#shared playground

[caroalnajjar]

I, too, wish I was Sir David Attenborough but we can’t all be the god of nature documentaries

As part of my recent Creative Technologies projects I was required to shoot some footage of New Zealand wildlife and there are no words that could possibly describe that experience as well as the following video. 

However, as this is a blog post, I should probably attempt to put my experience into words.

Preparation

The first thing that had to happen before we could go to Zealandia was to decide that we were going to go to Zealandia. Zealandia is an ecosanctuary in Wellington that I was previously aware of after visiting it with my biology class in high school. After a bit of research it turned out that Zealandia was in fact the best option for us. The two other significant ecosanctuaries in New Zealand are Orokonui in Dunedin, and Mount Tutu Eco-Sanctuary in Tauranga. While these other two no doubt would have been great to visit as well, the fact that I my ties to Wellington allowed for a much cheaper trip, made the decision very easy. 

After knowing where we would go to shoot the footage, I then had to research how to actually get good footage. After all, one of the main aspirations for our installation was to look aesthetically pleasing. So I did what any sensible person would do and watched the entirety of Planet Earth II. I had seen Planet Earth II once before that and as someone who watches quite a lot of nature documentaries, I have to say that it is probably one of if not the most beautiful documentary out there. But what is it about this particular documentary that makes it so great?

Looking at the video above, you can clearly make out several of the things that make Planet Earth so successful. While a lot of it can be contributed to David Attenborough’s insightful narration and the way they created a clear narrative around the bird, that isn’t really relevant for my own practice since my videos are limited to 20 seconds and don’t include cuts or narration. When looking at the shots by themselves, some things stand out anyway. Some of those are quite obvious, like the fact that the camera tries to keep the birds in frame, as well as general rules of cinematography like the rule of thirds. Other than that the most important things to take away from the documentary are they way they shoot the birds. Most notable are the close ups on the bird’s face, and the feet as it is jumping and landing. Even when it is not a close up, the bird always takes up a significant portion of the screen. Other than that there seems to be a focus on movement. There are no shots of the birds being motionless, and those with minimal movement as usually accented by at least a head turn or something similar. From other parts of the documentary I also took away that it is often nice to end shots with the animal leaving the frame. Tracking shots are also implemented quite frequently. (Planet Earth II, 2016)

Filming

As I mentioned before, the video at the top of this post is very much a summary of my filming experience. For every usable 5 seconds of film you got, you had to walk for half an hour and delete 10 minutes of useless material. And that doesn’t even take into account the number of times the bird had already left by the time I put down my tripod, or my camera had focused on it. The only exception to this rule was the Tuatara, which didn’t move at all. I went to Zealandia two weeks apart form each other and one of the Tuataras they had there was still sitting in exactly the same location. Not exactly the most engaging video material. 

It wasn’t all bad though. I really wanted to film the takahe since they’re probably one of the more high profile endangered birds but couldn’t find them where they were supposed to be. Because of this I asked one of the people working at Zealandia what was up there. She explained that T2, the male of their breeding pair, had died recently so his female had moved and the new breeding pair they introduced wasn’t familiar enough with their new home yet and couldn’t really be seen by the public because of that. After she explained this she actually went on to help us find a few of the other birds, namely the robin, saddleback, and kakariki. 

Aftermath

There are no words that could possibly describe the experience of editing as well as the following video.

I should really turn of my laptop a bit more often so that stabilising footage doesn’t take hours. Really most of my editing experience was just incredibly repetitive and involved a lot of waiting. I would go through the videos I took, pick out the usable ones, and chop them up into 20 second clips. We decided to go with 20 second after we realised that there wouldn’t really be a progression in the distortion effect we were using. 20 seconds are long enough for an audience to get a feel for what they’re watching, but not so long that they would get bored. 

When picking which parts of the videos would make it into the installation, I went back to what I had noticed when studying Planet Earth and picked the footage that fit that criteria. Really, it was a matter of “does this look good.” As it turns out some of them actually did. 

References

Planet Earth II. (2016). United Kingdom.

