MEDA302 Projected image in Contemporary Art & Installations

In reflection Michael Rush’s chapter on video installation art I found that I didn’t exactly engage with the content of the writing, as it was very dated and simply a cluster of examples of video installations. This isn’t neccesarily bad, but as fodder to enhance and reconsider how I might use the gallery space and spaces in the future in creating installation works I found that I didn’t exactly engage very well.

Alternatively however, I found the round table discussion ‘The projected image in Contemporary Art’ to be very interesting. What stuck out to me is when foster describes the change and definitive difference that is possible when working with an installation work instead of a film. A film installed on a single screen with no acknowledgement of the space seems to be ignorant of the viewer/audience’s perspective and seems to play irrelevant of whether the audience is there or not.

This is an idea that I haven’t considered before, while I’ve seen many works created by my peers that are interactive in some way or another, I haven’t myself yet considered the importance of space to the point of whether my work acknowledges or adjusts itself depending on the whims and placement of the audience within the space. While generally I’ve worked with single screen works I think this leaves me with a great opportunity to work towards a major work that has the audience’s perspective and experience considered in how the work is perceived. The point McCall makes that a work that has a motionless audience viewing a single projected screen isn’t a installation is something that I find myself completely in agreement with. This highlights to me the importance of experimenting and considering a lot of different possibilities in how an installation is and can be experienced by an audience.

Turvey, M., Foster, H., Iles, C., Baker, G., Buckingham, M., & McCall, A. (2003). Round Table: The Projected Image in Contemporary Art. October, 104, 71-96. Retrieved from

Meda302 Latour An attempt at a Compositionist Manifesto Reflection

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.

BCM320 Gojira and Livetweeting

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.

-Blake Foggo

MEDA302 Creativity, and YouTopia

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.

MEDA301 Media Arts Project 5

Blake Foggo – YouTopia

Medium: Single screen, remix, archival footage, compilation, interviews, satire mockumentary.

Duration: 7 Minutes and 36 seconds.


YouTopia is a mashup film using archival footage from many different YouTubers. By contrasting the individual positions of creators in regards to YouTube culture and YouTube issues with competing with other similar mediums Blake Foggo displays the lack of fidelity within the YouTube medium. While this is conveyed, these opinions are further manipulated and reconstructed into a new formed narrative to continue the internal YouTube dialogue of consistent appropriation and reappropriation oscillates throughout the YouTube sphere. The idea of ‘Almost nothing on YouTube is an original idea’ and an ‘encapsulation of the lack of fidelity within YouTube is expressed within this work.’ The film is edited in such a way that it is extremely difficult to discern what is the true reality or truth of the state of YouTube. A big inspiration in the editing process of the film was Will Benedict and Steffen Jorgensen’s The Restaurant, 2017. In the same way that The Restaurant begs questions of the consistency of internet how to videos as a format, YouTopia discusses the consistency of notable issues within YouTube such as copyright, YouTube’s lifespan and its ongoing war with other new competitive platforms such as twitch. The film also includes interviews of small-time streamers and YouTubers discussing their own opinions in regards to their own consumption of YouTube media and the current financial struggles YouTubers face in the current climate of YouTube.

Post 1: Intial Ideas.

Post 2: Early Experimentation.

Post 3: Footage Gathering, and editing conceptually.

Post 4: Current Draft work, and critique/response.

Post 5: Final work, and artist statement.

Meda301 Media Arts Project 4

This week I developed a draft version of my media arts project,

at this stage I don’t exactly still have a working title.


After creating this draft

I emailed Aaron, and he replied and gave me some critique as well as some advice as to other works and articles that may help me in formulating my own work.

While he sent me several links the one that I thought was most captivating was The Restaurant.

I think the two things that stand out to me in this work, is firstly that is that the work is completely easy to understand what it conveys to the audience in it’s critique of how to channels on youtube and other internet mediums. Within the video, the character decides to learn how to cook french fries, and is given far more alternative instructions from the internet then you would intially get from any other medium. This speaks to the huge volume of youtube content, and the internet. Even if you searched for a simple how to cook video, you would be given an almost limitless amount of options in terms of what video you decide to watch with different instructions depending on what your watching, as well as the stylistic choice in the creator who conveys the instructions to you.
The awkwardness of this absurdity is directly correlated with the soundtrack of the work.


I think the interesting part of this work is how the soundtrack and narrative of the work adds further weight to the conceptual part of the work. By having absurd ambiguous soundtrack and core narrative about ‘learning to cook’ this work is clearly exposed to the audience about the absurdity of youtube and online content.

Aaron also suggested to me, I consider the participatory culture of youtube, as well as perhaps changing my editing to be less clean.

This might be an interesting further abstraction of my work.

He also suggested I considered the result of lonelygirl15 a youtuber who was in fact an actor who participated in youtube by performing as a youtube personality. This is an interesting character within youtube who I actually hadn’t heard of until now. The idea of a paid actor playing a daily vlogger on youtube is interesting to me.

I think an interesting parallel I draw with this is the work of another youtube, Sugar Pine 7.

Sugar Pine 7 is mostly produced by a cinematographer/vlogger/videographer who decided to do regular vlogs of his travels as well as experiences among friends. While this channel intially started out in a similar way to the cine-vlog styles of other youtubers, they eventually derived into a new genre in which they force extreme narratives into their vlogs by acting out of character often within a vlogging series.
To express the impact this act has from a audience perspective I’d explain it in this way.

