28.6.07
The 305
300 mockumentary by dholecheck. The humor seems very office-ish. Refreshing to see a well done and ridiculous spoof of the CGI blood fest.
21.6.07
Four Legged Friends and Digital Techne

What do we lose in the temporal journey through different forms of techne? Even if we don't technically lose them thanks to non-synchronous production, how does our experience change? How does our abilitiy to acquire capital change?
Maybe they seem like too broad, too general questions, but sometimes it is fun to be romantic about writing with a pen on paper, hand churning blueberry ice cream or threading slick film through gates in a movie projector.
In some ways the argument against digital projection seems similar to many arguments against more extensively mechanized production. As a projectionist I wouldn't be able to feel the pride of completing a specialized task with my hands. I will be more removed from the final product because I put in less of my knowledge and labor into its completion. As the complexity decreases I will become less valuable as a worker. The shelf life on part of my current skill set sucks.
The counter arguments, in many ways, seem similar as well. I will have less work. Ideally less work would also allow for more leisure. Digital projection would save the theatre the costs of shipping heavy reels of film.
Until today it seemed there was more weight on the side of keeping the old technology. We already have it. It seems wasteful to upgrade, and the nostalgic factor is tempting sometimes. It's nice, in a way, to watch a movie on film. Quaint?
Today, wiki and a recipe for cantalope sorbet in the Ingles coupon page informed me that film, from Kodak's to Carmike's, is all made with gelatin. According to Peta's site, there isn't a substitute. Tomorrow a random sequence of events could conspire to inform me that digital projectors enslave nations, but today it is nice to have a change of mind.
5.5.07
Mapping the Territory
4.5.07
The Precarious Place of Internet Radio

This week Congress entered the fight to save Internet radio.
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0100/t.5809.html
Usually the words "commercial" and "radio" in close proximity leave something close the taste of sweaty garbage in my mouth.
That's assuming the conversation's surrounding a station with an uber tight loop of less than inventive, already over-played tunes--a station's that's licking the fingers of the corporate machines which fuel it.
Internet commercial radio is, in some forms, arguably a different beast.
Take pandora.com for instance.
For the yet-to-be-converted, it's a God in the "box" that, better than I've heard any iPod produce thus far, divinely (and sometimes with a bit of strict displine) selects ecclectic songs that follow musical progressions.
Dilligently prune your station and it might bring forth as opaque an epistemic progression that, personally, I've never experienced from another medium.
In its technology, it's a horse of a radically different color.
So, for the pleasure gained from pandora, for all the other similar and developing technologies, for the progress of audio and online technology in general, let's hope that the two Democratic House members will be successful.
27.4.07
(Un)locking the Symbolic Chain
From AmazingPhil on YouTube.
Maybe useful as part of an argument for the incompatibility of the image/logo centric system to communicate the infinite potential of meaning.
Or, as CriticalHaba responded on YouTube, "ha! congrats, you kept me amused for 2 minutes of my life :D"
Most interestingly, I feel, is that AmazingPhil's video is a response to a new type of automated technology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4N7nH6RMNI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)