FINAL PROJECT PRESENTATIONS!!!

Hello,

Next week you will present your final projects. Yes, really!

We will be meeting at NOON to have enough time. I will have pizza and drinks here for us so we can grab some slices and get started right away. We'll take a break in the middle for course evaluations. We should be done by 4pm, if everyone comes prepared and practiced.

Some things to keep in mind:
1) You'll need to keep your presentation to 20 minutes.
2) Present your work in an engaging way. All of us staring up at the projection screen for 4 hours could be boring. Handouts? Interaction?
3) For many of you, figuring out a way to conclude the project, or continue it, or pass it off to someone else, is a big concern which you should address.
4) Please be prepared and ready to go esp. in terms of any multimedia components (i.e. videos) -- come early to pre-load your web videos, test/cue up the tapes, etc.

Remember that my evaluation of your final project will balance both the planning/structural/conceptual/vision and the aesthetic/efficacy/functional qualities of your execution of this vision... that's why you had over a month to work on this.

Very much looking forward to it.

Contribute to my mix tape!

Hello,

I just wanted to post a link to the blog I made in conjunction with my participatory radio show, "my mix tape." I am posting different playlist ideas twice a week. Through Project Playlist, I can put the songs directly onto the blog so that visitors can listen (at times this comes at the expense of quality, but it's better than nothing). Feel free to add your own songs or suggest playlist themes! Also, if anyone would like to co-host a show, please contact me! My show's from 11-12 p.m. on Sundays.

Here's the link: my mix tape

Also, here's something cool that a friend showed me a few days ago. It's... A PUPPY CAM. Whenever, wherever, you can watch these Shiba Inu's in action! The reason I'm posting it is that I think it puts the question of ownership into a whole new perspective. The site includes a list of the puppies' names (you can identify who is who based on collar color). This feed boasts some pretty loyal followers, who comment on the puppies' personalities and how they have grown. Visitors can watch the puppies whenever they want. Of course, they don't own the puppies in any literal sense, but they can still become attached to them and feel as if the Shiba Inus are their own pets. So, I just thought I'd share. Plus, they're super cute! :)

Here's the link: puppy cam

Wrap up & next week

Hi all,

I am very happy with how much work you all got done in Final Cut today. You proved me wrong that 3 people is too many for a joint editing effort. Next week you'll have almost the whole class to finish up what you started & we'll all watch what you made.

Because (most if not all of) you are behind on your final projects (!!!), the videos and the reading for next week are now OPTIONAL. Oh, how I am cutting you a break. They are great videos and you should feel encouraged to watch one of them and blog anyway. Be ready to tell me about how much progress you have made in class next week.

There are 2 video options:
1) A LITTLE BIT OF SO MUCH TRUTH (UN POQUITO DE TANTA VERDAD) In the summer of 2006, a broad-based, non-violent, popular uprising exploded in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca. Some compared it to the Paris Commune, while others called it the first Latin American revolution of the 21st century. But it was the people’s use of the media that truly made history in Oaxaca. A Little Bit of So Much Truth captures the unprecedented media phenomenon that emerged when tens of thousands of school teachers, housewives, indigenous communities, health workers, farmers, and students took 14 radio stations and one TV station into their own hands, using them to organize, mobilize, and ultimately defend their grassroots struggle for social, cultural, and economic justice.

2) THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE! With more cameras on the street than any other media organization, the Independent Media Center (IMC) coordinated hundreds of media activists and collected more than 300 hours of video footage during the 1990 WTO protests in Seattle. This Is What Democracy Looks Like, a co-production of the IMC and Big Noise Films, weaves the footage of over 100 videographers into a gripping document of what really happened on Seattle’s streets.

Maquilapolis

Maquilapolis draws on many different sources in order to create the film’s final product. This amalgamation of footage from various women who were part of the “Maquilapolis” of Tijuana as well as the filmmakers creates an interesting aesthetic for the film in general.

The film is both polished and unpolished.

It is clear to see the difference between those scenes that were shot by professional filmmakers and the women who had just been trained in using cameras. It is not that the quality or effectiveness from the collaborators differs. The scenes that are shot by the women are powerful and the scenes that were most likely orchestrated by the professional filmmakers are equally as strong. There is no attempt by the film’s creators or editor(s) to mask the collaboration. The two styles of shooting (i.e. the more candid video diaries of the women of Factor X and the choreographed, time-lapse shots, and sweeping shots of Tijuana of the professional filmmakers) are seamlessly blended.

This combination of the collaborators work & filmmakers footage and the clear distinction between the two adds to the authenticity of the film. One cannot seem but feel as if the stories that are being told are those of the women. The camera isn’t being focused on what the filmmakers want. Footage was shot and turned over to the filmmakers or the women decided what they wanted focus on. An outsider isn’t tasked with accessing the situation in the factories. The women documented their lives and stories that are those that they deemed important.
With the filmmakers serving as facilitators to the women’s’ work Maquilapolis seems to demonstrate an effective way of collaborating, especially when dealing with issues of social change and human rights.

Maquilapolis

In thinking about how the process affected this film, one of the most obvious ways, in my mind at least, is in it's content and tone. The women in this film are empowered leaders, teachers, and activists. Throughout the film we saw time after time in which they demonstrated how this strong and new-found sense of empowerment inspired them to take action and assert their rights as laborers, women, and human beings. The women did this in each class they led, in each meeting they scheduled, and in every day they fought for their families and themselves.

This power and strength was imbued into the film itself and the presence of the women who asserted their rights and their self-worth in the honesty of the images they presented and the tone and force with which they discussed them. The women accepted the exploitation they were made to endure as real, but they actively fought against it. The film interestingly represented this simultaneous acknowledgment of exploitation by rebellion against it in its framing and structure. Specifically coming to mind is the scene in which the women are all spinning around individually as they list off the names of the various companies for which they have worked. Coupled with the images that precede and follow this shot we come to understand the cycle of exploitation these women endure, as they literally whirl in a circle as the names of their former and current employers cover their faces.

Overall the film was captivating and richly informative as we caught a glimpse into the actively hidden denigration and oppression on which we all invariably depend.

Maquilapolis

Unlike other projects we have seen in the past, this particular documentary stands apart, largely in part due to the fact that the ideas conveyed through the video footage were generated by the subjects of the film. I'm sure that the production company had a rough idea of the exploitation and pollution that takes place in Mexico (honestly who doesn't these days?) but what they set out to do was to have those it actually affects--the factory workers--put forth their own thoughts. The stories of these women were inspirational and touching, especially when they spoke of how against overwhelming odds they would stand up to the government, the corporations, and the committees all for their children's futures.

