I am naturally resistant to technology. This is problematic for me as I am surrounded by it everyday. I use it. It has saved my life. Why do I resist? What is my fear of this ubiquitous resource? Perhaps it is my inability to adapt to what McLuhan calls the “change of scale, or pace, or pattern that it introduces into human affairs.” (130 emphasis added) I adapt poorly to change. Be that as it may, the changes that have come to the way we think as a society as a result of pervasive internet, computer interface, and cell phone use are significant. The pattern of human thought has been influenced by the media by which narratives are shared. With the advent of the epic poem, the Greeks began to formalize how stories are told. This medium led to the creation of the tragic form and the medium of theatre. But what remained constant was the linearity of the narrative. This linear nature of storytelling continued for centuries in Europe and was present in myriad media: novels, oral ballads, plays, etc. These media affected the way people thought about their world, the mental pattern. Time was a line. Lives were a line. History was a line. Relationships were a line. All with a beginning, middle, and end. We start in one place and finish in another. We are moving forward, progressing, as a society. One could argue that Hegel’s dialectic approach to history existed as a result of the mental pattern created by the linear form of narrative media. What has happened to us in our modern day is that computers and the internet have changed our mental pattern, the way we think about the world.
The internet is not linear. It is a complex web of interrelated texts and images that is navigated by a user. While plays force the audience to engage with the text in the order that it is given, the internet affords the subject the freedom to engage at will. They can stop or start whenever they want to, or consume the media in whatever order and to what extent they feel motivated. The effect on the mental pattern is two-fold: 1) The subject is no longer on the outside of the story looking in, watching and following but never directing. He or she is now in the center looking out. A play is like a transparent sphere into which the audience looks. The internet places the audience inside the sphere and they look out into the universe. This has the effect on the mind of making the audience believe that the world is there for them, that the world should react to their whims as individuals. ‘My views are important, and all should respond accordingly.” 2) The linearity of thought is replaced with inter-webbedness. No longer are audiences at the mercy of time, but time bends to our wants and desires. We do not follow we lead. The story is about us. Multi-tasking, shorter attention spans, and impatience could be considered results of this mindset.
The interactive documentary Hollow at hollowdocumentary.com utilizes these shifts in mental pattern to teach audiences about the struggles of the poor in the southern United States. Instead of a traditional documentary that must be engaged on the director’s terms, which supports the ancient outside-looking-in philosophy and linear thinking, Hollow is an interactive experience which utilizes the capabilities of the internet to tap into the non-linear inside-looking-out mental pattern. One can scroll any direction to view photographs or video or access links to other information. Some videos show automatically, while others must be click to begin. Their is layering and more than one media can play at a time. Music from the film can be downloaded and drop-down menus give access to news stories and factoids. Much of these individual articulations are used in traditional documentary film (see Supersize Me) but the important distinction is that the user/spectator manipulates the text and images as they wish. If one is watching a video about a woman who plays banjo for fun, he or she can stop and go back or forward and read a drop-down about the murder of the Mayor or download a track of her band playing a song. This power of choice and manipulation supports the new mindset that the spectator user is the center looking out into the world. They are in control of what happens.
This interactive approach to documentary could be counterproductive to the creators intent. Since the medium is what changes the thought process, this medium works against any real change. Without linearity there is no deadline, time does not factor in as having any real influence. The documentary doesn’t follow that line and therefore doesn’t end. Without the end, there is no threat, the audience does not feel any urgency about the problems presented by the documentary. The content has no sufficient force to outweigh the influence of the medium.
Additionally, placing the user/spectator at the center reduces the importance of the message. It also feeds the impatience of the user/spectator, as they don’t have to finish anything that they don’t want to. With traditional film, the relationship between the creator and the audience is built on the audience watching for as long as the creator has their film going. The film is the center, with us on the outside. But with this documentary, no such relationship exist. The artifact does what we want, so the message can be easily and readily ignored. It implies a lack of importance to the content. Film feels that the content is so important that we must watch all of it. No such claim is made by this interactive medium.
Ultimately, the most moving and engaging aspects of this interactive experience are the short video clips about people. This is essentially because for those moments the interactive experience ceases and it moves into traditional linear narrative. Unfortunately, as soon as the clip is done it is brushed aside for something else. That is what the real danger is. The medium of the internet does not encourage the high valuation of content by the viewer. By giving the power of selection to the viewer, they are implying a superior position to the viewer and devaluing their content and perspective by comparison. The medium of the internet, by its nature, invites it content to be treated lightly.
Perhaps my aversion to modern technophilia is that it does nothing to account for the potentially detrimental effects that the media can have on the relationship of the audience to the content. It plays to the greater weakness of my nature. I have been diagnosed ADHD (surprise!) and my natural tendency is to slip from one thing to the next. I love linear narrative because it forces me to narrow my focus and give value to one thing, media like the internet feeds my weakness (though some would argue that it is not). More importantly, artist who use the medium for the sake of the medium (to be current, perhaps) may find that the message they intend is undermined by the medium itself, like LDS religious filmography encourages linear thought about gospel topics when circular or circuitous thought might be best (the course of the Lord being one eternal round and all). The medium is the message and can overpower any overt message of content or form.
No comments:
Post a Comment