Narcissism?

This is me ... in night vision ... :o) ...

I'm very rarely awake at 1am so when I was, last Friday night, I thought it would be a good time to try out episode #2 of the reverse interview. Last week I came up with this plan that I would carry a camera around with me and begin to ask the people around me to point it at me and ask me stuff about my PhD. Anything, UB, Flow, PhD experience ... whatever. Kind of like a reverse interview. Why? Well, we all know we're different with different people and I find myself giving different answers to the same questions, sometimes I'm quite articulate but most of the time incoherent. I guess a useful bi-product of this exercise is that I should start to become more articulate after all this practice of answering these same questions.

The first episode was recorded with Mike which I found quite difficult and then could barely watch it back at all. See the April 27 entry for a reflection on that. Episode#2 was recorded last Friday night with my fellow Wii-Nighters, Tom & Brad. We recorded for about 50 minutes and I totally forgot about the camera and the three of us just talked all things PhD.

As I've begun capturing and watching back both these interviews something strange is beginning to happen. I've gone from not being able to watch myself on camera to being quite interested in watching this 'new' person and hearing what she has to say. It really is like the myth of Narcissus, seeing his reflection in the pond! :o/ ... Not that I've fallen in love with myself!  I know I'm gonna be made to regret writing that ... aren't I? For your information, wikipedia ... the almighty oracle that it is ... tells me healthy narcissism is a good thing.

Anyway, some kind of separation or objectification is beginning to occur. As I watch I'm not really thinking, 'that's me' anymore. That is exactly what I wanted to happen. Awesome!

ANOTHER interesting observation has arisen. Different people find different aspects of this documentary interesting. I talked to someone yesterday and I told them about flow and my reflections on the UB but it wasn't until I got to the bit about the journey of the 16mm film in time and space that their eyes lit up with interest! So this reconfirms that everyone is engaged differently into the documentary, story experience. For some, history does it, others it is the psychological aspect, others like to see the human experience. A good signpost reminder for me that all those parts should remain in my doco. I'd nearly discarded the 'journey of the 16mm' angle but I need to try to remember the parts that I found interesting initially coz if I found them interesting then chances are that someone else out there will find them interesting.

Re your last comments MC - I keep hearing these same words echoing all around me which is great, they serve as welcome reminders to let go of what is known and safe. We're taught to live in what is known and what is safe. Rules, regulations and expectations are our security blankets. "play until you're 10 and then stop playing forever". I thank you and everything that keeps reminding me to play on the other side of what is known. It's gonna take some practice but one day I might even remember it for myself!

:o) This just HAS to start the methodology chapter!

"Even the Almighty took seven days to create the heaven and the earth, and, if the record were complete, we should also learn that it was only at the end that he was aware of just what He set out to do with the raw material of chaos that confronted him."

- John Dewey, 1958, Art as experience, p.65 

the wrong side

Today I found myself on the wrong side of a camera. That is, in front of the lens instead of behind it. Considering it was such a small shift in position it was quite unusual and uncomfortable and no, I haven't felt brave enough to watch it back yet.

This was a first attempt at capturing pieces of material for the doco.

I have been reading about tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966) this afternoon, that's the stuff we know that we don't necessarily recognise as stuff we know. I can recognise the use of a camera as a tool,

'we become aware of the feelings in our hand in terms of their meaning located at the tip of the probe or stick to which we are attending.' (Polanyi 1966, p.13)

Everytime I've picked up a camera in the past it has been to use it to take shots. Each of these experiences has built up over time to create a  tacit knowledge set. It is amazing to experience this same tool for something outside my experience, being filmed. It is like it is not the same tool at all, all of that tacit knowledge I have around the camera disappears when it is turned the other way. A sense of powerlessness arises when a) the camera isn't in my hands and b) the lens is directed at me.

Tuesday morning ramblings from the centre of space

Hey, that title would make a great title for my doco!!

Picking up on comments made 8th April 2010 re the Jabe Babe doco -

So what you're saying is that I need to die and then laugh about it for my film to be interesting or perhaps I should laugh and then die? Decisions, decisions ...

OK, yes, I'm being a bit ridiculous but I have noticed that it helps, in these kinds of docos if the protagonist is dying or has some kind of terrible disease that causes struggle that we, the audience, sit and watch in amazement of and ask, how do they do it???

What is interesting about a perfectly healthy person who thinks life is great?

Nothing. No struggle. No interest there.