It's easy to say, because the actual women shooting the film did not edit it, that much of the objectivity was lost. In some cases this can be true. They were quite explicit though: this was the maquiladoras story, and it showed exactly what they wanted it to show. In this sense, the film loses its credibility as a documentary, but gains an element of human compassion and intimacy which most documentaries lack. I think it helped that many of these women seemed intelligent and well-spoken; the success of the film is due in large part to the willingness of the maquiladora camera holders to not only work tirelessly, but in a manner so as to show that they deserve better than their circumstance.

Maquilapolis

How do you think the process of how this film was made affected the product (film) in style, in content, or in other ways?

What I enjoy the most of this movie is its high subjectivity. Lots of different documentary films invites their subjects to be collaborators, but this film brings the collaboration aspect up a notch. The maquiladoras are the filmmaker and the actual filmmakers are facilitators. The personal aspect of the movie makes the environmental and labor rights issues easier for the viewers to relate. As I watch the film, I can't help but feel angry at the factories that neglects their workers. As the maquiladoras put themselves up close and personal to the camera, I can imagine myself as one of them. The only reason why I can take a breathe of relief is because I do not live in Tijuana, but I can see that if my status as the consumer wavers, these fancy companies can treat me the same way as they treated the maquiladoras.

Another extremely thoughtful aspect of the film is that the cameras aren't just given to the ladies solely as a method of expression, it is also empowerment and tools to help the them do what they do as promoters. "...We wanted them to use the filmmaking process to further their own self-organizing."—Vicky Funari. This film can be such a source of inspiration and encouragement for the viewers of the films. But the film is especially powerful in its process, as the passerbys who see the making of the film or the neighbors who are interviewed all are wrapped in this journey of bringing justice to the maquiladoras and the citizens of Tijuana.

Maquilapolis

This film was very effectively concieved and executed. The filmaker's minimal presence seems almost a perfect balance for this story; the women of the collective themselves tell the entire story, present, narrate and explicate their struggle while the filmakers simply enable this story to be told. The production value, seamlessness, and overall effectiveness of the story telling is no doubt aided by this collaboration.
In this sense, this peice seems to find, as John mentioned, the balance between filmaker and filmed in the documentary situation that stranger with a camera spoke to and grappled with (and, questionably, found). The story of the piece is also rife with collaborative elements on many levels: the local attorney helping the collective, the members of the community helping each other, the women helping their children to achieve class mobility, the environmentalists' collaboration with the collective and its movment, and even the whole movement helping the river to be bright.
It is heartening to see these collaborations in the film leading to successes. The collective certainly seems undaunted, with high aspirations, on the path to many victorys. The successes of the film itself, those of it's impact, too, are likely numerous. As the quote from the case describes Maquilapolis, it is "A stirring work that'll provoke genuine outrage." Perhaps though, it can also provoke a certain awareness in its audience that leads to mindful action on an individual yet global level.

We have encountered several instances in our course where someone with an idea for a project allows his or her subjects an opportunity for self-representation (ex. The Weather Man project); this film is another one of those cases. For my part, I think this process allows the end product to radiate originality, insightfulness, clarity and attractiveness. I managed to discern the subjects were doing their own recording early on in the film, which captivated my attention because I felt more confident they would not manipulate settings or stories in order to get a point across. The entire film felt very fresh, organic, even the interspersed choreographed segments. The six week workshop in video production really paid off; the women subjects were able to produce a piece that spoke sincerely of their unkind situations caused largely by the factories. Despite the gravity of their poverty they have strength enough to live their lives and try to do something about it on the side, as Funari relates in her interview. Duran and Carmen were but two women fighting for a common cause. By allowing them, ordinary people, to direct footage and tell their own story, I think heightens the belief that anyone can learn if given an opportunity and that we as viewers can learn even more from those who struggle greatly in comparison to Americans, who wander from store to store at local “humming”/shopping malls.

Maquilapolis: Making Objects, Subjects.

What struck me most about “Maquilapolis” was, surprisingly, what I learned in the last minute of the film: not only was Maquilapolis shot by Tijuanian female factory workers, but these same women had decided how the film was conceptually going to be conceived. While I knew that Vicky Funari and Sergio De La Torre had given these women video cameras, I was not aware of the extent that the directors had included these women in on the creative process.

Originally, I was annoyed by the performance pieces that sprinkle “Maquilapolis”. I believed these scenes were simply the byproduct of arrogant directors making “artsy” arrogant work. These scenes, however, have such vital meaning when it is revealed that they are collaborative conceptions of the Maquiladoras and the directors. They are the expressions of the women. I was impressed by how willing the directors were willing to step back to facilitate creation. Director Vicky Funari expresses her desire to relinquish control: “As a filmmaker, I know how to structure a film; a factory worker, on the other hand, might not know how to structure a film, but she knows what she wants to say about her life.” (POV Production Journal)

The Maquiladoras wrote narrations for the film, created the concepts for the key artistic per formative, and filmed. By giving these women the control, Vicky Funari and Sergio De La Torre produce a successful, insightful documentary.

Maquilapolis: Bridging the Gap

Watching "Maquilapolis" makes me think back to "Stranger with a Camera." Much like the filmmakers that flocked to Appalachia, Funari and De La Torre hoped to educate others about an important issue through the art of documentary film. The difference between Funari and De La Torre and the other filmmakers, however, is their chosen process of creation. The filmmakers in Appalachia chose use the local residents as subjects rather than participants. They asked leading questions and, in my opinion, uncovered a relatively limited sample of what life is truly like in that region. Their role as outsiders limited their ability as filmmakers and created an uneasy relationship with the locals. Funari and De La Torre, on the other hand, did not treat the promotoras as mere subjects; they allowed the factory workers active participantion in the filmmaking process. Funari and De La Torre are just as much outsiders in Tijuana as the other filmmakers were in Appalachia. However, Funari and De La Torre seem to have realized this role, as well as their consequent inability to present a well-rounded glimpse in to factory life without further assistance. Rather than accept this handicap or abandon the project altogether, though, Funari and De La Torre enlist the aid of several promotoras.

This collaboration bridges the gap between local and outsider, allowing both groups to use their specialized skills in order to create a better product. The promotoras can illuminate factory life in a way that Funari and De La Torre cannot; no matter how much research the two filmmakers do, they can not obtain the knowledge and intuition of the promotoras. On the other hand, Funari and De La Torre CAN create a technically well-made documentary in a way that the promotoras cannot; no matter how many workshops the promotoras go through, Funari and De La Torre will always have a greater store of experience, equipment, and training in the field. Thus, the promotoras provide the filmmakers with good, revealing footage, which the filmmakers then edit into a documentary easily digestible by the public-at-large. Allowing both groups to exercise their strength, the filmmakers produce a documentary that is superior to any film that could have been made solely by one group or the other.

