Filed under: Uncategorized
Links:
Original Project Description / Call for Participants / Full i_me_wed_proposal.pdf (including layout/design etc.)
Outcomes versus Expectations. Differences? If so, Why?
I am very satisfied with what Joanne and I were able to accomplish in the nine days: conceptualization of project, call out for participants, coordination and recording of six wedding ceremonies, post-production, creation of promotional material (posters/programs) and installation and exhibit for class critique.
For the most part, we were able to accomplish what we had proposed in our initial proposal with the following modifications: (i) we had initially proposed one two-image projection space but this changed. We filmed our women in profile to simulate for the spectators the experience of being guests to a wedding. We soon realized that we wanted to see the women front addressed to camera (and imagined the spectators would have a similar reaction!). On the spot, we asked the women to address the camera with their name and why they chose to get married that particular day. This became the data for the first of two projections in our piece. Much as Alex commented, these video clips served to contextualize the wedding ceremonies, and in our opinions, brought more depth and meaning to the project. (ii) We managed to coordinate six ceremonies instead of the projected ten. Though we had hoped to meet the numbers, we were satisfied that six demonstrated the overall goal of the project. We didn’t realize the difficulties in finding women to marry, which leads me into my next point … (iii) We ended up revising our terms and definitions of marriage and who could participate. It soon became apparent that these definition of singledom, marriage, etc. were topics for debate. For example, initially, only single woman were allowed to participate – then second day of promotion, a woman who is in a relationship, has chosen not to marry her partner, but wanted to marry herself. As well, part of the critique ended in discussion of just this – what is marriage, who can participate etc. These are contentious issues, which make the project even more engaging, however, we must be clear in our criteria and why – which through the process, we now are. Yes, we are sticking to the term ‘marriage’ (because it is such a loaded term) – and not replacing with affirmation vows (etc.).
The first time we saw our installation (actually the first test with MaxMSP) with the large projections of the brides in profile saying their vows to themselves – was pretty amazing. Beautiful and poignant moments captured.
It is worth noting that part of the success to Joanne and my collaboration is both our commitment to the process. We had first worked together in second term’s film/video production class where we completed a short video. During production, we were very mindful of the collaborative nature of our work. We were also ready to return to the white board to brainstorm and re-assess should our story not seem to flow, or should something arise unexpectedly. As a result, both conception of story and narrative structure remained anything but static. We brought this approach to i ME wed, which proved to be what we needed to shape and move the project from proposal to delivery.
A whole lot of learning
The art of storytelling: This process allowed me to participate actively a new media project – enabling me explore issues discussed in class through actual experience. For me, one of the greatest points of learning revolves simply around how we tell stories – the storytelling experience. When usually I spend a great deal of time in the development and creation of a story and a strong narrative structure, in i ME wed, the process was drastically different. Here, we set a group of parameters for our participants – age, marital status, sex – and put forth a call-out for women wanting to get hitched. That’s it. There was no story arc – no linear narrative (etc.). Instead – what the women brought to the project was most illuminating and served as the data from which multiple narratives derived. To undergo (and be creators of) such a process was extremely valuable as a documentary artist. We had created an empty house from which stories started to reside.
Creating Environments: Through i ME wed we also focused on creating an environment suitable to our project. We created a wedding space, materials (wedding programs/guest book etc.) to support our concept, and also thought of the flow of spectators walking through the space – in this light, we separated what initially started as one projection space to two projection spaces: meeting the women (first, clips of women stating their name and why they decided to get married) and the main space of the wedding ceremonies.
