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? In my introduction, I emphasised how digitisation (encoding different modes into digits), may engender the diversity of digital media and the consequent complexity of studying digital media. This is the technological side of multimodality, of which digital technology is but the recent media technologies to do so. With the development of a series of (audio)visual technologies, beginning with the photography, the dominance of the printed word has weakened, and the balance between word and image, i.e. between verbal and visual representation, may be said to have changed (e.g. Bolter 2003:19). Intimately connected to evolving, audiovisual communication technology, there is however a broader side to multimodal communication. That is an emerging visualisation in our culture where display may be the preferred mode of communication and expression. An altered balance between verbal and visual representation stresses the risk of delay and misrepresentation between concept and object further, which in turn calls for revisited terms, tools and methods of media studies. Multimodality, and the choices in our culture to communicate by modes of display, challenges terms such as “literacy”, analytical tools of semiotics and perhaps even the eminence of critical theory in humanistic studies. How multimodal digital media and visualised culture may be a matter of method and how practice-based method may inform studies of multimodal, digital media studies, will be considered in the following section. The risk of misrepresentation, or lack of ability to deal with multimodality adequately, is not only a matter of analysis, but present in both “production/making” and in “consumption/reading”, as termed so by Gunther Kress (1999). My discussion is informed and illustrated by one of the collaborative productions (production/making) and final performance works (consumption/reading) in Extended; Proximal. This piece might be said to explore multimodality and non-representational display in particular, and thereby the potential of language-based tools and theories of communication and meaning. My discussion on multimodal, digital media and visualised culture as a matter of method is further buttressed by related theory of how the emergence of the visual at play with digital media compels us to rethink the status of critical theory (Bolter 2003a). In its place, multimodal media “texts” or artifacts may embody theory and critique. Theory may grow out of practice and return to inform digital media practice. Overall, this section aims to situate practice-based method in a context of emerging visualisation with regard to digital media. To emphasise the broader side of multimodality and visualised culture, beyond the recent developments and the multimodal possibilities of digital technology, I have chosen to start off this section by reference to non-digital, critical perspectives that addresses “visual literacy” and “visual thinking” in social semiotics and scenography, respectively [51. on “social semiotic”, Halliday] [52. on “visual thinking” , Rudolph Arnheim]. 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? 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