MAQUILAPOLIS & next week & beyond

Hi all,

I hope you enjoy Maquilapolis. It's a very unique film. Please read through the film's website to learn more about the process of how it was made. And also this interview with the producers.

Something to think about when you respond on the blog (you don't necessarily have to respond to this directly):

How do you think the process of how this film was made affected the product (film) in style, in content, or in other ways?

Looking forward to getting y'all going in Final Cut Pro video editing on Monday and seeing your tapes from last week.

I hope you are all rocking out on your final projects. Be prepared at any time in the following weeks for me to ask you for an update on your progress!

The War Tapes

This actually hadn't been th first time I had viewed The War Tapes. In fact I can recall seeing segments from this film many times on the History Channel and other related mediums in the past. What strikes me now, as I have always felt, is that this truly is the first time in history a documentary of this caliber could have even existed. Filming technology made these voices audible for the first time in all of history, which I find incredible. Of course, the post production editing made the film about what Deborah Scranton wanted to show. Also, in thinking about the nature of the military, I'm sure the film had to be edited down considerably by other outside forces before the footage even made it back to Ms. Scranton.

Upon the soldier's return to their respective homes, you cold sense how traumatized they became due to their experiences. This is not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination- soldiers have been coming back from the front lines messed up for as long as war has been around. Yet with the invention of these helmet-cameras which the soldiers can use in every day life on the front, people can start to understand for the first time where these feelings came from. I commend Deborah Scranton for her efforts in enabling such commentary on the war.

The War Tapes touched on an impressive range of subject material. One I found particularly interesting was the discrepancies viewed on the television screens juxtaposed with what the soldiers felt was the actual war being fought. While we saw only the surface of what the soldiers themselves thought of the war, I'm certain there were hours of unusable footage Ms. Scranton would not have been allowed to use. Imagine a war-time documentary with no censorship whatsoever; the thought of the soldiers actual viewpoints being recorded is tantalizing.

What I Want My Words To Do To You...

Inspiring, captivating, and powerfully moving, this project illustrates the amazing possibilities participatory artistic production can embody. I really enjoyed listening to how all of these stories developed and were finally produced. Perhaps what was most compelling about this project is how real it was. Even though these women were living lives to which many of us could not relate, trapped in a prison of metal, concrete, and immeasurable guilt, there was something uniquely human about their stories and the ways they interacted with each other. The project really highlighted for me how insignificant categories like race, gender, age, and class really are.

In addition, something I've struggled with throughout the semester, but especially during our class with Adam Frelin, was this sort of spectrum of participation. It seems to me that somewhere on that spectrum lies a very unfortunate form of participation that somehow legitimates exploitation, acceptable simply because it's called "artistic." However, this film definitely laid outside of that characterization for me. Despite a rather obvious power disparity between the two groups of women (the women in prison and the women who were acting and writing) it seemed like that dynamic was transcended in the process of production. Both emotionally as the women shared their stories and then also literally when the actresses performed these pieces for the other inmates. It was quite amazing to see how touched all of the women were to see these very successful actresses perform and give voice to their stories. It seemed that these women were speaking through the actresses and in the process both sharing that voice with their fellow inmates, friends, and family and also legitimating that voice, proving that it really matters.

Don't Call Me In The Morning

The most striking issue in "The War Tapes" to me was the importance of dehumanization.

As odd of a concept it may seem, it makes perfect sense for the soldiers to be using in wartime to impersonalize the situation that is occurring. Without this coping mechanism, it would most likely be extremely difficult to make rational decisions and attack peoples. The term "Haji" being used was the explicitly talked about example. However, the times when the line was blurred and the Iraqi citizens had to be seen as human made for some of the most insightful parts of the film. Namely, the incident where the woman was hit by the convoy and the reactions therein were traumatizing, startling, and eye opening. Also, when Sgt. Bazzi would translate with the citizens, and the incident where the parent wanted to take his sick child to the hospital across the street, were incredibly moving.

Another, extremely puzzling problem that arose would be how it seemed the soldier's relationships back home took on a less human capacity. By this, I mean that it seemed that all of their relationships got more distant upon their return. Sgt. Pink's post traumatic stress disorder is an obvious reason for his, but if you look at the body language in many interactions, it seems more unattached than you would expect loving couples to exhibit. Also, the issues of communication get shorted since the significant others of the soldiers simply can't understand what went on in Iraq and the effect it has on the soldiers. Honestly, I don't even know how we can judge the soldiers's issues appropriately since there is a year's worth of footage that we didn't necessarily see.

Ultimately, the question becomes where does the dehumanization begin and end. Is it an indoctrination of the service, a necessary function for survival, or both? Is it on and off, or a blanket approach to life? These are distinct issues that would be interesting to study further, but there are inherently problems involved in this. Nonetheless, I propose that the soldiers's lives are inevitably and invariably affected by the dehumanization well after war, and that this issue probably provides many long-term issues when dealing with trust, committment, and the necessary aspects of healthy relationships.

Writing group Women

I think it is a fine idea to broadcast voices of inmates to the world, or to the immediate communities for starters. I am not a person who interacts with inmates on a regular basis and further do not assume they are all “heartless criminals,” but I sense that not everyone reacts the same way toward them. At length people are people anywhere they may be and at any moment in their lives. It is likely that at some instances though, we encounter people whom we do not appreciate sufficiently or like particularly. I am not trying to explain that I am learned in the precise facts, mentalities, settings, circumstances, and so on, that take flight in instances of intense violent actions because I simply am not. I do not think anyone is an apt judge for such things not even these women because every story is different, unique. All the same, those items must be great, frightening, and damaging because they obviously ignite tempestuous behavior. Yet it is a behavior that captures but a snap shot in a person's entire life, not quite accurately depicting a person's authentic character.

Ensler has done a great service to humanity by volunteering and promoting self-reflection in those women, I think. My heart goes out to those women for sharing their own words and how they view themselves now. The film makes certain that talking about things truly does set one at ease, even if only a few degrees lower than a previous state of mind. It is instructive for both the viewer and women involved, no question about it. Murder is a complex entity; often we are informed of stories taking place at home and abroad about people murdering by the tens, maybe hundreds (for example the university shootings of recent and the Rwanda Genocide), yet we do not feel great urgency to contemplate them much because they do not affect us directly. Distancing us further is the fact that we do not know much about the people involved, but in this documentary tries to abridge that distance. We become familiar with those women by listening to them explain how they feel about what they have done to merit imprisonment. We catch a glimpse of their guilt through their writing, and want to believe they would have acted differently given a second chance had they known how they would feel in retrospect.

