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 |
...... |
The displayed video consists of documentary recordings from the interdisciplinary improvisation making In Between. The media material of this multimedia performance were not only mediated digitally, but simultaneously generated digitally as the main feature of this performance from the media side was live video feedback (see further description section 3.3.2 In Between). The liveness of video feedback involved some limitations (e.g. impossible to fix and hence optimise the material), but entailed primarily a whole range of creative solutions of randomly created material and close interplay between light, movements and projected video. The live video feedback was generated by a handheld camera, catching the lit space, the performers and the projected back drop in different angles [44. non-digital video feedback]. The multiple factors at play demanded a close collaboration between the media students, the choreographer, dancers and the light designer. The video sequence just presented records how we moved recursively between generating compositions of light, body movement and camera movement, experiencing the outcome, and abstracting and articulating the experience for further development [45. iterative design]. Listed, we create, experience and then reflect. These activities of improvisation are not easily separated as we may experience while we create, and reflect while we experience. In the selected sequences, we discuss possible compositional features of the interplay between live dance and feedback. Sem: “Either the dancer moves, or the camera moves… we have to fix those two”. An overall issue follows this suggestion: Should the camera movements during performance follow a fixed shot-list or not? The discussion is settled by an argument that emphasise the liveness of the digital video feedback. Lagerløv: “It (to generate video feedback) is really like live performance”, leading to a collaboratively settled, creative decision where some feedback sequences are fixed or choreographed, and others are open for improvisation by the “camera-performer”. The liveness of the mediated material, exposed and experienced through improvisation and recursive performance-practice, may question widespread dichotomies like the liveness and the mediatised in performance art [see previous note 32. phenomenological approach to multimedia performance art]. What does this example of refined knowledge through practice tell us about how practice-based method may inform studies of digital media? The collaborative discovery evident in the documented improvisation, demonstrates how improvisational practice, that is, recursive activities of both creating, experiencing and reflecting, may generate new knowledge for the ones involved. The reflection, and in this case the collective reasoning process on the liveness of digital video feedback, is not a separat activity but closely interrelated, and perhaps only fully developed, by recursive series of creation and experience, that is, of media practice. |
4.1.1. Primary vs. secondary experience, active vs. passive knowledge 4.1.2. Summary section 4.1. Media Education |
|
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
