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 4.2 the novelty and distinctiveness of digital media forms Digital Media Research |
4.3 multimodal digital media and visualised culture A matter of method? 4.3.1 New critical moves towards visualised culture 4.3.2 Visualisation driven further by digitalisation 4.3.3 Multimodal Culture 4.3.4 Practice based confrontation of language-based tools in Proximal 4.3.5 Evolving preference of display and multimodality. A matter of method? My examples under the headings “Workshopping by visuals” and “Composing dramaturgy by numbers” are included here to reveal limitations of semiotics tied to the logic-of-language when confronted with dynamic, non-representational, multimodal expressions in production/making and consumption/reading. How, for instance, the dramaturgy was represented by numbers, is not considered a good solution, but an example of lack of such [63. misrepresentation by numbers]. We designed Proximal as to attract the attention towards the performance, not the performed. We did so by means of both live movements and digital media in a collaborative, improvisational design. Digital dynamic media, together and at play with the cultural move towards the visual and theoretical notions of mediatised presence, altered traditional production designs and the separate roles of scenography and choreography. The depicted or displayed multimodal construction may be “read” as most and foremost form, not as representations (if at all possible). Throughout the production process a linguistic model of expression and perception were partly overthrown by other communicative means and logics. Visual, simultaneously superimposed elements were translated and represented into quotas of a whole in a table. The dramaturgy was both communicated and composed by a mathematical logic, representing relations of simultaneous, visual objects. How did the practice of Proximal develop our knowledge of digital media? Proximal might be said to inhabit or embody theory - that is, in my understanding of the concepts, how critical thinking may be expressed (given body to) and explored in and through the artifact Proximal itself, e.g. notions of presence and mediatised presence. Digital media in Proximal might be said to empower the visual towards the role of performer, thereby both expressing and disclosing the potential of digital media in collaborative, creative and contemporary design processes. Creative production designs of cultural expressions engaging digital technology, like multimedia performances, may benefit from a more integrated, creative design. Such collaborative design may better acknowledge how the multiple modes displayed may be read as superimposed elements, which are most of all their form. What is important here in this twofold thesis on method is however not my suggested response to multimodal production/making and consumption/reading, but how I arrived at them. What does the preceding section on multimodal digital media and visualised culture tell us about how practice-based method may inform studies of digital media? The multimodal challenges, leading to ad-hoc responses like workshopping by visuals and composing dramaturgy by numbers show how multimodality on stage in a displayed performance may compels us to rethink the exploratory potential of verbal articulation. This, in turn, questions the potential of a “singular modal” critical approach, as the lack of adequate apparatus in for instance visual design or scenography, may imply. Evolving visualisation and multimodality may be a matter method, and a field of which practice-based method may inform studies of digital media. Visual digital culture and Critical Theory The assertion put forward in the preciding section of how the potential of critical theory and language-based tools and theories of communication and meaning may not fully account for production/making and consumption/reading of multimodal media forms in a visualised culture, is in line with the historical and cultural tensions between print culture and visual culture, outlined by Bolter In “Critical Theory and the Challenge of new Media” (2003). Though arguing from a similar observation of the tendency to privilege visual over verbal in our culture as Kress and van Leeuwen, Bolter has a somewhat different response to the emerging multimodality. While Reading Images (Kress & van Leuween 1996) explores potentials of visual grammar, a theoretical “tool-kit” for reading visual design, and Kress in "'English' at the Crossroads" (Kress 1999) explores new theory of representation adequate to the demands of several urgent tasks posed by the digital media, Bolter, on the other hand, questions whether theory can effectively critique new visual practices. Bolter is stretching the inadequacy of language-based theory into a methodological debate of the potential of critical theory as a whole. Despite the changed expressive choices of our culture, humanistic studies continue their practice of translating into the medium of print making the risk of misrepresentation, or in Bolter´s terms “gap between media theory and cultural practices” that surround new media forms, grow wide, “perhaps so wide that theory can no longer effectively critique these new practices” (Bolter 2003a:24). This is not just an issue of research presentation (humanists preferring to publish their critiques in print form), but may have an impact on the whole status of critical theory, regarded as the most prestigious and intellectually rewarding work in the humanities. “In fact, in challenging the status of print, visual digital media also call into question the status of critical theory in the academy” (Bolter 2003a:21). In order to understand the complexity and changed relationship between the verbal and visual that is emerging in novel media forms, media theory needs to engage with the practice of digital media of which “(…) the critique speaks through the artifacts themselves, rather than over against the artifacts” (Bolter 2003a:28). The weakening of aspects of critical theory, and following methodological turn in the direction of practice and embodiment of theory, is not limited to studies of digital media. Issues on critical theory and practice-based responses to these, are much present in contemporary art and design research, e.g. Niedder (2004:unpaginated) emphasising how creative practice may be perceived as a source or basis for theory generation, or less moderate, Pakes claiming the way practice itself (rather than the reflection upon it) embodies knowledge of a form irreducible to its theoretical or verbal articulation is emphasised (Pakes 2003:unpaginated). To recapitulate, as the potential of critical theory and language-based tools and theories of communication and meaning may not fully account for production/making and consumption/reading of multimodal media forms in visualised culture, practice and practice-based method may inform studies of digital media by artefacts that may “inhabit” or “embody” theory. 4.3.6 Recap Chapter 4. Preparing for final section 4.4 |
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