The actors performing in place of the inmates certainly helps spread accurate information to people who do not involve themselves with correctional facilities and their residents. Regardless of their background (members of this group or that group), these women in the writing group now share similar stories and are hurting and healing together. And that is truly something worthwhile and that many do not have an opportunity to witness, let alone learn from.

What I Want My Words...

Such a simple and powerful documentary, backed by the most sincere stories. What I Want My Words to Do to You is a project of Eve Ensler conducting a writing seminar at a maximum security prison, offering the prison mates a chance to write about their experience, their regrets, their hopes and dreams and share it with one another. The project itself is simple and extremely profound, and the filming is just kept simple to let the individuals speak for themselves.
The most critial role Eve Ensler played as a fascilitator of the project is creating a space where sharing the most volunrable matter and being pushed to dig deeper into one's life and the moment of mistake that brought them to this prison of life are sacred. Ensler said, "No one can judge you, that's the rule of the group." And it is true, no one, including Ensler, can judge these most private, fragile and authentic moments of confession. Ensler's success is simply gainning the trust of the prison mates to lead them on this journey of exploration through writing. Without embelishments, the honest words are the extremely powerful. Meanwhile, Ensler is also excellent at providing thought-provoking prompts as a fascilitator:
"Think of a question someone has asked you that you've never answered. Answer it."
"Write a letter to someone you love. Tell them why you're in prison."
"Rewrite the letter you wrote explaining why you're in prison. Go deeper."
"Describe an experience in prison when someone surprised you with kindness."

The most compelling story for me was the story a lady wrote while pretending to be her own daughter writing to her. What a heavy heart is behind those words and I felt is so closely to my own experience with my father. This movie also echoes my experience working on StoryTime, especially. The power of honest, personal stories creates a healing process for all the individuals.

It is also brilliant that Ensler was able to find actresses to bring life to the writings and for the writers to see their words take flight and empowers other individuals. The spoken words are so powerful that even now as I am writing this blog, sentences are still echoing in my head.
"I want my words to make my past go away." How powerful an experience it must have been for the prison community. Through the show, Ensler gave the work and the applaud back to the ladies. It is never a project about Ensler, but a project about the prison mates. And I think this was definetly a mutual and appreciated understanding among the writers in the seminar.
By the end of the movies, the crimes labling the ladies that are spelled out through the introductary phrase, don't even bother me anymore. It confirms one of my favorite quotes by Henry Longfellow, "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."

"The War Tapes": What Are They Good For?

I chose to watch "The War Tapes" because I was interested in how a movie could be directed by an outsider (Deborah Scranton) and yet be the product of the soldiers themselves. While the soldiers did shoot a great deal of the footage that made up "The War Tapes", the mood of the movie is heavily influenced by "post-production" editing.

I realize that a heavy amount of post-production was needed to create a cohesive film for public viewing, but I felt that this at times prevented a somewhat pure experience of the footage. Rather than being a film created by these soldiers, "The War Tapes" became more of Scranton's project to tell these men's mini biographies.

This being said, Scranton should be applauded for doing her best to give a voice to the voiceless- specifically the American soldier. So rarely does the media actually ask for these men to speak.

Scranton often chooses to include footage of the soldiers filming the television. By directing focus to television screens (televised press conferences with George Bush, Tom Brokaw on the evening news), Scranton highlights just how misleading and vacuous conventional media reporting can be.

"This Is What I Want My Words To Do To You"

"This Is What I Want My Words To Do" was an incredibly thought-provoking film. I expected the women inmates to spend the majority of their writing justifying their actions; however, I was surprised to find that they devoted far greater space to admitting their guilt and wrongdoing. By showing the women read their own pieces, the film did a wonderful job of demonstrating how being "misunderstood" is not nearly as mentally stressful and burdensome and being understood - and guilty. This project was participatory in that it allowed multiple inmates to relate their own life experiences in feelings; the use of actresses to interpret the inmates' work created another dimension of collaboration. However, the project still had concretely laid out guidelines, as the inmates were given specific prompts, and even asked to elaborate when Eve did not feel they had dug deep enough.

Like many other participatory projects we have discussed, "This Is What I Want My Words To Do To You" seems to have a utilitarian component. Not only does it allow outsiders to view the inmates in a new, more human way (and perhaps call into question their preconceived notions of what it means to be and what type of people become criminals), but it also gave the inmates themselves an opportunity to release and explore their emotions. For the inmates, the project was not only a work of art; it was a type of group therapy. This therapeutic quality stood out during every level of production: from the actual writing and delivering responses in a group setting to the viewing and responding to the actresses' performances.

The War Tapes

The War Tapes was quite a viewing experience. The concept of sending soldiers in with their own cameras to document their deployments as they saw fit was certainly a successful one. The War Tapes spanned many possibly areas of focus that a war documentary might be concerned with, and was really quite successful in each and every one of those areas. It was at once a story of the lives of the individual soldiers, particularly those who filmed, an exposing of the life, ideas, and attitudes of those who serve in the army, as well as a documentation of the way they live and work together. It was a political story, though again by no stretch was this its primary aim; the commentary of the soldier 'Bazz' and his interaction with his fellow soldiers, as well as the consistent juxtaposition of the true story of the war by those who were fighting it with the story of the war being widely reported created incredible levels of contrast.

One aspect of the piece that would be interesting to gain more information on would be the impetus behind the entire project, as well as the degree to which these men created the product we view from the footage and other source material that they collected. Regardless, the piece was a remarkable revealing, remarkably relevant, and truly thought-provoking view of modern war from a genuine inside perspective. It surely has the power to cause each of us to reflect deeply on each kind of peace that we are so lucky to have in our daily lives.

Wrap up & next week & beyond.

Hi all,

Well, we managed okay with only half of our class today! Final projects sound exciting and diverse. Diversely excitingsome! Excitingly diverseful!

FOR NEXT WEEK:
You can choose between two very different videos to watch on library reserve & blog open-endedly about whichever you choose.

