Future Cinema

Klein

David has managed to access a computer that will run the Klein – so we’ll take a look at that tomorrow as well. Thanks, David!

TOMORROW’S CLASS – aurasma working day

Hi everyone,

Hope you had a gorgeous reading week full of both catch-up and relaxation.

For tomorrow’s class I want us to move through a number of the Aurasma tutorials and begin to work on the final projects — there really isn’t much time to build these experiences and I would like to know everyone feels on solid footing. I realize that you won’t have finalized all of your media yet — and some of you may not have begun – but tomorrow will be the time to focus on exactly what is needed to craft your experiences. Bring/upload what you have. It’s possible you may need to work with found or placeholder footage for tomorrow, but at least you’ll get a sense of how quickly the process will move and will be in a better position to manage your time. If the weather is good we may work outside, too.

App, a two-screen horror film

I came across this article about a new Dutch horror film, which is going to utilize people’s phones, for second screen content, in order to tell its story. This is the first time that someone won’t be glared at (or worse) for pulling their phone out in a theatre! I thought people here would appreciate it.

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/chillers-interactive-app-etite-1200006516/

The Quickly-Changing Medium

Getting a break from readings for this class, I had an opportunity to read some works on new media for my research and I am amazed at how quickly these media are evolving. I was delving into anthologies on new media, written in between 2003 and 2007, and the ideas and images all seemed as different compared to today’s new media as Kracauer’s ideas compared to today’s cinema! A mere ten years cannot keep up with the constant changes in, not just augmented reality, but even something as seemingly “simple” as web design or YouTube.

Generation Like

I just watched this Frontline piece that I think is somewhat (tangentially) related to some of our discussions in class. Not so much about cinema as it is about the power of social media and the desire to be included in these marketing events, almost as stripped down ARGs. Less about the technology and more about the desire, but still very interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/generation-like/

Wired Magazine Link – Why wearable tech will be as big as the smartphone

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/12/wearable-computers/

Tags: AR, google glass, recon, wearable tech

The Dichotomy of Art

I enjoyed Michael Longford’s essay. There are certainly many interesting things that can be done with this technology. What caught my attention, however, was that this new medium’s capabilities seem to be calling back to the early days of cinema and the supposed Lumiere/Melies dichotomy. New forms of expression often have to imitate those that came before them, but the resemblance here is uncanny. There is the realistic actuality reenactments of the historical work being opposed, in a way, by the fantastic paranormal activities of the more formalist and spiritual work. Again, it’s the common matter of fiction versus non-fiction.
And the more I think about it, the more it seems that this dichotomy is, for one reason or another, the single most prevalent dichotomy in new media: the realistic versus the fantastic. Why is that? And are the two styles really mutually exclusive? Many people, in a variety of media, have brought the two together, although later into the medium’s lifespan. What is it about primitive media that makes this cohesion so difficult?
And, as a final question, what the hell was Norman Klein talking about? I have been a bit restless all week, so I am willing to admit that my state of mind may have something to do with it, but I tried repeatedly to read his essay and his disjointed style made no sense to me. It sounded like a coke fiend trying to explain calculus while going through withdrawal. I hope I’m not the only one with this issue.

Told and untold. Telling a story and “untelling” it.

By classic definition a story is a definite action that has beginning, development and ending. Story has its protagonists, time, space, and other narrative elements. All in all story is something definite, and that’s why we want to tell it and hear it. I never heard anyone saying “Let you tell you something.” instead of “Let me tell you something”. In a modern prose and poetry untold bits became significant element which immerses reader/viewer and makes him more active subject in it. But untold bits are also definite – there is no author who tells us everything. There is always something untold – still, story consist of something told and definite, while untold moments are rather like a tool that writer uses to make readers participate more actively in told parts.
Interactive stories where a reader (or a consumer?!) chooses its ending didn’t really work so far but as a curiosities. Apertures, warmholes, hyperlinks and other tools of a database novel or other contempo narrative art pieces worked perfectly as a narrative tools of coherent stories. Or as a vehicle for travelling through them. And that is alright.
Some narrative pieces have really big missing parts in a story and that’s what makes them in certain way untellable. No way that you can tell what really happened. I dare to say like in some Harold Pinter’s plays. But we agree that an active ‘aperture’ in a story actually is a storyteller’s tool to activate reader.
But, can the stories be stories if they are totally untellable? Actually the main question for me is where is the difference between a clay and a sculpture in order that sculpture can still be called a sculpture? Where is the division line between story and a toy? And finally, between an art and AR?

