Is taking a picture of yourself everyday for 8, 10, or 20 years really becoming a discipline or a genre? As we know, the true litmus test for these kinds of things is The Simpsons, our cultural barometer.

Karl Baden teaches photography at Boston College, and has been taking his own photo for 20 years. He says “the idea, basically, is to take all the variables, except one [the passage of time], and turn them into constants…I try not to change physically. I don’t grow a mustache or beard. I pretty much cut my hair the same way.” However, his project is a photo installation, not a video.

Since Ahree Lee posted her video on YouTube, we have seen a growing trend of self-portrait movies, or video portraits. Artists, voyeurs, self-obsessed, or simply curious, people are taking pictures of themselves simply because they can.

While not a self-portrait, Luke Dubois’ awesome video piece, Playboy, depicts change over time in a more dramatic fashion. He shows different playboy models over a span of 50 year. Using max/msp, he manages to place their eyes in the same place, much like Lee does.

Related Links:
A New York Times article on this trend includes links to other artists and shows working with this idea

Noah Kalina‘s blog – the artist The Simpsons parodied.
The music in the piece is by Carly Comando, which Simpsons producers did not compensate. Sounds like a case of copy-WRONG to me.

The original video that was parodied on YouTube.

John Keller, another “video portrait artist” includes a list of similar projects on his site. John has photographed himself for 8 years, 2 more than Noah and 6 more than Lee.

As of this writing, these projects are still works in progress.

or is it the other way around? She made a book, and THIS SITE to promote it. For those that don’t know, Miranda July is an interesting person (most of us are). But the difference is: she has a history of making interesting things (see the site: learning to love you more).

From the site
A ficlet is a short story that enables you to collaborate with the world.


Once you’ve written and shared your ficlet, any other user can pick up the narrative thread by adding a prequel or sequel. In this manner, you may know where the story begins, but you’ll never guess where (or even if!) it ends.

ficlets are shorter than short stories. Well, no, actually, they are short stories, but they’re really short stories. Really short, as in there’s not a maximum word count … there’s actually a maximum character count (1,024). There is also a minimum character count, and the number of that beast is 64.

“Reading time is free”
-Roland Barthes

The medium of film is a medium of time. Scenes made of stills move in frames per second. In order to extract meaning from a film, we must watch it sequentially – from scene 1 to scene end. What if we could approach film and cinema spatially? Aside from comic strips, the church’s stained glass windows, and the photo-novel, what other forms can this take? What does this mean now?

It didn’t occur to me to ask these questions until reading Roland Barthes’ The Third Meaning. How can a still image take on a cinematic property? How can sculpture be cinematic? What if a map, which is traditionally used to convey information, could be used as a cinematic element?

I imagine a gallery filled with stills from a film, strung about. The film, displayed , but not projected, visible, but not readable, hangs through the gallery. The soundtrack plays, but we see no animation. In an extreme example, the object is literally a cinematic object.
Playful, absurd, pastiche.

While the comic strip is narrative, I have to wonder whether it is cinematic. I now ask – what is the difference between narrative and cinematic?

The properties of cinema:
1. larger than life
2. more real than real
3. durational

It is not only the moving image that separates film and cinema from other narrative forms – it is its presentation and production. It is the largess. The projection. The quality that forces you to watch for more than just 5 minutes. If are to gleam anything from the cinema, you must endure the entire piece. You cannot simply glance at a film like a painting because it is durational.
However, this does not mean it is cinematic. A cinematic form will inherently contain narrative elements – plot, character, spectacle, musicality, and tempo. There are also cinematic techniques – pan, zoom, fade, transition. In defining cinematic, I am looking for the least common denominator. What would it take for something to NOT be cinematic? What would exclude an item from being cinematic? Can anything be cinematic?

This is the presentation:

presentation_txt only.pdf

Powerpoint Is Evil

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html

in a reverse move, Edward Tufte claims that powerpoint presentations favor form (presentation/storytelling) over content (information). this reveals a disposition towards information over storytelling – while conveying information is important, so is telling a good story.