So the second fall back in these documentaries is that the protagonist is slightly strange, unusual, odd - Jabe Babe just happened to have both working for her - for want of a better word, a freak, that the audience can sit in amazement of and ask, are they for real???

My thoughts then are that this doco falls into the latter category. The UB is quite unusual and if I'm interested in them then I must be quite unusual. BUT, is this all unusual enough for it to be interesting? This is the question. How on earth do I judge that?

Hoping to get a camera on long term loan beginning this week so that I can begin to collect the bits and pieces of life that will be stitched together to create this. I'm hopeful that this process will help to move this project forward.

I'm discovering how difficult it actually is to make a film that you are in yourself. If this was about anyone else, I would have had it nailed by now. I think that when I observe someone else, what I am actually doing is comparing their qualities with who I am through this contrast and I come to decisions about them this way. I think the same happens when we watch people in documentary, we're constantly measuring and comparing how the person on screen deals with their struggle with how we would deal with it.

Therefore, in my situation where I'm attempting to capture a part of myself that is of interest to others I have nothing to help measure up to or with and am finding it quite unsettling. It's like floating in the centre of space. I guess we need the contrast of others to know ourselves.

I think I'm understanding now that if I can capture parts of my life on camera then this will be enough to be able to separate and see 'Carolyn' a little more objectively, as a character in a documentary and as a person that may (or may not) be of interest.

Interesting aspects according to me

Interactive media as an alternative lifestyle

I think you understand 'Flow' perfectly. In fact, you're the first to pick it up, in relation to what I'm trying to do here, so quickly and with what seems to be a rich understanding of it. I like common ground :o)

It had not crossed my mind to draw parallels between interactive media and community/alternative living as you've done. Thanks for the insight. I get it, in order to live an alternative lifestyle as the UB were new rules had to be learnt, there were different challenges offered through UB living that weren't offered in the mainstream. The way I see it, the people that went off to join the UB had to be looking, searching for the joy of discovery. Mainstream culture wasn't giving them that so off they went to this new type of experience. They were referred to by the UB as 'seekers'. Perfect, as they were seekers of new life experiences. Perhaps in interactive doco we need to learn how to be seekers.

It is really interesting  to use this to understand more about interactive doco flow and to envisage a future for it.

I see that many of the aspects of UB life in 1978, things that were unique to these alternative lifestyles have now become an accepted part of mainstream living. Yoga, health & fitness in general, organic food, organic farming, meditation, eastern philosophy, ... the list could go on. I don't remember much about 1978 but I'm quite sure that none of these things were norms of mainstream living in Australia at that time. Fast forward 30 years, even 20 years, and look, all of these things are well accepted and even valued aspects of mainstream living in the 21st C. It is really interesting that you laughed (ok, we) - 'nazi youth camp' -  when we saw the vision of the UB people jogging around the property but when I drive to work each morning I see dozens of people jogging up and down the footpaths on Glynburn rd - why is this not so funny? Maybe it would be if we were part of a culture that didn't do that kind of thing.  Don't know. In terms of Flow, the UB culture had a 'rule' that health and fitness were good, our 21st C mainstream culture has the same 'rule' now.

Anyway this tells us that there's been a transferral from alternative to being mainstream over a period of time.  Although, not all aspects of UB life have become mainstream - I'm not sure anyone would be up for doing the Brotherhood Reel anytime soon :o/ ... even me.

If we return to the parallels you drew between interactive media and alternative living in your last posting then this tells us that while interactive media, documentary, at this point is alternative living. It offers different rules and challenges and requires different skills of both producers and audience (who must learn to become users or seekers). As you mentioned  - the UB & interactive media are disruptive systems to the norm. So we're sitting here in 'mainstream, traditional doco' land with all our rules and skills relevant to this and we look over there and wonder, how on earth can 'alternative/interactive doco' land ever Flow? What a funny place! Just like if you visited UB 1978 - you have different goals, skills, rules and are not into the challenges they were offering. Totally out of the flow.

Given this, will Interactive Doco Flow begin as we learn the new skills and rules required. Just like the UB seekers had to do? And what is it that would drive us to want to learn new skills and rules?

Csikszentmihalyi, in his book Creativity (1996) suggests that humans have two main tendencies - one toward entropy - the desire to rest, store energy - and another toward negentropy or creativity - the joy of discovery, growth, evolution. His study into creative people found that these people do what they do (paint, invent, research sell things, make things, whatever) for the joy of discovery. Not to finish it or for anything connected to the end result, but to engage in the process of discovery, learning, growing. He refers to this as an autotelic experience and identifies as key to Flow.

