Good people of the Internet, I give you Anything TV.
Friday 25 January 2008
Thursday 29 November 2007
Remediation, Immediacy, Hypermediacy; An Understanding
It's pretty clear that the theory of Remediation is a difficult one to grasp, we felt though that it was an important one in terms of our project, and so it falls upon my head to try and explain it.
The theory of Remediation has two main concepts; Immediacy, and Hypermediacy. The concept of Immediacy is the presentation of media with an invisible frame almost. The idea being that the medium is so immediate that the audience forgets the frame around it, and becomes immersed in whatever they are seeing. Skysports is a good example of this, audiences nowadays can become so immersed in the world of skysports, and their Remediation, (the bringing together and reinventing of many forms of media) that it is easy to forget that the event is being presented through a media frame. In my own experience, people have even been playing football themselves, and admitted that they were 'almost waiting for the replay' of the event. The line between what is real, and what is a media form, gets blurred by the immediacy.
Hypermediacy on the other hand, pulls the audience away from the medium by reminding the audience in various ways, that this is a form of media, almost snapping the audience out of their immersion, giving a different perspective on the form. After being introduced to this concept of remediation, I was reminded of it during an episode of Scrubs that I happened to be watching. In the Episode, JD is seen watching Elliot, at which point the Janitor steps in to express his opinion on the two of them, stating that he thinks it is pathetic and that they aren't exactly Ross and Rachel. This moment snaps the audience out of the immersed scrubs world that they are in, and reminds them about the tv show friends. The mention of another sitcom reminds the veiwer that they are only watching a sitcom, before the Janitor then explains that of course, he was talking about a Dr Ross and Dr Rachel who work in the hospital with them, reinstating the immersion. I have added this clip to our Video links so that you can see what I am going on about. Since the video bar will not keep the same video for more than 10 minutes, if the video bar is showing more than one clip, the video can also be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywqD5JvGXE
It is specifically this idea of Hypermediacy that is particularly relevant to our project. Will people still watch anything if it is abundantly clear to them that it is just a form of media, and they are given very little chance to become immersed the immediacy. These ideas were also explored by John Cage, as well as Guy Debord, who looked at creating flims in which nothing really seemed to ever happen. The idea being that audiences are captivated by conclusions, and as such, when these conclusions are not achieved, the audience becomes immediately aware of the form that they are watching. That is the theory of course, but whether or not it works is always
The theory of Remediation has two main concepts; Immediacy, and Hypermediacy. The concept of Immediacy is the presentation of media with an invisible frame almost. The idea being that the medium is so immediate that the audience forgets the frame around it, and becomes immersed in whatever they are seeing. Skysports is a good example of this, audiences nowadays can become so immersed in the world of skysports, and their Remediation, (the bringing together and reinventing of many forms of media) that it is easy to forget that the event is being presented through a media frame. In my own experience, people have even been playing football themselves, and admitted that they were 'almost waiting for the replay' of the event. The line between what is real, and what is a media form, gets blurred by the immediacy.
Hypermediacy on the other hand, pulls the audience away from the medium by reminding the audience in various ways, that this is a form of media, almost snapping the audience out of their immersion, giving a different perspective on the form. After being introduced to this concept of remediation, I was reminded of it during an episode of Scrubs that I happened to be watching. In the Episode, JD is seen watching Elliot, at which point the Janitor steps in to express his opinion on the two of them, stating that he thinks it is pathetic and that they aren't exactly Ross and Rachel. This moment snaps the audience out of the immersed scrubs world that they are in, and reminds them about the tv show friends. The mention of another sitcom reminds the veiwer that they are only watching a sitcom, before the Janitor then explains that of course, he was talking about a Dr Ross and Dr Rachel who work in the hospital with them, reinstating the immersion. I have added this clip to our Video links so that you can see what I am going on about. Since the video bar will not keep the same video for more than 10 minutes, if the video bar is showing more than one clip, the video can also be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wywqD5JvGXE
It is specifically this idea of Hypermediacy that is particularly relevant to our project. Will people still watch anything if it is abundantly clear to them that it is just a form of media, and they are given very little chance to become immersed the immediacy. These ideas were also explored by John Cage, as well as Guy Debord, who looked at creating flims in which nothing really seemed to ever happen. The idea being that audiences are captivated by conclusions, and as such, when these conclusions are not achieved, the audience becomes immediately aware of the form that they are watching. That is the theory of course, but whether or not it works is always
Saturday 24 November 2007
"I have nothing to say / and I am saying it / and that is poetry / as I needed it", or, Enjoy The Silence.
It's time now to look at a different view of the idea of reality TV. I am aware that many people love this sort of entertainment, and enjoy nothing more than sitting in front of the television, staring vacantly at a bunch of (occasionally) attractive people trying to manipulate one another in order to win some sort of prize, usually a reasonable amount of money and/or temporary Z-list celebrity status, assuming they don't have that already as is often the case. Admittedly it can be amusing and even interesting to watch at times, and ratings remain high enough for it to constitute entertainment. But what of the notion of life, simple, uneventful, daily life, whether in the Australian outback or not, not only as entertainment, but as a form of art?
Would John Cage please come to the Diary Room.
Primary a composer and theorist, Cage believed that life itself was the highest and most beautiful form of art. He wanted to capture sounds not normally considered to be music, believing that the sounds of everyday life were far more beautiful than any designed music could be. From this came his famous performance art piece, “4:33”, a piece which may appear to be just over four and a half minutes of silence, but in fact consists of the sounds of the environment in which the piece is performed. He believed the same was true of performance art – life was the most beautiful thing, so to create a performance all that was needed was to place a frame around life. What would actually happen within that space and time was left up to chance, as is the case in life. Remind you of anything? Although some might argue that the structure of reality TV shows is somewhat predetermined and participants are carefully selected in order to increase the chance of sex or fights, what actually happens in that house/island/jungle during that time frame is left up to chance.
