonder the point of it all.

The last problem is that of the single take. This problem is essentially of a practical nature. Having four cameras, which intersect at various points, doing a single take for 97 minutes is extraordinarily difficult. Apparently, the film had to be shot many, many times before they got it right. For the audience, this problem goes unnoticed and perhaps unappreciated. This film is a film that needs to be appreciated for its motifs, no matter how pretentious, frustrating, or unnecessary. It is the way the film is shot that encompasses the message of the film, not the action on-screen(s).

Contradiction

Time Code seemed like an experimental film like Man With a Movie Camera. It was experimental in that it had 4 screens showing at the same time, each containing different vantage points of the cameramen. There are many characters in the film and each is shown dealing with different problems at the same time on the screen. The fact that the entire movie was a continuous take in real-time is astonishing to me. It must have been hard for the actors to maintain their characters for such a long time. Also, it must have been hard for the cameramen to coordinate their positions because they had to make sure that one couldn't see the others.

I was very annoyed at times because I couldn't help thinking that I was missing what was happening in some of the other screens. If I was concentrating on one screen, I found that equally interesting things were happening in the other screens when I glanced at them. So I had to decide whether or not I should continue with the screen I was currently watching or move on. This happened several times and I did not like it because I would rather focus on one thing and get all I can get from it rather than feeling as if there are things that I'm missing that are happening at the same time. However, it was definitely more interesting to see the lives of these people depicted in this original way.

The background sounds were interesting to notice because it seemed like the clearest sound always came from the screen that had the most happening in it, while the other screens were muted. The music as well suited best for the screen in which the most significant event was happening.

Dziga Vertov's objective was clear in his experimental film: to separate the human eye from the camera. What is the objective in this one? The best I can come up with is to show that this type of filming and presentation can be used to depict small stories simultaneously. However, just because all these stories are shown on the screens doesn't mean that the person watching them is going to follow them all. In fact, this style of filmmaking only makes it harder to follow the stories. So I think there is a contradiction between the objective of the film and what the film actually accomplishes.

Time Code- Four Movies in One?

What set Time Code apart from other generic films was the split four-view screen, which was strange to me at first. As the movie progressed, I enjoyed this novel idea, especially since it gave me the option of choice. The four screens had different scenes with characters that all had some relation to each other. The most significant scene would have a louder soundtrack, making the audience focus more on that particular scene. This wasn’t always the case, as I found some scenes to be more interesting than others and I would give my full attention to these particular shots even if the soundtrack focused on another scene. This gave the audience the option of choosing what to watch-something I’ve never seen in a movie before.

I would have to admit that I was confused at the beginning because I was trying to focus on all four screens. This was probably intended so the audience can get a sense of what’s happening on all screens before they developed a stronger liking for a particular story. The characters also migrated from a screen to another screen, which formed bridges between the story lines. Perhaps the most memorable scene of the movie was when the two bottom squares were joined together when Selma moved her finger from the left to the right during the love scene-this unified the whole movie. This cleared up some confusion and set up the plot. In the end, the audience sees the connection between the characters and gets an overall picture of the story.

While the set of the screen was interesting, I think it deferred attention to some of the story plots. For example, I concentrated more on the storyline with Selma Hayak and the lady in the limo, while I don’t remember much about the lady in therapy. Come to think of it, I don’t know what was her significance was in the movie. Though I am sure some members of the audience focused on the lady in therapy more than I did-its all based on personal preference. Since the audience might feel like they missed out on some parts, it makes them want to see it again until they see and understand all four stories. Perhaps an interesting way to raise ticket sales?

The movie itself felt really realistic probably because of the digital recording. In addition, the scenes felt like they were occurring in present time before our eyes, making the audience feel like they are witnessing this in person. It was made back in 2000, but one can definitely see the influence it made on the media. The popular show 24 seems to have adopted the same format as the movie. It definitely transports the audience from the comforts of their seat to some sort of virtual reality in the movie setting.

"The Truth Will Set You Free"

Throughout the film, I felt there was a clear tension between fantasy and reality. The first example of this came in the visual style of the film. As Shane mentioned earlier, the look of DV is very different from film. I felt that digital video made the movie seem less glamorous. This treatment of the captured events is contrasted with images that are shown projected on a screen (audition, screening). In the scene where the aspiring actress (Selma Hayek) and her lover are hiding behind the projection screen, she is literally "off-screen."

Selma Hayek's character is especially complex in blurring the line between fantasy and reality. In her audition, the other actor in her scene ironically asks "but after all your lies, do you even know who you are anymore?" She performs her craft so much off-screen that she can not distinguish between the fantasy world that is captured on film and reality.

The concept that we are watching the events of a production company shows the audience what the film industry is actually like. Whereas the movies that are typically captured on film instead of DV are idealistic and formulaic, this film is constantly grounded by reality. The focus is not on a single character. The story is not linear in that every event is significant to the story. The frequent earthquakes have a limited impact in the overall story. Unlike most Hollywood films, this film shows an uninterrupted sequence of significant as well as insignificant events.
Alex represents the ultimate conflict between fantasy and reality. He is a dreamer. He proposes to his girlfriend (not Selma Hayek) that they should move to Tuscany knowing that this is not realistic. Even as he is bleeding to death, he makes plans with her for dinner.

Some other scenes that embody the conflict between fantasy and reality:
- When the pretentious screenwriter/director tries to give a practiced and dramatic speech, reality rudely interrupts with an earthquake.
- The first song performed by her and her lover is blaring contrast between a talentless rapper and the singer with a heavenly voice.
- During the love-making scene, there is the contrast between sex on the screen and reality.
- Throughout the movie, there are varying genres of music. There is the simplistic techno beat contrasted with the typical orchestration that would be in a big budget film.

Real-Time Mayhem

When the movie first started, I was a little confused as to why the picture was only a small part of the upper left-hand of the screen. The frame placement took some of the focus away from what was happening in the story. The flashing red counters around the first frame were quite distracting in an already confusing scene. When the other four frames were introduced to the audience, the amount of confusion became overwhelming. It was hard to focus on what was happening with the various characters and, at times, it was hard to distinguish one conversation from another. But when analyzed from a different perspective, Mike Figgis (the director) epitomized Vertov’s ideal that the camera shows the human eye what to observe and in what order to observe things in. The imperfect human eye, which takes in all the details (whether it needs to or not), must be directed and shown what to see/appreciate. By highlighting certain conversations and frames, Mike was showing the viewer the importance of the work.

The only other form of multimedia that I have seen show events in “real-time” is the television show 24. With that series, however, every moment is breathtaking and each episode feels as if mere seconds have passed instead of a full hour. With Time Code, the events were shown in “real-time” as we know it in our everyday existence. Life is never a constant shift from one heart-pounding event to another. There are often times moments of nothing; little moments where we put on our make-up or give someone a hug. In that sense, the movie was more real than anything that I have seen as a motion picture in a really long time. As argued in “The Third Interval,” modern technologies have caused today’s society to ignore the “concrete presence” (10). We are so involved with making things go faster and more convenient, that watching a film that actually mimics the pace of real life is quite jarring.

The four synchronized frames in one scene of the film was a unique and interesting viewing experience. Yes, it was a bit impossible to follow all four frames perfectly throughout the film, but isn’t that what real life is like? We all have our own issues that we have to deal with, and we all have people who we meet in a day-to-day basis. Yet, no one really pays attention as to just how similar and intertwined all of our lives really are. Like Alex’s blog below, I also thought that the scene where the woman was trying to explain her movie idea to the board of directors was the most interesting out of all the scenes. She is basically explaining the premise of the movie, but she is adding a twist on it that probably could not be visually achieved. Perhaps Mike Figgis did intend for all the characters to be the same, only at different points in their lives, but it was a hard concept to put onto film. No matter how similar we are with our problems and life experiences; in the end, it is the decisions we choose to make that set us apart from each other.

I must say, having learned the film was taken in one continuous shot has really impressed me. The actors really got into the characters that they played; really understood their motivations and limitations to have been able to carry through without outtakes or edits. The earthquake scene gave the first impression that the film quality was going to be horrific and the acting was going to be just as bad, but I was pleasantly mistaken!

