Huggett is going to consider some philosphical questions in relation to Archaeological Computing.
He begins with a reference from IEEE Computer Archaeology 2011 - "... the emerging field of computational archaeology..." and the characterisation of the discipline as an 'emerging' field, which it is not. Huggett examines the terms archaeological informatics, archaeological computing, computer archaeology, computational archaeology, archaeological information science google - and performs a text analysis, using google, google scholar, and ngrams to measure and chart the terminology over time.
What has everyone been doing for over 20 years if the field is emerging? Clearly that is a nonsense!
He also examines why we use certain terms - and often it is for tactical convenience, to get money, jobs, grants, create centres - these terms, these word choices are political.
The term Digital Archaeology is used too in an Internet Weekly magazine US and Europe - to look at the history of computing...
He asks, does the usage of certain terms make any difference at all?
Yes - as in process of naming and renaming, questioning academic legitimacy, thinking about the intellectual core of the discipline, considering rigour, and the value of the contributions we make in what he calls an 'Anxiety discourse'... I recognise this too from a DH standpoint.
This is part of discipline building... and refers repeatedly to DH (Digital Humanities)...
There is only 'one' journal - Archeologicia E Calcolatori - I'd argue this point, as Hugget's own Internet Archaeology has been very useful for me in the past
Again he gives an good example from DH - with humanities scholars not citing DH journals...
All of these acts on the impact of a discipline - the naming of journals, citation etc
Is the discipline transformative he asks? Are we making an impact - are AC scholars equally good in their topic? Is AC simply a methodology or a series of techniques? Can it give something new to the discipline?
His apt Southampton example is the human genome project, and he asks where is our grand challenge?
These disciplinary concerns and anxieties are reflected in DH too - and the focus on words, meaning and definition also made me feel at home in this plenary. It was a provoking, motivating presentation. My reportage is limited by my typing speed, but I do hope that the overall sense of the talk was conveyed.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Odorico speaking at the IRCHSS supported New Cinema: Changing Audiences Conference at University College Cork, defines interactivity as either semi-closed, semi-open, completely open...
He resists a unitary definition of this new emerging genre: web documentary / idoc / new genre... This is a new format that crosses the boundaries of Old Media and the New (if you acknowledge the binary!) cross media ( maps, blogs, etc) and locative digital technology are used frequently in these productions intercut with standard linear video.
Refers to Lev Manovich considering the differences between the Database and the Narrative... I agree that Manovich's work (2001) is foundational in engaging with multivalent forms that resist the linear.
idocs - have gained the status of film... interacting as they do with internet, mobile forms, gps and other emerging forms. Web non fiction finds alternative ways of distribution too.
Bearing Witness: Five Years of the Iraq War (Ecer and Ahmad,2008)
A Year at War (The NYT, 2010)
Five years later: Hurricane Katrina (USA Today, 2010)
And in particular:
Prison Valley by David Dufresne & Philippe Brault - here a user has to register, before starting, and is given an identity within the platform, this film, this production takes us on a journey (with a motel as a homebase) in a linear video like a classical documentary, but every couple of minutes the user is given options to look at extra material, or to log in to forums... the individual is now no longer a viewer, or a user, but part of the experience... another revolutionary feature involves interaction with the story's subject, we are also encouraged to develop the story on twitter, or on a frequently updated internal blog.
Another example is Homeless Nation... also HIGHRISE is another excellent example of such a project - at highrise.nfb.ca sponsored by the National Film Board of Canada.
Brodeur as a practising professional in the tranmedia domain is very engaging speaking on how the revolution will be televised - it will be live, linear, and VOD (video on demand). He speaks about 'personalised' tv as the future.
We have a TV in our pockets with a smartphone - there is a problem with definition - where our traditional idea of the set - the idiot box - the channel, and how content is mediated through all of that apparatus is changing. He identifies new modes for the transmission of information - and asks... 'What would Google Do?' and also 'What would Facebook Do?'
WWGD - they are organising the world's information
WWFD - they are sharing the world's information
Even with the advent of iplayers, or the rte player, or channel 4 on demand 4OD,
95% of tv is watched within 24 hours of being scheduled (Deloitte, 2012) we are still governed by our schedule and the time of the day - so this new concept of 'Connected tv' - what is it - because it still delivers a real time watercooler effect.
We now have new devices - that map on to the 'Connected tv' experience with the idea of the companion screen, the 'phone, laptop or iPad that we are using while watching a film or tv at home. This idea is not new, when you think about it we have always multitasked with tv - eating, 'phone calls, newspapers etc., except that now we are watching a film on tv while checking out facebook, checking a twitterfeed or flicking through flickr.
Film on TV is no longer just about a 2 hour slot on a schedule - so producers need to maximise the 'event' and build marketing/interest around that slot in order to create that sense of 'event'.
The Connected tv is a SMART tv too - it is no longer the idiot box...
Youtube came out with 100 linear channels - Ireland has 5 channels in 50 years. Brodeur's
Aertv - has created 2 channels since October 2011 - unique Music content, Film linked to the Jameson Dublin International Film Festival JDIFF, what they are doing is unique. The 2009 broadcasting act in Ireland is such that, unlike other domains, - they can stream the national channels while they are happening...
So - you can't compare linear tv with VOD - it is like comparing apples and oranges - we are now in an environment with lots of screens, lots of social media, Netflix (is available on 450 devices) every internet tv will have its own viewing experience (open up device and get a new homepage...).
Brodeur argues that in terms of broadcasting history and development we are now in stage 3 - the consumers are in control! It may take people a lot of time to change their tvs, but the revolution will be televised.
Dr Stephano Baschiera from QUB speaks about "Streaming European Cinema: Online Distribution and the Film Industry in Europe" at the IRCHSS 'New Ideas' Research Project Pilot Workshop, at New Cinemas- Changing Audiences, at UCC, March 10th 2012. He looks at streaming film distributors, particularly Netflix, and the home entertainment market. In particular he looks at Chris Anderson's idea of The Long Tail (2004) applied to Amazon and Netflix.
Often it is not blockbusters, but niche and unique films that are most often downloaded. The digital shift is recognised in MEDIA within the EU, simultaneously the move to streamed distribution is not as negatively regarded as a 'straight to DVD' distribution. There is room for innovation and for small budget films.
Key issues raised:
European cinema is still considered as art cinema -
Geoblocking creates an IP nation, ISP services and national legislation all intervene in terms of publication and access... it seems to me that just as with text, the SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA type legislation seeks to create borders where, say in terms of radio, there are none. This aspect equally affects text.
The power of corporations, especially Hollywood is still significant - they need to grow and Europe is another market.
Social Media too - with merchandising as an end - is in development, using say Facebook, as well as Foursquare, using customer data to push other media and merchandise.
The idea of how publication and distribution happens is equally important for a variety of media - it is interesting to see how theories, and texts central to this discussion are also central to an understanding of how book publication has changed. Paramount is producing Ultra Violet. The Dark Night App is available free - where interactivity with the film is provided at an entry level, the customer then buys other content (also the film Inception is available) to populate the app.