On Jan 31, 2008 10:05 PM, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you should but technically one is trivial computationally the other > much more complicated. Also text has clear standards. Quote marks, > standardised referencing systems to indicate source, right down to > year, page, and object, etc. There is no way to easily indicate this > inside video. >
While there's tons of technical issues... what you're talking about here is "tradition" Unlike text there are few to no traditions and rituals for video remix and quoting as mass use is a very recent phenom. I'm reminded of a very british idea. If you sit down to a proper british meal you have a fork for every occassion. However in the media world we have only one fork... Our new media diet has 8 more courses then our text one and we have not the proper implimentations. DIY means getting in there, getting dirty and using your hands. I heart metaphors. In fact.... even text communications traditions are overwhelmed. Younger generations are going nots on the 1337 (elite) speek and meanwhile older generations and professionals are shaking their canes / dictionaries / manuals on grammer... and whatever else they've got and freaking out. I can't wait until some old person throws their fork at me... my metaphor will be complete. :) > In addition text is just different to video, they're different meaning > systems and operate quite differently and so it means something > different to quote text to quoting image and moving image. They're not > the same things - that's one reason why things got quite intense > around the lumiere discussion. It isnt' helped that while people treat > their writing, eg email, as more or less transient and minor (scraps > if you like) we still treat our video as whole, proper, mine, and so > deserving of respect or consideration. We just treat them as whole > finished things which we don't really let go of, whereas words are > just, well, an ascii wake while we flow through the web. now we're talking literacy? I just think of media has "higher forms" of language. There is an awesome TED conference video of an English artist that uses celebrity as the "language" in her art... Similar in many ways to Andy Warhol's pop art, but also completely original. I think boing boing called it "paparazzi art" It's an awesome exploration of a new medium (cellebrity) as a language and an art. Recontext at its finest. I will have to digg it up. -mike > > On 01/02/2008, at 4:37 AM, David King wrote: > > > Asked a slightly different way - what's the difference? What's the > > difference between someone's text-based words and someone's video- > > based > > words? I'm thinking you should be able to "pull quotes" from both. > > > cheers > Adrian Miles > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > bachelor communication honours coordinator > vogmae.net.au > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