"time code"; moving beyond the story

We received a disclaimer that this movie was "unconventional", but what we saw as soon as the play button was pushed certainly was more than unconventional. Multiple perspectives were represented in four split screens and no editting was used. The movie was shot in one single shot for every camera. The acting was improvised, only with a basic plot, and all the events that happened around them (i.e., a fire truck moving by) was real time.

After viewing this film, many questions rised in my head. Aside from the "unconventional" elements of the movie, the most pressing curiosity of mine was that why did the film maker name the movie "Time Code." The fact that the title doesn't deal with the plot at all should evidently mean that there is something more to this movie than the story shown itself.
The movie's basic plot was about a lesbian woman trying to get ahead in her acting career by having an affair with the producer and a movie executive going through a possible divorce. It would be fair to say these topics, romance and betrayal, are common narrative devices used in conventional movies. But, in the contrary, the point of this film indeed lies in this "common" nature of the narrative. Most conventional movies focus on the narrative, focus on the story and the ways to convey that story to the audience are secondary. In "Time Code", the plot is secondary; the way this plot is conveyed holds more meaning.

First, the movie was shot in four consecutive shots, meaning that no camera stopped filiming until the movie was over. Normally, without the editting process, no film ever gets released. But in this film, the notion that the editting process would be omitted was a basic premise. As an effect of this omittance of manipulating and distorting time, namely the editting process, time was portrayed in the movie as raw as possible to capture. Every actor in that film lived the same amount of length of time as the audience would see it.

Secondly, the four cameras provided four different perspectives which lead to a kind of "tele-presence" of the viewer in each situation. We can never experience the "present state" as it self, because we are humanly limitted to only experience the "present" we are experiencing first hand. Even if any other factor greatly affects our present reality , we do not consider that our "present" because we can't sense it. The "Time Code" attempts to portray the "present state" as accurately as humanly possible. It shows all the situations and point of views concerning the "present state" through the tele-presence of multiple cameras not losing anything because they continually film everything. As those situations converge, the camera shots also converge being in the same space.

Third, the fact that the actors themselves had to improvise and really "live" in this certainly staged reality added to the sensation of "real time." Actors were certainly less prepared as we could see in the raw acting and sort of unorganized camera movement. But this cinematic mess definitely contributed to the fact that as we, the viewers, watch the movie , the actors are also experiencing this movie, so a sort of connection to the reality of the movie between the viewer and the movie is more easily established.

"Time Code" was certainly something new. These are just speculations I bring forth, so a definite explanation of the intentions of this movie from the movie maker would clear many things up I think. However, I am almost certain of the fact that there is something more than the plot to this movie.

decoding time code

Four split screen, a converging plot, and a ton of confusion. We've been talking in class about technology and it's ability to focus on detail and help us organize and investigate things more closely (Kino eye). We've also talked about how film loses detail because we can only see what is in frame and miss a lot of the surrounding context that isn't shown. Mike Figgis, the director/write of Time Code brought a creatively disorienting piece that is herhaps harder to pay attention to than Virilio's dense commentary on (real-time) techonology.

It was actually interesting paying attenting to what you focused on during the film - which of the four plots am I looking at, or am I just staring blankly into space. Throughout the movie I kept on thinking about my tendencies to concentrate on one of the scenes and what drew me to the specific quad of the screen. The dialogue often forced me to start paying attention to the relavent story, but after a moment I had to remind myself to try to pay attention to the other three. It was especially difficult in the beginning, where the background sound muffled the dialogue in the starting scene, giving no context at all as the four plots began.

As previous posters have noted, the film is partially ad-libbed since the whole movie is shot in one take, and I wonder how much of the dialogue is made incoherent because it was so irrelevant. Or was the movie just trying to be mysterious by sporadically giving a portion of some dialogue, sometimes mixed in with other dialogue from one of the other three screens, or just having silence. Mysterious or not, it seemed that the scenes were predictable - even though the movie was to some extent improv.

Perhaps, the most intriguing scene was when the Russian woman (not sure who she was, but taking this from a previous blog entry) began describing her ideas for 4 simultaneous stories that converge - pretty much desribing the idea behind the movie. She said that the big surprise in the end should be that, although the four stories are shot in "real-time" at the same time, they describe the same person in different times. Although it sounded intriguing, I didn't see how this movie led itself to doing that. Did it even try to converge not only the plots but the characters as well? Perhaps a second viewing would lend some answers, but I'm not sure if I could pay attention for another 93 minutes and if I could, which story would I pay attention to then.

4-Screened Madness

As I watched Timecode, the most obvious thing that came to mind was the 4 split screens and their synchronization. I was simply astonished to see how well they were able to interlace each story so that it all happened at the same time. This clearly took a good amount of practice to accomplish. I came home and searched for some information regarding this film and found that they had filmed it like 12 times and they chose the best take. Talk about commitment. This film probably could be watched several times while focusing on only one camera shot. The experience will be different each time. It was quite overwhelming just trying to keep up with all four screens, but it proved to be rather effective and entertaining for this film.

Another thing that came to mind was the use of the DV camcorder. I've used DV camcorders quite a bit and they are quite a different breed when compared to conventional videocassette/film reel cameras. For those that never have used a DV camera, it bascially records still on a tape-like media, but it can easily able to be converted into a digital format. The image from a digital video is rather quite different when compared to film. Just take a look at the picture on the left and compare it to the video of Timecode. There is a certain crispness and temperature that is unique to each type of media. Digital video can indeed be altered to look similar to the film, but I don't believe that it can replace the certain features that film media has.

It was interesting to see the character in the film, the Russian woman, I forgot her name, begin to comment on the types of new media. It seems as if she was speaking for the director, making justifications for using digital video over traditional film. Although I did not quite remember everything she said, I believe she mentioned that the film montage gives us a fake reality and that digital video gives us a new experience. In a sense, she is correct. From the images of film alone, you know that it is a movie, and can distinguish it quite readily. This then does feel like an alternate reality, a "fake" one if you insist. With the digital video, it definitely gave a "reality" to the work. This "reality" is then intensified with the use of rapid camera movie and free flowing filming. It gives us a 1st person view, and it makes it seem as if we are right in the mix with the characters. This new technology did infact give us a new "technological influence" as the Russian woman said.

Time Code

I remember that Irene said that this film was filmed in DV (digital video). I've taken a production class before and I couldn't help noticing how much different it looked from movies on films. The DV looked more amateurish because it was too in focus and details were too evident. Film looks more professional because only one object can be in focus at a time and there is a more grainy feel. I'm guessing that this was just for money and editing reasons. In digital videos, the time code is the running counter from beginning to the end. It is the absolute timer for raw footage. For example, on a tape that is 2 hours long, the time code runs from 0 min to 120 mins. I guess the title of this movie was fitting because the footage from the four cameras are ran from 0 in the time code continuously until the end of the recording.

I remember thinking at the beginning of the movie if the four frames were simultaneous. The earthquake confirmed that they were. I coulnd't figure out what the significance of the earthquakes were other than to confirm that the events were happening simultaneously.

I thought the most intriguing part of the movie was the end when it revealed that the four cameras were filmed all in one day and continuously with no cuts. I thought that the movie was one that was planned out and so I thought the movie was really bad. But when I realized that it was mostly improvised, I realized it was pretty creative. It required all the actors to improv and react to each other accordingly while keeping their composure. What is in one actor's mind is different in from other's and they each guide the movie in a different direction. I wonder how strict the structure that was provided to the actors were. Not only that, the camera men also take the movie in very different directions. I hypothesize that the director game the cameramen loose directions of where to stay so that the cameras didnt film each other. Other than that, I'm guessing they got to choose who to film and where to go in that area. The information at the end about improvisation made me realize that the film was a live film. There were no double takes.

