Month: July 2018

MEDA302 Blog 2

So in the second week of MEDA302 the set reading we were given was ‘An Attempt At A “Compositionist Manifesto”‘ by Bruno Latour. This set reading was a highly difficult read for me, and on first read doesn’t mean much at all. But upon the second and third read it begun to make sense to me to an extent, though still was a lot of information to absorb.

The most important word of this text was the word manifesto just off the first few paragraphs so I looked at the meaning of the term which was: “a public declaration of policy and aims, especially one issued before an election by a political party or candidate”

To add context to points Latour delves into, in the introduction he talks about the fil  Avatar, and how it is an onscreen example of modernist humans meeting Gaia. These references are throughout the text, and really they just offer a backdrop to the information he gives. At points just sounds like he’s saying the terms Pandora or Gaia just to sound pretty. But he uses Avatar as a way to represent where humans are at this point in time.

Latour describes that in war times the manifestos were a sign of progress, and that though now manifestos aren’t a thing, it is a method to create progress, but the type of progress which allows you to process forward and meet new prospects . He breaks down there is a difference between progress and progressive; “It is as if we had to move from an idea of inevitable progress to one of tentative and precautionary progression”. Latour calls it the “Compositionism manifesto.

This certainly does makes sense to me, as I perceive the manifesto to be not only a plan of action, but a carefully constructed agreement to progress in an effective way. Like in the process of creating a work, it’s like a finalised and detailed storyboard. Well that’s my perception. A manifesto would create set structure, something important to me in making films. But I feel by using a manifesto approach to creating work, it would eliminate “on the spot” improvisations that could be magic.

Ultimately, as the text continues, he makes a case where the three ingredients of modernism is critique, nature and progress. They have to be decomposed and recomposed.

Compositionism can be viewed as an alternative to critique (the second hand type of critique). The point he makes is that in a post modernist sense, what makes critique cannot also compose. With a hammer you can break walls and create all sort of damage, but can’t repair those walls. The mistake of modernism is how we critique, how we look at a work and say “Shouldn’t be like this, but it should be more like this”

The parts of this reading which spoke to me the most was the importance of the manifesto, the observation of critique and progress. Mostly because I was able to understand to an extent the points he was making, but also that I could relate it to how we can create works of art. The nature aspect didn’t really speak to me though I understand how compositionalism is like nature, though more built on, as if it was a successor

All in all, this text was extremely hard to understand, though the main and obvious points, that relate to composing work, and the processes involved did speak to me



BCM320: Blog Post 1

The first seminar of BCM320: Digital Asia brought a screening and live tweeting of the film Godzilla (Not the 2014 film and NOT the 1998 disaster). We viewed the 1954 Japanese film which was black and white.

I was very aware of just how dated the film is, and the capabilities of effects from this time period, which was no CGI, meaning it was all practical. But being born in the 90’s, and being exposed to heavily CGI and effects driven films my whole life, watching Godzilla 1954 was certainly an experience. When I moved to Australia when I was a kid, all I could speak was Filipino and didn’t know a word of English. A really cool method my parents did to somewhat teach me to understand english is to get me to watch movies. By the time I was 6 years old I probably had watched 3 times more movies than the average 6 year old. I loved action movies and sci fi. I remember watching Star Wars and not understanding a single word, but the lightsaber fights were awesome, and I used to quote what they say, even not knowing what they meant. In time, with school and watching movies, I could speak english great.

In retrospect, all the movies I was watching were very modern and the oldest movie I used to watch was the first Star Wars film, which uses effects that still hold up today. While in recent years I’ve watched a few old black and white movies, Psycho being one of my favourites, I haven’t yet watched one that would have to use large scale effects. So here today, I will view Godzilla 1954.

As I watched the film, I had tried to turn back time, and imagine I was a person in 1954 watching a big monster destroying cities on a screen. I eliminated any thought of modern CGI, movie effects and modern technology. To an extent this way of viewing it did make me feel a sense of awe on how this was made. But in honesty, trying to eliminate all I know about modern films while watching this was very unrealistic, so I just viewed it as it is, without taking my mind to a different time period.

Viewing this film in 2018, I actually really enjoyed this screening experience. The black and white maintained this grim atmosphere, and seeing cities and all that’s familiar being destroyed in this black and white backdrop, it just further makes you feel the weight of the disastrous events. Godzilla himself was very cool, the movement though seemed very funny at times and you can tell it was a human in a Godzilla suits a lot, but the monster did look really cool. Sound effects and the script were campy but I really loved that, made it very enjoyable.

As a kid I used to think Godzilla 1998 was a great movie, I used to watch it all the time. Watching it today I realised just how bad it was, but back then it seemed great. Watching Godzilla 1954, I can appreciate how great it was back in that era though it’s extremely dated today, and that’s why I would watch the 1954 movie any day over the 1998 one.

Live tweeting this movie was a pleasure, though hard as multi-tasking with subtitles is pretty difficult, but all in all I loved watching this movie. Good to take a step back in time.

MEDA302- Blog Post 1

To start off my first blog post for MEDA302 I’ll just give you a little insight to my practice. As of right now, my practice is songwriting. I have always written music since I was 13, but I have recently started a new RnB project called “Sane Old Me” which is my central focus in my time away from uni and work. In saying that, for uni, I’d expand my practice to anything sound related, though I ain’t no professional or know too much about the technical aspects of sound recording, though I know a lot. I always love filmmaking, which I always do for other major works.

For this final project of MEDA302, I already know my project is going to be a fuse of songwriting, sound design and film, with film being a complementary platform to the sound. My final submission last semester I was happy with to an extent, however I knew I could do more better, and my ideas could’ve been more original, I could’ve been more creative. And with that, brings the focus of this week: Creativity.

Reading 1: The Runaway Species

The video for this week’s readings is alecture that explores the possibilities of human creativity, and go in depth into how ideas are conceptualised. Throughout the hour long video, the speakers go from the basic concepts of thinking, into how we “explore the unknown and exploit what we know”. The ideas are endless but the central points that the speakers are getting at are how the human mind can innovate creativity.

The creative process in this video are categorised in the three concepts: Bending, Breaking and Blending. Bending ideas, breaking down current ideas and blending ideas together

I really enjoyed this video as the speakers really went above and beyond with explaining what really goes into creative work. They use so much examples which are easy to understand and are familiar.

Reading 2: Creative and Cultural Production-Issues For Media Practice by Phillip McIntyre

This article by Phillip McIntyre firstly addresses the concept of ‘Creativity’. Questioning how we approach creativity, and the different approaches from different perspectives of creativity. It is addressed that “What the research into creativity reveals is that there is overwhelming evidence that all walks of human life, including the sciences, have been involved in creative activity.”

Essentially as I read through this article, McIntyre is deconstructing the process of creativity, with the first step really being to “Start from somewhere and with something to create something”. As the ideas are explored, McIntyre references cultures such as Greco-Roman tradition, Aristotle and Plato. A very interesting idea that was noted is that he analysed how one would judge a creative work of another person. I personally always been intrigued by how a person, who have had different experiences, could really judge the creative work of another person, who themselves have had much different experiences. This is addressed with “The decisions made about what is creative or not creative are always made against a background body of knowledge”. While this is obvious, after thinking about it, it has helped me understand that ‘Creativity’ holds a combination of both conventional and unconventional societal ideas.

The second half of this article refers to Cultural viewpoints of creative products. More so from the first half, this just presents different ideas of how culture can influence how we look at the world, and thus look at creative products. What is really expressed is that creativity, while unique to individuals, uses social outlooks and cultural outlooks as the backdrop of creative products.