Reflection1,Why transmedia and the immersive ?
Published by bharath haridas,
The transmedia form or the existence of text, image, sound and action co-existing side by side has been naturalized in many ways, but mostly in the digital format.
An continues instance of and creation working with the computer. But one can argue that we have been doing that in our everyday life without knowing it. Reading while listening perhaps drinking eating or talking. The restriction to one activity creates a sort of envelope and deepens one’s engagement as it could call forth all senses , to that time and place no doubt. The literary form urges one to recreate textures of sight, smell and pace.
Maybe the coexistence of all the different mediums in the digital computations asense is then a result of the process encoding rather than transmission. For example while taking down notes during a lecture I am recording instances of what the lecturer is explaining in the form of an audio recording. Typing down notes that are paraphrased insights into, inserting bookmarks of books being referenced etc into the same instance. This format need not produce a coherent presentation, however it does do a good job of capturing the different happenings, occurrences, events into one frame that perhaps a linear form couldn’t have done so easily.
Am I misunderstanding this formal aspect configuration as an approachable tool to transmit as ghost of the encoding/capturing process. The intent is to re-create instances of convergences/synapse. The assumption being that a synapse - a connection of different ideas that bring about insight occurs as an event. Since such synapses occurs in our modern life throughout. The struggle here is to find a language that recreate/simulate synapses. Once could argue that each medium in itself lands to these occurrences with its self contained complexity and multiplicity. Then if that’s the case what is the need for a form that lives in fragments ?
Since we are interfacing with the knowledge stream through these multiple channels, are we unable to bring about points of convergences or am I merely playing to the distracted audience and the distracted author.
Is it merely a snapshot of the modern clutches that we currently inhabit or is there more merit to it ? Could it be seen as a celebration of the agency that allows us to create and experience the world through multiplicities ? How does one see the merit in not distilling knowledge into a single medium ?
The totality of our lived experience is not through a single channel or medium.
What is a medium or a combination of mediums that facilitate for a full immersion and a totality.
There are philosophers who encode complexity into written language which the reader re-writes through the act of reading by summoning the different concepts within each component of the serial arrangement configuration. In order to summon these meanings images one relies on vocabulary as well as totalities of the lived experience. This requires a shared experience between the author and the reader. In order to align is this the gap that insightful cultural theory suffers from, the esoteric quality that is associated with dense text, which holds so much valuable insight. Is this why we are trying to close gaps through simulacrum ? To create empathetic world views which might not have been accessible to many. So can a shared emotional experience create more curiosity towards the theoretical arguments that some are already drawn to ? We want to understand the forces that led to certain situation and there is no doubt while reading into biographies of famous thinkers, that there were some personal experiences or crisis that led them to investigate a phenomena from a vantage point and perhaps not in some cases?
So then why not the cinematic medium which could create a self-contained world where the ethos and logos can co-inhabit without appearing fragmented. One of the limitations or crutch that I can think of goes to how it creates a frame. A frame of viewing that creates a distance a self-referential instance that we interface with it as an artefact. But that happen with all frames even conceptual art.
So the we go back to the form of conversation or discussion as on thing being frameless or alteat close to it . There is no artefact here expect the situation and moment in which it plays out. There is a dynamic quality to it that brings backs a sense of realness to the unscripted instance?
Coming back to transmedia form, one argument that I could present here could be that our collective consciousness has expanded and therefore containing it in one form or the other brings about limitations. When the cinematic medium crystallises a disruption is introduced in the form of data, objects etc a palmist expands the frame so that each lives in relation to each other. So how does it then overcome the idea that its in not a mere reflection of our distracted world ? A reflection borrowed from the aesthetic of choice ?
An continues instance of and creation working with the computer. But one can argue that we have been doing that in our everyday life without knowing it. Reading while listening perhaps drinking eating or talking. The restriction to one activity creates a sort of envelope and deepens one’s engagement as it could call forth all senses , to that time and place no doubt. The literary form urges one to recreate textures of sight, smell and pace.
Maybe the coexistence of all the different mediums in the digital computations asense is then a result of the process encoding rather than transmission. For example while taking down notes during a lecture I am recording instances of what the lecturer is explaining in the form of an audio recording. Typing down notes that are paraphrased insights into, inserting bookmarks of books being referenced etc into the same instance. This format need not produce a coherent presentation, however it does do a good job of capturing the different happenings, occurrences, events into one frame that perhaps a linear form couldn’t have done so easily.
Am I misunderstanding this formal aspect configuration as an approachable tool to transmit as ghost of the encoding/capturing process. The intent is to re-create instances of convergences/synapse. The assumption being that a synapse - a connection of different ideas that bring about insight occurs as an event. Since such synapses occurs in our modern life throughout. The struggle here is to find a language that recreate/simulate synapses. Once could argue that each medium in itself lands to these occurrences with its self contained complexity and multiplicity. Then if that’s the case what is the need for a form that lives in fragments ?
Since we are interfacing with the knowledge stream through these multiple channels, are we unable to bring about points of convergences or am I merely playing to the distracted audience and the distracted author.
Is it merely a snapshot of the modern clutches that we currently inhabit or is there more merit to it ? Could it be seen as a celebration of the agency that allows us to create and experience the world through multiplicities ? How does one see the merit in not distilling knowledge into a single medium ?
The totality of our lived experience is not through a single channel or medium.
What is a medium or a combination of mediums that facilitate for a full immersion and a totality.
There are philosophers who encode complexity into written language which the reader re-writes through the act of reading by summoning the different concepts within each component of the serial arrangement configuration. In order to summon these meanings images one relies on vocabulary as well as totalities of the lived experience. This requires a shared experience between the author and the reader. In order to align is this the gap that insightful cultural theory suffers from, the esoteric quality that is associated with dense text, which holds so much valuable insight. Is this why we are trying to close gaps through simulacrum ? To create empathetic world views which might not have been accessible to many. So can a shared emotional experience create more curiosity towards the theoretical arguments that some are already drawn to ? We want to understand the forces that led to certain situation and there is no doubt while reading into biographies of famous thinkers, that there were some personal experiences or crisis that led them to investigate a phenomena from a vantage point and perhaps not in some cases?
So then why not the cinematic medium which could create a self-contained world where the ethos and logos can co-inhabit without appearing fragmented. One of the limitations or crutch that I can think of goes to how it creates a frame. A frame of viewing that creates a distance a self-referential instance that we interface with it as an artefact. But that happen with all frames even conceptual art.
So the we go back to the form of conversation or discussion as on thing being frameless or alteat close to it . There is no artefact here expect the situation and moment in which it plays out. There is a dynamic quality to it that brings backs a sense of realness to the unscripted instance?
Coming back to transmedia form, one argument that I could present here could be that our collective consciousness has expanded and therefore containing it in one form or the other brings about limitations. When the cinematic medium crystallises a disruption is introduced in the form of data, objects etc a palmist expands the frame so that each lives in relation to each other. So how does it then overcome the idea that its in not a mere reflection of our distracted world ? A reflection borrowed from the aesthetic of choice ?