While an ordinary vlog might feature a vlogger, filming aesthetics of a city, while filming themselves talking about what they intend to do today, or what they intend to eat.
Sugar Pine 7, deviates from this by going to the absolute extreme by at first appearing as a simple blog and then suddenly distorting into a kidnapping, murder, and shocking accidents. (this is of course caused through editing and acting.)

This deviation from audience expectation is a subversion of the youtube vlogging genre and by doing so they attack the authenticity and pedestrian nature of vlogging.

Post 1: Intial Ideas.

Post 2: Early Experimentation.

Post 3: Footage Gathering, and editing conceptually.

Post 4: Current Draft work, and critique/response.

Post 5: Final work, and artist statement.

Meda301 Media Arts Project 3

This week I worked towards gathering footage and experimented with different search terms in how I can gather my footage. In my previous post I experimented with the editing process to see if my process of deliberately contrasting ideas against each other would work within my intended format of a cut by cut edit.

While trying to gather footage I felt an issue in my gathering of footage was that I was unconsciously forcing a narrative into my editing and gathering of footage. If the clips I collected didn’t state exactly what I wanted to include within my work, I would then manipulate the clip to state a different opinion then they necessarily stated.

For example, a youtuber criticizing ‘talentless vloggers’ and stating that they’re not interested in people on youtube that is recommended to them has been manipulated by me to have them instead state that they ARE interested in these recommendations.

At first I felt that this is a misconstruction and isn’t a true reflection of the lack of fidelity of youtube because by doing this, I myself become a part of this lack of true representation.

I question myself, whether my work should be true in the representation of the opinions and statements of these youtubers through my works editing, however I’m also considering whether perhaps this abstraction of the true meaning of each clips intention is an even deeper level of representation of the lack of fidelity of youtube.

Post 1: Intial Ideas.

Post 2: Early Experimentation.

Post 3: Footage Gathering, and editing conceptually.

Post 4: Current Draft work, and critique/response.

Post 5: Final work, and artist statement.

MEDA301 Media Arts Project 2

Following on from my previous post,
I intend in this post to discuss the results of my experimentation with editing youtube footage.

In this iteration of the development of my work within classtime given about an hour and half I was able to test my conceptual idea of contrasting ideas and observations by youtubers about the youtube medium, with a particular focus on the career prospects of potentially new youtubers.

The critique from Mat, and Aaron this week was that there could be more editing involved and more changes made to the work to further improve the work. This of course was my intention as the short in class time period is not enough time to develop a remix work with depth.

Post 1: Intial Ideas.

Post 2: Early Experimentation.

Post 3: Footage Gathering, and editing conceptually.

Post 4: Current Draft work, and critique/response.

Post 5: Final work, and artist statement.

BCM300 Reflection Week Eleven

Throughout my time developing my individual game I’ve come to truly recognize through the actual process of ‘doing’ how important playtesting is to the creation of a board game. Certainly from an outside perspective I might personally suggest that playtesting a game would be good for a boardgame’s design but after having played multiple different games from my peers within BCM300 it’s been highlighted for me how poor some board games can appear if they haven’t been previously playtested. While the games that were playtested weekly and adjusted and modified to suit the feedback of peers improved with each new iteration of the game, the board games of people who did not have working playtest versions ready until the later weeks of the semester seemed to have poorer games in quality overall.

The only assertion I can make from this observation is that these games needed to be playtested so when they finally were playtested in later weeks, they were incomplete when compared to other games. I found with my game, with each week after playtesting a few points would be noted to me from the feedback of the playtesters and from that I was able to make huge progress in improving my game to be at a consumer level. Issues like balancing the game or setting time limits at a reasonable and achievable difficulty is something that can be attempted theoretically but truly needs to be play tested to be truly ascertained for the ‘ideal’ version of a board game.

Before studying the subject though I had a great deal of experience with board games I have never considered myself a great fan of them, this is because I have very competitive siblings that often seem to tear apart the experience of any truly impressive board game. Truly there is no satisfaction in seeing a grown adult tear apart his 9 year old niece for making a mistake in following the rules of a board game. This lead me down a path of thought in regards to board games where I began to question whether board games need to be strict in their rules to be fun. If board games are relaxed in their rules can you still have fun?

Certainly after playing my own game (working title: Adjection!) I feel as though I’ve achieved this concept through the act of playtesting. In each iteration of playtesting whether with my own family or with peers within BCM300 I experimented often with difficulty of adjectives and different time limits for drawing/guessing. The interesting thing about these different time limits is the feedback from a family playtest and one in class was completely different.

In class, my playtesters felt that the game needed to be harder and more challenging with its words and shorter time limits should be in place to really challenge the players.
At home with my family they felt that some of the words were far too difficult to draw and guess and that they should be allowed more time to guess.

So then, if in both playtests different advice was offered, which is correct?

I’d suggest that it’s neither, unless the board game is a competitive tournament what reason is there not for people to set different rules for the different players playing the board game. While certainly I believe a board game should have a strict set of ‘official rules’ I think it’s important to recognize the idea that players particularly in a  family context will often insert their own ‘unoffical’ or ‘house rules’ into the board game. This concept of house rules in playing board games I believe is a lot like playtesting in that in each iteration you add something that you think will improve your game. By doing so your game becomes more approachable by those who playtest your game.

Still this does make highlight to me as well that to develop a board game for an older or younger audience you should have that audience playtest or your feedback will be distorted by the background of the players. An undergraduate army of board game designers is never going to equal out to give the authentic feedback of a 5 year old. As such, why not playtest with a 5 year old instead?

Overall I think this subject has displayed to me the importance of having an authentic playtesting group for the audience your board game is intended for.