[caroalnajjar]

Interactive Art as an Engaging Medium

When Claudia and I started the semester, we knew nearly straight away that we wanted to create an interactive art installation, the question was about what. There was something about the medium of interactive art that somehow just seemed to say “this is a powerful tool, use it wisely.” And so we decided to make our installation about the conservation of wildlife in New Zealand, an important topic that needed more attention brought to itself. But what is it about this form of art that makes it so powerful? And why is it the correct tool to convey our message?

One of the things that make interactive art so powerful is its ability to engage people. Interactive art doesn’t hang on a wall to be admired, it draws people in, making them “act enthusiastically and actively engage with the art installation.” (Her and Hamlyn, 2010) Especially in places where people don’t expect to find art, an interactive installation can draw them in and engage them through sheer novelty. Its interactivity is key. While the average person who sees a piece of static art in an unexpected place might be intrigued by it at first, this more traditional art form doesn’t draw any attention to itself and thus the person might not even notice it or quickly lose interest. Interactive art, in contrast with that, appeals to the natural playfulness in people. Every passing movement might trigger a reaction from the artwork, drawing attention to itself and encouraging the audience to interact with it more. The audience members then “question, explore and test the possibility of the art installations.” (Her and Hamlyn, 2010) - they are engaged. As the video above demonstrates, the presence of the interactive art work draws people in. They enjoy playing with the clown’s mask and encourage the people around them to play with it as well. The experience is engaging because it is fun. 

The video above shows that interactive art transcends the monotone restrictions of classic art. It shows how people interact with the art work. They play on it like it’s a playground. They engage with the art work, simply by having fun. However, that’s not the only way they interact with it. They also film it and add their own twist to it using Snapchat and the text functions and audio recording it provides. The art work is more than itself, it is a literal playground for creativity. The little something about interactive art that makes it so compelling that it is unpretentious and happy to be played with. While you expect to find most art in some place of art worship (museums, art galleries, etc.) often on a literal pedestal, interactive art has a tendency of being more down to earth; closer to the audience and less demanding to be worshiped. If classic, static art is your stuck-up grandpa, interactive art is your older sibling who buys you alcohol and helps you through your relationship drama. 

What I mean when I say that the older sibling that is interactive art helps you through your relationship drama, is that interactive art is actually incredibly good at making you think and convey meaning as well as being fun and engaging. “Aesthetics in general encourage viewers to think about author’s intention.” (Her and Hamlyn, 2010) Since interactive art is seen as less pretentious and more accessible than traditional art, audiences approach it differently and people who might not normally be drawn to art and any “higher purpose” it might try to convey, could find that this more playful approach actually appeals to them. This different approach from the side of the audience is part of why interactive art is so successful; they see it as something unfamiliar, as something that needs to be explored, the questions “what does this mean?” and “what is the points of this?” come naturally out of the unexpected appearance of the artwork. (Her and Hamlyn, 2010)

This ability to convey meaning is the main reason why the medium of interactive art is so suitable for a topic like nature conservation. Beyond that, it’s human interaction itself that makes it such a good fit. After all, humans are the main reason why so much wildlife is endangered in New Zealand. It seems only natural to use the advantages of interactive art to convey this fact. In theory, people who will encounter Vis, will first be drawn to it simply by its presence, then they will be engaged by the playful interactivity it offers, which will hopefully make them wonder what we’re trying to say with the artwork. For that instance we will use a didactic panel to explain the meaning of the art work. This sequence of interactions with the artwork is designed to create a shift in emotion experienced by the audience, they will go from the initial joy experienced through playful interaction and appealing aesthetics to sadness and maybe even regret as they find out the actual topic of the artwork. The purpose of this emotional contrast is to be memorable for the audience. They should come away from the experience, remembering the installation and maybe talking about it to people around them. We are trying to raise awareness with our project and using the medium of interactive art seems quite appropriate in that regard.

References:

Her, J. and Hamlyn, J. (2010). Meaningful Engagement: Computer-Based Interactive Media Art in Public Space. Springer.

Malhotra, S. (2016). Interactive art installation that makes people laugh - The Common Link. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu9ehAp__EE&feature=share [Accessed 12 Oct. 2017].

PalmBeachPost (2016). Art in public places: #LosTromposWPB. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx5NCUuxtiM&feature=share [Accessed 12 Oct. 2017].

