Informal study group meeting

by stronged

I met up with Jason and Josh last Tuesday before jumping into the first workshop devoted to aspiring PhD applicants within Honours. The summary of that workshop was pretty much: Get your work published, full stop.

From chatting with the fellas about our collective research, then more specifically about our projects and Jason’s thesis, the essence of our concepts began to slowly become clear. It was great to hear about what avenues they have begun to explore and how this new information has manifested into creative connections between ideas and theories.

Both did an excellent job at articulating their areas of research, and this is my jumbled way of regurgitating the information in terminology I understand:

For Josh:

  • Hypermediacy – when the mechanism of communication is exposed (spatial montage). Often experienced with new formulas of communication.
  • Immediacy – the suspension of disbelief an audience or user undergoes within the communication between themself and the mechanism (i.e. film, performance, etc.).
  • Delay – when the immediacy becomes delayed and therefore draws attention to the mechanism. This often occurs with dysfunctional modes of narrative or when the user/viewer becomes bored of being in a constant position of disbelief.


For Jason:

  • Movement-Image/Calculative Thinking – expanding on Bergson’s living image, Deleuze postulates that cinema pre-WWII displayed the motor-processes of movement by skilfully applying the techniques of cinema (camera and editing) to represent the immediacy of an action(s). Temporal space is fixed, represented by the beginning, middle and end of a sequence (representing time). Therefore, Movement-Image films tend to be linear in form and draw focus to the physical progression of objects.
  • Time-Image/Meditative Thinking – After WWII cinema began to manipulate the temporal nature of narrative sequences, expanding or contracting the length of time within each sequence. Cinema becomes non-linear, a “transcendental” (from a Kantian perspective) experience that allows a much more subjective interchange between text and viewer.
  • Plus, Heidegger’s Present-at-hand and Ready-at-hand – I feel the distinction between these two terms is useful for all three of us. Heidegger believed that we humans are naturally primed to practice before we theorise. His famous example of how we interpret a hammer illustrates this point: We look at a hammer as a means to an end. Generally a tool to batter nails into wood. We do not look at a hammer and instantly think about what it is or does. We innately understand this and therefore can act on this instinct. This has been the main message I continue to receive when exposing myself to academia (i.e. workshops, lectures, conferences); to accomplish an essay or project one must start it. Through the process of doing you begin to understand what and why you are doing this investigation. Once you become conscious of your motivation and output you can articulate it. Basically the essence of what academia is all about – for me.

Jason and Josh were both a great help in clarifying my concepts as I presented shards of what I am intending on doing for my project. Jason kept emphasising to me that creating a K-Film is not about the content – and this must be my mantra. I must beat the notion of working to a brief or end goal out of my head and believe that my project will emerge out of doing it. Throwing it into Korsakow will help me find the links between particular information and demonstrate how lines of flight can be reached through two clouds of content (minor and major).

Matt Soar drew my attention to a plug-in that I can utilize in Korsakow to track the progression of interactants through my K-Film. I’m not entirely sure whether this will be of great value. But I figure I’ll just run with it and see what happens. First off, I need to generate the content for the users to interact with. The linkages (or, as Adrian puts it, the Facets) will be critical in the achievement of this project.

We have exchanged readings (Bolter and Grusin and Heidegger) and plan to meet up again in a fortnight to pitch our project/thesis hypothesis. It’s good to be able to bounce off other people, instead of a brick wall.