A Step Back: Appliying Manovich to Picture Perfect Life

Manovich was able to look into my computer's hardrive very well and summarize it in "The Database." As I was reading it, I was thinking of my music files and the insane amounts of pictures. Personally, with so many databases it is hard to keep track of them all or even truly know what's in them. Part of me wanted to be in denial and say our world really is not ending up like this, but as I kept reading and scrutinizing life and the environment around me, I couldn't help it.
Manovich argues that "The Database" is a way of life that is being more and more popular. He argues that the internet, a collection of more databases through websites (including this one; a database of our thoughts and class assignments), is a growing database with lines and lines of coded data. Having done a bit of web-creating in High School, I can vouch for his theory. But more than just through the internet, facebook, myspace, and even gmail life is becoming a database.
We have databases of images and pictures of a variety of things, that we might not think about the amount of time we have spent behind a lens or infront of a computer. Think about it... So you take a picture to freeze time and preserve a memory, but when do you actually go back to re-experience it, and is your experience a real experience, seeing how for some of those moments you were experiencing it behind a lens? Doesn't re-experiencing the memory through a clip of images within a database change the way you remember it? No longer is the memory preserved through actual living it, but through life through the lens.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not leaving my camera behind, ever! But in a world where preserving seems to be a priority, when do we get to live life without worrying about what future generations will think? If the future is really the reason we are preserving life for.

The bombardment of information

“The Database” by Lev Manovich explains the new perception of time and reality. He looks at this new age of technology and how the functionality of a computer has influenced how we think and act. The traditional view of structured time, where actions must be chronological, has been destroyed by the way new age of database where information is not sequential and instead a pot full of information that can be extracted in any form at any time. Looking at forms of databases such as CD-ROMs and hard drives allow us to realize how different our thought has become. For example, most of us don’t look through each file sequentially and read each part of our computers, rather we just look for the things we want and let the rest remain. Manovich explains this phenomenon, “CD-ROMs that take the user on a tour through a museum collection. A museum becomes a database of images representing its holdings, which can be accessed in different ways–chronologically, by country, or by artist” (pg 219-220). The explanation also looks at the way we have come to interpret our information. With the coming of the new technological age, vast amounts of information have become more accessible to us, so much so that we must somehow organize the information. Although, this organization seems to be a remnant of traditional thinking where information must be searched through sequentially rather than just instantly finding the desired information. Evidence of this can even be seen in search engines such as Google. Manovich may see Google as a representation of how the database is simply a collection of information where the desired information is found instantly. Instead Google also represents a traditional method of searching, as the data is ranked, and most of us still have to look sequentially through many pages to find our desired information.

One element of how Manovich sees the new technological age is the growth of information. Traditionally, books were published and little information was added to these books and has often remained untouched over hundreds of years. But Manovich looks to the technological age as an age of continual growth, as he explains, “The open nature of the Web as a medium (Web pages are computer files that can always be edited_ means that Web sites never have to be complete; and they rarely are. They always grow” (pg 220). Not to mention this growth is often non-sequential and older material can be removed, edited, or forgotten. As the growth of the technological age has progressed, the speed at which change occurs on the Internet has become phenomenal. This relation to speed also correlates to Virilio, where the length of time is not as important as speed in this new world. Information in this age seems to be more of a montage that a sequential story, Manovich look at how Vertov’s “Man with a movie camera” represents this montage and temporality of time. He even provides of modernist example, “One is the modernist MTV montage–two-dimensional juxtaposition of visual elements designed to shock due to its impossibility of reality” (pg 229). Even if we look at many images in media, everything seems to be a montage of information. For example the common screenshot of a news channel will have the reporter, stock tickers, newsreels, time of places around the country, and weather. This bombardment of information is a common characteristic of today’s society with its high expectations on information. Ultimately, the database has become a living reality that affects our lives constantly everyday.

Art that Denies Narrative is Doomed to Failure

Lev Manovich's discussion of narrative and database is both well explored and clearly articulated. He defines the relationship between narrative and database as an adverserial one, and he purposely narrows the definition of narrative to exclude one's personal, necessarily linear experience of an interactive work, but I take issue with this.

Manovich notes that what he calls narrative (what I would qualify as directed narrative) is becoming less prevalent in new art but acknowledges that it is by no means becoming extinct. He likens this to the overlapping existence of various art movements, but he hints that this is not an apt comparison, and that narrative will never go away entirely - I have to agree, based on my own observation that narrative is tightly bound to our perception of the world as a linear sequence of events.

Our sequential personal experience of time is this very essence of narrative. Time, for us, progresses forward relentlessly and - try as we might - we cannot escape this reality. We live from one moment to the next, remember the past as a series of rooms and spaces where we were physically present, a long train of boxcars that contain the things that were said, tasted, heard, seen, etc.

We each have our own personal narrative, and without that basic reference point we could not even conceive of or contemplate another narrative. Our shared experiences are essential frames of reference and are vital to our ability to communicate. Our shared perception of time is central to our ability to vicariously experience and therefore come to a shared understanding of a story or experience, whether expressed in words or in art or in film.

Personal narrative is a basic human lens through which we interpret art, constantly picking out or creating a storyline which strings together our experience of the art in a hopefully meaningful way, whether or not it matches the artist's plan.

Manovich tracks the progression of the database from its roots in reference material into its new milieu, interactive media (by which he mainly means art, despite some tangential observations about video games). Our experience of a website, according to Manovich, lacks the single directed narrative that exists in a book or film. The existence of multiple (potentially infinitely many) paths through a database of media presents a challenge to the artist to find new ways to communicate with her audience.

Communication via narrative is easy, almost too easy. In interactive media, the artist can "direct" the experience with the careful application of constraints on the interface, but still the artist risks widening the chasm between the audience's model of the experience and the artist's conception of the experience. If you as the artist have nothing specific to communicate, this is fine. If your motivation as an artist is simply to provoke a reaction (any reaction, the more varied the better) in your audience, then interactive media is perfect.

Manovich celebrates Vertov's accomplishments in Man With a Movie Camera as ahead of its time. He regards the film at once as a database of special effects and as a database of film clips. He seems to suggest that there is value in art that rejects the traditional narrative form.

I'm not so sure. Art that denies narrative completely denies a basic part of our experience. To reject the core part of our algorithm (to borrow Manovich's term) for understanding is to close off the primary channel for the communication of ideas. I feel that art which fails to effect communication of ideas from the artist to the art's audience is doomed to obscurity, celebrated only briefly for its novelty and ultimately fated to be forgotten. Art without narrative can simply not establish itself as relevant to the human experience.

Man With a Movie Camera, then, to the extent that it denies narrative, is relevant only as an example of how in so doing you will fail to make a connection to your audience (unless your audience is cinemaphiles, in which case for them the film does possess a narrative and the argument still holds).

I'm not condemning all interactive media to irrelevance -- most of this art (at any rate, the examples that I'm aware of), still have a strong element of narrative. Though they don't contain the 100% directed narrative that Manovich is talking about, the works by their very presentation or interface design simply begin to share responsibility with the audience for forming that narrative.

New Media as the Next Logical Step

As I read through "The Database", I found myself thinking that new media (websites, digital art) is very much an extension of conceptual and postminimalist art, of which Bruce Nauman belongs to the latter. The initial making of new media requires little skill in the production but much in the conception and the execution. Anyone with the right database can make a decent and navigable website with minimal html training. New media is usually interactive, letting the viewer select their own path through the website. As a result, it has multiple narratives and lets the viewer decide which they want to see or believe in. As a side note, this makes it different from cinema, as in cinema the filmmaker/editor chooses the order of the various clips and forces the viewer to watch their conceived path through the film.

Similarly, in conceptual art, the finished product is nothing particularly special or striking visually. As many people said when we visited the Nauman exhibit, it seemed as if all of his works could have been erected by anybody. Every object was so simple and easily formed that it could not be considered art like the Mona Lisa is considered art. Yet, the point of conceptual art is not the finished piece of art itself, but rather the original thought behind it. Just as the average person can make a website, so can he make a piece of conceptual art, and yet it is not the design of the website that necessarily makes us want to stay, but the content.

