0.
guide 1.
introduction 2.
method as field of discussion
3. practice
4. theory
5. conclusion and further discussions
| 4.
theory |
4.1 the dialectic of “reading” and “writing” Media Education |
4.1.1. Primary vs. secondary experience, active vs. passive knowledge |
The partition drawn, between reflection separated from practice and reflection generated by practice, and the emphasised value of the latter, resonates with the separation drawn by Peter Jarvis in The Practitioner-Researcher (1999) of “mediated knowledge”, gained through secondary experiences, and “the learning to be able to do” as primary (firsthand) experience (Jarvis 1999:37). Here, Jarvis tries to bridge theory and professional practice, writing however within the frames of professional adult and continuing education. The same distinction made, but within the context of media education, can be found in Making Media. Practical Production in Media Education, where Buckingham et al. assert a fundamental difference between the “passive” knowledge developed through critical analysis and the “active” knowledge derived from production. An essential difference between passive and active knowledge, thereby implying the value of practice-based media education, is that there are conceptual understandings of the media that can only be fully developed through the experience of production itself (Buckingham et al.1995: 12). The way Buckingham et al. oppose the separation of media theory and media practice, between conceptual understanding and media training, is much informed by John Richmond”s (1990) account of knowledge about language within the context of English education. Notions of how knowledge about language cannot be effectively communicated simply through transmission, nor be “discovered” through language use, but between the role of “writer and the role of reader” (Buckingham et al. 1995: 201, 224) are being adapted to media education in order to rethink the relationship between practical media-production and critical media-analysis. The dynamic interaction between practice and theory is perceived as a dialectic process of translation between different modes of engagement with media, i.e. between “writing” and “reading”, “language use and language study”, between “experience and abstraction from experience”, media making and media reading, media practice and media consumption, through which conceptual knowledge is acquired by a process of theoretical reflection upon practice (Buckingham et al.1995). Theoretical reflection upon practice As evident in the documented collaboration behind Extended buttressed by theoretical knowledge from media education, knowledge of media might be said to develop by translation between modes of engagement with media. That is, of practice and theoretical reflection upon practice apparent in the recursive triangulation of creating, experiencing and reflecting much evident in improvisational sessions. I am left with a question however, concerning Buckingham et al. separation of passive knowledge from active knowledge. What type of knowledge can only be fully developed through media practice? In other words, what type of conceptual knowledge is “active” knowledge? What separates this type of conceptual knowledge and understanding from “passive”, “mediated” knowledge? Intimate understanding of the interplay between media-texts and their creation and distribution may be a type of active knowledge that derives and develope from media-practice. Creation and distribution In his critical study of web media form, Anders Fagerjord (2002:37) argues how creation and distribution is “(…) the process of getting the messages from author to audience, a process that takes time. Authors are aware of the time it takes, and this influences on media rhetoric”. The impact of creation and distribution on the finial appearance of In Between is particular evident. Initially we wanted to work with animations in making In Between. Though digital and, according to passive or mediated knowledge of digital media, hence fairly easy to alter, animations were considered too time consuming for this piece. In contrast to the other pieces, in which animations were applied [Proximal and Ngirosi], the animations in this piece were supposed to be tightly synchronised with the movements. This demanded a lot of time to prepare, technical skills to achieve and a set choreography at an early stage. Lack of all these three, crucial factors made us re-consider animations in this piece and turn to live video feedback. Video feedback did not need any creation-time ahead of rehearsals and final performances in the way that the animations did. This made the media material in In Between possible to alter on the spot in improvisational sessions, and “behave” as artifact of expression in the production process not unlike that of the moving body. To settle on live video feedback limited “creation”-time to the improvisational rehearsal sessions, and erased “distribution”-time as a factor. How did the practice of In Between develop our knowledge of digital media? Or rather, what separates active knowledge of creation and distribution of digital artefacts from passive knowledge of such? Knowledge of creation and distribution is both accessible and perhaps sometimes most adequately attained through mediated or passive theoretical knowledge. Fagerjord shows this in his critical study of web-texts, comparing, for example, the “transmission latency” of print newspaper, web newspaper, web video, television (Fagerjord 2003:49). However, in a less comparative study, intimate knowledge of creation and distribution, derived from production and active, practice-based experience, may disclose the potential and limitation of digital media, i.e. the variety of choices and the impact of contextual factors. and in this way refine and cultivate the “mediated” or more general, formal knowledge of creation and distribution. Audience, or a non-participative researcher, would possibly know the formal conditions behind video feedback or at least notice Kjelling move the camera and by this reason how his movements and the dancers together generated the feedback live. Less obvious, and arguably a type of understanding that can only be fully developed through the experience of media-production itself, may be the multiple factors intersecting with the camera to generate video-feedback, e.g. the interplay between Kjelling and the light designer, the interplay between Kjelling and me, controlling the video mixer, and most importantly, the multiple variations happening only in that improvised performed moment. The multiple, random variations emphasises not only the liveness of media distribution, but the potential liveness of media creation. see video-montage of two divergent closing sequeinces in In Between: |
...... |
|
|
4.2 the novelty and distinctiveness of digital media forms Digital Media Research |
4.3 multimodal digital media and visualised culture A matter of method? 4.4 “artifacts of expression” and “expressive artifacts” Exploring theory through practice |
| |
Practice-based Method. Exploring Digital Media through
the Dynamics of Practice, Theory, and Collaborative, Multimedia Performance
Hovedoppgave i mediavitenskap for cand.filol
graden, Universitetet i Oslo, Institutt for medier og kommunikasjon, Mai
2006, Idunn Sem
