A Blog About Blogs...A Meta-Blog

This blog has been my first blogging experience, unless posting pictures on flickr can count as a blog. Can a purely visual blog exist or does a blog necessarily entail writing? I'm not sure. Anyway, I have enjoyed writing this blog, but there are some issues it has raised that I wish to address. Primarily I want to focus on the issue of audience. Blogs make it incredibly difficult to gauge your audience. If I were writing this blog purely for myself, I would choose not to write in complete sentences and instead would undertake a more note-taking style of blogging (one of my favorite styles of writing). However, since I am writing this blog in the context of my media anthropology class, I have tried to be clear and coherent in what I have written. Problematically however, my audience is not limited to media anthropology aficionados, but to the whole internet population. In this light, should I be more thorough in describing and explaining anthropological terms and jargon? Or is confusion a useful tool in the process of learning and realization?

This week I have been thinking about a piece of conceptual writing by Vito Acconci entitled Read This Word. Here it is for your own evaluation and enlightenment:

READ THIS WORD THEN READ THIS WORD READ THIS WORD NEXT READ THIS WORD NOW SEE ONE WORD SEE ONE WORD NEXT SEE ONE WORD NOW AND THEN SEE ONE WORD AGAIN LOOK AT THREE WORDS HERE LOOK AT THREE WORDS NOW LOOK AT THREE WORDS NOW TOO TAKE IN FIVE WORDS AGAIN TAKE IN FIVE WORDS SO TAKE IN FIVE WORDS DO IT NOW SEE THESE WORDS AT A GLANCE SEE THESE WORDS AT THIS GLANCE AT THIS GLANCE HOLD THIS LINE IN VIEW HOLD THIS LINE IN ANOTHER VIEW AND IN A THIRD VIEW SPOT SEVEN LINES AT ONCE THEN TWICE THEN THRICE THEN A FOURTH TIME A FIFTH A SIXTH A SEVENTH AN EIGHTH
(from http://www.ubu.com/concept/acconci_read.html)

Can this kind of meta-writing function effectively in a blogging context? Would there be a specific audience for a blog full of this type of writing? What would that audience look like? Is it useful for both writer and reader to be self-conscious in their respective roles (of writing and reading)?

Mediation Histories

In Media Anthropology class, most of our readings and discussions have focused on how relatively "new" media function in different societies (including TV, radio, video etc). I was wondering how older media function in relation this new media. For example, how do traditional forms of painting and sculpture relate to the video produced in a specific culture? Are they similar or different? Intertextual? Are there some essential aspects of culture embedded in all media? If so what are those aspects? Has any historical work been done on tracing the transition from one medium to another and the resulting transformation that occurs? Are specific types of media rooted in certain times and places or are they transtemporal and transpacial in a sense, creating new meaning through time and space regardless of thier original historical context? It seems to me that if we are going to use the term media, as an encompassing category which includes so many forms of expression, we should have some way of explaining how each medium relates to the other (whether it be in transculturally or interculturally).

The Transference of Screen Angst To Spectator (aka an excuse to talk about the new Coen brothers movie)

This weekend I went to see "No Country for Old Men" (the new movie by the Coen brothers). Dont worry I'm not going to spoil the film, instead I want to discuss a particular resonance between screen and audience which occured from my perspective. Since I went to the movie on opening night, the theater was crowded (nearly sold out I would say). A middle aged woman sat to my left and my movie-going friend sat to my right. Unlike most experiences I've had at the movie theater, I was acutely aware of both my right and left spectator throughout the entire movie. Why? My hypothesis is that the constant onscreen angst presented in the movie transfered directly into the physical body and consciousness of the spectator. Unlike most movies, "No Country for Old Men" is two hours of pure suspense and existential angst; the spectator is presented with a screen scenario in which any character could die at any moment. Not only is the spectator aware of this predicament, but so are the filmic characters. Therefore, the specatators to my left and right (and myself) were constantly on the edge of thier seats: jumping at every gunshot, cringing at the needles, nearly crying out at the helplessness of the characters. Thus, the chorus of spectators perfectly mirrored the helplessness of the characters. The spectator embodied this helplessness, this angst, this fear of sudden death, not only because the screen presented such a powerful antinarrative, but because the truth of the film is far too real to be ignored. Whereas a typical film will give you the illusion of reality, this film presents you with the ultimate reality: the uncertainty of death.

Cinematic Reflexivity

How is cinema self-reflexive? Is there a difference between between a self reflexive video and metavideo?

Ways cinema can be self-reflexive:
1. Showing production processes within a video. Example: A video which shows another video being shot.
2. Talking about the production process, intentionality, and meaning of a video within the video itself. Example: A video which includes footage of someone (say the director) describing the meaning of the video.
3. Making a video about yourself. Example: An autobiographical video. This type of self-reflexivity is different because its reflexivenss is not necessarily obvious to the viewer, but will always be noted by the video maker.

A metavideo is a video about video, so showing some sort of production process is implied. Vertov's Man with a Movie Camera for example could easily be considered a metafilm (with his notions of "cinema eye" and "radio ear" also implicated). Likewise a lot of the indigenous video work that I have been watching (by the Video in the Villages Project) can also be categorized as metavideos because they often show production processes interspliced within more conventional narratives. It is important to note that Point #3 (above) might or might not be classified as a metavideo depending on the viewer's awareness of the video's production context.

What might a self-reflexive viewer look like? What about a self-reflexive viewer watching a self-reflexive film? I suppose this question has an easy answer: Brechtian cinema (Verfremdungseffekt). But is there more to it than that?