Nice reflections! I have enjoyed the exercise, the videos, and this reflection a lot. And the spirit of what you write: “Rather than trying to figure things out beforehand (as academia instructs us), we just tried out stuff, went with the flow to see what would appear, to then further explore on the basis of what experimentation yielded”… I am making a post on ‘propositions’; rather than telling people (such as students) how to do or understand something, just ‘proposing’ to try out a situation, and then reflect on what is established and experienced through this enacted situation.
A quote: “… created a space for deeper listening and more intense looking”.
This corresponds with what we, too, are trying to do through the ‘rehearsals’ as well as during the volna (the stream) / flooding of landscapes from one to another.
how? (“You say” – We say!)
“imagination”
imagination !
“revisiting”
revisiting !
“to be vulnerable”
to be vulnerable !
“replying with voice-messages”
replying with voice-messages !
The issue of signification / meaning production is significant in terms of image/sound/film, and how meanings are processed in relation to wider norms/codes. The following passage holds fruits:
“Third, we realized how, when confronted with something we do not know, or fully understand, we immediately seek recourse to (1) recognizable clues and (2) the familiar interpretative frames we have at hand so as to make sense of what we hear, or see.
Fourth, we learned that different people may understand a video of an encounter in radically different ways, dependent on the clues and frames they introduce to make sense of what they hear and see.”
We would like to discuss these aspects further with you!
Watching the young man talking in Mattijs’ it seemed to me that the wall in his right was just some centimeters away from his right hand. So I pictured him sitting in a corner, between two walls and I was actually surprised by this choice. I felt that he was crammed , trapped. It was only when he stood up that I realize the distance between him and the wall and watching the video again I had a very contrasting impression.
That made me wonder about other features of that encounter that I perceive wrong, things that I imagined or discount. I start thinking about what I couldn’t see, thinking that the more information I knew, the closer I could come to the “real” encounter.
I realized that even when the two pieces (image and sound) came together, the result was nothing more that just another piece of the encounter. Not being there, I can only see a depiction of the encounter, a fully mediated experience. (Maybe not more mediated that the life itself)
I loved what you wrote “we learned by doing. Rather than trying to figure things out beforehand (as academia instructs us), we just tried out stuff, went with the flow to see what would appear, to then further explore on the basis of what experimentation yielded. Sharing ‘raw’ footage required us to be vulnerable. It enabled us to avoid an all too stringent guidance of viewers with analytical interpretations and meaningful frames.” Throughout our lives we learn by making mistakes and as we progress through academia we become fearful of that failure. This project as a whole has allowed a shared exploration and to truly be guided by what we are drawn to.
Nice reflections! I have enjoyed the exercise, the videos, and this reflection a lot. And the spirit of what you write: “Rather than trying to figure things out beforehand (as academia instructs us), we just tried out stuff, went with the flow to see what would appear, to then further explore on the basis of what experimentation yielded”… I am making a post on ‘propositions’; rather than telling people (such as students) how to do or understand something, just ‘proposing’ to try out a situation, and then reflect on what is established and experienced through this enacted situation.
feedback to Amsterdam team:
A quote: “… created a space for deeper listening and more intense looking”.
This corresponds with what we, too, are trying to do through the ‘rehearsals’ as well as during the volna (the stream) / flooding of landscapes from one to another.
how? (“You say” – We say!)
“imagination”
imagination !
“revisiting”
revisiting !
“to be vulnerable”
to be vulnerable !
“replying with voice-messages”
replying with voice-messages !
The issue of signification / meaning production is significant in terms of image/sound/film, and how meanings are processed in relation to wider norms/codes. The following passage holds fruits:
“Third, we realized how, when confronted with something we do not know, or fully understand, we immediately seek recourse to (1) recognizable clues and (2) the familiar interpretative frames we have at hand so as to make sense of what we hear, or see.
Fourth, we learned that different people may understand a video of an encounter in radically different ways, dependent on the clues and frames they introduce to make sense of what they hear and see.”
We would like to discuss these aspects further with you!
/ Raketa & Agder team
Watching the young man talking in Mattijs’ it seemed to me that the wall in his right was just some centimeters away from his right hand. So I pictured him sitting in a corner, between two walls and I was actually surprised by this choice. I felt that he was crammed , trapped. It was only when he stood up that I realize the distance between him and the wall and watching the video again I had a very contrasting impression.
That made me wonder about other features of that encounter that I perceive wrong, things that I imagined or discount. I start thinking about what I couldn’t see, thinking that the more information I knew, the closer I could come to the “real” encounter.
I realized that even when the two pieces (image and sound) came together, the result was nothing more that just another piece of the encounter. Not being there, I can only see a depiction of the encounter, a fully mediated experience. (Maybe not more mediated that the life itself)
I loved what you wrote “we learned by doing. Rather than trying to figure things out beforehand (as academia instructs us), we just tried out stuff, went with the flow to see what would appear, to then further explore on the basis of what experimentation yielded. Sharing ‘raw’ footage required us to be vulnerable. It enabled us to avoid an all too stringent guidance of viewers with analytical interpretations and meaningful frames.” Throughout our lives we learn by making mistakes and as we progress through academia we become fearful of that failure. This project as a whole has allowed a shared exploration and to truly be guided by what we are drawn to.
Feedback from the Arizona Team