Digital Derives

Dérive - 'to drift'. Meandering thoughts, discoveries and written responses to Web Presence at RCSSD. My name is Rachael. London.

[sunshine-on-earth]

[digitalderives]

A chair like this?? - a cosy set up.

[digitalderives]

If you remember to tell a great story, kick off with a bang, build an emotional roller coaster, throw a surprise, engage the tastemakers, make the most of the first 48 hours and concentrate on shares rather than views, you'll be giving your video the best possible chance of going viral.

-          Pierre Chappaz

'Making your video go viral - the seven golden rules'

-          http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/ebuzzing-partner-zone/making-your-video-go-viral-the-seven-golden-rules

[digitalderives]

Going Viral

Seminars were replaced this week with a three day ‘intensive’ where the focus was upon viral phenomena. During the intensive we interrogated the notion of ‘going viral’ by looking at successful videos and stories, then making our own in response. The course was split into four groups and there was a friendly rivalry set up between us – who could get the most hits for their response in one day.

As the group I was a part of began brainstorming ‘what makes successful viral videos’ we started to notice trends in recent popular online phenomena.

Firstly, something that shows a bit of skill, talent, or is plain ridiculous usually gets a good response. Not the most extreme example, but the 2007 ‘Daft Hands- Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger’ video http://youtu.be/K2cYWfq--Nw  has received over 59,260,319 views on YouTube, and is still receiving comments such as “this would've taken forever. This is so clever. WATCH THIS!” seven years later.

Secondly, take the audience on an emotional journey, whether that is tear-jerking or heart swelling - people respond well to a clear emotional narrative. The video of 29 year old Sloan Churman, a woman deaf since birth hearing her own voice for the first time with the help of hearing implants has received over 21,322,106 views, since it was uploaded in 2011 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsOo3jzkhYA. Arguably the popularity of the video stems from people’s enjoyment in witnessing, or even sharing, this woman’s life changing experience. And when she cries, it provokes the viewer’s empathy and often leads to similar responses of happiness for her, it is somewhat cathartic.

Thirdly, videos that are of a campaign – something the viewer can enjoy in the first instance, learn about, and even follow up later. Take the 2006 ‘Free Hugs Campaign’ http://youtu.be/vr3x_RRJdd4, which now with over 75,792,753 views – the video tells the story of a man’s quest to reach out and hug as many strangers as possible. The video is not heavily preachy or moralistic, and there have been many real life replications ever since (when I fist stepped foot in Times Square in 2011 I was created by a handsome man offering free hugs, on Valentine’s Day no less!) It also helps that it is underscored with some soppy mid 2000s alt rock.

After some online research I have found there are many responses, articles and academic pieces written behind the ‘science’ of going viral, where I picked up a few more important points. Apparently, we were starting at a disadvantage by performing our exercise on a Friday – it seems Monday and Tuesday are prime days for stories and videos to first catch attention as people browse the web whilst at work, and then there is the rest of the working week to catch momentum. Weekends are ‘speed bumps’ that slow down progress as your audience is more likely to be out of office. (https://medium.com/this-happened-to-me/10-ways-to-make-your-video-go-viral-d19d9b9465de)

Looking at the ‘bigger picture’ is important – racking up lots of views on a videos YouTube page is all well and good, but if people aren’t sharing it (via social media) then  a standstill is very close on the horizon. The nature of social media currently is that people have gotten lazy – with a ‘if you haven’t sent me the link, why would I search for it?’ attitude. (http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/ebuzzing-partner-zone/making-your-video-go-viral-the-seven-golden-rules)

[siksonic-deactivated20140604]

[digitalderives]

Web Vs. Internet

Internet. The web. World Wide Web. The net. Interwebs. Tinternet

Just a few of the names and terms used frequently and interchangeably by myself and those around me, yet they’re actually not all the same (and some may be totally made up…)

Someone once explained to me that the internet is the information and data, and the web is the means by which it is all connected. That seems perfectly logical to me. That, as it turns out, is incorrect. But not too far off.  The Internet is actually the infrastructure,  the exchanges back and forth. Information travels via the internet, in a variety of languages called ‘protocols’. The (World Wide) Web is the interface, the software, what we users see and interact with. The web is a system built on top of the internet – and is not the only thing that uses the internet.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web (www.). Personally, I think we owe this man a great deal, even if sometimes I do spend a little too much time surfing the web….