However, just as Manovich says, we want to create narratives out of random pieces of data, perhaps as a result of our reluctance to part with linear time (we cannot go back and choose another path like we can with websites). Hence, many people who are not art majors or do not know about the origins of conceptual art dislike the post-modern form because of its randomness and lack of "story". The art seems pointless, even though in reality it can rival traditional art in terms of how much interpretation it can hold. The Mona Lisa's enigmatic smile - a subject of debate for many years and for many years to come. John Cage's famous piece 4'33" is a performance piece that is completely silent, which he "wrote" to emphasize the sounds that the audience makes and to make them aware of the "music" around them. People who do not understand his work may interpret it as a protest of modern pop music or of the elite, who can afford to go to concerts. One cannot say that these interpretations are wrong; they are simply different from the artist's initial intention.

A Cinematic Relationship with Still Image

In “The Database” by Lev Manovich, I was most intrigued by his argument in the section titled “Paradigm and Syntagm”. While he defines the syntagmatic dimension as “stringing together elements, one after another, in a linear sequence” (230), the paradigmatic dimension is described as the more varying possibilities for these sequences. For example, with the example he gives, in a fashion outfit, there are elements that compose it (a skirt, blouse, jacket, shoes, etc.), but there are other combinations of outfits that exist in the viewer’s imagination. The syntagm here is naturally explicit (the actual narrative), while the paradigm is implicit (the database).

He argues that new media reverses this relationship. “The database is given material existence, while narrative is dematerialized” (231). Paradigm is privileged over syntagm, made real and no longer virtual. These new media objects (e.g. images made by computers) place the database at the center of the design process. The database, in which we select components to add onto our object, is listed out and exists materially. Everything is a simple mouse-click away, and the elements are arranged in a menu, in which you can select from and construct your image accordingly. Every action has become dependent on the explicit database, and a simple narrative has been placed secondary.

But what I found the most interesting was his initial comparison of these new media objects to cinema. In the beginning of the section, he discusses these images as having layers, where combined and juxtaposed would result in a montage look. Each layer is responsible for a certain component of the image. For example, one could encompass the background, one could encompass the subject, and one could encompass the lettering. Combined, these layers present a full representation – a complete scene. Yet, if a layer stands on its own, it tells a blank story that viewers are unable to garner much information from. This is similar to the idea of cinema. Juxtaposing multiple screen shots presents a complete scene, but on its own, it is a still image that we cannot gather as much from. Here, cinema has an impact on the visual language. With these still images, they have components that can make it come alive – just as cinema makes a scene come alive. This linear sequence of layers still gives the viewers an experience on its own in visual culture, while tapping into moving images. The new media objects, especially still images with layers made in programs like Adobe Photoshop, mirror the composite of cinema – a series of disjointed scenes (comparable to different layers) that comprise of a full scene (comparable to a complete, diluted image).

This comparison made me think differently about the influence cinema may have on the visual culture in general, and how that can stem into still, computer-distorted images. It made me realize that you do not need a series of still images to alter a scene, but these mere still images can be manipulated in a way that can materialize the database while downplaying the actual narrative.

The World Is More Than 0's and 1's

In Database, the author overly criticizes our world that has become database-oriented as a result of computerization. He claims that due to the database, the narrative aspects of the world have disappeared. He supports his argument by discussing the information collecting process, the structure of video games, and the database in cinema. Although some of his claims seem to be reasonable, I disagree with many of the author’s accusations against our culture following computerization. After reading the whole chapter, I found myself getting frustrated with what the author had to say about the modern world and its trends.

The author’s belief that our world lacks narrations and that we are only left with data is rather extreme and invalid. He states that all the information that we obtain in the modern world “are collections of individual items, with every item possessing the same significance as any other” (218). This claim devalues our intelligence and the education system. We do not simply accept the information that we learn without giving a different significance to each item. Also, whether these items are of the same value or not depends on different individuals. We are not machines. We are humans with different traits, therefore, we all think and judge things differently unlike a computer’s data system. If we just gave the same significance to all information we gain, we wouldn’t be attending this university, taking this class, and learning how to closely analyze to share our different ideas. Even with a computerized society, the database won’t make anything the same nor meaningless, given all of mankind does not become robots.

The author also asserts that “the world appears to us as an endless and unstructured collection of images, texts, and other data records, it is only appropriate that we will be moved to model it as a database” (219). This statement is weak and absurd. This society has always been structured since the beginning of civilization. Even animals have their own systems of hierarchy, hunting techniques, seasons for mating, etc. It is derived from nature that this world will be structured some way or another, even with the rapid flow of excessive information.

The author believes that due to the algorithm working as a form of database in videogames, the users will try to “build a mental model of the computer model” (233). The human brain is very different from a computer brain; it is unpredictable, flexible, and always changing. The human brain is always able to accept more information, store that information, and have emotions and form opinions about that information. The computer brain cannot do these things. It is a machine brain; you will always get the same result. The human brain will always be superior to the most advanced computer brain, therefore, humans won’t try to build their brain to be like that of a computer. Instead, humans use these consistent and predictable tools to improve their lives rather than trying to turn into them. Furthermore, the author seems to forget that it is the humans who created the computers. By presenting such comments, the author is degrading the power of humans and their ingenuity.

When discussing the difference between database and narrative, the author expresses his idea: “As a cultural form, the database represents the world as a list of items, and it refuses to order this list. In contrast, a narrative creates a cause-and-effect trajectory of seemingly unordered items (event). Therefore, database and narrative are natural enemies” (225). I don’t believe that database and narrative are enemies, instead, they work together as they always have. A database creates narrative and narrative creates a database. Look at fairytales for example and let’s not forget that fairytales existed way before the computer was born. Fairytales are clearly narratives; they all tell stories in a linear form. However, they all have lists of the things that they must have in order to be categorized as fairytales. There is always that “once upon a time … happily ever after,” good vs. evil, unfortunate princess and the prince charming, magic, etc. These are the lists (database) of the fairytales (narrative). This symbiotic relationship between database and narrative has always existed in human history.

Lastly, the author talks about cinema’s quality of being the only narrative that can also contain a database at the same time. First of all, this sole idea contradicts what he has been talking about the whole time. In the majority of the chapter, he claimed that the database and narrative cannot exist together. However, in this section, he states that this mutual existence is possible in films. He says that almost all fictional films are narratives with “the linear pursuit – one story at a time told chronologically—is the standard format of cinema” (237). Then he praises Man with a Movie Camera, the film most famous for not having a linear narrative, by mentioning its unique characteristics of conveying database with narrative. I agree that Man with a Movie Camera definitely carries some kind of narratives despite its atypical film editing. However, the author clearly contradicts himself by claiming that most films have a chronological narrative while saluting Man with a Movie Camera for having a narrative with no narrative. Some might argue that Man with a Movie Camera is different since it is a documentary, not a fictional film. But look at the recent film, Babel, by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. It is a fictional film with 4 different databases. It has a list of 4 completely different stories that make up one big narrative connecting them all together. For these reasons, I absolutely disagree with the author’s main argument. If he wants to convince me, he needs to provide more compelling evidence that will invalidate my counter-arguments to his own.

Computerized Culture Before and Now

Manovich’s The Database Logic was definitely not as dense as the Virilio works, but linking together the various parts of the author’s logic and definition of culture was a bit difficult. At the very end, he links all of his thoughts to filmmaking and then it becomes clear how the reading is relevant to our class theme.

The author first introduces the idea of a database as a comparison to the traditional form of cultural expression, the narrative. A database is defined as a structured collection of data. Both essentially present their own models of the world and culture. However, the database has probably expanded beyond the limits of the narrative because huge amounts of data can be stored, organized, and accessed through new means of technology, such as CD-ROMs and the internet. What is even more special about these forms of database is that they are continually growing with unlimited additional information possible.

Adding onto the database logic, Manovich brings in the idea of algorithms using video games as a means of understanding. Algorithms are more similar to narratives in a way since they are basically patterns or paths followed by the players of video games depending on what data from the database is chosen at each step. Gamers become good at games if they can imagine a model of the game in their minds that is similar to the computer model. A good summary of the relationship between data structure and algorithm is “Any process or task is reduced to an algorithm…And any object in the world…is modeled as a data structure” (223). Together they create a cultural sphere that puts together an image of the world and society.

