Something potentially interesting….
-
October 31, 2003
October 30, 2003
It sucks ’cause I said so.
While doing some research for a (forthcoming) post, I came across a Web site that I had forgotten about from the old days of the fabulous “hype” of the World Wide Web: 1997, when everyone was scrambling to position themselves for all the fame and riches that being involved (in some way, shape, or form) in the world of the Web promised. I am speaking of Web Pages That Suck.
I stumbled across this site some seven years ago while seeking relevant Web sites for the classes in HTML that I was teaching. Back in those days, the Web was so new and with so little out there (compared to now) that it was like a land rush: get yer ass out there and stake yer claim! These were the days of very popular sites that tried to archive the good, the bad, and the ugly such as Mirsky’s Worst of the Web (now defunct) and Cool Site of the Day. Web Pages That Suck had what I thought was a great hook: use of the words “suck” and “Web” combined with a strong premise (for me as an educator) of teaching good design by looking at bad design. To paraphrase Johnny Carson (regarding setting up a comedy bit): buy the premise, buy the bit. So, I dug in…
The original layout of this site presented the viewer with a series of “windows” that displayed the site being critiqued, the critique itself, and other various links. At the time, I thought this was fine, not particularly insightful; the sites being critiqued were very obvious examples of bad design (in 1997 there were more than enough examples of that) but ultimately useful for the “newbies” entering the Web design world. Then something happened…
One of the sites being critiqued was the Web site of a prestigious art and design school in California (forgive me for not being able to recall which one it was, exactly). My immediate thought was: eh? From a design standpoint, this site was light-years away from the utter crap that was on display here. Certainly it would be challenging (in 1997) for the average Web surfer as this site utilized an extremely contemporary use of layout and design in combination with some cutting-edge HTML/graphic/Javascript techniques. Since art and design is part of my background, I was intrigued to read why this was considered bad design and what the critique would present as its argument(s). What it boiled down to was this: “too arty.” Too arty?! What the hell does that mean? Does it mean the same thing as the design of the Republican party’s Web site is too conservative or this photographer’s Web site doesn’t work because its all photographs or perhaps the ultimate this Web site doesn’t succeed because it’s too webbish?
I would think a consideration of a Web site’s intended audience and purpose should have some influence on one’s analysis. The unfortunate part of this experience forced me then to question the value of all the other observations, critiques, and analyses. It’s easy to point out the obvious. I certainly believe that there is some common ground as to what can be considered bad but when self-proclaimed “experts” begin to stray from the obvious it becomes clear that the emperor has no clothes.
Roger Ebert once remarked that anyone knowledgeable of a subject should never critique movies about that subject and perhaps that is just what I’m attempting to do here. Moral: stick with what you know not what you think you know. Repeating what others have discovered and stated elsewhere is only the conceit of knowledge.
The irony here is that I once used this original site layout as an example of poor design in my Web classes. On a recent visit however I was pleased to see that the site is actually “designed” but unfortunately I never trust any Web site where the first thing you see on the site is a photograph of the author.
The Schwarzenegger v.s. Clinton debate analogy.
-
Comments Off
October 29, 2003
“Memento” [2]
Steve, in a comment on my earlier monologue regarding Memento, mentioned the film’s relationship(s) with hypertext. I must agree and look at this….
-
October 28, 2003
Screening Memento
One of the interesting things (for me) about teaching Film Appreciation is the ability to observe in real-time the reactions of the class members as they experience a film – especially if they’ve never seen the film before. Martin Scorsese once remarked that movie-going was similar to attending a religious service: a group of people all sharing a common experience (Scorsese at one time was going to become a priest but moved on to be a filmmaker). Tonight was such a night as we screened Christopher Nolan’s Memento (2000).
Memento presents us with the story of Leonard Shelby, a man whose wife has been murdered and, while trying to save her, receives a serious head injury that has left him unable to create new memories. Leonard can remember everything prior to his injury but now can only retain information for several minutes before it completely fades leaving him with no memory of the last ten minutes (and beyond). Through this seemingly insurmountable handicap, Leonard is tracking down his wife’s killer and the thief of his memories by creating “mementoes” (Polaroid photographs, tattoos, and hand-written notes).
