Latour an attempt at a compositionist is deliberately chosen manifesto medium deliberately chosen to be able to critique the modernist manifesto era. Latour also criticises post-modernism in how post-modernist seem to question everything that is a rule, and everything that is a rule and that by critiquing in this way we are left with nothing. He then discusses how while critique is useful to destroy something, it cannot create something new necessarily as it assumes that by destroying the thing it critiques that the result would be better than the status quo. This idea was very interesting to me, as it’s something that I agree with. He also describes the idea of compositionism, in which rather than critiquing something you instead look at compositing it, and reforming it into a new shape, or simply adjusting to correct the issues within the thing. This is explains is not the same as critique in which nothing is left, instead you keep the original work and reconfigure it to become more relevant today. While post-modernism has past he believes that the next step or next era is compositionism. Finally he writes of the clear distinction between nature and politics or humans and nature. This distinction is important as he further discusses how humanity has seemingly become convoluted in its theories that we have become ignorant to the imminent impending environmental repercussions we have created in our wake. He writes of how for example, as post-modernist approach is completely ignorant to the issues of the environment such as climate change.
He also writes about how the historical argument of issues like climate were contended by both scientist and non-scientists and how the scientific arguments made for the existence of climate change were not well composed. He writes of how it’s somewhat pitiful that scientists were unable to prove the existence of climate change over 30 years against arguments that simply stated that the idea of ‘climate change’ had been slowly constructed and had not always existed.
This an interesting critique to me, as from my own generation their at least in my opinion has never been contended as an issue of whether or not climate change exists.
As for how these ideas relate to my own work, I think it can be said that compositonism is an idea that I find quite interesting. As an artist in most of my works I have been critical of other works, and ideas. I think this idea of compositionism is something I could potentially adapt within my own work in media arts, as I see the opportunity to attempt not a critique but instead a deliberate composition of that which I generally criticize.
For my previous work for example in which I criticized the livelihood of the youtube platform I could have instead worked in a compositionist manner which could have been a different outcome as a media arts work.
This week in class I experienced my first time live tweeting, while I consider myself somewhat of an experienced user of social media while working on my own personal endeavours in both YouTube and business I think I’ve got some insight on the kind of quirky intelligent post that draws interest.
While I’m of the opinion that meme culture is a necessary evil within the space of live tweeting it felt from that experience that the idea of using a meme for live tweeting was oversaturating the space and instead of participating in an intelligent discussion about the film much of the live tweeting content was simple or dated memes or pop culture references which are relatively relatable to Godzilla. While I also participated in this format of ‘meme tweeting’ I felt like the medium of twitter doesn’t exactly allow for intelligent posts to even be created entertainment driven notion of twitter as a platform.
That being said, I think that the opportunity to gather many viewers of the same film at once, and have them all attempt to craft creative tweets in quick succession was quite intriguing.
Unlike if the group of people in class were watching together and stating what they were thinking or any joke they had come up with, the live tweeting format allowed for people to state their ideas together in a cluster without intruding or speaking over one another.
If there was another issue I could describe with the activity of live tweeting it would be if you came up with an interesting joke, or idea or point to make a particular scene in the film you would need to type extremely quickly or people wouldn’t understand what you are talking about.
There was a few times in my personal experience where I felt that my point wasn’t noticed by others from my tweet because the moment in the film I was commenting on had passed.
As for my opinion of the film, I have relatively deep background as a consumer of Japanese entertainment from the music industry, live action and animation (Anime).
With this as part of my background the film viewing experience was quite familiar as I didn’t feel hindered by having to watch with subtitles. It could also be said that by having some understanding of the Japanese language a lot of Japanese I felt very comfortable being able to generally translate sentences and phrases without reading the subtitles.
It’s interesting within the film industry to view this film not just from a locally Asia region but also internationally as Godzilla is the longest running film franchise out there with 33 films.
I felt that despite being black and white the film didn’t seem to be hindered in attempting to create fear of the huge kaiju gojira.
The film itself, while obviously being reminiscent of films like king kong reminded me far more of jaws, this because within the films actual story telling there was focus on the way the monster’s appearance was affecting families and people as appose to how powerful the monster was. Jaws similarly from my memory had huge people panicking in large groups about how they could possibly solve the issue.
During my creative process of Meda301 I encountered serious challenges in regards to achieving an intriguing concept. While from an aesthetical framework I felt that my final work YouTopia was creative and entertaining it lacked in a lot of ways a conceptual basis to carry the work to greater heights. The critique I received from peers was that the work could be elevated by approaching the work with a different medium to conceptually bring the work away from the same participatory stylings of YouTube itself. YouTopia was a criticism of the YouTube ecosystem and creator lifestyle in which creators seemed to face issues due to changes to the YouTube monetization creator scheme.
While my work was a intended critique of the medium’s participatory style in which creators are inauthentic in how they reuse other’s works and remix them, my work did not differ from this ecosystem and instead simply joined the participatory remix queue while admittedly on larger scale than most YouTube creators.
While Aaron’s suggestion of solving this issue seemed to be to approach the whole work from a different medium, I felt that the real thing that my work lacked would be a notable conceptual basis. While I was interesting in critiquing the parts of YouTube I didn’t like, as I myself am greatly involved in YouTube as both a consumer and creator within the platform. It makes sense to create art that is a critical review of YouTuber in an abstracted format. By doing so my critique is encapsulated within the minds of my audience in a deeper level rather than just writing a critical opinion piece on YouTube.
From looking critically in post at my work I feel I could benefit from thinking more conceptually within my work. Instead of thinking strongly conceptually YouTopia is more of a work crafted by my interest in the remix slapstick/compilation medium of video. While this a format that I’m firmly familiar with due to previous experiments and my own consumption of this format mostly from internet media.
I find myself interesting to potentially expand into new mediums and expand my horizons beyond my current understanding of media arts. While I find comfort in confining myself to remix and video it might be in my interest to attempt to think beyond those constrictions and consider the potential of not being restricted to those mediums.
I discuss now this week set reading, Creativity and Cultural Production, by Phillip Mcintyre.
This text writes about the many ways of defining creativity as well the different frameworks of discussing and analysing the concept of creativity. This is something that I felt was rather frustrating as I feel when discussing a concept with as many different identities as creativity it’s important to define the topic you are discussing. While I felt this was lacking within the writing of this text, it is interesting to read of the different approaches of looking at creativity. These include the neurological, as well as philosophical. The text also discusses different definitions of how creativity occurs with interesting contrasting frameworks that different academics have discussed.
Overall while I was frustrated by the overtly complicated writing style Mcintyre uses the subject matter is interesting enough to stand on its own.