This past summer I saw the critically acclaimed documentary, “King of Kong” at the inaugural meeting of a Full Sail documentary film club. Great film. When one of my fellow film viewers confessed that he wanted to punch the antagonist, Billy Mitchell, in the mouth and everyone in the room agree; it was clear that the documentary makers had achieved their goal. I remembered reading comments before watching the film that some critics felt that the film’s editors “crafted” the footage to make Mitchell look a bit worse than he actually was. I didn’t say anything about this at the meeting because everyone else was ready to lynch Mitchell for being such a self-important asshole. In fact, one person was amazed at how well the filmmakers let Mitchell show what a jerk he was. Maybe, or maybe it was just really good editing.

I grew up in the era of Tom Wolfe and the blurring of lines between non-fiction, new journalism and fiction. What I learned from those times was that good fiction locks the reader into a totally believable universe while good non-fiction equally employs all of the same the tools of storytelling with a beginning, middle, end, a protagonist, an antagonist and often a hero’s journey. I vaguely remember a Walter Cronkite special made after he retired during which he described the journalistic process of gathering news and then editing it down for broadcast and that this process of editing, deciding what parts of the story to include and what parts to lead with, meant that 100% objectivity was not really possible. Fairness, yes, but real objectivity was an ideal more than a reality. Alas, I’d say that the expectations for “Walter Cronkite objectivity” in news reporting has retreated back to a mythical simpler time before Nixon and the media conglomerate control of all things media. All the more, I’m a bit surprised when an educated audience, who wouldn’t expect complete objectivity from any of the cable or network news networks, swallow documentary presentations, simply because you have the characters saying the words and doing the things that leads you to believe that this is really the way it is. One would hope that documentary producers (as with journalists) wouldn’t completely fabricate stories out of carefully crafted clips. But one cannot forget that the process of editing is a form of subjective decision making entirely dependent on the story that the documentary creator wants to tell. And the “Best” documentaries are not necessarily the ones that tell the most Truth but the ones that tell the best story.

I’ve sat through many a documentary that just stuck the camera out there and tried to tell some semblance of an event or ongoing story, but “failed” because their efforts to “capture it all” resulted in an overly long, drawn out hodge-podge of footage that had no real narrative, no clearly defined beginning, middle or end and usually ended when they ran out of time and/or money. Sadly these unwatchable documentaries are often closer to the “Truth,” if there is a truth to be learned, than the highly crafted works by someone like Roger Moore or even the folks who put together the “King of Kong.” Don’t get me wrong, “King of Kong,” is an amazing film, well worth the viewing. Just don’t expect it to be a complete slice of reality. Billy Mitchell may be an intolerable asshole or just another human being with an overly inflated opinion of his own importance. The asshole makes for a better story.

Sources:
* image & info: The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_of_Kong:_A_Fistful_of_Quarters, retrieved on October 12, 2009
* And That’s the Way It Is, by Dan Rottenberg/American Journalism Report, http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3612 retrieved on October 12, 2009
* YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K7wpatALDQ

        

Another proud moment in the Health Care debates. I had to have buddy, Dr. Siegel, explain the idiotic logic being employed by the “Obama is Hitler” crowd opposing health care reform. Follow along carefully, it’s a hazardous journey into poor logic and bad language skills: according to these nuts the government wants to take over health care which is a form of socialism and it’s a national program, so what Obama is proposing is national socialism which is what the word “Nazi” came from. Therefore Obama is Hitler. Yeah. I have to agree with Barney Frank. This isn’t even English. It’s bad enough that the whole world thinks that we are stupid because of the eight-years of W. Now we’ve got crazies wanting to block health care reform because… well, because their fucking crazy. Sad.

And just in case you’re not pissed off enough about the disinformation about health care reform being slathered about by the conservatives… here’s the first of three parts of Jon Stewart trying to talk about policy with Betsy McCaughey, Former Lt. Governor of New York:

Exclusive – Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1

Exclusive – Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2

I couldn’t watch the whole thing… ack. jbb

        

Part three of my three part media merry-go-round: Creative Commons (Part 1: Copyright; Part 2: Fair-Use; Part 3: Creative Commons). After I’ve scared them to death with the all powerful Copyright, and confused them with the slippery Fair-Use, it’s time calm the nerves with a little common sense Creative Commons. I wish it was really that simple. So, as before the following is the ongoing working prototype for part 3:

When: Fourth week on a time and day selected by your small group and the course director (NOTE: There is no archive you must do everything you can to attend your small groups session) The Creative Commons Solution Pre-session videos & Information: Please make sure to preview the following videos and read through the information listed below before our session together A Shared Culture Mayer and Bettle Explain Creative Commons Mayer and Bettle explain what Creative Commons is and how it works. A short promotional animation created for Creative Commons Australia and the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). Creative Commons is a license platform that recognizes that there needs to be an easy to understand way for content creators to communicate their sharing choices that falls between “All Rights Restricted” and “Public Domain.” Larry Lessig’s TED Talk about Remix Culture: If you would like further information on Creative Commons consult the following cartoons (this is an optional activity): Creative Commons Comic part1 Creative Commons Comic part2 Creative Commons Comic part3 Creative Commons Comic part4 Media & Good Netiquette: Please watch the following video, we will be discussing it as it might related to our readings in “Art of Possibility”: Stickam Meeting Instructions: 1. Please make sure you have your headset plugged in and on. The point of using Stickam is that you will all be on camera during the whole session, so have a light on and a smile on your face. 2. Please look at pre-session videos and information listed above. We will be discussing Creative Common, Good Netiquette & final thoughts on the Art of Possibility. Hint: If you don’t know what these words mean, you might want to do a little research on these words. 3. Log into your Skype account. Whoever sees all of the small group members is free to set-up the conference call (make sure to include your course director). 4. Go to our meeting site at: http://homepage.mac.com/edm613/pages/edm613stickam.html If you have a problem with the site listed above you can go to: http://web.me.com/edm613/edm613/Wk4_Stickam_Session.html username & password available upon request For full instructions go to Wk3 Stickam Prep 5. Be Prepared to discuss this week’s activities & projects (above) 6. Course Q&A/Open discussion Finally, please make every effort to be here – we benefit from each others’ input, questions and concerns. There is no archive created for these sessions. You’ll need to meet with a small group member for an info round up and then create a blog entry with the title: “Week 4 Stickam” and write a paragraph (minimum 5 sentences) about your thoughts or comments on the session based on your conversation with a small group member who attended the session. For attendees the blog entry is optional. Both attendees & non-attendees please make sure to click the DONE button at the bottom of this page. Sources: animated clipart images from microsoft.com, http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/clipart/default.aspx image and video: A Shared Culture: Creative Commons, http://creativecommons.org/videos/a-shared-culture retrieved 7/26/2009 Blip.tv video: Mayer and Bettle explain Creative Commons, http://creativecommons.org/videos/mayer-and-bettle retrieved on 7/18/2009 TED Video: Larry Lessig on Remix Culture, http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html retrieved on 7/26/2009 images: Spectrum of Rights Comics, http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Spectrumofrights_Comic1 retrieved 7/26/2009 Youtube video: The Science Behind the Secret, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRhk5_4xOa8 retrieved on 7/26/2009

        

Part of my course at Full Sail is about media issues, you know, stuff like Copyright, Fair Use and Creative Commons. The “M” in our program title (EMDT) is Media and my students, who are in their ninth month of a year long Masters degree program, are expected to stare down this huge subject and come up with a reasonable approach to something that I tell them occupies the life’s work of an army of lawyers, policymakers and troublemakers. As I lay down guiding principles to understanding the moving target that is Copyright/Fair Use/Creative Commons the discussions tend to be quite lively and informative for all participants. One thing that I’ve never fully appreciated is how difficult and expensive it can be for teachers who want to follow copyright law who teach band, or theater or any of the other arts.

One teacher wrote in her class blog:

Seriously, the whole copyrighting thing….I get it. I understand why things are copyrighted. I just think it gets taken to an extreme and so many people suffer from it. I’m sorry, but this recording: (insert, mp3 of me playing Beethoven’s 5th Symphony with one hand on the piano but I couldn’t get to work properly) just doesn’t cut it when I’m teaching my kids about Beethoven. I know I am guilty of a lot of music copyrighting issues. I have gotten a lot better about it since I began teaching (that also comes with the experience and learning more and more about copyrighting). Music teachers have it tough – we aren’t allowed to photocopy music. No matter that it costs an average of $2-$5 per student copy (multiply by 25 students and you’re talking $50-$100 for ONE song). It’s simply unrealistic to think that any school can afford 10-15 songs PER CONCERT. I end up using a lot of the textbook series songs, which in it’s own right is probably not allowed either because it’s being performed live (but not broadcast). And of course, when you’re teaching the classics and the composers who wrote them, and they are not all in the series, you bring in your own music. How can a music teacher teach music without playing music?!??!? - “Alison Van”