Contemporary society seems to have us geared toward entropy - can't wait for the weekend when i can rest, cant wait to finish this so I can rest, can't wait for my holidays etc. We're fast forwarding through life to get to the bits where we can rest. And of course, don't know about you but as soon as I do rest, I get bored and immediately want to get back into the creativity stream. It would also appear that the entire entertainment industry is all about feeding this desire to rest as well. Traditional media feeds our desire to rest doesn't it? Is this why Interactive media isn't flowing for us? If we could approach an interactive doco through our desire to be creative, learn, grow, evolve rather than our mindset of resting would the experience bring about Flow for us? Is this new skill required on the part of the audience? How can interactive doco get users into the state of the joy of discovery? Into that autotelic experience?

Documentary is particularly interesting. I've identified that, in terms of Flow, the goals of documentary are to learn or to know and to be entertained. Interesting. This genre appears to be attempting to feed both of our tendencies - sit back, rest and be entertained as well as pay attention and engage in the joy of discovering new things about this world. Interactive doco is perfect for allowing the creative aspect - to learn and know to be presented but doesn't follow the traditional rules of entertainment, especially suspension of disbelief. Doco commentator/author Bill Nichols disputes that suspension of disbelief happens in documentary, rather he calls it 'activation of belief' ... rubbish, it's the same thing as suspension of disbelief. And this is where Flow breaks down.

And this brings us nicely back to your question from last posting - Did the UB require suspension of disbelief to perpetuate flow? Yes. Although suspension of disbelief is brought through immersion, so that is also required. Flow requires that the outside world be dimmed so that the experience can overtake all of the senses and a loss of self awareness arises - i believe certain philosophies refer to this as 'being in the now'. Immersion in the experience is required. In filmic terms, immersion allows for the suspension of disbelief  Dark room separate from the ordinary world, loud sound, big screen ... all about shutting out the outside world. The UB lived separately from mainstream society, had big ideals and they all worked hard and were kept busy to keep the people in the Flow. hmm ... that description also works for the mainstream cult we all live in too, though.

Apologies for the extra long posting, so much to say!! I wonder if you can submit a PhD thesis by Blog?... this of course has discussed two streams of flow that my doco is trying to deal with - UB Flow and Documentary Flow. There is a third which I'll post about some other time, my Flow and where the UB and doco fit into that.

Thanks for listening. Writing this posting has brought me to some new insights ... and as a seeker of the joy of discovery that is awesome :o)

Documentary Flow

In 1975 pscyhologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi theorised that an optimal experience of life is best described as Flow. His theory described 9 characteristics that can be found in any experience where Flow is achieved (1996, p.112) -

• There are clear goals
• immediate feedback to one's action
• a balance between challenges and skills
• action & awareness merge - at one with what is going on
• distractions are excluded from consciousness
• no worry of failure
• self-consciousness disappears (self growth after the experience)
• sense of time is distorted
• activity becomes autotelic

Csikszentmihalyi (1990) states that:

The combination of all these elements causes a sense of deep enjoyment that is so rewarding people feel that expending a great deal of energy is worthwhile simply to be able to feel it (Csikszentmihalyi 1990, p.49).

Over the years this theory has been applied to the design of a range of diverse activities, from designing playground equipment to computer games. The first part of my exegesis is dedicated to the discussion of Documentary Flow, I've not been able to find any previous literature where Flow has been applied to the design or discussion of traditional media. I'm looking to identify and discuss what it is in traditional documentary that gives us, the audience, an experience of Flow. Then I can then examine and compare the emerging form of digital, interactive documentary and identify how Flow might be achieved. From observations and experiences with interactive documentary I have noted that the original spirit or heart or essence, that has been documentary over the past 80 years, is missing or at very best faint. Documentary is more, or should be, than a space (website) that contains an archive of audiovisual material. I have watched many traditional format docos where I wasn't initially interested in the subject but through their magic (heart, spirit, essence) they reel you in a make the experience Flow. Interactive doco struggles to do this.

I'm likening this spirit or heart to Flow - the optimal experience of documentary. A first draft of what is described here is complete and my focus now is to build a cross-platform documentary (what that actually means is still loose) that exemplifies Documentary Flow in both traditional and interactive versions of the genre. Then, I'll go back to the exegesis and discuss my doco in detail in relation to Flow.