To do differently: (i) Enhance promotion. In our 9 days, we hit facebook, kijiji, craigslist, university women centres, Toronto Women’s Bookstore, women-centered listservs, NOW, Eye Weekly online, and our friends, which proved to be effective. However, we quickly learned that we needed an accompanying marketing strategy to connect with women who do not use online social networking sites to stay informed. I do have a solid network of community contacts (women centres/community groups youth and all-aged inclusive) to which we could promote this project. (ii) Determine clear guidelines of what is and what isn’t permitted during ceremonies (i.e. a friend taking photos of bride even though the flash is visible/heard on camera?) – what parameters do we want to instill that lead to polished media output while providing the space for the bride + party to have a welcoming experience – when their experience is vital to this project. (iii) Have a place designated for photo-taking (we took photos but realized the background was not the most pleasing). Also have a camera set-up for friends to say words of encouragement. As we would like to create a rich experience, these details are necessary to consider (iv) Further develop the MaxMSP patch to correspond to our project requirements. Steve did so much work (thank you!!) to configure the software to our needs. Unfortunately a few glitches and no sleep later, we ended up creating a video of clips to project. Of course we will spend more time on finalizing the software. We invited women to write vows of under two minutes. What we received were vows ranging from 45 seconds to 100 seconds. As a result, there were periods of varying lengths were the women stood in silence. In reflection, it would be ideal to work into the coding of the MaxMSP patch that when one clips audio is completed (at the end of a woman reciting vows), this triggers the advancement to the next clip. This may improve the flow of the projected clips.
And as Steve reiterated at the end of day 1 of the critiques – it’s all about the process and cycles. Get the prototype running as quickly as possible and start the testing / tweaking process. I’ve gathered that this is key in new media installation projects such as i ME wed, and the other projects presented during the critique. Only through testing do things become more clear – everything from technical troubleshooting to observing exactly how spectators will interact with the environment created.
This first run of the project was excellent in bringing these questions to light.
Not necessary to do differently, but to do with funding: (i) a Vegas-inspired chapel to provide spectators who feel inspired to get married on the spot, an opportunity to do so and then their vows get inserted into an ever-evolving and growing i ME wed database (ii) an i ME wed website in which to track the travels of the i ME wed exhibition, and to house the i ME wed community (pages for each bride, photos, video segments etc.). Alex pointed at a good suggestion – to incorporate ALL of the data we collect in an engaging manner to fully contextualize and show the breadth of the issues discussed. For example, we will set up an online discussion forum. (iii) Improved set-up which has first station entry point with first projection screen (big!) leading you into second station (wedding ceremony)
Reflection on new media on my documentary practice: So much. Firstly, a great deal of the work that I am to put into the world derives from a motivation for social change. I am very much interested in participatory media working with community groups and further connecting media and the NGO sector – collaborative media. I see what I have learned enhancing my understanding on the ways in which to actualize these ideals. With participatory practices comes a loosening of linearity, shift of authorships and the potential for user-generated material, for a few examples. I see i ME wed as one prototype that can be adapted, modified and expanded for other subject matter.
For example, another project that I have in initial concept stage is working with a group of women from the South Asian Women Centre and to explore issues of immigration and life in present day Canada – to look whatever issues the women bring to the table – collaborative media is key for this type of project. Many of tools reviewed via this project and in this course are potentially related – i.e. web 2.0, MaxMSP software, motion sensors, data visualization, installation art, and the archive. I have done a decent amount of theoretical research on participatory media, however, it is through the i ME wed experience that I am starting to wrap my mind around what it means to truly create participatory media in both theoretical and practical forms. (I realize that i ME wed is not fully participatory in the sense that the women did not assist in the development of the concept, though, taking this first step in working through this experience has inspired me to take what I have learned and apply to projects such as the one described above.
Lyndall made a good point in her post – did we learn these technologies enough to incorporate them into our practice? My response is divided. Yes for the reasons listed above, and no as I am new to many of these new media technologies presented and we covered a great deal in such a limited time. I did feel that we merely scratched the surface (though admirably so to produce the resulting projects!).
Only six weeks. I can only imagine what would manifest with more time. For me, this course seems to be the epitome of our MFA program: we are encouraged to think in new ways, to incorporate all forms – photography, film/video, new media – together to create innovative documentary media which challenge and rival what currently exists in the doc world.