Understanding the overwhelming power of motivated students (especially those under the age of 17), my first thought was that we needed to harness their creativity to come up with the music and art that we needed in the classroom to teach those just beginning to learn their craft. Then another student reminded me the role copying has always had in inspiring beginning artists. Oh yeah…

I think everyone uses something they’ve seen, heard, or read in a book or movie as inspiration. Using sports as an example, every kid with a basketball tries to imitate Michael Jordan’s moves on the court… Jenkins (Convergence Culture, 2008) makes this correlation with fledgling writers. By imitating or using the J.K. Rowling’s books as a starting point beginning writers understand good structure, character development, and how to tell a story. By using Jordan’s moves you understand how to attack the rim, how to play tenacious defense, and how to find openings. In both cases you aren’t trying to invent the wheel just make it better. Jenkins cites the fact that using someone else’s characters gives writers distance and takes the pressure off of drawing from one’s own experiences. - Jay Hom

This got me thinking. Clearly something is really messed up here. I mean, when it comes to students learning how to write and posting things in an educational or non-profit environment it’s pretty clear that there should be a special license for this, recognizing that beginning writers/artists always begin by copying the masters who came before them. From before the beginning of recorded history, persons wanting to learn a craft became apprentices in the service of a master, and what was their first job? Generally they spent years copying the works of the master until they proved themselves to be creative and skilled enough to be permitted to work on their own works. No one starts from scratch. This is where the media business and commerce has failed to recognize how humans, by nature, do things. Where would today’s artists be if it weren’t for an art teacher, a music teacher, a drama teacher or an English teacher? Even if the teacher’s influence was negative, inspiring the young artist to prove them wrong, the inspiration brought them that much closer to their dream. And who did the artists copy when they were learning how to draw, to play an instrument, to write, to imagine?

Let me put it this way, there’s something wrong in requiring the teacher to pay the student. In educational/non-profit situations teachers should have a special license to use the copyrighted works that they need to use in order to train the next generation of artists. This license should either be free or extremely inexpensive and any payment should be made directly to the composer/artist/writer and not to a publishing house or agency. If this seems to unreasonable to the media industry let’s use the same tactic used by the industry and begin by assuming that behind every artist, agency or media business was an educator and/or educational institution that got the artist, agency or business started. And so for every media property licensed, every paycheck generated from a piece of media, every negotiation related to any piece of art, music, literature, videos, any creative work, 10 percent of the gross must be paid to the educational institution or educator(s) who had a hand in beginning and/or nurturing the artist’s career. And given the media industry’s proven track record for creative accounting, artists/agencies/businesses unable to do the math will have a minimum of 10 percent deducted from their pre-tax gross income. This seems fair given the number of years educators and educational institutions devote to developing these artists. Or maybe a special educational use license (something like the creative commons license) could be employed. Either way, the business of taxing teachers and educational institutions in the business of producing the next generation of artists is just another example of how out of control and greedy the industry is willing to be. Getting back to my first notion, there is a lot of talent in the high school and college music programs that should be harnessed to create “Creative Commons” pieces that could be freely used in educational teaching and performances and the whole educational system should turn their backs on an industry that forgets that their “artists” first learned their love of their craft via the efforts of an underpaid classroom teacher.

In a blog that featured the opening video of PS22′s chorus singing the Fleetwood Mac song “Landslide” there were a few comments about what a beautiful performance it was but how pissed the RIAA was going to be. The blogger wrote, “Just got word from Stevie Nicks’ tour manager that she was completely blown away by the PS22 Chorus rendition of her song “Landslide!” He said she asked him to replay two times afterward, crying each time she watched! Talk about humbling!! And the kicker?? She invited the PS22 Chorus to sing the song at Madison Square Garden for the upcoming June 11th Fleetwood Mac show!! Holy cow!!!”

It’s been my experience that when the artist, the actual person responsible for the creative work, is brought into the picture they recognize the power of hearing or seeing their work re-imaged by the generation of artists coming up. And in the age of the Internet and email we educators are only one contact away from securing the releases that respect copyright while supporting the need to train and teach the next generation of artists. When Neil Finn, Crowded House lead singer, heard PS22 perform one of his tunes he said that it was “the most hopeful sound on earth.” Amen, Neil.

Crowded House & PS22 Chorus PRIVATE UNIVERSE live!

