![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Through a Screen Door
I remember once upon a time looking at someone through a screen held a very different connotation than it does today. In particular, I am flashing back to an age where strangers and door-to-door salesman still would approach homes with a certain objective in mind. I remember images of skeptical mothers opening the door to these people, but leaving the screen door shut until they understood the nature of this person’s business and whether they wanted the interaction to proceed.
Nowadays, it seems that looking at someone through a screen has an altogether different meaning. The other night, I went with friends to a “punk” show to see a band called Rise Against. Though I like the band a lot, the show was rather mediocre and the sound system was horrible, which left me with a of time to look around and ponder the people and place I found myself at. The club is called “Premier” and is attached to the Fenix Cafe, or somesuch. And on every patch of bare wall they had a flat screen television.
I would guess maybe there were something like 30-50 screens around the whole place. And the weird part was that the screens featured only images of what was going on onstage - even though the stage was clearly visible. Actually, they didn’t depict just what was onstage, but what was onstage mixed in with some really atrociously horrible automated computer graphics, coloration, stupid patterns and animated editing effects. Why a live music venue would bother with such a waste of money is kind of beyond me. I thought the whole point of going to a live concert was so you could actually be there, live, watching and listening to the band - not watching tv. Silly me.
The other thing that caught my attention was the people in front of me who were dancing/moshing while holding up with one hand their cell phones pointed towards the stage, so that they could photograph the action. I’ve never been into concert photos myself, but I can appreciate people’s wanting to re-capture a moment in their lives at some later date.
But the whole situation put together just makes me wonder where all these screens are really taking us. Are we becoming more connected, as technology companies’ marketing departments would have us believe? Or are we simply ignoring the fact that there are now constantly screen doors between us?
November 10th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Great observations Tim! I think the latter - more screen (doors) between us. Our intention might be to use these screens to connect to people we otherwise couldn’t or wouldn’t while simultaneously keeping the non-screened connections strong. It’s not always easy to balance, is it?
November 10th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
not to belaber the point tim but……..the medium is the message. cell phones with cameras is the point. i just got a new one with a camera in it that takes really good photos but i found myself looking at new phones the other night at starbucks before i caught me having thoughts of a better camera and an mp3 player etc.
consumerism……………..
November 10th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
“But the whole situation put together just makes me wonder where all these screens are really taking us. Are we becoming more connected, as technology companies’ marketing departments would have us believe? Or are we simply ignoring the fact that there are now constantly screen doors between us? ”
Well, look at it this way…we’re quickly approaching a point where people aren’t going to give a shit about the person/people performing anymore because they can just film it, export it, edit it, remix it, and the re-present it on youtube or google video and it will be seen by a larger audience. just going to see a show is quickly going to become boring and pointless because people playing instruments won’t be as impressive as a multimedia audio/visual presentation of “music”.
Look at Apple’s description for their program “Motion”:
Animate Easily
Conjure up even the most complicated motion graphics with ease. Just by dragging a customizable Behavior from the Motion Library and dropping it on type or graphics, you can create fluid, natural movement. Intuitive and interactive, Motion even lets you assign parameter behaviors to MIDI knobs and faders. Because you get real-time, dynamic response to simultaneous inputs, you can even “play” Motion like a musical instrument for spontaneous live performances.
This kind of thing, to me, indicates that we’re quickly heading towards a point where music alone just won’t cut it for people. Visual artists are going to eventually be seen as being on the same playing field as musicians, maybe even surpass them.
It seems that as the popularity of online video sites grows, more and more people almost prefer screwing around on youtube for a few hours on a Friday night than watching network television.
Add to that the fact that anyone can take video footage and edit it and present it on something like youtube, and you’ve got a whole new dimension of DIY entertainment. Even if that entertainment consists only of re-contextualize pre-existing footage captured from DVDs and television. This is becoming easier and easier to do with cheap and sometimes even free programs that allow users to freeze frame commercially available DVD copies of their favorite shows and concerts and movies and then export the frames to an editing program. Once the type of CGI effects used on movies like lord of the rings are eventually made available to the public in an easy to use, straight forward type of “bundled program” like imovie or itunes or idvd (it’s a stretch, but why wouldn’t that happen eventually?), mainstream entertainment as we know it might be on the brink.