Filed under: Uncategorized
What is a wedding without photos? Here are a few highlights of the days. Unfortunately we forgot (in the chaos of technology-troubleshooting) to photograph the installation during the critique. However, we have decided to put on another installation where all Brides can attend (only one was able to attend this time around) and so, we will snap photos of the event at that time.
Filed under: Uncategorized
The journal that Alex pointed us to (Forum: Qualitative Social Research) is full of knowledge and inspiring information. Unfortunately, it makes me want to start two other participatory projects which I have conceptualized, additionally to my thesis – which I know is simply not possible (!)
The Citizen’s Exhibition: A Combination of Socio-scientific, Participative and Artistic Elements, on first glance of the abstract brings to mind Barbara Schneider’s participatory action research (PAR) project Hearing Our Voices, that I came across first term. Both projects use media as a tool to explore societal issues, to encourage dialogue between all stakeholders and to effect direct advocacy change. Reading through the other articles demonstrate their relevance to collaborative documentary practice. How do we work in collaboration with participants? How do we effectively use artistic methods for social science research? What are new avenues that performance plays in documentary production? I’ll give these articles a thorough read post-new media production class.
Once I have grasped (relatively solidly) certain technologies, a particular skill-set, I plan to implement a PAR project much in a similar fashion as the projects listed above and the resources found here will prove to be useful to add to the others I’ve accumulated.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Even though I say that I am not so much taken with the second life world, I seem to be returning to contemplate its nature. Today, particularly in regards to Heather and Marie’s Iraq War Project and creating avatars to represent the thousands of American soldiers who have died to date in the war. I had the privilege of discussing this project with the two creators throughout the term, and we had debates revolving around embodiment, representation and ethics. I had no idea the powerful nature of embodiment until I entered SL, and particularly until contemplating embodying a dead soldier’s avatar. I was not one of the selected who did this critique day, but rather, one from the other group of SL’ers who experienced the soldier avatars scattered on the island in which we were located.
Questions that we discussed: What are the ethical boundaries around this one? Should next of kin be contacted when representing their deceased family member in SL? If all the information is accessible online (via public media sites) is this requirement waived? And is it a requirement at all? How to address potential misuse of avatars by users (which I believe was addressed by H&M).
Through the critique and witnessing the two groups of people (those who embodied and those who didn’t) and their reactions to the piece, it became clear from my perspective that the target audience should potentially be the former. It seemed that through embodiment, spectators became active participants in this project and were forced to experience the humanity and individuality within the number – to become connected to one solder out of the four thousand. I did not have the same reaction as a member of the latter group. Though, I imagine having a large mass of soldiers suddenly appear in my virtual space would indeed have an impact on me.
Writing this now, it could also interesting if this was taken into high schools as an educational tool, perhaps accompanied by a curriculum guide exploring the human loss and impact of war and related topics.
As others have mentioned, it would be interesting to document in the same way the total deaths of Iraqis throughout the war. Yes, arriving at an accurate number may be more difficult – that in itself is a statement.
A donations box via SL, as Elaine mentioned, could prove one effective way to raise funds for this project.
What I found interesting is that to enter this ‘new’ life – Second Life – a whole list of questions of ethics, morality, representation, what is acceptable, what is not (etc.) seem to emerge. Not only does this lead to discussion of what should/could be protocol in the virtual world, it in effect, forces me pause and re-examine our media systems in our First.
Great art challenges our understanding of art and the world around us. I have to say that this project achieves in both. Looking forward to seeing this grow.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I ME WED is an upbeat, positive and poignant project where single women get married…to themselves.
Created as a part of graduate project at Ryerson University for the Masters of Fine Arts program in Documentary Media, two grad students are asking fun, sassy, confidant and independent women over the age of 27 years*, to join us in creating an evolving story project.
This video installation is a requirement of our New Media Production course but we are also planning on applying to events such as Nuit Blanche and Luminato in 2009 as well as various galleries and public spaces around Canada and the US.