[caroalnajjar]

Extinction, Endangerment and Conservation

Extinction

Ever since humans first started arriving in New Zealand between 1250 and 1300, native species have been dying. While in places like North America and Australia the causes for extinction remain ambiguous, there is almost no doubt that humans are directly and indirectly responsible for recent extinctions in New Zealand. Since humans settlers first arrived in New Zealand, the country’s wildlife has been reduced by one bat, at least 51 birds, three frogs, three lizards, one freshwater fish, four plant species, and a number of invertebrates. 

When Polynesian settlers first arrived, they hunted down large bird species like the moa, and the rats, or kiore, they brought with them killed many smaller bird species, frogs and lizards. However, this was only a small price payed, compared with the death that European settlers brought with them. Like the Polynesians before them, they hunted larger bird species, however the biggest threat to native wildlife came in the form of mammalian predators, like cats and stoats, and other land dwellers that introduced previously non-existent competition. Most New Zealand species, specifically birds, simply weren’t adapted to deal with the threats posed by mammals. They were hunted for their meat and their eggs opened for an easy meal, while species like the deer trampled the grass they would normally eat. The previous lack of competition meant that many bird species had developed strategies like mating for life and only producing one chick at a time, so that when mammals arrived, they were killed more quickly than they could reproduce, resulting in the extinction of many species. 

Humans hunted native animals, brought mammalian competition to New Zealand, and changed the habitat of many animals, driving them out. The change of wild live impacted the ecology and even whole ecosystems. However, not all native species have gone extinct, yet. (Holdaway, 2007)

Endangerment and Conservation

There are currently 2788 species officially classified as endangered in New Zealand. ("Endangered Species of New Zealand", 2012) The same factors that caused the extinction of so many species, are now responsible for the endangerment of even more. The question is: Should humans intervene?

When I was in year 12, my Biology class was studying the takahē, a native bird that was thought to be extinct before being rediscovered in the 1980s. After learning about its characteristics and the causes for its “extinction”, seemingly my entire class came to the conclusion that the takahē should just be allowed to die already. After all, the government spends a large amount of money to keep the species alive, despite the fact that the takahē is obviously not adapted to survive in modern day New Zealand, and it even has a much better adapted cousin, the pūkeko. ("Takahē", 2016)

Since then, I had a bit of a change of heart. While I recognise that extinction is a normal part of life, after all over 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. (Gaston & Kunin, 1994) I do think there is an argument to be made that natural extinction doesn’t give humans a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to conserving wild life. 

It is really a question of personal philosophy and perception. Looking at it from a purely biological point of view, humans are the dominant species in the world. Every species has the innate drive to continue existing, genes have an innate drive to continue existing. Most human behaviour (on a big scale) can be explained through this simple concept. It is normal for species to spread over time, and it is normal for species to do what is in their power to make their lives as easy as possible. It was only to be expected that humans would bring their own sources of food with them as they moved to a new island, as well as hunting existing animals already present on the island. Humans won the competition they themselves brought due to being better adapted, and better adaptable. 

However, it’s not as simple as that. Despite being animals just like all other mammals, we are reasonable. We can study the remains of the moa, realise that it was reproducing more slowly than it was killed, and transfer this knowledge to similar animals to prevent their extinction. We know that species are dying and we have the ability to figure out whys to prevent it. Doesn’t this mean that we should do our very best to keep as many species as possible alive? Doesn’t this mean that the individuals who know about such issues should try to educate others? As a great, fictional, man once said “With great power comes great responsibility.” It is our responsibility, as a reasonable species, to conserve other species.

References:

Endangered Species of New Zealand. (2012). Nhc.net.nz. Retrieved 1 September 2017, from http://www.nhc.net.nz/index.html

Gaston, K., & Kunin, W. (1994). The Biology of Rarity. London: Chapman & Hall.

Holdaway, R. (2007). Extinctions. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Retrieved 1 September 2017, from https://teara.govt.nz/en/extinctions/

Takahē. (2016). Doc.govt.nz. Retrieved 1 September 2017, from http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native-animals/birds/birds-a-z/takahe/