Questions from Burnett
Two questions come immediately to mind:
1. The first one comes from the P2P chapter. Like Burnett, I would posit the the dilemma facing current/coming generations concerns the accessing and ordering of information. With this in mind, I focus our attention to the following questions:
"How can information be transformed from data to intelligence? Or is all of this activity evidence for the degree to which the internet has become a repository of collective intelligence, which means that very different principles of collection and retrival are needed." (152)
I would comment that the internet is becoming a repository, but certainly the problem (always) already existed. How much information lies "dead" in HSSE? How many intelligent films, to refer back to Geoff's contribution a few weeks ago, lie outside of retrival (and if it is outside, is it trivial)? Will the internet signal a shift from collection to organization? (Hint: this year's CCCC conference is organized around "access," not excess)
2. This question comes from his section on video games:
"But how does that structure make it "feel" as if the screen were a useful and exciting place to create and sustain the intense relationships of a game?...These are crucial questions that require further research into the ways computer games have evolved and the synergies that have been created between images and playing." (195)
I think Burnett places too much emphasis on the image. While video game playing is visual, it is also auditory. Moreover, controllers do much to create and sustain relationships--especially since the creation of vibration functions and analogue sticks (emphasis: feel).
1 Comments:
Trivial retrivals! :)
Yes, this is un/just a sense that I think extends Jodi's earlier message regarding internet searching.
Isn't there a sense that so much of what is found on the internet is trivial? That the quality of the material matters less than the information found in books?
Quality! Lanham's "Q" Question! (See also Prisig's _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_)
There un/just so much information... so many movies... so many links...
You know, in addition to the reference to Francis Yates, another interesting reference in Burnett's work was that of Richard Linklater and his film _Waking Life_. Good movie, particularly how it dis/engages so many different digital mediums.
Although C's is given over to university access, one dimension that does come up for me in thinking of Linklater is filmmaking equipment and technological know how that goes into a work like _WL_.
Sure, one can "discuss" this movie, but what would it mean to RESPOND to this movie through the making of a movie?
If cinema is "not a universal or primitive language system nor a language" to what extent might one conceive of a composition course as not invested in critiquing film, but in creating film?
Might one concieve of a shift wherein watching film is less for the trivia of having seen it --and we can think of any number of movies like -Star Wars- or -Lord of the Rings- that have spawned Deluxe Trivial Pursuit Editions-- and more as a sense of composing and de-composing film?
You know, somewhere Ulmer says something concerning language as intelligent, and I am struck by this notion of "intelligent films."
Normally doesn't an "intelligent film" pre-suppose
an intelligent filmmaker? an intelligent director?
What if, however, directors --such as Linklater or Godard-- are getting their directions from intelligent film? if film is not a language, then this intelligence would be the film.
Language becoming filmy, an excessive froth...
(Yes, wouldn't it be something if C's had as a topic excess? But then how does one "organize" around excess?! :)
Some more links later....
8:31 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home