Sources:
* “Why Publish Student Work on the Web: PS22 Chorus Perform ‘Landslide’ by Fleetwood Mac” on Open Thinking blog at http://educationaltechnology.ca/couros/1603, retrieved 5/29/2009
* http://alisonvan.blogspot.com/2009/03/week-3-wimba-session-2-for-real.html retrieved 3/29/2009
* http://web.me.com/jayhom/MAC/Jay_Hom_Blog/Entries/2009/4/19_Week_2_-_Chapter_5_-_Fan_Inspiration.html# retrieved 4/21/2009
* “Augusta Savage, artist – 1930s film” (video) posted by Bob Bobster at http://www.flickr.com/photos/32912172@N00/3240099122/in/set-72157608250741007/ retrieved on 5/30/2009
* PS22 Chorus PRIVATE UNIVERSE opening for CROWDED HOUSE at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5-FViUB490 retrieved on 5/30/2009
* Crowded House & PS22 Chorus PRIVATE UNIVERSE live! at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQniDM38450 retrieved on 5/30/2009

        

Cultural Anthropologist, Michael Wesch, offered up the following video as a follow-up video mash-up to the viral hit collection “Thru-U” by Kutiman:

It has potential, but seems much less “manufactured” than the Kutiman collection, and a bit less attention to detail, particularly some of the mismatched rhythm tracks. The preceding analysis of course completely misses the point, that this is much more a work that reflects the amazing creativity unleashed when incorporates all of the creativity being released online. This is most definitely “world music.”

        

Since the very first month of teaching my graduate media course at Full Sail University my students have struggled with the vagueness and conflicting messages surrounding the topics of copyright and fair use. Tasking educators, many of whom are very new to online anything, to creating an unending number of audio podcasts, videos, blog entries and assorted media projects and then telling them that they cannot use any images, music or videos that they might find on the Internet is like inviting them to a party and then telling them that they are not permitted to having any fun. it’s downright confusing. Then for me to try to be authoritative on what is permitted and not permitted, while knowing that the subjects of copyright and fair use are life-work of an army of lawyers and policy makers, makes the whole thing downright silly.

So after one of our class sessions, one of my more media savvy students made the following comment in his blog:

Copyright is such a touchy subject, it’s getting crazier and crazier, even for students, to try to use resources. It seems like it’s going to get to a point where you have to have a law degree just to understand when and where you can use an image or reference someone else’s works. One solution is to always create your own work and I’m going to try to do that more often, so that I really don’t have to rely on others. But it [the session] really showed us that there are quite a difference of nuances that we really need to be aware of and really pay attention to, especially in our work now (Quinto M.)

I’ve had a number of students who are band, drama or media teachers who have to pay rather large fees out of increasingly non-existent budgets so that they can do their job and teach the next generation of musicians and artists their craft. The more I thought about it and Quinto’s comment about not relying on others the more I got pissed off that this whole copyright thing is backwards. I added the following comment to Quinto’s blog:

This is one of those subjects that one can go on and on and on about. The more that I think about it the more that I’m convinced that there needs to be a special “educational” license to use media because the first step that any artist makes, going back all the way probably to the cave paintings in Lascaux, is to carefully copy the techniques and works of the masters. Every artist owes their livelihood, if they are fortunate enough to make a livelihood to some teacher who taught them their craft. How dare the artists demand payment from the teachers! There would be no artist collecting a fee if it weren’t for the teacher who taught him in the first place!

Sources:
clipart: Task Force Clip Art (c) 1995
image: Quinto Martin 2009
http://web.me.com/tatt2q/Q_Blog/Blog_Week2/Entries/2009/3/11_Copyright_Schooling.html

        

One of my students recently wrote about his experiences as an online curriculum development person who works for an online university that has a division that partners with traditional higher-ed institutions to help them bring graduate programs online. He noted that the upper management was all crazy about stuffing as much media into every course, then joked that they were much less energetic about paying for the media or what it takes to create it. That’s kind’a typical. Then he made the following comment about student usage of this media content:

Careful analysis of click-tracking data is showing that only around 50% of the students are actually watching the media elements integrated into the courses. We are trying to understand the reasons why students aren’t watching the media. Sometimes, it is clear that they are just not seeing the value in the media pieces. And admittedly, not all the media is uniformly excellent. However, we are also finding that our online students are incredibly task-focused. They do exactly what they need to do to complete the assignments and nothing more. As an online student myself, I guess I understand that one! (d. lungren)