[allysphere]

[digitalderives]

Suddenly at the 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony... A wild Tim Berners Lee appears.

[digitalderives]

Global Village

Although it sounds like some sort of 21st century buzzword that’s merely bandied around by telecommunications, marketing and sales companies, the term ‘Global Village’ actually has a much more theoretical meaning, one that resonates significantly with our daily lives and experiences of interaction. The term originates with Marshall McLuhan in his books The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (1962) and Understanding Media (1964). Writing over 50 years ago McLuhan described a means of communicating via technology where the radio and telephone would become our ears, and the television and computer our eyes, connecting people over distances further reaching than their physical ability. McLuhan explained that these technologies would connect people across the globe in such a way that the world would become one mass connected pan-continental village.

McLuhan predicted an ‘extension of consciousness’ where information is shared across electrical and technological systems in such an intricate, constant and normalized way – arguably McLuhan predicted the internet culture of the modern day. The ‘world wide web’ allows individuals and communities across the world to communicate instantly, with loved ones or perfect strangers. Physical distance, it seems, is no longer a barrier so long as you have an internet connection.

 I think that the advent of technology, particularly online, has created a sense of this ‘global village’. I have friends who live in far flung places of the world who I communicate more frequently with than those who live in the same city. I have friendships that have lasted over distances because we are able to connect regularly online and continue a sense of shared experience and community. However, I also find that this inter-connectivity makes the unknown or unconnected seem captivatingly different. Cultures that have not embraced digital technology have it imposed upon them, as documentary crews and journalists arrive to create a web-series to educate the rest of us. Almost like there is a sense of entitlement. Or rather, the global village is not optional, which is a wee bit frightening if you think about it.

   (Oh, and it also the name of a mega mall shopping complex, of course)

[digitalderives]

We can imagine space without objects but can we imagine objects without space?

Our recent seminar addressed the last point of my badly drawn triangle (see earlier post) – Space. Beginning with a discussion around that tricky question “what is space?” Seems easy enough, but it’s more like opening a can of worms of confusion and inarticulacy. Space, it just is. Space is everything. Space is a realm, a three-dimensional expanse. Space is the form of all possible perception (Kant). And, what I’d not thought of before, space isn’t just above us, or even around us, it is infinity. Basically, it’s a pretty whacking great topic to start getting your head around and having interesting conversations about.

So let’s narrow it down. What is space to me - an artist, theatre and performance maker? It is the material that allows us to use all other materials. I think when devising performance space cannot, or should not, be ignored. Now, I’m not a particularly scenographical mind, but even as the earliest performative images or ideas take some shape I am imagining that shape within space, they don’t exist in a vacuum. Imagining, or rather understanding the space is the groundwork for realizing a piece.

[obeytheprophecy]

[digitalderives]

Space

[designer-vagina-gucci]

[digitalderives]

The use of screens, digital and video technology in performance is not new. The Wooster Group (NYC) has been playing with this technology for 30years. Katie Mitchell has been at it for about 10.

I find Mitchell’s interesting because of the way she uses video imagery – to fragment the stage picture, combining the video output with the live creation of the images – as she says “I am artificially giving you the impression of a dreamlike landscape”. Her logic, part of the dramaturgy, is that this way she reflects a more real representation of how her mind works, it picks up pieces of information from the many things happening in the world around us -> real life doesn’t given us a straight forward narrative, there are always fragments and distractions. I’d agree that this is more like how most of our minds work – piecing together what we see here and there. However, the aesthetic of her work can be quite overwhelmed by the physical presence of the technology and “ugly cameras”. I wonder how you could balance the showing of the workings, the making of, the live creation, with an aesthetically pleasing stage picture.