Two new terms are introduced later on that are synonymous to database and algorithm. These are paradigm and syntagm. These two terms discuss the difference between reality (syntagm) and non-reality (paradigm). However, in this world of developing technology, their roles seem to have been reversed and the database (paradigm) is given material existence while the narrative (syntagm) is dematerialized. This is because “the narrative is constructed by linking elements of this database in a particular order, that is by designing a trajectory leading from one element to another. On the material level, a narrative is just a set of links; the elements themselves remain stored in the database” (231).

Later on, the author discusses the historical reach of these two concepts and how they are not just related to modern media and technology. I find the author’s reasoning very compelling and logical. The world and the events that occur in society can be broken down into processes and the elements that are the fundamental building blocks of these processes. It is sound reasoning to me because the actions that we take are decided upon by looking at all the options we have and by choosing a pattern of these options to create a sort of trajectory. These decisions probably last only nanoseconds in our brains, but they do occur. I don’t believe in putting absolutely no thought into your actions. Using video games and modern media as examples really helps put the author’s reasoning into perspective. Even the historical context of the paradigm and the syntagm in encyclopedias and novels truly puts into perspective how applicable these concepts are to human life and human lifestyle.

In the end, all of the author’s ideas accumulate to applying the concepts to filmmaking. Although this is the part that is relevant to our class, I feel like after giving the whole perspective of how these concepts apply to basically every action and every second of our lives, the manifestation in filmmaking and Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera serves only as an example and isn’t any more significant than the historical or internet examples. The author’s connection between new technological terms (database/algorithm and paradigm/syntagm) and the past, present, and future of our daily actions has sound reasoning behind it and it’s amazing to think that life can be broken down into such simple fundamental aspects.

Database/Narrative

This database/narrative seems to be redefined in technology today especially through the computer as its main source of media. Though the words of database and narrative seem strange; we actually use them as a physical property everyday. Databases can be storages of information such as encyclopedias websites photo galleries and on and on with all sorts of information that can be stored on a CD-ROM computer that can just be picked up or selected at any time one chooses. At first databases are not as nearly storage facilities for data which they are but they are also this new source of media and interaction. In which one does research watches video clips were listened to the radio. Databases are set in a more machinelike manner where they work and operate like machines in a linear fashion like the assembly line. How things are organized in a certain order to make it easier to obtain what you want. They also mentioned how Vertov's film Man with a movie camera is very much like a database and how it has many clips taken at random and edited together. Since the film is lacking narrative is mostly database of clips shown in different orders as seen in the editing room with local clips labeled and stacked on shelves in some order.

Now looking at narrative we can see that it is much different from a database; where there is structure to narrative but in many cases it relies on you to do most of the controlling. For instance algorithms represent the structure in the narrative, algorithms of the code the rules that give boundaries to narrative. Such as inside video games which are more open than databases, video games still have boundaries or rules and structures that were created by this algorithm. To these games there is always a point or a goal of some sort where you must follow the rules of the game to achieve your goal in a sense you have to become your own algorithm to be successful at it. So since you're becoming part machine by following these rules in this artificial world to achieve an artificial goal. This interaction with the machine creates this narrative.

Often in today's world of media in computers we see databases and narratives combined to form hybrids and loops. Hybrids are often found systems like video game systems where there is a consul that stores your information and yet one is interactive with it where there is narrative by playing games. Also seen a lot in cinema how most films have a plot or narrative but not necessarily start out shooting in that order where they have a database of sequences that can be cut and pull together to form a final product which combines the two. To save time on many of these hybrids they use loops which is an automatic sequence repeats itself in a certain situation. These loops can be encountered in both database and narrative situations I when you press a button in a video game a character will make a certain sound every time or if you go to a website a certain movie will automatically play stuff does not necessarily in your control but automatically happens usually to save time and bandwidth.

Clearly the media of today is affected highly through narrative and databases through the use of computers and other related technology and as old cinema fades out new techniques or transitioning in to the New Age of looking at the world.

dream

I dreamed of time traveling.

I'll try to recollect it as best as I can.

I was distinguished from the dream in the following sense, I was not a part of it, I was merely an observer. So the experience was very similar to the experience of watching a movie.

The protagonist i.e. the time traveler was this guy from Wheeler auditorium who does karate exercises. I am sure if you have taken any courses in wheeler you know who it is that i am talking about.

I see this guy narrating his story to a young boy and a girl. This time traveler, when he was young, had some work done on him by scientists that made him travel in the future. So he has traveled through time, but for some reason he is now living in the present.

The experience of traveling in the future empowered him to furnish an explanation for everything. This is why he was regarded as a genius by men of the present. I remember a scene where we see this time traveler, on a hospital bed, in the company of curious men who are analyzing his every move. When he wakes up, he ignores the questions that are being thrown at him by these curious men, and instead goes on to explain as to why the word present was written on the X- Ray machine. And some one else in the room, presumably the person who wrote that word, confirms this explanation as being the right one. And every one in the room heralds this time traveler, who after traveling through time, has come back to the present with the power to explain phenomenons from the perspective of the person who created that phenomenon. After the time traveler had furnished his explanation, one of the curious man who was in the room, shouts aloud, "He is a genius!"

Another rather odd scene, having nothing to do with the time traveling or anything like that occurs when this time traveler (who now is living in the present) takes this boy and girl to STATS Christmas decorative Center. (I worked at this place during my high school days)
In the dream there are two female employees who were having a conversation and they kept using the f-word. Consequently, a male worker objects to this language a loud, by saying, "Can you please stop using the f-word." As one can see this incident has nothing to do with time traveling or anything like that, but what is interesting is that I, the dreamer, experience this f-word debate from the point of view of the boy, and not from the point of view of the movie/dream observer that I have previously identified myself as.

But after this minor distraction the dream takes me to the top of a nearly vertical cliff below which lay a natural pond of water shaped in the form of numbers 3, 2, 1 all raised to the power of n, which it self was also raised to the power of n. The traveler, presumably using his wisdom acquired from his travels in the future explain the peculiarity of such a natural phenomena.

And as with everything this dream ended, prematurely perhaps, for I was awaken not because the curtains had fallen on the silver screen, but because I had to attend to such worldly demands as 'declaring majors'. The ringing clock ceased my accelerated motion through time enabled not by a machine, but by something as abstract as a dream.

Databases don't need narratives

Manovich's The Database seems to be critical of the fact that "many new media objects do not tell stories," in contrast to the novel and cinema, which were completely based on narratives. Though this is true, it seems to be a little too obvious, and seemingly irrelevent. The two forms of new media that this article explores are CD-Roms (more often educational CDs; for example, those that give museum tours or bibliographies) and the Internet. These have completely different purposes than novels or movies.

Yes, it might be valid to consider narrative "as the key form of cultural expression," but this is only because humans are entertained by stories. Even for nonfiction stories or filmatic bibliographies, narrative structures make the texts more entertaining (in some cases, just bearable). But this is kind of a tangent from my main point: to explain it in cliche terms, comparing novels and the Internet is comparing apples and oranges.

The Internet does not give narrative because it offers so much information (which is constantly changing and being extended) that the only way it can stay organized is by keeping every piece of information -- every link, every dictionary definition, every historical period -- as a separate entity. When a user logs on to Google, he is not looking for an entertaining story, he is looking for a quick answer. Having the Internet organized enough so that search engines can sort through ALL of the web's information in a second or so involves sacrificing a more permanent order or narrative.

Unfortunately, this article seems to consider this as a bad thing. Manovich argues that in new media, "the world appears to us as an endless and unstructured collection of images, texts, and other data records." Yes, the Internet structures the world as a database. But there is nothing wrong with the world being organized in those terms. It seems to me that the world is more an unstructured collection of people, ideas, and statistics than it is one traceable storyline, so why shouldn't it be outlined as such. The Internet helps us navigate this huge web of information.

Manovich also seems critical of the database's refusal to order its list of information. That, to me, is one of the beauties of the Internet: we don't need to browse through subject name or alphabetical lists to find information. The Internet can search through itself.

