As we get further down the participatory media rabbit hole I am realizing just how much I am required to… participate. No longer can I be the passive viewer who lets the content wash over me. The only way to access the content is to be an active participant. Yet it can feel overwhelming to open up a Localore project and figure out how to navigate the site. These projects aren’t based on a linear model for interaction. Every point on the site is an entrance into the project. This is challenging because as user/viewers we have to make some choices. This is also the exciting part because we have the power to direct the course of the documentary. I just need to learn to give myself the push to make those choices.
Part of the challenge is that making the choices and exploring the full content of interactive sites takes time. In the documentary about the Localore projects one of the producers said, “The big challenge is to make people slow down on the Internet.” This made so much sense to me as I saw myself wanting to quickly “get” the project so that I knew what I was looking at, but it was only through the exploring, the hunting and gathering that I understood the project. When I first opened up Omega Zed I had no idea what I was looking at or where to start, so I really had to force myself to slow down and be mindful about how I was viewing, so that I took the time to be an explorer and have fun discovering the material. The mind-blowing aspect about these projects is that there is so much new territory to discover in regards to storytelling. There is no road map. With each new project there a new road map is developed. Figuring out the architecture of the project is half the battle. Some producers will hew closer to a traditional model while others break free entirely.
Planet Takeout and Black Gold Boom use familiar techniques from long form documentary projects, while Omega Zed employs an entirely new technique for creating content. In PT and BGB the producers do interviews, shoot footage, and take pictures in order to tell the story. This is what we have seen before, but they only do that to create the content. Actually viewing the documentary requires a new level of interaction. In BGB the documentary pauses and gives the viewer a chance to explore topics and experiences further by clicking through additional graphics, videos and pictures. PT allows the viewer to click and move through a restaurant in order hear or view stories that come from that part of the restaurant. Omega Zed is an “authentic fiction” about dropping out of high school. It generates content through non-fictional interactions instigated by fictional characters. Instead of waiting for a “real” student come forward with a drop out story they use actors to force the issue. The navigation of the documentary eschews a neat video package. Understanding the project is based more on following a character through blog posts and the conversations they start with real people interested in offering advice or insights with respect to dropping out.
The Localore projects push reporting into uncharted territory. One of the producers remarked that the biggest risk for current media is not trying new ways of reporting. I think this applies to the viewers as well. The biggest risk is not trying new ways of viewing.
With these projects that exist online through user interaction the way in which they are archived is called into question. How do we archive Bear 71? No one “viewing” is the same as the next. In an interview with one of the producers, he asked,” Should we archive the Internet and one user or something? It’s a real issue and we have to archive everything.” So, what does archiving look like with respect to interactive documentary projects?
To answer your question about archiving interactive documentary projects, perhaps the future of digital storage is the project simply being stored as is. I envision the future of the Library of Congress being a giant hard drive, where zillions of digital media pieces are stored. If we are eventually able to store data in DNA, what are the limits?
I love that you note one of the producers saying “the biggest risk for current media is not trying new ways of reporting.” I think that’s such a fundamental point of the studies in this class. As media curators and creators, it’s up to us to push the envelope and develop new ways of telling stories and sharing media with the world.
I agree that with many of these sites, one needs to slow down to digest it. Take your time to understand and reflect. But do you ever just want to get off your computer, or tablet, or phone? (And am I just revealing my age by even asking that question? Does this PC make me look old?)
Seriously though, part of the reason I rush through things online is because I really just want to get off my computer. What I appreciate about this class is that at least the things I am looking at have depth. Each of them are forms of art. They are worth spending time with.
The piece that I have to write about this week is Bear 71. It is so awesome. The switch in point of view is a very creative way to get people to feel something about an environmental issue like loss of habitat (which is the number one cause of species extinction). It anthropomorphizes the bear in a way that helps connect her and her cubs to humans by story. And it makes data personal.
The piece also uses digital technology while at the same time critiquing it via the bear. It touches on the surveillance digital culture allows of not only humans, but animals. The technology is trying to keep bears and people safe by reducing interactions, but the bear is understandably annoyed by it. And it generates data and video that provides the ability for the creators to tell this story. I think it provides a great model of one way that environmentalists can connect with people emotionally about endangered species.
One of the quotes from the bear came after she died, in reference to one of her cubs: “She’ll have to learn a new way to survive.” There was more to it that I wanted to capture, but I couldn’t get the audio to rewind. In any case, isn’t that true for humans as well?
This brings me back to my point about sometimes wanting to get off my computer, being impatient with my online interactions, even if they are fruitful, or the material is artistic, or it is furthering my knowledge of some important topic. While the predicament for humans is not as plainly life or death as it is for grizzly bears, still, for bears as well as humans, each generation since the Industrial Revolution is having to learn a new way to survive.
I feel like these non-linear projects are interesting and are most likely the wave of the future when it comes to participatory media on the internet (just see how I glowed over Bear 71 in my post this week). However I do think that these sites do suffer just a bit because they are non-linear. Unless a person spends quite a bit of time on the site there is no way to think they got all of the information that you were trying to pass along to them. Plus if you make the site to difficult to navigate they may just give up all together. What do you think that the creators of these sites have to do in order to make sure all of their content is seen?
I agree with Brett to a certain degree that the non-linear format makes it more difficult to get all the information through that you want to get passed along. But in a way, I think that’s the whole idea. With any documentary or presentation, can we really hope and/or expect the entirety of information to be absorbed by the viewer? Of course not – as a collective race we don’t have photographic memory as a common thread among us. Rather, the intent of any large form presentation is to have a couple of your key ideas break through and resonate with the audience. Those resonating moments are the ones that stick with the viewer, and which are then potentially spread beyond the presentation as that viewer tells friends or colleagues about it. That in turn can spark new interest with people who haven’t yet viewed the presentation, and who then can find another different piece of the project which may resonate even further with them.
As Jarrett said, no one viewing is the same as the next. When you’re not having a linear presentation set before you, it forces you to interact with the project and create your own personal relationship with it. In this method of interaction, the viewer is even more likely to have certain portions of the presentation resonate deeply with them because they stumbled upon them on their own. It creates this moment of discovery which again strikes a deeper chord because it makes the viewer feel like it’s something all their own.
Thanks Jarratt for starting such a rich discussion! (please archive these notes since I think you find them extremely useful to return to over and over as you develop your own creative practice. I’ve been thinking about this post since you wrote it…
It is so inspiring to see how you all for moving away from a consumer ratings relationship to these works, and into a more nuanced active, engaged and critical inquiry mode.
I loved Adam’s notion about finding a personal and intimate relationship to these works — like music? Like a painting? Can we actually use them to contemplate other realities than consume them?
I share your concerns with this moment in “Non-Linear” media. It has never been for everyone, but think about how these seemingly outlier experiments like Bear 71 are going to work their way formally into the mainstream in time, and influence it. Artists pushing boundaries to see what they can do, not necessarily please an audience.
Oh, yes, and how to archive non-linear media???” The zillion dollar question for all who care for our ephemeral media…and at this point the answers are few and far between.