Because who would rather sit there and watch crap, when you can take the crap and re-contextualize it, remake it, and do it the way you think it should be done?
yeah, it’s true that the bulk of this is being done with already existing footage, but so what? If the power to easily remix and remake exists, then the companies that initially produce the raw footage being used for this definitely DO need to worry if their message/advertising scheme is going to survive through the process.
Right now the framework that this remixing takes place in seems to be very modular…but eventually it will move past that. Then we might even be able to think of it as something like open source, freely and easily editable visual iconic mythology.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
I think Adbusters, media jamming and detournement have already delved into those areas. I wrote about how I personally don’t think advertisers are negatively impacted by this “remixing” of their message in relation to that here:
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/08/21/busting-adbusters/
The companies which survive will be the companies which allow these things to happen, this post-modern fragmentation of their message into numerous micro-realities…
November 10th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
or do it to thier own images……….
November 10th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Right, of course!
November 10th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
“The companies which survive will be the companies which allow these things to happen, this post-modern fragmentation of their message into numerous micro-realities… ”
…micro realities that the original companies have absolutely nothing to do with. It’s not really up to them at all. I’m not talking about them “allowing” anything. They don’t have a choice.
What’s going to happen when a smartass college kid can make his own porno movie starring Shrek, Martin Short, Marilyn Monroe and himself, all dressed in bondage gear? How is that going to effectively carry through whatever possible advertising message existed in the original footage? It might, but no more effectively than it would have if it was left alone and presented in the original format.
“or do it to thier own images………. ”
At that point, what’s the difference? If that’s what’s going on, then I can just take their subversion of their own message and subvert it even more. And if they then subvert that, I can keep right on going. In fact, the scale is tipped in my favor since I wouldn’t have any public image to uphold. I would just be an anonymous youtube user. They can trend track and target audience all they like…but there’s only so far they can whittle it down until it really has lost it’s meaning. What happens if I take a DVD and turn the whole thing into a moving abstract painting with absolutely nothing in the film being recognizable? what message is being sent other than, “Hey these guys made a moving abstract painting out of an ‘Encino Man’ DVD’!”?
November 10th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Well that’s exactly the point - and people already are doing these kinds of things. This isn’t a futuristic vision. What we need to ask ourselves becomes not a matter of whether or not we are subverting a corporate message or not, but are we saying something that really matters? Are we standing up for what we believe in? And most important of all: what the hell do we believe in?
The answer I see is we are going to have a lot of confused and directionless people who think they are being “clever” and breaking new ground, when all they are doing is plunging themselves and all of us into a sea of meaninglessness.
Maybe what we should be focusing on isn’t how to subvert corporate culture, but how to ignore it altogether. How to create our culture completely outside of and away from what they are doing and have done. This will become increasingly difficult as they follow us into these types of nooks and crannies and try to endlessly colonize them…
November 10th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Also reading this right now:
http://www.rushkoff.com/interviews/edge61.html
November 10th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Well that’s exactly the point - and people already are doing these kinds of things. This isn’t a futuristic vision. What we need to ask ourselves becomes not a matter of whether or not we are subverting a corporate message or not, but are we saying something that really matters? Are we standing up for what we believe in? And most important of all: what the hell do we believe in?
Wait, what? We’re talking about utopian visions of the future? I’m talking about entertainment in the form of visual media. Maybe I wasn’t clear…I didn’t put forth the idea in my original post as a primary means of subverting culture. I’m saying that this is where visual media is headed, corporate or not. What we choose to do with it remains to be seen. If people choose to make ad-busters style crap, then so be it. If someone just wants to film their feet in the shower and then put it up on youtube, that’s fine too.