In short, this entire book seems to be focused on explaining why the Internet and CD-roms are databases, and that they don't have narratives. Nowhere does it explain why this is a problem, only that it is so. While I completely agree that this argument is correct, I don't see why it's an important one. In the same way, he explains that video games and film both have narratives. Again: so what? Though this idea might have been further developed in other chapters of this book, I think that the argument being made is hardly an argument at all, and could definately use some more explanation for, as Josh and Irene would say, "why it's telling."

Stephen Hawking Webcast

Watch some of this webcast of world-reknown physicist Stephen Hawking, who "spoke" at Zellerbach Auditorium yesterday, March 13th. Note that the talk doesn't begin in earnest until 19 minutes into the webcast. How does the technological mediation involved in this talk--from Hawking's speaking apparatus to the media player through which you download and view the webcast, trouble the concept of "liveness" that we expect from an in-person speaker?

Strictly Speaking: Stephen W. Hawking
Born exactly 300 years after the death of Galileo, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University Stephen W. Hawking is widely considered to be the greatest scientific thinker since Newton and Einstein. In a talk aimed at the general public, Professor Hawking discusses theories on the Origin of the Universe. He explains how time can have a beginning and the progress made by cosmologists in an area that has traditionally belonged to theologists and philosophers.

too indirect?

For those of us who did not 'understand' the article, or found that the points that he was trying to make or the explanations that he was providing regarding certain phenomenons were not the 'real' explanations that the executioners of those phenomenons probably intended, the following insight about the author, Paul Virilio, might be helpful. The insight being the fact that Virilio studied phenomenology under Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Phenomenology (particularly Edmund Husserl's definition of phenomenology, by whom both Maurice and consequently Virilio, were influenced by) “is an approach to philosophy that takes the intuitive experience of phenomena as its starting point and tries to extract from it the essential features of experiences and the essence of what we experience.”¹

I am someone who believes, that the “essential features” and the “essence of what we experience” is something that is defined by the the person who is creating that experience/phenomenon, not the person who is actually experiencing that phenomenon. So for example, Virilio, pens an excessively long argument trying to explain “the importance of research into high definition of the image.” His explanation is that “high fidelity and high image definition serve greatly to modify the nature of the acoustic and visual relief” that in turn changes the reality of the things 'perceived.' The rhetoric that he uses, for example words like relief and perception, put greater emphasis on the experience of the phenomenon (which in this case is the Digitalization) rather than the creation of it. My point being, if you want to explain the rise of digital media, a valid explanation can be the desire for the creators/executioners (like executive producers of TV shows, or Journalists who are providing war footage) of digital media to provide clarity. So unlike Virilio, I would put less emphasis on the desire of the viewer to seek clarity/relief, since we know that I Love Lucy was a popular show even when the T.V set was not digitalized, and I would put more emphasis on the desire of the producers of the TV show to provide clarity.

FEW OTHER COMMENTS:

• In the first two paragraphs I am trying to say that I don't like the way Virilio thinks. He takes a given phenomenon and tries to search for the meaning/purpose/essence of the phenomenon from the experience of the phenomenon. I truly abhor such an approach because not all people experience a phenomenon in the same fashion, and therefore it is not the most effective way in trying to search for the essence of the phenomenon. I don't merely abhor such an approach to critical thinking, but sincerely believe that those who utilize such an approach should be barred from civilized discourse.

• From what I understand, by the term Indirect Light, Virilio means the following. Traditionally, light in the form of the electric bulb (therefore he calls it artificial light) has illuminated places. So he brings up the point that the police in Paris passed a decree requiring that streets lights be turned on in the dark, so as to help provide security. But now this same function of providing security, relies heavily on surveillance cameras. So now the illuminating is done not by electric bulbs, but by video cameras. Therefore the term indirect light. (Its interesting to think about how much Virilio's training a student of phenomenology has to do with the way in which arrives or at least structures this argument)

• Another important point that he raises, is the increasing importance of the speed at which images travel. He says that previously the test of a theory was the duration of its perceived validity, but now it depends on how quickly its is conveyed after its occurrence. (I disagree with this analysis. I think that the speed at which it is conveyed less important, if not least important. For example, in the mass media, the concept of who breaks the story first is very important. But often is the case that the channel that broke the story first, in the rush, misreported the story.)

• He makes the point that videoscopy is different from cinema or theater in the sense, that it doesn't put emphasis on the location in which it is being shot. This I agree with. Take for example, the case of youtube, where millions of youtubers use their bedroom as the environment. This exemplifies the fact that the miniature camera, that rises on top of our keyboards, doesn't regard the location of the shooting as something that contributes to the art.

• Also Virilio classifies as a crisis for cinema, a) the fact the camera is miniaturized, b) less importance is placed on delayed broadcasting, c) loss of the fact that cinema is no longer seen as a public spectacle where people gather in numbers and experience the phenomenon. I disagree with these points because a) the availability of a portable TV camera makes possible artistic moments such as the one that the film American Beauty alludes to when we see the young high school boy film the plastic bag floating around, b)most people favor watching well edited version of movies, even documentaries are edited, which implies that they are not live, c)even though the experience of youtube is private, there is a sense of community that is fairly evident to a regular youtuber.

• Final point: Virilio (and most of the Silent Generation Public Intellectuals, barring a few)who was born in 1932, and who at the time of writing this article was 68, ought to cease commenting on social and cultural implications of technological phenomenons, for it is not conducive to do so while one is paying frequent visits to hospitals.

1 Wikipedia, Phenomenology.

Benefits or Drawbacks?

Virilio claims in his essay “Indirect Light” that “videoscopy seems to come into its own with this role of indirectly lighting a domestic environment for which electric light, a direct form of analogous daylight, is no longer sufficient” (1). Vilirio is commenting on how surveillance cameras and live presentations of a place cause “cinematic representation” to be obsolete (2). He feels that the changes in technologies are leading to an era that will cause human intelligence to be obsolete. He mentions how the washing machine was described as a “washing-computer,” and the next innovation in transportation will be a “driving-computer” that allows the “audiovisual feats of the electronic dashboard to prevail over the optical qualities of the field beyond the widescreen” (15). These examples show how Virilio feels about the changes in technology, and how these changes will cause an insufficiency in human behavior. People no longer need to think in order to drive or wash their clothes.

Personally, I feel the changes in technology can be viewed as both positive and negative aspects of our society. On the one hand, our society has this dependency on technology that can only get worse. People cannot revert back to not having cars, telephones, computers, etc. These advancements have also enhanced the lives of human beings by decreasing the amount of time it takes to do tasks. Virilio’s idea of a “driving-computer” is also beginning to take shape. Now-a-days people have GPS systems that allow them to locate exactly where they are and where there are any road hazards. This decreases the amount of time one is on the road. They are less likely to get lost or get stuck in traffic. Yet, has this technology really decreased human intelligence and creativity? Calculators allow people to get through school without having to know the multiplication table. Yet, this does not stifle human creativity. Through the internet, people are able to easily share their videos and photographs with one another.

“Virilio’s insights on Speed and Live Television”

Overall, “Indirect Light” is a series of insights on how technology has changed our lives and sense of reality through the increased speed at which images are transmitted. Virilio distinguishes indirect light, which uses electro-optical lighting, from direct light, which uses natural or artificial light sources such as sunlight or floodlights (35). In particular, Virilio makes two comments on speed and live television coverage that I found very interesting.

In Virilio’s essay, he argues that speed has replaced time of duration as a means of determining validity. Virilio states that Einstein believed that the only way to distinguish a correct theory from an incorrect theory was the length of time that it remained valid. Under this example, value is derived from the duration of time in which an idea remains valid. However, Virilio also argues that this method of determining value is no longer used. Instead, Virilio says that, “The real value of the object or subject instantaneously present at a distance entirely depends upon the passage, that is, the speed, of its image, the speed of light of contemporary electro-optics”(33). Our use of technology has encouraged individuals to value speed over duration of time.