What makes this film-noir so unique is in how Nolan has deconstructed the story and crafted a narrative that begins at the end and, through segments of approximately ten minutes in length, moves backwards to … the middle of the story. Yes, the movie ends in the “middle” of the story. For while the second half of the story move backwards, it is intercut with the beginning of the story as it moves forward to … the middle. Just imagine the storyline being folded back on itself. Sound confusing? On first viewing it certainly can be.
The brilliance of this film, in my opinion, is in how this structure, combined with an absolute restricted (Leonard’s point-of-view) narrative, makes us experience the loss of short-term memory: we become one with Leonard. Additionally, this complexity brings new and different meanings upon repeated viewings. This, for me, has always been a key benchmark for judging any work.
During previous screenings, the class, at varying moments during the film, would make notes. Tonight, I don’t think I saw one person put pen to paper. Previous screenings required the class to note and write about specific elements of both film and narrative form but Memento blurs most of those distinctions. Several were left sitting, at the end, bewildered and rubbing their eyes: common when presented with something so new (to them) and also when trying way too hard to make sense of a narrative that is trying just as hard to foil you for two hours.
They’ll survive.
October 27, 2003
So… what exactly is it?
This is the most common question heard whenever speaking about and lobbying for our New Media Communications/Research/Studies program at Tunxis (and elsewhere). The answer is a delicate matter during any program’s genesis as one tries to be both succinct and lucid in their response. The answer additionally becomes dependent upon who is asking the question: administration/management, peers (fellow faculty members), business/community people (potential employers), or students (our “clients” who may be interested in participating in such a program). Since the New Media program has an interdisciplinary approach, one must also be prepared to provide a tie-in to the questioner’s implied query: “what’s in it for me?” Knowing the answer is very different than communicating the answer.
So, you may be thinking, this is all very nice but you still have not provided an answer. True, but bear with me as I meander from the nebulous to the abstract to the concrete. Believing in and feeling passionate about this endeavor (as I certainly very strongly do), can “color” an answer in such a way that the questioner may become suspicious that this is all hype. This is what my search for a concise response must try to avoid: the sense that this is only personal opinion.
Where is the common ground of new media?
1. It is a digitally-based medium;
2. It has narrative structure;
3. It involves levels of interaction between “reader” and “author”;
4. It implies elements of communication.
What is its significance or why is it “new” media?
- It refers to the dramatic shifts in:
1. How we communicate as individuals;
2. How traditional mass media communicates;
3. How business is run;
4. How we entertain ourselves;
5. How we create.
What are some common examples of new media today?
1. DVDs;
2. Games (video- & text-based);
3. Web sites such as Amazon and PBS;
4. Anyone who uses a computer to create, to communicate, for entertainment, or work is involved with new media.
Who is the potential audience for such a program?
1. Artists;
2. Business people;
3. Designers;
4. Educators;
1. Entreprenuers;
5. Marketing and advertising people;
6. Programmers;
7. Web developers;
8. Writers;
9. Others seeking professional development, looking to change careers, or anyone with ideas or simply curious.
What would a student in a new media program gain?
1. An awareness of how this is influencing every discipline;
2. An understanding that this is a medium of dialogue not monologue;
3. An understanding that new media comes from the collaborative efforts of individuals possessing varying types of skills and levels of expertise;
4. An opportunity to develop and produce new media projects;
5. An opportunity to work collaboratively with others;
6. An opportunity to learn new skills;
7. An opportunity to apply skills gained in other disciplines;
8. An understanding of their own strengths (and weaknesses) in working within this medium;
9. An eye towards the potential(s) that the future holds.
Hmmm, I think that’s enough for now. This is by no means all-inclusive nor an exhaustive listing but rather a generic listing of what we mean when either Steve, Bill, or I speak about new media. The next step is to distill this down to a meaningful abstract. Stay tuned….
[note to self: as a visual person, I sure am doing a large amount of writing lately]
October 26, 2003
3 Significant Individuals
Three individuals who I consider to be some of the leading influences in the field of new media:
Lev Manovich is Associate Professor in the Visual Arts Department, University of California, San Diego and author of the book “The Language of New Media.”
Janet Murray is Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Information Design and Technology Program School of Literature, Communication, and Culture at the Georgia Institute of Technology and author of “Hamlet on the Holodeck.”
Nick Montfort is a Director of the Electronic Literature Organization, co-editor of the seminal “The New Media Reader“, and author of the forthcoming book on interactive fiction “Twisty Little Passages“.