1. THE WAR TAPES In March 2004, just as the insurgent movement strengthened, several members of one National Guard unit arrived in Iraq, with cameras. THE WAR TAPES is the result – a uniquely collaborative film from a team that includes Director Deborah Scranton, Producer Robert May (THE FOG OF WAR) and Producer/Editor Steve James (HOOP DREAMS). Straight from the front lines in Iraq, THE WAR TAPES is the first war movie filmed by soldiers themselves. It is Operation Iraqi Freedom as filmed by Sergeant Steve Pink, Sergeant Zack Bazzi and Specialist Mike Moriarty and other soldiers.
2. WHAT I WANT MY WORDS TO DO TO YOU offers an unprecedented look into the minds and hearts of the women inmates of New York's Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. The film goes inside a writing workshop led by playwright and activist Eve Ensler, consisting of 15 women, most of whom were convicted of murder. Through a series of exercises and discussions, the women delve into their pasts and explore the nature of their crimes and the extent of their own culpability. The film culminates in an emotionally charged prison performance of the women's writing by acclaimed actors Mary Alice, Glenn Close, Hazelle Goodman, Rosie Perez and Marisa Tomei.

Also, we will be engaging some sort of in-class video editing project for the next three weeks, and it will be your job to decide exactly what it will be. The objectives are that you will be working together (i.e. in small groups, in pairs, as a whole) and you will be working during class time on Final Cut Pro (which Rick and I will teach you). During next class, you will decide as a group what the assignment will be. Ideally, you'd be making something(s) that we can watch by the end of class on 11/24. So bring ideas if you can!

"Made In Secret"

Although we do not technically have to post on "Made In Secret," I wanted to express a few of my thoughts on the film since I will not be in class on Monday.

Upon finishing the film, I wasn't really sure what to think. Admittedly, the inability to classify the film into a traditional genre did bother me: Could it be considered a documentary (albeit a documentary made by the organization itself)? Or was it a mockumentary (in the same vein as "The Office")? Surely, the movie couldn't be considered a "real" documentary - there were too many staged events. (For example, everyone actually WANTED Geoffrey to be filming them; and there was no crisis concerning whether or not to attend a film festival.) Then again, the crew did actually create pornography. Furthermore, most actors only played exaggerated versions of themselves. Does this mean the group literally became The East Van Porn Collective?

I don't really think so. I think that, while the film isn't "mockumentary" in the satirical, comedic way that "The Office" is, it's still certainly fiction. Whenever actors take on a new role, they must prepare themselves for that role. This may include traveling to a foreign country, speaking in a different dialect, or educating themselves on a certain time period. To some extent, actors must always disengage from their routine life in order to practice living the life of their character. The reason why this appears to be different for the creators of "Made In Secret" is firstly, that they are not professional actors (and so do not habitually have to "practice" for such roles), and secondly, that they practiced as a group instead of individually (so it blurred the line between preparing for their roles as and actually becoming the East Van Porn Collective). The reason why the film caused so much uproar is precisely that it wasn't made in the traditional satiric, comedic mockumentary style. In my opinion, the only true pieces of documentary in the film are the special features of cast interviews.

Social Media Literacy

A pretty interesting article came out of the Barvard Business Review last week that I figured was rather pertinent to some of the work we've talked about recently.

---

It's time for social media literacy to enter mainstream education.

Learning to use online forums, be they social network services like MySpace and Facebook, blogs, or wikis is not a sexily contemporary add-on to the curriculum - it's an essential part of the literacy today's youth require for the world they inhabit.


How do you find out anything you want to know by entering the right question into a search engine? Equally important - how do you determine whether the answer returned by a search engine is true?

What kinds of privacy protection should a student keep in mind when setting up a Facebook profile?

How can blogs be used to advocate positions on political issues?

These are not strictly technological questions, nor are they confined to a narrow discipline. The way today's students will do science, politics, journalism, and business next year and a decade from now will be shaped by the skills they acquire in using social media, and by the knowledge they gain of the important issues of privacy, identity, community, and the role of citizen media in democracy.

I started teaching social media to Berkeley and Stanford students five years ago when I realized that the answer to the question I've been asked by readers, critics, and scholars about my own work over the last 20 years - "are personal computers and Internet-based communications good for us as individuals, communities, democracies?" - is "it depends on what people know about how to use these tools." Whether digital media will be beneficial or destructive in the long run doesn't depend on the technologies, but on the literacy of those who use them.

When I first faced students in a classroom, I was surprised to discover that the mythology I had believed about "digital natives" was not entirely accurate. Just because they're on Facebook and chat online during class and can send text messages with one hand does not mean that young people are acquainted with the rhetoric of blogging, understand the way wikis can be used collaboratively, or know the techniques necessary for vetting the validity of information discovered online. Just as learning the alphabet requires further education before a literate person can compose a coherent argument, learning the skills of effective social media use requires an education that today's institutions and teachers are ill-prepared to provide.

Last year, I was awarded a small grant by the MacArthur Foundation to develop an easy to use online tool that integrates forums, blogs, wikis, and other social media. The free and open source "Social Media Classroom," accompanied by curricular material for teachers who want to use social media to teach students about social media issues and literacies (and other subjects) is now available online , along with a community of practice where educators can teach and learn from each other. We don't have time for institutions to change, which is why I've worked to provide tools for those educators who are using social media to prepare students for the 21st century.

About the Author
Recipient of the 2008 MacArthur Knowledge-Networking Grant, Howard Rheingold has a proven record of accurate technology and social forecasting over two decades of syndicated columns, bestselling books, and pioneering online enterprises. Among his five books, Smart Mobs was named one of the "Big Ideas books of 2002" by The New York Times. Howard's frequent television and radio appearances range from Good Morning America, to CNN, to NPR, to MacNeil/Lehrer.

Wrap up and next week(s)

Hi all,

I had a great time hearing about your projects today.   Great work, all.  Some great material that could definitely be explored further.  

For next week: 

1. The Barthes reading is optional.  Interesting, but optional.  
   
2. Please watch MADE IN SECRET (on library reserve) including the "Making Of" DVD extra(s).  We will talk about it in class next week, but you DO NOT need to blog about it (focus on writing really kickass proposals for your final projects).
   
3. Bring hard copies of your proposals to hand in, and also be prepared to share your ideas with the rest of the class.  Write about 500 words on (i.e.,) your project goals, work schedule, how you will involve others (and what's in it for them!), technical or aesthetic goals, things you need to learn / get better at to achieve it, questions you are hoping to answer, etc. 

See you then.

Twitter Project--Please leave a comment if you would like a specific word put on the blog.

Here's the Link- Twitter: Feel Connected

Thanks!

-Ariel

The Collaborative Practices of "Learning to Love You More"

According to the website, "Learning to Love You More is both a web site and series of non-web presentations comprised of work made by the general public in response to assignments given by artists Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher". The work is not only a collaboration between two artists (July and Fletcher), but encompasses work made by the public at large.