BarCode Art
he does not necessarily use information, but the MEDIUM of information – the barcode – to create art. the flipbooks are particularly interesting.

When looking at creating user scenarios and building prototypes, it did occur to me that these are both opportunities to tell stories. In user scenarios, we create stories on how people will end up interacting with the product or interface. The more clearly we can imagine the user, the more clearly we can make the design.

I think this is perhaps the most useful thing about creating a specific and detailed user scenario. In creating detailed character, we are forced to expend a great deal of effort imagining a particular user. When focusing energies this way, it will clearly yield a more specific and well-thought out design.

It was funny to realize that I became bored while reading on how to tell a good story. I would imagine that while explaining this concept, the author would also be able to tell a good story…

In any case, a specific set of standards is necessary in good, practical design.
Looking at the process of prototyping is definitely a new concept. This is necessarily examining the process of process. In my world of theater, this is not new – know your audience, know your space and play to those things.

However, in the world of design and digital new media, you can quickly forget this because you’re working remotely at home or somewhere else (like the beach) on your laptop.

The barrier of entry in new media is much lower. This results in lower standards – it is easier to make garbage online and have many people see it (see Google Video backstreet boys) than it is in offline.

Likewise, the rise in blogs has changed the standards of journalism and publishing.
We no longer need to read or write long articles.
Just short thoughts, bylines.

The conversational tone has replaced the authoratative one.

Walter Benjamin alludes to this in The Storyteller, though he does not explicitly refer to authority or colloquialisms. He does, however, touch on the themes of information versus narrative storytelling.

The two processes and mechanisms are quite different. When communicating information, we are used to communicating just that. However, with information replacing all other content of communication, we (as narrative beings) are now imposing narrative on information.

Take, for example, Carnivore.
Carnivore is a technology used by the FBI to snoop. The project Police State is a system of remote control police vehicles controlled by specific data packets. It uses
“the data being ‘snooped’ by the authorities [as] the same data…to control the police vehicles. Thus the police become puppets of their own surveillance. This signifies a reversal of the control of information appropriated by police by using the same information to control them.”

This is a prime example of information feeding a larger narrative.
However, the project is not in itself a narrative.

It is the interface and context in which we create a larger societal narrative.

More on Carnivore

Characters are a part of a narrative.
A narrative explains events.
A series of events comprise our life, but there is more to our lives than a sum of events. There are also non-events.

Characters are elements of a story, a way of objectifying, separating the person from his characteristics.
So, in short, characters are not “Real” – they are a representation of something,
a map, if you will of a person. Even in autobiographies, the subject is still a reification, a product of the chosen selected narrative (of this person’s life).

If the character were real, then he would not be a character, he would be a person.

A character is a particular mapping of a person’s behavior.

Consider a map that has a scale of 1-to-1, where 1 inch on the map = 1 inch on the turf… Usually, a map represents something larger than itself. These maps scale down – 1 inch represents 1 mile.
If the map were actually the terrain (1 inch=1 inch), it would cease to be a map pointing to certain landmarks & traits – it would be a map sitting ontop of the terrain.

This is now possible with GPS; however, GPS devices are not exactly maps.

Another interesting point:
p. 131 cambridge intro to narrative
To eliminate characterization, you must elminate narrative – like beckett.
Beckett did a tremendous job in advancing non-linear narrative.

Traditionally narratives adhere to Aristotle’s prescription in his Poetics – above all else comes the plot, the events. And according to Aristotle, a plot must have a beginning middle and end. Characterization has a secondary role. The character serves the narrative. Characters are written for plays , not the other way around.

However, this has shifted significantly in non-linear narrative. PT Anderson’s films like Boogie Nights and Magnolia are as much character pieces as they are narratives, if not more.

While Aristotle’s Poetics are still relevant and the traditional model for narrative, I am not sure they are entirely applicable to interactive art.
I believe this is because interactive narratives lack plot – the central element of the Poetics