My words of wisdom to this student:
Some very valuable analysis here. The quality level and relevance to subject being taught, or even just the perceived level of importance of the media really makes a difference. It’s that careful incorporation of content and delivery methods that can get easily lost in the pursuit of having all kinds of “shiny things” on one’s educational website. A lot of folks on the top of the institutional food-chain often confuse what works well for student learning versus what looks good in the PR video clip. Hell, look at any educational institution that presents itself as promoting “technology” and the first thing they’ll show you is there computer lab and shiny boxes. But ask them to show you how the tech is used across the curriculum and your likely to run into institutional double speak. In fact… I did a whole video on just this subject:

Again, thanks for the inspiration. Great job. jbb

Sources:

http://web.me.com/dlungren/Site_5/Musings/Entries/2009/2/14_thoughts_on_media_and_online_learning.html#

        

The following video was brought to my attention by a coworker as we both love watching stuff being presented at the TED conference. Alas, this video continues what I believe is a false cultural perception about the increasing general dehumanizing nature of technology. Admittedly it needs to be a bit bias, it’s a Nokia ad. But there is something that the ad misses about why these technologies succeed.

From the big screen to the small, the ad would have us believe that what was once shared (the big screen), was lost in the next two steps (TV & computers) but wonderfully recaptured in this latest iteration, specifically the N-Series Nokia devices. Um… bullshit.

The one constant across the fabled four screens is the shared nature of the experiences. Whereas the shared nature of the big screen is immediate, what worked for TV, the second screen, was talking about ones favorite TV series or episodes with fellow fans later. The success of the media itself was and is dependent on the number of eyeballs watching and the number of eyeballs watching is dependent, largely on the conversation surrounding the series. Whereas the shared experience is largely immediate with the big screen, it’s no less real for the small screen, just less immediate. The ad says that the experience is “Private.” Perhaps, but if the producers want to be successful it must, by nature, be communal on a massive scale.

So the third screen, the computer screen, bane of all that is good and human in the world; If all of your experiences of this screen is Excel spreadsheets and corporate email, God help you and we’re very sorry for you. But just like the TV experience, what is good and works is what connects us via this particular screen. IM (instant messaging), chat, social networking, webcams, email and gaming are all aspects that can connect us in a way that isn’t possible by any other means. With this third screen the connection is both in real time and “time-shifted.” And gaming, specifically listed in the ad, is successful because it is a shared experience, either in-real-time, or the same conversation had about favorite movies (1st screen) or TV shows (2nd screen). Contrary to popular belief and this ad, what works with gaming in particular and computers in general, is the common experience of the journey, struggle and triumph either as a clan or even as an observer. The storytelling and experience of the first screen, movies, is continued with this third screen in a powerful way that surpasses the passive experience of the first screen. Third screen, gaming and computers, FTW!

So, this fable fourth screen, the savior of all that is connected and good in the world, follows the same pattern: whatever works with the third screen applies to the fourth screen. The lie is that because it’s portable, where one can enjoy media in the presence of ones community then it must be more connected. Again, bullshit. It’s not the portability that makes it more connected, it’s the video conferencing, TM and IM, network gaming, apps that connect to all of the social networking. The portability makes it something that can be experienced away from the desktop or a set location, but it’s the activity, the shared experience, that makes it more connected, not the portability. The imagery that we’re all getting back together and reconnecting because of this fourth screen is largely fictional. We’ve always been connected but the potential and power is much much greater, and now, more portable.

The unspoken truth about gaming and technology is they can take connectedness to the next level, combining the shared experience with interactive participation and freedom from location or time limitations. Except for the fringe anti-social users, who would be anti-social regardless of the technology, the truth is that we are reaching an unprecedented level of meaningful human connection, not due to some portable device but because that is what humans do when the possibility of connectedness is realized. If your experience of technology is dehumanizing and disconnected perhaps you should examine your usage and not blame the technology but your own inability to look someone in the face and say, “Hi.” jbb

*Original source: http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2008/07/25/will-the-4th-screen-bring-us-together/

        

I love this stuff. I wanted to put a streaming viewer of the ongoing Endeavor mission on my blog and remembered that a video podcaster was doing this via Ustream. I’d used this source last Spring when I watched the landing of the Mars Phoenix lander. Funny that there was nothing available directly from NASA but that this video podcaster was taking the NASA stream and making it available using the Ustream.tv embed viewer. I love this stuff. jbb

        

Sometimes after all of the political stuff and musings on religion it takes a giant step in the direction of silliness for it all to make sense. Thank god for YouTube and CollegeHumor…

And just in case you were still taking your life too seriously…

Is it me, or does Times New Roman look a lot like Ryan Block formerly from Engadget?