Internet collaborations like "Learning to Love You More", "offer themselves not as finite works which prescribe specific repetition along given structural coordinates but as 'open' works, which are brought to their conclusion by the performer at the same time as he experiences them on an aesthetic plane". (Eco, P.21) Because Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher's project is so infinitely collaborative, it is constantly changing shape. Other 'open works", like "Man With the Movie Camera Re-Make" and "The World's First Collaborative Sentence", can never be complete works of art. Because of this, the experience of art is derived from both the progression of forms these websites take on and from the individual experience of the work.

Miranda July and Harrell Fletcher's web project is also indicative of Brian Holmes' "oppositional device". Because July and Fletcher rely on public participation for "Learning to Love You More", they reverse the "coercive structures" of traditional art practices of how art 'ought to be'. By giving people a platform to creatively express themselves, they challenge the idea of a single "artistic identity", thereby 'stimulating anxiety' within, what Holmes calls, the "extensive institutional programmes" of the art circuit. (Lind, P.16) "Learning to Love You More" is an "oppositional device" in that is cuts through "the wave-pattern" and opens up "the possibility for moments of public speech". (Holmes, P.41) The power of publicly viewed creative expression is returned to the public themselves.

(The above picture taken by Susy of Hamburg, Germany for July/Fletcher Assignment #39: Take a Picture of Your Parents Kissing.)

Control This

Let's look at examples of artists using the internet as a platform for "working with others." What kinds of problems/issues/exciting developments come up when artists bring ideas of collaboration into their work?

The most pressing issue I see coming up in the idea of collaboration in artwork comes in the idea of control.

Eco claims that works are open ane "quite literally 'unfinished.'" The fundamental issue must then become who controls what creates the "finished" product. Holmes says

Control, in hyper-individualist societies, is a function of the way your attention is modulated bt the content you freely select; but it's also a function of the direction into which your behaviour is guided by the larger devices in which you participate.

This description of social control has very real consequences, and instead of governments or czars, artists have the power to do as they please with the work. If the artist is in control of the device, the artist is in control. A look at "Suns From Flickr" shows this interaction. Umbrico decided to limit the pictures of suns to those found in the search "sunset," even though "sky" or "sun" would have yielded even more options. This may not be practical, but it is an exercise of control over the "collaborative" project. "Crying, while eating" falls into the same ability to control, given those who want to contribute have to send in their submission to the webmaster and get it put on that way.

Lind brings up something that is also pertinent to this discussion: collaboration versus cooperation. Collaboration involves "more than one participant," but cooperation "emphasizes the notion of working together and mutually benefiting from it." The artist also controls whether the artwork is merely collaborative (i.e. "Suns from Flickr") or has cooperation involved (i.e. "Crying, while eating"). Normally an artist has an idea of a target audience or message though it cannot strictly limit interpretation or control how things are perceived. To have control over the depth of partipation, however, truly creates a new dynamic in artwork.

The issue of control on the internet, with YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, and other public venues, is then one of the most pertinent issues facing art and life currently and in the future. You may not be able to tell how things will play out once they are in the public sphere, but by controlling the participation and content of art, artists are playing with a great deal of the story involved.

Collaborative Art

Eco talks about the way Pousseur addresses the idea of openness of collaborative work as a positive aspect of the production, "recasting the work so as to expose it to the maximum possible 'opening'. This statement to me is extremely powerful. The notion that artists' works are their finished product and that by adding anymore elements or removing anymore elements is a matter of destruction is one rigid view of art production that we have been engineered to take as the truth. We also have learned to see art production as a controlled, meticulous process. Collaborative art is the rebel that intends to break down our stereotype and expectation of art.
Collaborative art is not laziness or meaningless chaos; it is not an open canvas that is a freebie for anyone who wants to participate. Collaborative art takes the inescapable element of art, which is openness, into its hand and utilizing it to the benefit of the art work. For example, the Jackson Pollack website is not an open, meaningless canvas, even though it may seem like so in the beginning. The amount of the black paint that is allowed to come off the mouse is calculated and controlled to achieve potential aesthetics and an experience that simulates Pollack paintings. Like real paint brush, there is not an unlimited amount of ink that will keep coming off the brush (or your mouse, in this case). Best of all, the participants can experience the effect of motion on paint.
Most importantly though, is that collaborative art uses the inescapable "limitless interpretation" into its benefit and the scope of the artistic intentions. The Sheep Market is an example of such change in artists' view of 'openness'. Instead of creating the one perfect "sheep with the muzzle facing left," Aaron Koblin expends the project to an open source of creativity, letting collaborators offer their interpretations at a reward of 2 cents. Although Koblin is later criticized for exploitation by selling the sheet drawings at a price of $20, and I do not applaud the commercial intentions behind collecting the drawings, Koblin was able to turn the frustrating aspect of art that people can interpret a piece in thousands of ways into an additional source of creativity for his project.

Collaboartive Art--An Oppositional Device In and Of Itself?

Art History 101 Aspects of Western Art, and I assume 102 because I haven't yet taken it, is a class in which you are inundated with sublime iteration after iteration of individual artistic production. When learning how to identify a given work, you are told to reference the period, the date, and the artistic author of that work. You hear countless historical anecdotes about how geniuses like Donatello and Michelangelo were able to manipulate their respective media in ways that baffled their fellow contemporaries. However, collaborative art, in its very conception marks a departure from this individualized artistic epistemology. Instead of emphasizing the superior role of the singular artist, his vision, and his skill, collaborative art disrupts the hierarchical binary categorizing the separation between the artist and his audience. Or as Lind writes, “collaboration has again proved to be a good instrument with which to challenge artistic identity and authorship and therefore to stimulate anxiety.” In this way it seems that collaborative art by its very nature serves an oppositional function in so far as it opposes the primacy lent to individualist artistic production. However, Holmes wants to be more specific than this and affords the classification of oppositional to only certain iterations of collaborative art. I think the difference between the sort of artistically self-reflective, conceptual opposition I have tried to formulate and the specific and practical opposition to which Holmes refers is an important distinction to make. As we see in certain examples like Jacksonpollock.org, this difference in categorization proves quite salient.

Jacksonpollock.org is a wonderfully interesting and fun website. It allows you to mimic the methodology of the hugely influential and famous artist after whom the website is named. It is clear that the site would not substantively oppositional in Holmes estimation, but is it in fact conceptually oppositional? When you visit the site you are immediately thrown into artistic production, almost unknowingly. You could spend an endless amount of time moving your mouse back and forth to creating streaming lines of color and emotion along with forceful and jarring blotches of disruption. However, once you've completed all of your mimicry (which in and of itself somewhat mitigates the collaborative aspect of this art), you press a button and then appears the website creators name, written on top of a work of art that once belonged to you. As such it is clear, that although you spent the time creating the work, your authorial identity is displaced by that of the webcreator, confirming instead of challenging the individualistic authorial relationship between artist and viewer. Even if that viewer contributed to and indeed created the visual production, the artist-website creator claims the work as its facilitator. Accordingly, can this work be properly called oppositional, even conceptually, and therefore collaborative? I think no.

