I enjoyed all three viewings this week. I loved how they showed the amazing work possible with audio. Each was thought provoking and offered really unique ways to listen.
But occasionally I feel lazy when watching the more interactive viewings. Do I really have to click so many times to get the story? Which should I choose first? Where do I go now? Did I miss something? This was the case for me particularly with HighRise and Vectors. And it makes me wonder, is part of the reason documentaries are changing so dramatically because people are less likely to sit and watch a full film? Do these kinds of documentaries reach more people? I understand the value of the participatory element. But I don’t think I understand the value of the story-in-pieces element.
I felt relieved when, in some instances, I could just choose “play the whole thing” instead of having to click many times. Not only was it less effort, but I think something is lost in the narrative process when the stories are presented in a choose-your-own-adventure style. Does anyone else wish the director/creator would lead you on the journey?
Saving the Sierra was the piece this week that I related to most. While working for The Nature Conservancy, I wrote grant proposals requesting funds for similar projects to buy land or development rights. It is a conservation model that appeals to many. And I think the storytelling model the creators employed is replicable in many other places where private land-buying is a viable conservation strategy. I wonder how or whether they measured the impact of their storytelling. Did they have strategic goals? If so, did they reach them?
I also loved that I could download the Saving the Sierra podcast, stop clicking, and just listen to the stories. (But I’m still pretty sure I missed some.) And, the good news is, that for some audiences (me), a project that isn’t as shiny or well funded might still do the trick.
To an extent, I totally feel the same way about finding the information within these projects. I am constantly asking myself if I am missing something as I am perusing around these sites. Where is the next informative page I should be going to? I think you make a good observation here by noting the change from a full documentary towards a shortened “in-pieces” participatory event. I think this allows observers to decide what kind of experience they want to have rather than allowing the filmmaker to take them where they want them to go.
I’m glad you pointed this out- I felt the same way! The Highrise vignette on spontaneously-rising squatter communities in Istanbul seems like a great model for discussing the strengths and weaknesses of such loose architecture. Although the story certainly embodies organic growth and emergent organization within community, it also illustrates the challenges of a somewhat-anarchic approach. For example, the building’s infrastructure remains open and unfinished, as a concession to the uncertainty of future development, and the unique building layout may inspire others, but it doesn’t provide any kind of blueprint that might be readily-adaptable to other projects.
When transmedia projects appear sprawling and directionless like Highrise, they begin to generate noise within themselves. Absent an apparent taxonomy to orient navigation or narrative structure to frame user experience, these kind of projects shift a large amount of responsibility for directing engagement from themselves to the consumer. This raises a few concerns. First, increasing engagement is only valuable within reasonable limits, since requiring excessive engagement seems to reduce the likelihood that an audience member with an average need for cognition will thoroughly pursue the content presented. In the case of Highrise, I’m afraid producers may have unnecessarily limited their audience to other critics, activists, and academics like themselves.
To be honest, I’m not sure how to begin analyzing projects like Highrise, because their purposes can be so nebulous and open-ended that it’s impossible to judge their success. To “see how…” and “help reinvent…” are hardly measurable on a limited time scale, so perhaps it makes more sense to discuss Highrise and others as art rather than consumer media.
Hey Natalie:
I don’t think you’re lazy; it you are, so am I! The Vector sites took me a while to figure out. The navigation in Public Secrets for example, wasn’t traditional and as a result, took a bit to figure out. And, with the links appearing and disappearing in different locations, fonts and sizes, it took a bit to decipher what I had already viewed. Like you, I’m sure I missed some.
The higher-tech sites, while eye catching, perhaps aren’t quite as engaging as the authors/developers intended. When the navigation makes it challenging for audiences to uncover the messages, no matter how expensive or high-tech the site is, it’s no more engaging that a free WordPress site. To be truly engaging, doesn’t digital media have to be easily accessible as well as visually stimulating and interactive?
I think Katelyn’s last point is good, too. While I enjoyed the images and stories of the Highrise communities, I, too,found myself searching for the purpose. Katelyn’s perspective of the site as art rather than consumer media is a great way to view the site.
I can’t help thinking that before immersing myself in digital media as a part of this class, I might not have made the distinction between consumer media and art. I find myself searching for indirect messages and meaning in all digital media, while evaluating the design and structure to evaluate my level of engagement. I guess that means I’m learning something!
Natalie,
I’m with you. I found the twists and turns of Public Secrets difficult to navigate at first, but once I started clicking, I figured out the general layout. Sites like this that require a bit of effort on the part of the user can work for some users, but honestly, I think the average user would become frustrated and leave the site.
This left me with the question: If your site frustrates the average, short-attention-span user, are you alienating a part of your audience that could really get something out of it if only the site was more user-friendly? Or did the creators know that their target audience has the dedication to dig deep and really experience the site? I really believe in the site’s message, but I don’t think it was designed for a wide audience.
Many of the projects that we’ve studied so far seem to be of the “choose your own adventure” ilk. I can empathize with your frustrations about wondering whether or not we’re getting the whole story. But the benefit of projects like that is that it allows individuals to pursue avenues of the story that are of the most interest to them, potentially elevating their experience with the projects. Our own individual contexts shape our different reactions to the projects and the paths that we take through them, as evidenced in our weekly blog posts.