Towards the end of his essay, Virilio discusses the role of live television coverage in the Tiananmen Square massacre. The demonstrators demanded live coverage of their protest, but the Chinese government denied their request. After the massacre, the government displayed previously recorded film of individuals violating vehicles and soldiers. Virilio describes this act as a new type of censorship. Instead of refusing to disclose information, “It is the replaying of recorded material, the retarded ignition of the living light of events”(36). This kind of censorship keeps certain elements of an event secret through a manipulative calculation of which images to show.

Virilio's Concerns

Paul Virilio, in his article titled “Indirect Light”, constructed his argument around the notion that the impact of technology has had an incredibly negative for and on society. He is primarily concerned about cinema and the more specific capability that video images and projections have to automatically transfer information from different points and locations. He argues that this is a present crisis of cinema, arguing that “it expresses a crisis in the idea of representation linked to rapid spread of the ‘live’ dimension.” In other words, Paul Virilio expresses a fear or concern about what will happen to us as human beings as a result of the effect of fast media.

I disagree with this idea that technology and technological advancement is a purely negative thing for society. I can understand the argument that human dependency on technology is not necessarily a positive notion (that we are dependant on machines and not self-sufficient) but societal advancement is a product of human intelligence. Our ability to communicate with people around the world and to receive information as it is happening is incredibly useful and constructive.

If you take a look at what the day of September 11^th actually was (for many people) it was a day where we all sat in front of our televisions and computers craving more information and demanding knowledge, especially for those of us who were here on the West Coast. After that day, my grandparents told me that it was for my generation what Pearl Harbor was to theirs and what JFK’s assassination was to my parents. Without the technology that allowed us to be importantly aware of what was going on in the world, we would have been left vulnerable and susceptible. The Virilio idea that the nature, manner and time in which information is received is somehow harmful is an idea with which I cannot understand. I am not sure that Virilio's concern are completely warranted, either. I'm curious to hear what other people have to say.

Optional Class Field Trip: The Girl Who Leapt Through Time

I have free tickets for anyone in the class interested in attending this nearly sold-out film screening at the Pacific Film Archive the Thursday before spring break. It's completely optional, but if you are available, it should be a fun event with thematic ties to the course.

If you didn't already sign up to attend in class on Monday, please email me to be added to the ticket list.

25TH SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN FILM FESTIVAL:

THU MAR 22 2007

7:30

The Girl Who Leapt Through Time

Mamoru Hosoda (Japan, 2006)
Pacific Film Archive Theater, 2575 Bancroft Way, between College & Telegraph

(Toki wo kakeru shoujo). One of the most acclaimed anime features in recent years, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time is the first animated adaptation of a famous 1965 young adult novel that has spawned countless films and television programs through the years. Makoto is a vivacious—if klutzy—seventeen-year-old tomboy whose carefree summer days are literally thrown for a loop when she discovers a mysterious ability to leap back through time. Her trivial temporal maneuvers, like undoing little blunders or finding out exam questions in advance, soon lead to complicated wrinkles that have an inevitable impact on those around her, especially when her best friend confesses his love for her. Hosoda is a remarkable new talent who, together with art director Nizou Yamamoto (Princess Mononoke) and character designer Yoshiyuki Sadamoto (Neon Genesis Evangelion), has crafted a magical, affecting film full of humor, warmth, and the bittersweet pangs of first love.—Taro Goto

• Written by Satoko Okudera, Yasutaka Tsutsui. Photographed by Yoshihiro Tomita. With Riisa Naka, Takuya Ishida, Mitsutaka Itakura, Sachie Hara. (98 mins, In Japanese with English subtitles, Color, 35mm)

What does it all mean? Does Virilio even want us to know?

In “Indirect Light”, Virilio continues with the style we discovered in “The Third Interval.” By this style I am referring to the manner in which he invents or redefines words without ever providing the definitions he attributes to them. It appears to me that he intends much of his argument to be understood through the deep meaning these words hold, but by obscuring and condensing his message with these complex and hard to comprehend words he is making it much less accessible than it could be. He uses many 'clarifications' of words that are themselves extremely hard to interpret. However, many of the words are reoccurring and some seem to relate to others so there must be order and structure to this chaos, but without further explanation there is a very high barrier to understanding.

Despite all the confusion, I think I got glimpses of what Virilio is trying to say. When he talks about indirect light it seems like he is referring to the light captured by a video device being transported somewhere else and illuminating some display in real-time. In a sense, this display is being lit by the light captured elsewhere and therefore it is not the same light. Virilio combines this with the fact that displays and video recording devices are becoming more ubiquitous so that every surface and space can be a display and everything in space is recorded. I don't necessarily agree that this real-time capture to display explosion will really happen though because live feeds are extremely boring and worthless 99.9% of the time. In general, most of life is not worth reproduction. For as far into the future as I can predict I see people being more entertained and captivated with pre-scripted recordings or at least edited and selected 'reality.' Reality TV shows are a great example of this: they film all the time and only select a very small portion of the footage that is interesting and compelling enough to show the viewer. Even with this highly selective, non-real-time process, many of these shows are still boring in my opinion.

That being said, I don't really know if that is what Virilio was trying to say because it seems like he tried his hardest to make it hard to understand him. It would be interesting to see an updated version of these ideas though because since he wrote this in 2000 YouTube and online video in general has really taken off. I don't know how YouTube would fit in with his argument though because although it broadcasts videos all over the world in real-time, none of the videos are actually live feeds. On a similar train of though I wonder what he thinks of streaming video such as webcasts and what he would say about students that never go to class and prefer to simply watch the webcasts.

Technology: Trouble for the Human Race?

Paul Virilio's "The Third Interval" raises the question about the effects on human society from rapid pace of time on space. It relates to other arguments raised in class as well as other works. Well's "The Time Machine" speaks about the negative repercussions from dependency on technology, making us unimaginative, less mobile, and so on, which relates to Virilio's views about the future. I wonder why writers such as the ones before mentioned are pessimistic about the future? Maybe they are less open-minded? Perhaps scared of what may become?

I don't really agree with that Virilio says. Technology has made life easier, but I don't believe it will make us so heavily dependent that we became "terminal". For example, something as simple as the TV remote control has made it easier to watch TV, but we haven't become slaves to the TV where we just can't stop watching. After a few hours, humans will become bored of it and go ahead with another activity. Virilio gives the impression that technology will make life repetitive and mundane, when naturally, humans have an inclination of trying new things and having that pursuit to reach happiness.

When I think of the future, I'm expecting a higher quality of life than I have now and I know technology will be the catalyst for this process. With the invention of new media and methods of communication, practically all the world's information is at one's fingertips. This would only cause a person to think more, be more knowledgeable, more skilled- creating a new advanced human race. But perhaps, I may be too naive and I'm not considering other complications that may rise from technology. I guess we shall have to wait and see.

Teletopia

Personally, I thought it would have helped immensely if we had a class discussion prior to this response essay.

"The Third Interval" dealt with the changing concept of time and space and examined the effects of that changing dynamics between human and time.

This essay examines many different relationships between time and human. The most interesting relationship was the changing concept of the "present" through the emergence of teletopia. Teletopia is essentially a paradox; you are not there but you are there. The concept of being "telepresent" was first introduced through various technologies that enabled the "instantantenous teleactions." It's basic concept is to be here and elsewhere at the same time. Tele- is the prefix for distance, as you know, so the representative phrases introduced in the essay are "Immediate teleaction, and instantenous telepresence."

One example that fits this concept was the "data suit" that was introduced in the essay. Essentially, this device had sensors attached on the suit that transferred the identical actions
to another device that was in another space. The same motions and actions could be
reproduced transcending space through this suit.

My dilemma was that if we could indeed call this telepresence another "presence." Through optoelectronics we are creating an illusion that merely resembles the present. Even if technology continues to develop and we arrive at a stage where we can perfectly transfer every action or even thoughts to this other entity of telepresence, (which indeed could end up as a clone) in my opinion it does not carry the siginificance and realness of the presence.

Telepresence is reproducing another reality, but in no way could this be considered an equivalent to the real presence, in my opinion. "You" as an entity only exist only once in this world, and I think that the claim that the telepresence adds another dimension to our lives is an overstatement.