“The answer I see is we are going to have a lot of confused and directionless people who think they are being “clever” and breaking new ground, when all they are doing is plunging themselves and all of us into a sea of meaninglessness. “
The beauty of it would be that it wouldn’t matter what Joe Blow is doing because you can do your own thing. Your description above pretty much describes 99% of what’s on TV right now. How is what I’m talking about going to make it any worse?
“Maybe what we should be focusing on isn’t how to subvert corporate culture, but how to ignore it altogether. How to create our culture completely outside of and away from what they are doing and have done. This will become increasingly difficult as they follow us into these types of nooks and crannies and try to endlessly colonize them… “
Ok, but that’s not going to happen while people are still mystified and awe struck by the box of lights and the people who “mysteriously” manipulate the lights that come out of it. There’s this seemingly prevalent notion that visual media in the form of film/video is somehow something to be avoided. It’s not. It’s to be taken and used for whatever purposes we feel like. Personally, I’m not interested in subverting corporate culture, I’m interested in telling stories. I’m not suggesting that the only thing to do with the technology is screw around with already existing footage produced by corporations. I’m saying like it or not, visual media is quickly becoming editable. The more this happens, the more common those big screens are going to be.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Well then how do we make them not mystified by it?
Where is this notion prevalent?
November 10th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
“Well then how do we make them not mystified by it?”
By making the technology available and showing people how to use it accomplish the very thing they’re mystified by. Encourage people to make their own films using the technology. At first I’m sure all people will think about is recreating or trying to immitate the crap they’ve already seen…the same way high school students often choose a photo from sports illustrated and then painstakingly attempt to draw it as a photorealistic art piece, rather than just creating something using their own ideas. Eventually those constraints will get old and people will start to really experiment with the technology and their ideas and hopefully what you described earlier would take place.
“Where is this notion prevalent?”
I guess “prevalent” isn’t the right word since anyone that feels this way is vastly outnumbered by the millions of people that have no problem what so ever about jumping into couch potato land. Personally, I know quite a few people that seem to feel this way…that technology, and television and movies in general, are somehow too easily corruptible and should be avoided. And in their current state they are. But they don’t have to be.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
I guess the thing I am concerned about is that these things aren’t actually beneficial. i agree that this is the solution to the question I asked. But if the problem is media controlling us, us controlling media is only one way out. An even more positive way out is - I think - us learning how to extricate ourselves from it all together. Because if we make it freely available then we promote its use even further…
In other words, why don’t we do something besides encourage people to use technology and make films - no matter how good they are. Why don’t we encourage people to live life better and more fully?
Too easily corruptible as opposed to what other media? Just curious what you mean - not trying to drill you on this.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:57 am
“I guess the thing I am concerned about is that these things aren’t actually beneficial. i agree that this is the solution to the question I asked. But if the problem is media controlling us, us controlling media is only one way out. An even more positive way out is - I think - us learning how to extricate ourselves from it all together. Because if we make it freely available then we promote its use even further…”
Yeah, that’s true…but what’s wrong with using it? I’m not convinced that us taking media and using it for our own purposes is a negative thing. the technology already exists and it’s not going to go away, short of a collapse. (which may happen…who knows?) You’re talking about the dangers of promoting it’s further use, but I’m not sure I see it that way.
“In other words, why don’t we do something besides encourage people to use technology and make films - no matter how good they are. Why don’t we encourage people to live life better and more fully?”
Well wait a second Tim, I’m not saying that we should abandon life as we know it and just devote all our time to creating films and fucking around with media. But people like movies. They like entertainment along those lines. They like spectator sports. What I’m putting forth is, if people like these things, why not create them ourselves rather than depend on corporations to provide them for us? Why watch the baseball game when you can play baseball?
“Too easily corruptible as opposed to what other media? Just curious what you mean - not trying to drill you on this.”
Well, usually people are comparing it to the written word when they say that. print. books. The argument I’ve heard often is that books are “safe” and film is “dangerous”. Usually the reason cited is that film is too easy to mystify the audience with…too easy for product placement. Didn’t we talk about this on your blog? I could have sworn that this has come up before…maybe I’m mistaken though.