First, I’ll apologize for posting late. I spent way too much time messing about with Audacity (a little more on that later) and was in my jammies for the watching of Michael Wesch’s Anthropology of YouTube. Unfortunately, my home DSL connection wasn’t up to the task and I didn’t feel like changing into clothes and driving to campus late at night.
I don’t have much to say about Jennie Bourne’s Web Video. I’ve never given much critical thought to video, web or otherwise, so it was useful for bringing up all sorts of things which I’d never considered. But it was kind of like reading Dear Abby for budding web videographers and I’ll find it most useful when we actually start making videos. It did, however, give me some things to think about when I watched Wesch’s video early this morning.
Wesch’s approach fascinates me because he's so interested in the people who use the technology and how they use it. He’s not concerned with video quality or lighting or compression, meaning that I can understand what he’s talking about. And when he points out that “a large percentage of [YouTube videos are] meant for 100 or fewer viewers,” he makes it clear why he is not concerned with the technological details.
I’ve always kind of disdained YouTube as a way to spend my time. I’d never heard of Gary Brolsma, I didn’t get the references to the Star Wars kid, I had no idea how SouljaBoy got his start and I now understand why someone was carrying a “Free Hugs” sign on campus last week (when I saw it, I just thought it was kind of creepy). I’ll watch some of the videos people share on Facebook, but I tend to skip anything that seems to be about a baby or a baby animal. Unless I personally know the baby or the baby animal. Now I’ve got a whole new approach for YouTube. The whole path of user-generated content to user-generated distribution to user-generated commentary appeals to my proletarian sensibilities. And the videos that Wesch used as examples were often meaningful and topical (He viewed what? 8000 videos in 3 weeks? Better him than me).
Because I had read parts of Web Video before watching the Wesch presentation, I found myself paying attention to lighting, camera shake and background. I don’t remember thinking consciously of any of these things before, but now I’m attuned. I almost wish I could give that knowledge back. But I can appreciate the effort of making oh-so-much. Watching the takes of the student vlogs resonated with me because I have spent several hours tussling with Audacity. It’s not Audacity that’s the problem; it’s me. I shut myself up in a room so no one could hear me or distract me. That was the easy part. I don’t like the sound of my own voice, I slur a word, I end a sentence on a down beat, I let the sentence trail off… The things that can go wrong are endless. I still don’t have anything that I’m willing to share with the public. Yet all those people out there are talking to an unknown audience and just letting it happen. Some are scripted, most are not. And I honestly don’t care if it’s real or fiction; if I can relate, it means that someone out there can relate to me.
I’ll finish with this screen shot from Facebook. A friend of mine posted a question. His girlfriend responded and the public status update turned into a private conversation. It’s still public, of course, but no one else joined in even though the original question is open-ended and (to me, at least) a good party conversation-starter.
Jen,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your posting your friend's Facebook postings because it brings up a good point. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him though. He/she writes, "The message remains a message regardless of the medium. The nuances of communication may be lost/change but the message remains." Obviously, the nuances of the language change when you send a handwritten letter versus an e-mail. A handwritten letter is more personal, and an email is a quicker, some would say "lazier" way to send a message. But I think so much of language IS the nuances – it's how we say things that makes the message, not WHAT we say. Therefore, the message does not remain at all, but changes entirely.
For example, I could send someone a text and type, "I love what you're wearing," and it seem genuine. Here, the message is that the person enjoys the person's outfit.
However, I could walk up to that person and say, "I love what you're wearing" in a sarcastic tone, then the message is that I actually hate the person's outfit and wish she would change clothes. This is an entirely different message and is more than nuances of communication simply changing.
Both of you make valid points. We watch a good deal of Lego Star Wars in our home and the humor that my husband and I find funny is completely missed on my children. - As someone that teaches writing - I also wonder when do people learn nuances? I can say with some certainty - it is not by 19.... and I have some approaching 40 year old friends that are missing them as well.
ReplyDeleteYou all make very startlingly valid points that I haven't really given much thought to of late. I do worry sometimes, as does your friend, about the future of the written language. Its funny that you write about this because yesterday at work, my co-worker's daughter was there waiting for her dad to come pick her up since her mom had to bring her to work with her. As she was sitting there, she was writing a paper for class. I literally had to do a double-take! She was actually pencil-and-paper writing! When she was done, she asked me to proofread it and that's when I saw what nuances she had learned (and I'm afraid a lot of people her age have learned this as well...which could very well be the downfall of written English as we know it currently -- not saying it'll go away forever, but the way we know it will certainly change). In this paper she had written for class, she included "L.O.L." and "O.M.G." along with other text-type lingo. She's in 7th grade and has already learned the nuances of texting and has incorporated them into her writing as well as her speech. I think this is definitely going to change the English language as we know it, but I don't know how fast it will change or what exactly will change about it, but I do know that something is in the process of changing with this new digital age of children.
ReplyDelete