I still have limited understanding of the text, I am still trying to understand on how the quote "To define the present in isolation is to kill it." contradicts or supports my claim.

The Third Interval?

Like many previous works that we have read and examined in this course, The Third Interval once again deals with Technology and it's effects on the society in terms of connecting time and space. The sense of acceleration that the Technology provides, both in it's ability to mold space and time, but at same time, to alientate a body from this given space. Technology allows two bodies to communicate while sharing no common physical space and yet allows the two bodies to be "present" and "interacting" at the same time. This builds a sort of contininuity, a connection between objects that is impossible to break, but, at same time, placing a gap between these objects - to some extent a barrier.

As you immerse yourself in the "real-time", and become accustomed to the 1's and 0's that provide you with this virtual world that is is occuring in real-time, you no longer become a player of the universe, but another object that is being connecting within this web. This link cannot exist without it's objects, thus, as is, the human's intrigue and interest in using and exploiting this vast network feeds the web and adds to its engulfing and alienating powers. The essay argues that this "enslavement" leads to a transformation from so-called 'real' moment to a detachment from the time and space and eventual loss of yourself.

The acceleration that the technology provides as well as the vast realities that it offers breaks the need to obtain 'real' moments with other people and simply seek the better and faster 'real time' that the technology makes possible. This parallels the works such as Charlie Chaplin's The Modern Times, where this wonderful technologies serves as a medium that detaches Charlie Chaplin's character and provides this barrier between him and other workers as he simply becomes just another object that is enslaved within the Techonology.



This essay was indeed very dense and seemed very scientific in nature as it defined many terms as it gave its analysis. I was very intrigued how it used light as the cosmological constant that linked Time and Space, i.e. "Time and Space are inconceivabel without light". Light, or light-speed, is usually thought of as a physical traversal through space, and as we've discussed in The Time Machine, there is this link between time being traveled as another dimension, just as space is. I am wondering why the author decided to describe time as a "positive sign" and space as a "negative sign". It continues to say that this lays out the geography and history of the world, but I would think that would mean going back in time, or looking at time with a "negative sign". Perhaps we'll find out what he mean by all this=/

Tension Between Man and Machine

In Paul Virilio's essay, The Third Interval, the idea that technology is a double-edged sword yet again arises. Virilio uses the term "terminal citizen" to refer to those who have been affected by the technological developments that exist in urban areas. He cites examples of certain advances in particular that involve less physical activity. This further relates to his point that the urbanization of real-time ultimately invokes the urbanization of the body of the citizen. This is certainly evident in most technological advancements of today. Home shopping, as Virilio states, is an example because it allows us to save time by ordering products online and eliminates the need for us to go to the specific store. Here, the goal of saving time results in less physical activity for humans reflecting Virilio's statement about the urbanization of the body of the citizen.

Virilio gives a warning about the dangers of technology here: “catastrophic figure...who abandons himself, for want of anything better, to the capabilities of captors, sensors and other remote control scanners that turn him into a being controlled by the machine...”(20). He argues that eventually, humans will become a “catastrophic figure”, using technology in so many ways that we will end up depending on it and being controlled by it. By using the phrase “abandoning himself”, Virilio conveys the notion that humans will give full agency to the machines while retaining no agency for themselves. This would explain the wording he chose for the term that he coined, the terminal citizen. The word terminal refers to an end, implying that he equates the loss of agency of humans to the loss of mankind on Earth.

Tension between man and technology is not a new subject to this class. In the scene that we saw from Metropolis, we saw that the bodies of the workers had been enslaved by the machine time that is established by the movements of the factory machines. Again, time as influenced by technology also affects the physical activity of the humans who use the technology. Also, students pointed out in earlier response essays that one of the themes in Man With A Movie Camera is that people should not be consumed by machines, but should partake in more natural activities. The manifestation of this message can be seen when Vertov shows people engaging in outdoor activities such as swimming, playing basketball, exercising, etc. .

Irene wasn’t kidding when she said this reading was dense. Oh my. It had so many terms and ideas and concepts that I was confused half the time reading it. I think I reread it like 3 times just to get a hint of what he was talking about. So, to make sure I have the idea down, I will first try to sum up what he said.

Virilio provides a rather disparaging view of the future as he suggests that we will become automatons limited to no free movement. It seems that as we become more reliant on technology, the less able we become. The quote “Having been first mobile, then motorized, man will thus become motile, deliberately limiting his body’s area of influence to a few gestures, a few impulses, like channel-surfing” (17) best sums it all up.

I’m sure Virilio argued several other ideas in that essay but I was unable to pick them out. As I read his ideas of how the world is going to end up being a dead log really somewhat irritated me. I Maybe it was because I had such a difficult time grasping his arguments. Or it could be because he was basically insulting how I was raised.

As a product of the 21^st century, I’ve come to rely on the technologies he criticized. It seems that he sees no advantage of such wonderful technologies that allow us to be in many places and different times. While he does have a valid point in saying that we are stationary when we do such activities, it allows us to expand our horizons beyond what people could have ever perceived. If anything, it allows us to stretch our arms and legs further than ever imagined.

With that in mind, technology becomes an extension of the human being, bettering ourselves in many ways. With advancements in robotics and things like the data suit, we are not just limited to a “few gestures, a few impulses, like channel-surfing.” With robotics becoming much more complex and agile, it can become, literally, an extension of our body. We can now do tasks that were once considered too dangerous for human activity. Also, for those who lost a limb in the war, a data suit and prosthetic robotic arm can increase their mobility, not limit it.

Is Technology That Beneficial?

“The Third Interval” portrays two vantage points to technology as it affects everyday society. On the one level, there is appreciation for all the benefits that society reaps from innovation. People are able to communicate long distances in a shorter amount of time. People can cover great distances in a fraction of the time as well. Yet, on the other level, there is contempt for all the things that technology is taking away. With transcontinental communication, it is difficult for people to have one-on-one physical contact. The intimacy of staring someone in the face when they talk to you is removed in exchange for the distant glare of the computer monitor. Yes, people can travel across countries to meet those who are far away, but “the paradoxes of acceleration are indeed numerous and disconcerting, in particular, the foremost among them: getting closer to the ‘distant’ takes you away proportionally from the ‘near’ (and dear) --- the friend, the relative, the neighbor --- thus making strangers, if not actual enemies, of all who are close at hand…” (20) That reasoning is quite interesting because it is a behavior that most of us are guilty of, but never really realize. When we struggle to make a connection with people from distant areas, we tend to ignore those closest to us. In a sense, the technology is separating us from those we could have a strong connection with. It is quite nice to make friends with people from around the world, but the relationship that is formed cannot possibly be as strong or lasting as relationships formed with people we see everyday. Like it or not, we can make better relationships with those around us because we have access to them. We can better judge their personality because we can observe how they react in particular situations. We know those particular individuals more intimately than anyone we could possibly meet online or through the telephone.

Not only does technology corrupt the quality of relationships, it also alters our understanding of time. Technology is “killing ‘present’ time by isolating it from its here and now, in favour of a commutative elsewhere that no longer has anything to do with our ‘concrete presense’” (10). We as a society are so concerned with saving time in the future, that we tend to miss out on a lot of things happening in the now. For example, buying an expensive house with lots of neat gadgets built-in is a goal many people share. Those people tend to spend their whole lives working towards that goal of getting their dream home, that they miss out on things they could be enjoying in the present moment. Innovations (especially in today’s society) are constantly improving on one another. It is often hard to keep up with what is new. If one were to be driven only to obtain the newest and latest items, that person would be working their whole lives always looking towards that future.

Another interesting claim this article brings up is the fact that speed is only “a relationship between phenomena…” (12) The entire concept is only plausible as long as there are two events that bind together. Since time is often linked with the concept of speed, does that mean time is only the relationship between two occurrences? In a way, it would make sense to think of time in such a way. Time can really only be measured through the recognition of one event in relation to the next. If the world (and everything in it) stood still, it would be highly likely that time would stand still as well.