Other websites listed here appear to be more explicitly oppositional in nature, but it seems that this opposition may mitigate some of their more collaborative qualities. Take for example blackpeopleloves.com and rentanegro.com, these two websites are intensely oppositional on a subject that is often dismissed in American political and social discourse--race relations. However, the only real aspect of the websites that allows them to be engaging with their audiences is the fact that viewers can comment or send in letters about the websites. As such it seems that the viewers don't have any real direct agency in changing the substance of the art, but instead can only discuss it. Should these works then be considered interactive and not collaborative? I think yes. At least in the examples provided here, it doesn't appear that any examples of direct political opposition in art is explicitly collaborative. The VirtualGuantanmo project is more interactive like the other two examples I mentioned as the viewer engages an already completed software apparatus. Another question (on which I will finally end) then arises for me: must political oppositional artistic production be closed off in substantive ways to ensure that it is not co-opted by status-quo enforcing impulses?

Lind states, “collaboration has again proved to be a good instrument with which to challenge artistic identity and authorship and therefore to stimulate anxiety,” and I think this is particularly relevant to the “Black People love Us” page. In the letters section on this site, there are those who support the work and those who are offended by it. The fact that there are gatherings of white and black people in the photographs does not necessarily mean they are original. Photos can always be manipulated by someone (and it is also not clear if the white or black people are the main characters/artists), therefore it is not clear if collaboration between the two groups really happened, which may produce the two types of responses seen in the letter section. In either case, I think the site succeeds because it receives responses at length, but those too may be fabricated; there is really no way of knowing and further creates anxiety in the viewer. Still, the two main responses where one supports the raising of awareness and the other accuses the white people of ignorance and racism perhaps must affect the artists. If the two groups are indeed collaborated, then they created the site knowing that people would respond largely in these two ways and will now carry some sort of label with them relating to those two. This must have required that the artist be flexible and prepared to deal with remarks directed at them from viewers.

At length, this site qualifies as an oppositional device, as described by Holmes, because it opposes someone’s views. In any case it brings the issue of some sort of disconnect (or not) between the two groups, which will get people thinking in those terms regardless if they are in favor or opposition.

Virtual Guantanamo is arguably more in step with general ethics whereby ordinary people may be opposed to the types of torture that went (go?) on in the institution. It is designed to give participants a chance to live a “second life” in which Guantanamo is a possible destination for them so as to experience first hand what it may be like to be a prisoner. Obviously, this oppositional device opposes the institution’s methods, which have been directed by powerful personnel in some branch of the federal/military government. I would assume that if Guantanamo’s leaders wanted to terminate the virtual project, they would find a way. For now, the project is raising awareness through simulated experiences and free speech and does not pose a serious threat. Projects like these, I think, underscore the way people rise up against injustices, through creativity, flexibility, and if shut down, through even more of that.

Does a “collaboration” imply art, bar-none? While much of what we see under the projects to review and respond to does not fit the mold of explicit “art” in the sense of the manipulation of a physical medium into a representation of an idea, still I found a commonality between many of the more intriguing collaborations in the fact that they attempt to unsettle the viewers and participators. Maria Lind put it well when she stated that,

“Collaboration has again proved to be a good instrument with which to challenge both artistic identity and authorship, and therefore stimulate anxiety.”

I found this especially true of the “oppositional devices” such as “Black People Love Us” and “Rent a Negro,” whose satirical content comes solely from the viewer’s responses to the page/pages. As with “Black people Love Us,” the sight is designed perfectly so that as you surf from the Home page over to “Your Letters,” the author’s intentions become more clear after viewing other’s responses, which range from confused, to upset, to infuriated, to downright panicked.

Perhaps some of the other projects aren’t as overtly preachy as the ones about racism, but they certainly speak to the nature of human interaction in one way or another simply due to the fact that they either promote, showcase, or dissect how people act toward one another when playfully pushed (or forced) into the realm of collaboration. I see the online collaborative process as a means for great potential social transformation if used properly, for it forces the viewer/participator not only to react to the situation presented, but to introspectively match their response to that of other collaborators, thus promoting not only the response but the examination of the response and its implications as well.

Collaborative Art

One aspect I found to be characteristic of collaborative artwork was its utility. While individualistic artwork has the ability to serve a function or use in society, it seems that it more often is created simply for aesthetics. For example, when you visit a museum and view great Renaissance art, you are merely viewing a series of paintings. Of course, one can argue that these pieces of artwork serve the function of educating the public about another time period or cultivating the public's artistic sensibilities. These functions, however, seem rather trivial in comparison with the functions that most collaborative artwork tends to serve. As Lind states in "The Collaborative Turn," the purpose of individualistic art is often to show the world as it is, while the purpose of collaborative artwork is often to create new situations in which people can interact.

As Lind describes, for example, people often use collaborative artwork as a form of activism. Technology has aided the potential for collective activism by allowing a greater volume of opinions to be assembled in a shorter window of time. Furthermore, by working collectively, it is easier for artists to gain "collective autonomy," separating themselves from other spheres of society. I was especially interested, however, in Homles' explanation Foucaut's "Panopticon" and Guattari's concept of the "anti-asylum." (We recently read "Panopticon" in my sociology class.) Based on the panopticon model, people internalize discipline because they fear they are always being watched. As a result, without using direct punishment, society can lead individuals to obey social norms and laws. However, this model can apply to any institution, even the world of art: People adhere to certain norms because they fear being observed deviating from society's prescribed standards. Collaborative art, however, often breaks this model by parting from prescribed standards and creating art that envelops an entire community.

Collaborative art often blurs the line between creators and receivers of art, often creating a more broad category of "participation." JacksonPollack exemplifies the blurring of this distinction: Who is the creator of this piece of art? Is it the team who constructed the website, or is it the thousands of visitors who use the site to make their own creations? Or is it, in fact, that this particular piece of art can be attributed to both sets of people, for it would not exist without the webmasters but would serve no purpose without the visitors? Additionally, to whom can we attribute the art present on Miranda July's "Learning to Love You More"? Is it the creators of the website for developing the concept and the "assignments," or is it the visitors to the website who submit their own creative answers to assignments? Surely, both groups harbor some level of participation in this creative process; however, it is more difficult to tell who, in a sense, "owns" the artwork. In this way, collaborative art often takes away the idea of ownership and instead creates art that is open to the public.

