Just watched this video essay on Claude Shannon by Delve.tv (via kottke.org). I had read about Shannon in James Glieck’s book Information: a history, a theory, a flood (which I found deeply intriguing even if I felt almost lost at times).
As the video essay explains it, Shannon’s insight was one that allowed humanity to make a significant leap in the way we thought about information. I had been telling this to my students in my digital networked media lectures for years – that the insight that all information can be transmitted as 1’s and 0’s was an incredibly important one – but I had not thought about it in such grand terms (a “leap forward” for humanity) not had I known it was Shannon who brought it to us. (This even though I had read Glieck’s book, since he does such an excellent job contextualizing the developments of the 20th Century that brought us to where we are, a technique which tends to downplay individual contributions).
I’m looking forward to stirring in more discussion of Shannon to my digital networked media courses in the future.
This is a pretty sweet project if you’re an archivist trying to figure out how to digitize a large library of films.
I can still remember opening the print of The Discrete Charm of the Bourgeoisie to pre-screen it for our graduate school film screening series and immediately noticing the vinegar smell. The color was all tinted pink and red, and it was unusable. I still haven’t seen that film.
If this kind of technology, at this kind of cost ($3200 including the camera), had been available, perhaps we could have screened the digital version instead so at least more people could have seen it.
I’m a week into the semester, and I’m thinking a lot about how many different times I’ve already discussed the fundamentals of narrative: what it is, what it is not, its core components, and ways to develop your own story. This semester, I’m teaching both Digital Video Production I and Screenwriting, which both begin with this topic. Plus, I just finished the Go Fellowship digital storytelling workshop this weekend, where we discussed narrative as well.
A useful aspect of this gauntlet of narrative is that I can alter and/or augment what I’ve discussed in previous sessions during later ones. Unfortunately, it also means I tend to forget which group of students got this anecdote or that example (I hate to use the same material repeatedly unless its really excellent for the point I’m making).
One place I’m not talking much about narrative (yet) is in my freshmen seminar on games and culture, although we’re still working at the fundamental level, discussing the nature of play via Johan Huizinga’s work, Homo Ludens. So far, the class seems like they’re really leaning forward into the material. Let’s hope that continues as they begin to be inundated with work in their other courses.
…start classes in my ninth year at Austin College. A little hard to believe.
Thompson does a nice job rolling up some of the recent attempts to use statistical methods to identify audience preferences in film and use them for production decisions.
But the award is for the way the NYT seems willing to encourage this man vs. machine Skynet rhetoric. It just seems silly.
Here are the links to the presentations I’m using in the Lunch:
Here are links to some examples:
- Google Presentations
- Digital Networked Media and Teaching Survey Summary (Brett Boessen)
And here are some resources you can use if you’re interested in more information:
…Where I’m blogging these days, I’m running two class blogs that are taking most of my blogging attention this semester.
For my Digital Networked Narrative class, on digital storytelling of various kinds, we blog here.
For my Persuasive Media class, on a wide variety of media forms that employ rhetorical techniques, we blog here.
This is just a quick pointer to a post over at Josh Stenger’s blog that organizes media and communication departments at the USN&WR’s top-ranked SLACs (that’s probably too much acronyming).
I just added a probably-too-long comment there, so I won’t go into much more detail here. (Although its probably worth noting here the limitations of using rankings like this to indicate any kind of relative weight to these programs. Still, having the data all in one place is excellent work and useful in itself. We can discuss the validity of the ranking system itself another time.)
Regardless, very interesting info, indeed.
I hate it clicking a link in one app on my iPhone opens a new app, and then getting back to the first app requires returning to the home screen and re-launching the first app. OK, at some level this is a #firstworldproblems whine, but before I started using an Android device, I assumed this detail was a casualty of app-centered OS’s in general.
That was before I met Android’s system-wide Back button.
Android’s Back button (the left-pointing arrow on all screens, not any specific back button in a browser app), does one thing, but it does it in a way that helps the entire device feel more unified in a way iOS seems to completely misunderstand.
Take my earlier annoyance: in Android, when you click on a link in one app that causes another app to open, you can use the Back button to simply go back to the previous app, as if they’re both, you know, part of the same operating system.
To me, this makes an Android device feel much more unified (even if this is more illusory than real). Being able to move back through previous apps as you would through links in a browser adds a stronger sense of unity to user interface.
Now I know some android users don’t like the way this feature decides when to take you back to the previous app as opposed to taking you back to a previous moment within the current app. And I would agree that this feature can be un-intuitive at times and as a consequence frustrating in a different way.
But I’m just pointing out here in a small way what folks like Lawrence Lessig and Ian Bogost have argued in much greater detail elsewhere, that choices you make in the coding of a system, tool, or device has rhetorical (and therefore cultural) significance to users that is non-trivial. What you allow users to do, and how you allow them (or don’t) to do it, makes a big difference to how they understand what role the tool will play in their lives. Apple usually does this incredibly well, but in the case of the illusion of unity throughout the OS, Android currently has them beat.