[unchiffre]

[digitalderives]

The Wooster Group

[digitalderives]

'Conventional Theatre' is a dead term.

[thevessel]

[digitalderives]

26/04/14 Birdland, The Royal Court theatre.

Last month I went to see Simon Stephens’ new play ‘Birdland’ for two reasons -1) I was intrigued to see what and how Stephens’ new writing would deliver 2) It was rather well priced. It appears many other audience members were there for another reason – to see Andrew Scott / Moriarty from BBC’s recent Sherlock series. Somehow I’d managed to miss Scott’s presence in the starring role until the show began and I saw a very familiar performance on stage – the manic, maddened, charisma of James Moriarty. The familiarity of this very specific performance style, the fact I felt like I was witnessing another character transported into the piece, was incredibly distracting. I found it difficult to accept the reality of the performance world presented to me, because the presence of this character seemed so incongruous. This is not to say, however, that I had a problem at all with the presence of Scott himself. I do not believe that the presence of a well-known actor, or celebrity by other means, necessarily detracts from the ‘realism’ or believability of live performance. It seems highly reductive to me to think that audiences cannot see beyond the presence of a face that they know (look at cinema; we accept changing roles, even if type-casting may follow actors around). The difficulty for me in this instance was not the presence of a person I recognize from reality (Scott - the man), but the specificity of a character from another fiction appearing in a different fictional reality.

[digitalderives]

“My Facebook self isn’t the same as my Instagram self”

At a recent count, there are nine version of myself living out their lives online. These nine versions include Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblrs, LinkedIn and a few more. I say nine because these are the accounts that I am active/have been active on in the last few months – there are many more forgotten/disused accounts, collecting cyberdust and preserving a version of myself from another time. I would personally find it hard pushed to say which of these the most ‘real’ version of me is. Different social media and web platforms ask for different facets of character and identity, which myself and many others play along with, and so these multiple-realities are created. As someone who has grown up with the internet I’ve always found it easy to communicate online and have a sense of myself in relation to the big wide web –but have always felt the distinction between my physical self and those online identities – I am me and they are a part of me.

In Baudrillard-ian terms these virtual/online versions of myself become Simulacra – as our physical sense of reality and experience is overcome by our experience in these hyper-real virtual worlds. Facebook in particular no longer wants to simulate your life; it wants to become a new version of it, to become your identity in and of itself. With each update and system tweak Facebook takes more of your information and builds a more complete ‘you’ online – which can then be advertised to, seduced, enraged, bought and sold.

Facebook is already a site of performance of course, as identity is the result of performative acts to define and identify ourselves (Butler), but I wonder if the future of Facebook will make space for theatrical performance, whether this is the next wave, more explicitly.

[digitalderives]

Fool me once…

Can you believe anyone or anything on the internet anymore? It’s weird how the place the majority of us (at least of this generation) go to seek news and updates, from current affairs to celebrity gossip, is also the place where fantastical rumours spread instantly. When the news of a famous person’s death breaks the first response is a swift google search to verify the story, particularly searching for evidence of hoaxing or foul play – thoughts about the loss of that individual’s life and the pain experienced by their loved ones come second. Search ‘celebrity death hoaxes’ and the results go on and on, usually with some amusing responses (Jackie Chan I salute you).

Now that everyman and his dog can have their own blog, YouTube channel or voice in the comments the creation of false identities and stories becomes even easier – because the internet provides anonymity and/or lacks accountability. Where the corporeal body in performance used to be a conduit for information, the online body is a conduit for information and imagination to the nth degree. Anyone can be anything. Does this mean we are becoming more critical of the information we receive? As an audience of the online age are we questioning the information as we download it with a more astute and demanding mind? I’d argue that on the whole – not just yet. As it gets easier to like and share information our response time becomes shorter and shorter, almost like people are losing interest in checking the fact, because they’ve already clicked onto the next story.

[parolando-deactivated20230401]

Ground Control to Major Tom Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong.

Can you hear me, Major Tom?