Ceremonies will be held at Ryerson University on Saturday, June 14th and Sunday, June 15th from 10AM-6PM.
Interested brides are asked to prepare their own vows, no longer than 2 minutes. Dress in whatever makes you feel great, sexy, beautiful!
You’re welcome to bring your own props and you’re more than welcome to bring friends.
We will provide refreshments and loads of fun.
Filming will take approximately 30-45 minutes and we will require you to sign an appearance release.
*We encourage all ages of women past 27 years to apply. The reason being is that the average age of marriage for women in Canada is 27.4 years. And for those who are 27 years and older, it’s a way for us to tell our nagging relatives that yes…we’re getting married so put a lid on it already!
Please contact us at imewed@gmail.com to set up a time to get married!
Thanks to all that apply!
Filed under: Uncategorized
After my initial posting on Second Life, I have re-entered SL twice – yes, not too often, as I haven’t been bitten by the SL bug, should there be one – but I have been contemplating somewhat on the qualities of this virtual world.
In class, Alex reinforced the use of SL as a research environment -where artists, academics, professionals come together to explore, connect, and advance virtually their respective practices. This is more intriguing to me than flying around and tele-porting from one island to the next, buying clothes or an art piece for my home, trying to figure out what’s going on and trying to avoid chatting with people because you’re still uncomfortable with some of the social protocols (ok, this is me).
It is when I read articles such as this one, “Paralyzed Man ‘Walks’ In Second Life” the potential of SL and virtual realities become tangible and its purpose more clear. It would be interested to learn more about advancements in this vein.
Outside of filmmaking, I spend the majority of my professional time in the NGO sector working for a variety of national and local human rights / equality seeking organizations. It would be interesting to see if a SL project could simulate experiences of discrimination, oppression and much as Heather’s project revolves around – violence against women. These spaces becoming available for people to enter, participate and from which to increase public awareness of social issues. A question that may arise is – would people participate in such activities – or more importantly I suppose – how could you construct an environment that would invite engagement.
Perhaps there is more learning to be had (than originally thought) in these virtual experiences when motivations of social change meets the virtual world.
Whether it is for me as a documentary media artist to pursue this form of media making is debatable, but it is wise for me to follow the developments as they inevitably occur.
10:40 PM. With a bit of uncertainty, I am about to create my very first avatar. Okay. What is my name – oh, pre-determined lasts. Real or not first name? An internet blip – did I chose my avatar’s physical appearance or ’skip this step’? We’ll find out.
10:45 PM. Downloaded Second Life application package. I didn’t even know there was an associated application – I thought it was all through the SL website. Shows how much I know.
10:56 PM. About to log-in. Will see how this alternate life’s first experience pans out. Oh, have to read the “Terms of Agreement” – usually I skip straight to the “I agree” but let’s read to what I am agreeing in this world. A new language – “Servers”, “APIs”, “The Viewers”, “Linden Lab” (yes some words evident, but used to refer to specific items). Linden Lab does not pre-screen content. LindeX currency exchange of currency Linden Dollars. No ‘misleading, offensive, infringing’ names please. Usual account boundaries. Notes on copyright. Now I’m skimming. I think I’m stalling. Ok. I’ll agree to the above.
11:06. I’m in! Oh wait. Community Standards. Reading on …. “treat each other with respect and without harassment, adhere to local standards as indicated by simulator ratings, and refrain from any hate activity which slurs a real-world individual or real-world community.” Alright. Can do that. “The Big 6″ Behavioural Guidelines re: intolerance, harassment, assault, disclosure, indecency, disturbing the peace, and a group of other bewares from policies and policing to reporting abuse. Seems a bit unsafe. Elaine, if you are reading this, I wonder if your recent encounter (I’m sorry you experienced that!!) falls into any of the assault/indecency boundaries?
11:12 PM. I’m in! Important – F1 key for help and information on SL. On Orientation Island. I’m communicating with statues and jumping.
11:24 PM. Completed the Communication Tutorial. Streaming the SL info video. About .. um … how to live … virtually.