Purple Valley Films Animation and Multimedia Performance This Friday

Sorry to spam the blog, but I figure I'd write to see if anyone is interested in the following event the film club is throwing:

SPECIAL EVENT: CARTUNE XPREZ FALL 2008 Tour

Where: Paresky Theater

When: Friday, October 17th 2008, 7:30pm

A night of mind melting tripped out animated videos and interactive psychedelic multi-media performances presented by Portland, Oregon musical group Hooliganship.

The 2008 AMRCAN Fall tour is an 80-minute travelling roadshow including shorts by artists Bruce Bickford, Shana Moulton, Adrian Freeman Takeshi Murata, Paper Rad and more. Alongside this cartoon theater will be a performance by Hooliganship a grunge rock inspired dance-off duo that combines highly orchestrated cell phone tunes with freak-out animations for a sensory-overload multimedia party.They will perform their most recent piece entitled Realer in which audiences strap on a pair of 3D glasses to watch them wreak 3D havoc with a televised parade. This program provides a rare opportunity to see videos by emerging and internationally known artists.

Cartune Xprez: http://www.cartunexprez.com/

Hooliganship: http://www.hooliganship.com/

Collaborative web-based art

Something that sets the below projects apart, and that stems from their participatory nature, is the varying balance between the artist and collaborating participants in determining the polemic of the project (where/to what, etc it is directed).

When Huyghe and Parreno purchased AnnLee, when Oliver Laric created 50/50 or, more so, biceps, and particularly with a project such as sheep market, the artist or artists seem to be manipulating input from the (sometimes pretty nominally) 'collaborating' public. This is also quite apparent, and a bit more functionally transparent, in Sam Brown's Exploding Dog. In projects such as JacksonPollack and the collaborative sentence, the artist is in the role of enabling input from the collaborating public (not more definitively collaborating). Other projects fall in between: Man With a Movie Camera, The Continuum of Cute.

The obvious connection here is that degree to which a given project can be classed as an "oppositional device" (Holmes, 36) is directly related to how polemical the project is, and that this in turn is related to the degree to which the artist funtionally and directly intends and acts upon creating that polemic. However, I find a more perfect oppositional device in the simply medium-specific openess of JacksonPollack.

In some ways, and particularly with the internet, the artist's appropriation of images and content created by untwitting users is a sort of forgone conclusion: the artists 'subverts' the objects of images of the lives of 'ordinary people' in such a way as to make a statement while refusing to spell out exactly what that statement might be (link). And while the meaning (the point) of the work with both peel and with JacksonPollack is nominally evanescent, only in the latter case does this sort of 'nothing' thesis actually synergize in a self-consistent way with the work and the medium itself.

Links from Andrew Lynn

More links from Andrew Lynn (watched/talked about and unwatched)

http://stillweridethemovie.com
SWR on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNR-SwvzdMA
http://mysurvivalkit.tv/MSKTV
http://animationworkshop.blogspot.com
http://troybikerescue.org
http://mediasanctuary.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirl-Mart
whirl video: http://www.archive.org/details/WhirlMart
opening access video: http://www.archive.org/details/openingaccesstelevision
Art Not Terrorism...
http://mediasanctuary.blip.tv/file/797691/

and then theres this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sMDG_bpBAk&feature=related
which i hadnt really planned on talking about.

Wrap up & next week

Hi all,

Thanks for a good class today. Have a good day off next week!

Here is the media center Andrew & I work with. And as promised, here is the very silly PSA I made for the Sanctuary late one night from whatever random video documentation I had on my laptop (Andrew did the animation). If you explore the site a little, you can get a sense of what we do (film screenings, music, production workshops, organizing, etc.) We even had a pretty crazy censorship scandal last spring (the City shut us down for over a month). Of course, we made a video about it, as a collective, very very quickly (that was my spring break, last year).

The next time we meet, we will have another guest artist, Adam Frelin.

If you want to talk about your projects (or anything else), a reminder that my office hours are Tue 4-6pm.

FOR NEXT CLASS (10/20):

Let's look at examples of artists using the internet as a platform for "working with others." What kinds of problems/issues/exciting developments come up when artists bring ideas of collaboration into their work? Referencing Lind, Holmes and/or Eco, use at least two examples from the list below to anchor your response.

REQUIRED reading (note changes from paper syllabus!):

• "The Collaborative Turn" (Maria Lind)
• “The Poetics of the Open Work” (Umberto Eco)
• "The Oppositional Device" (Brian Holmes)
  

Artwork/projects to review & respond to:

"Open" participatory works (some repeats from last week):

• Crying, While Eating
• Learning to Love You More (Miranda July & Harrell Fletcher)
• Exploding Dog
• The Continuum of Cute (Nina Katchadourian)
• The Sheep Market
• ...and a review of The Sheep Market
• The World's First Collaborative Sentence (click on "Enter Project" after reading description)
• Man With A Movie Camera re-make (open source filmmaking!?!?)
• JacksonPollack

Appropriation as a form of collaboration (?):

• Flickr Sunsets (Penelope Umbrico)
• 50/50 (Oliver Laric)
• Peel (William Boling)

"Oppositional Devices" (aka interventions, these ones mostly taking place on the internet):

• Black People Love Us
• Rent-a-Negro
  
• Improv Anywhere (many of their missions involve the creation of flashmobs)
  
• GWBush.com (one of the earliest projects of The Yes Men)
• Virtual Guantanamo (a project in Second Life)
• Work With Me!
  

Optional related things (some repeats from last week's links):

• Youtube User Agreement
• Why Facebook is the Future
• Facebook Privacy Policy (a video interpretation)
• Web 2.0: The Machine is Us/ing Us (video)
  
• Internet Usage Worldwide
• Race and the Digital Divide

Juicy Campus

Penny, it's funny you mentioned that gossip page you encountered in college today in class. Right about the same time we received the instructions for our next project last week, Williams College campus was buzzing about this new site Juicy Campus. Like we discussed today in class, once anonymity is granted to a collaborative community, the credibility of information is lost. The vast majority of the site is complete garbage, but something interesting does occur in the most recent entries. A small group of unidentified people, in what seems to be an attempt to kill the gossip flow on the site, began posting things like historical quotes, encyclopedia entries, and a number of other items under misnomer titles, essentially flooding the site with disinformation. Certain people felt that Juicy Campus was bad for campus prestige, it seems, and in a collaborative effort killed the site chatter.

This was actually my original idea for our project, but someone, it seems, beat me to it so now I have to think of something else...