In the same way that Cage would leave the outcome of his “Happenings” up to the performer, so too do the participants on these programs become part composer. They know they are being constantly filmed and can therefore contrive to portray themselves in a certain way in order to affect the perceptions of their fellow participants and the audience. As Cage’s audiences were part composer in that they had to piece ideas together for themselves, we too are not told what to think. We are simply shown the events of each day and requested to “vote off” one of the participants. We effectively control their fate. The composers (or in this case producers) become part audience in that they cannot have complete control over everything that happens in the house/island/jungle.
Perhaps, then whoever came up with the notion of reality TV (I believe it was the Dutch) was making a powerful statement about the outdated Aristotelian world view and the nature of art, and life as the highest form of art. Then again, they could have simply been trying to make money by appealing to a demographic of voyeuristic simpletons who will happily pay one pound a minute to get “that bitch Charley out.” I guess we’ll never know…
Would John Cage please come to the Diary Room.
Primary a composer and theorist, Cage believed that life itself was the highest and most beautiful form of art. He wanted to capture sounds not normally considered to be music, believing that the sounds of everyday life were far more beautiful than any designed music could be. From this came his famous performance art piece, “4:33”, a piece which may appear to be just over four and a half minutes of silence, but in fact consists of the sounds of the environment in which the piece is performed. He believed the same was true of performance art – life was the most beautiful thing, so to create a performance all that was needed was to place a frame around life. What would actually happen within that space and time was left up to chance, as is the case in life. Remind you of anything? Although some might argue that the structure of reality TV shows is somewhat predetermined and participants are carefully selected in order to increase the chance of sex or fights, what actually happens in that house/island/jungle during that time frame is left up to chance.
In the same way that Cage would leave the outcome of his “Happenings” up to the performer, so too do the participants on these programs become part composer. They know they are being constantly filmed and can therefore contrive to portray themselves in a certain way in order to affect the perceptions of their fellow participants and the audience. As Cage’s audiences were part composer in that they had to piece ideas together for themselves, we too are not told what to think. We are simply shown the events of each day and requested to “vote off” one of the participants. We effectively control their fate. The composers (or in this case producers) become part audience in that they cannot have complete control over everything that happens in the house/island/jungle.
Perhaps, then whoever came up with the notion of reality TV (I believe it was the Dutch) was making a powerful statement about the outdated Aristotelian world view and the nature of art, and life as the highest form of art. Then again, they could have simply been trying to make money by appealing to a demographic of voyeuristic simpletons who will happily pay one pound a minute to get “that bitch Charley out.” I guess we’ll never know…
Wednesday 14 November 2007
De Grote Donorshow
Just added an article from the Guardian to our links. You may remember hearing about a Dutch reality TV show by Big Brother producers Endemol, in which a terminally ill woman would select one of three kidney disease patients to recieve her kidneys after her death. Viewers could vote by text, but the final decision would be up to her based on the contestants' history, and conversations with them and their family and friends. Of course there was massive outcry against the ethics of the program from political parties and kidney charities alike. However, broadcasting went ahead, and the program was later revealed to be a hoax - the donor was an actress, and while the three contestants were genuinely ill and in need of transplants, they agreed to take part to raise awareness of the issue of organ donation. It was also revealed that the former director of the broadcasting station BNN, Bart de Graaff, had died from kidney failure aged 35 after spending years on a transplant waiting list. Since the show was revealed as a hoax, over 12,000 more people have registered as organ donors in the Netherlands alone. Does this mean the performance was worthwhile? To vote "yes", please text "yes"to 88220, network charges may vary...
Like to watch?
I am jazzing the blog right up and about the place. Nice, isn't it? Anyway, we have been thinking about our upcoming project and from our original theory, "People will watch anything" which we of course still stand by, a new idea was born. Tell us more, I hear you cry. We began thinking about the concept of reality TV. What the hell is it all about? At what point did we decide that watching a group of people who we don't know or care about, whether or not they might be famous, in a house/on an island/in a jungle/going to work/swapping partners was an acceptable form of entertainment? I would like to point out that we exclude London Ink, Miami Ink and LA Ink from this category, all of which we love deeply and anyway, they're blatently staged for dramatic effect. And more to the point, why do we waste money calling premium rate phone lines to ensure that whoever makes us feel the least suicidal remains in the jungle/island/house/whatever? At some point in time, there was a moment when society decided we'd rather watch other people living their mundane lives than simply getting on with our own. And that is the most terrifying thing of all.
Oh God, Wikipedia has just reminded me of something else that falls into this category. All those programs about rich children, usually in America. Things like Laguna Beach and My Super Sweet 16. Hideous.
Oh God, Wikipedia has just reminded me of something else that falls into this category. All those programs about rich children, usually in America. Things like Laguna Beach and My Super Sweet 16. Hideous.
Wednesday 7 November 2007
Will people buy/watch/read anything?
A famous piece of art by controversial graffiti artist 'Banksy'. Coinciding with a number of auctions of his pieces of art, ending in Banksy receiving record amounts of money for his work, this painting, showing an auction room bidding on a painting simply saying "I cant believe you morons actually buy this shit."
It is this notion of people buying, watching, or reading anything that we would like to explore through our performance. When looknig at what can be described as a worthwhile performance, it becomes clear that it is the word worthwhile which needs defining, rather than the term performance. Anything can be considered a performance, but will people really watch anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