11:26 PM. I’m about to Exit to Second Life with fire burning all around me, volcanos erupting, lava spilling. All very dramatic.
11:30 PM. Spoke too soon. Must beautify and change outfit first. Must also perfect not bumping into things. I did manage to hold a torch. Naked people around me – I guess they should come along with me to the Appearance tutorial .. I could chat them over .. No, too bold at this stage of my existence.
11:50 PM. Updated the hair etc. Application crash. Have to reopen. Where will I be?
11:52 PM. 48, 236 online at this moment. I’m in the exact same spot. Onwards we go. A guy named Magic is speaking to me. My chat screen’s not up .. what’s he saying? In impatience, he’s gone. Chat screen now up – “Hello you”. Oops, that was me being rude by not replying – ah well. This talking to random people is odd. I’m thinking that I may need some time to adjust to the social behaviours of this Life, as I uncover them.
12:01 AM. Wasn’t paying attention and apparently my finger was on the arrow up key. Went over a wall. Fell onto landing below. Yikes.
12:14 AM. I’m flying. Into the Search Pavilion. Hey there’s a Lindsay here too – is it you, Lindsay? Too funny, out of 50, 000 people in this right now, that’s most likely a very silly question.
12: 27 AM. Tele-porting to Help Island.
12:37 AM. Grabbed some freebies from the store. Wandered around a bit. Before I enter into more SL action, I think I’ll sign off. Leave some excitement for the next visit.
So, I entered this world I have viewed (and still do I must admit) with uncertainty. As I continue to walk through new and varying spaces, I imagine more insight to the popularity of SL will become clear, as will my writings become more illuminating than this initial introductory post. I haven’t been wooed as of yet to take time out of the life I have 30+ years inhabited. But hey, with an open mind I shall move forward into my second life and see where it takes my avatar.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Filed under: Uncategorized
What is interesting to me is the difference in approaching story when working within film/video and new media mediums. I am familiar and comfortable with the first approach – selecting characters, research, developing a story, and creating a solid narrative structure. The latter approach to documentary media making is new – the non-linear approach. I am looking forward to reformulating ideas to fit under this approach – where as creators, for example, we set parameters and the meaning/stories can be created in nontraditional ways -whether it be by the way narratives are presented (i.e. randomized), level of participation of spectators, and/or when meaning is created at time of interaction with the public, etc.
Our initial experiment with MaxMSP software provided a glimpse into this shift. When select media clips were dropped into a patch – linear playback is standard, as to be expected. When dropped into the same patch – randomized – the interplay and relationships formed between these same media clips, created alternative meanings. From this small exercise, I begun my understanding of potentially viewing media in a new way – almost ‘letting go’ of the material to start a process of loosening my authorship hold over the media – to see what other options existed.
The second exercise in which we were asked to film clips with random order in mind further emphasized this shift of thinking/creating.
A short post to comment on a potential significant new direction for my documentary practice.
On a related aside, this course seems to also provide a useful foundation from where I can attempt to do my own research and collecting of information on new media platforms, and subsequent storytelling options, including the mini lectures found on PopTech!, in their pop!casts section, to include Pop!Tech and Jonathan Harris’ talk on storytelling platforms.
A few interesting tidbits from his talk: the creation of the Whale Hunt documentary project and the ‘photographic heartbeat’: photographing the hunt every 5 minutes and up to 37 photos per 5 minutes at times of intensity; his contemplations on the essence of a story – and how the construction of it fits within documentary media making; the We Feel Fine project. He puts forth that one of the strengths of a project like We Feel Fine is that it provides ’snapshots’, incomplete stories, flash moments to spectators from which spectators ‘fill in the blanks’ with their own personal stories, memories, commentaries etc., thus creating multi-narratives. This is essentially what he then demonstrates live at the Conference when he asks audience to become participants in a storytelling exercise in relation to We Feel Fine. You can also find this video posted in vodpod.