Tags: storytelling

Interface the Nation

Building upon what David and Raheem were saying, I really enjoyed Longford’s piece. I am interested in the representation of space and place in my own work, and especially the importance of these ideas in a time where we spend as much, if not more, time in our own virtual spaces as we do in the city we inhabit. With so many games designed to pull us out of our “place,” be it our subway ride to school or the minutes that we wait for an appointment or to meet up with a friend, it seems like we are never satisfied just being “here.” That’s why I love the fact that people are creating these interactive experiences that are so focused on being “here” and picking up on the natural topography and architecture of the site. My only question about this is how much it is “event” based? I get that people are likely to go out and experience this interactive event with their friends on its opening night, but I wonder how many people would use their cell phones to communicate with the dead while cutting through the park on their way to work? Can we foreseeably get to a point where AR games are as popular as Angry Birds? Where people can get satisfaction from “here” in the same way they do being transported to another world? Can an augmented reality create the same interest and excitement as alternative realities do? I’ve been doing a bit of research into augmented reality apps and one of the most popular (and my favourite) is one called “Beam Me Up” where the person standing in front of the camera on your mobile device gets “beamed up,” Star Trek style. Maybe AR is better suited for short little tricks like this rather than longer narratives? Or at least in Canada where no one wants to spend more time in a park in February than they have to?

I am looking forward to seeing Norman Klein’s work in class tomorrow because his essay annoyed me. I again feel it is that Marshall McLuhan idea that we look at the present through a rear view mirror. Instead of looking to new ways of opening up narrative structures like Longford suggested, it seemed Klein was intent on using classic ideas to tell his story, saying that apertures must be authored through the plot, rather than created through the device. Is there no other way to draw users into your story? I found this new narrative called “The Silent Story” that is closer to what I imagined a mobile story to be. It is a highly fragmented story told through first hand testimonials accompanied by location specific field reports that build upon the story and tailor it to your location. Predictably, there are more field reports in sunny LA and Florida than up north, but it does seem to be a dramatically different way to tell your story. Here it is for anyone that is interested: http://www.thesilenthistory.com

Ergonomics – Thoughts on Territory as Interface: Design for Mobile Experiences

Territory as Interface: Design for Mobile Experiences

As our projects (the creation of augmented reality stories) continues I was struck by the following statement, “…we wanted to design experiences that get people engaged as much with the space around them and each other, as they are with the technology; and finally needing to design along a continuum that ensures a seamless transition from the real to the virtual.” (Michael Longford) This goal, to have users engaged in the physical space and people as much as the technology is a well identified key factor in creating experiences that transcend the technology. Our group of AR novices has already been contemplating how to motivate simple hand held device movement. It is this goal that will turn AR from a technology of attractions (as Gunning referred to some early cinema) to an immersive and potentially emotional experience. Longford’s question concerning how to create a collective knowledge through an interface is an interesting concept, the answer to which is likely the key to any production’s success. The concept of ‘flow’ has again appeared. Longford quotes Thackara who writes,

“redesigning the space of flows needs to be continuous, rather than episodic. It needs to focus on how things work, rather than just on what they look like. And it entails a fundamental change in the relationship between people who make things and the people who use them”

A strong argument can be made for a special awareness or effort to design ‘flow’ in these physical story spaces. The failure to create ‘flow’ will likely decrease user immersion in both the mental and physical aspects of the content. What does ‘flow’ look like in a physical space such as a cemetery or city square? What are the parameters that influence ‘flow’ in such physical story experiences? Is ‘flow’, in this sense, about narrative(?) or is it visceral sensory augmentation and sound? Or is immersion tied to a collective experience as Longford discusses earlier? The focus on ‘how things work’ will be key in creating ergonomic augmented experiences and will likely foretell their success or failure. Design cannot solely focus on content but must also pay close attention to the mechanics of the experience. Creating stories that involve; moving users in space, flow, temporalities, content sharing or social engagement, have so many moving parts that it will take a concerted effort to make the experience worthwhile for the user. Of course it is exactly these and a plentitude of other unanswered questions that make the whole effort within this mode of storytelling so energizing and compelling.

The Questions Again

1. What is ‘flow’ in physical augmented reality? What concrete factors influence its success?
2. Can ‘flow’ exist without social/collective engagement?
3. Do you think that a physical language of movement by users will eventually develop as this technology and storytelling continues to grow?

Tags: AR, Longford, Mobile