VIDEO games

Uncategorized

All footage, images, sounds and music are original except certain sound and visual effects licensed with Apple iMovie and the list of Creative Commons media at the end of the page.





Critical Reflection

“Probably the hardest and most time-consuming video you will ever make will be your first one…” (Adam Brown)

I took those sage words seriously, but evidently not seriously enough, because man, this video took ages. Even though I started early, I still finished late. But now I know, the next one won’t be so difficult.


Starting

Choosing gamification as my topic, I had a rough idea about the aesthetic, sounds and themes I might use. I have a hard drive full of random loops and tracks that I’ve made over the years and never finished, developed or found a use for and this task, as well as my podcast, seemed like great opportunities to dig them out instead of relying on Creative Commons music. Apart from some music and vague intentions, I had no idea what to expect or even where to start.

So, I just started.

I began by filming and photographing random stuff that could potentially be relevant or effective when it came time to editing the video later on. I experimented with lights and laser pointers and macgyvered a camera rig by strapping my phone to my head with a baseball cap and a piece of a selfie stick.

imag0851

DIY Camera Rig, own photo



Challenges

As my research grew and I began writing sections of the presentation, I began experimenting with filming myself talking in different outfits and with different backgrounds. I soon realised that I am way too nervous and fidgety to be able sit still and feel natural while presenting to the camera and decided that I would use voice over narration instead.

I also thought it would be a good idea to get some editing practice in, so I downloaded Adobe Premier Pro and imported some footage. I am usually pretty good at working tech stuff out but after a few hours of trying to use Premier, I surrendered to my amateurism and opened iMovie, which turned out to be the most insanely easy thing to use.

screen-shot-2017-02-07-at-8-20-01-pm

iMovie Screenshot, own image


I had already learned from making my podcast that my voice is not particularly strong and that I should try to cover less of the topic and speak a lot slower. Still, for some reason, I struggle to speak naturally if I know I am being recorded. I stumble on easy words and some of my vowel sounds change.

Another challenge I faced while creating my video was the failure to research YouTube upload speeds. I was disapointed/shocked to find out that it takes up to seven hours to upload and process content to YouTube.


Fun Times

I admit, I had a ball making this video. I tried inject an element of fun into it to reflect the nature of gamification. I really enjoyed experimenting with different techniques and concepts as well as editing on iMovie and adding cheesy sounds and video effects.

I am pretty happy with my final result. I like the montage quality of the footage along with the lo-fi, DIY techniques that I used in lieu of proper equipment and know-how.

space

Fake Space Invaders, own image



Creative Commons

What would I do without Creative Commons? What a great idea sharing is. They could make it a bit easier to search video by keywords instead of having to browse through every single one, but beggars can’t be choosers and I found some great footage. Using Flickr was perfect for finding relevant images that I couldn’t film or didn’t have the skills to make on Photoshop.


Not The End

I highly doubt this the end of my filmmaking habit. Making this video and studying ALC708 has led me to fully embrace Web 2.0 and eschew those “outmoded notions of ‘receiver audiences’ and ‘elite producers’” along with David Gauntlett. (2011)

641 words

Reference

Gauntlett, D. 2011, ‘Media Studies 2.0’, Theory.org.uk, January, retrieved 8 January 2017, <http://www.theory.org.uk/mediastudies2.htm>




Video Credits and References

Creative Commons Media

IMAGES in order of appearance

Cat by indamage /CC BY 2.0

FIGURE 11.2 360-degree feedback by Jurgen Appel /CC BY 2.0

Actors on stage, 1973 by Seattle Municipal Archives /CC BY 2.0

Jury by bethtgirl /CC BY 2.0

Winchester by Herry Lawford /CC BY 2.0

Network by Jurgen Appelo /CC BY 2.0

Signage 55 speed limit by David Lofink /CC BY 2.0

DSC01904 by Jacob Munk-Stander /CC BY 2.0

talk to the experts by Mai Le /CC BY 2.0

Jay-Z Marquis by Beezwaxxx /CC BY 2.0

Brooklyn Bridge by Diego Torres Silvestre /CC BY 2.0

brooklyn museum after renovation by perke /CC BY 2.0

Museum by Saffron Waller /CC BY 2.0

Art Studio by Collin Anderson /CC BY 2.0

LOOK by Traci Lawson /CC BY 2.0

Gallery by anntinomy /CC BY 2.0

Boring by Thomas Fading /CC BY 2.0

Piano Stairs – Behind the scenes by KJ Vogelius /CC BY 2.0


VIDEO in order of appearance

Ethernet by Beachfront B-Roll: Free Stock Footage  /CC0

Abstract Bokeh Pan by brill.io /CC0

Hole by tommyvideo  /CC0

Skateboard Skate Park Tricks by Cover-Free-Footage /CC0

Air Show Exhibition of Two Yellow Biplanes by Vimeo Free Videos /CC0

Video Of Pilots Inside A Cockpit by NASA-Imagery /CC0

Blurry Footage of People Inside a Grocery Store by Coverr /CC0

Black And White Video Of Escalator Inside Shopping Mall by Cover-Free-Footage /CC0

Subway Walkers by Life of Vids /CC0 BY 1.0


SOUND in order of appearance

Game Start by plasterbrain /CC BY 3.0

Video Game – Die or Lose Life by Adam Wheeden /CC BY 3.0


SCHOLARLY SOURCES:

Kim, B. 2015, ‘The popularity of gamification in the mobile and social era’, Library Technology Reports, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 5-9

Dale, S. 2014, ‘Gamification: making work fun, or making fun of work?’ Business Information Review, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 82-90, DOI: 10.1177/0266382114538350

Faiella, F. and Ricciardi, M. 2015, ‘Gamification and learning: a review of issues and research’, Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 13-21

Leaning, M. 2015, ‘A study of the use of games and gamification to enhance studentengagement, experience and achievement on a theory-based courseof an undergraduate media degree’, Journal of Media Practice, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.155-70

Marczewski, A. 2012 in Faiella, F. and Ricciardi, M. 2015, ‘Gamification and learning: a review of issues and research’, Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 13-21

Robson, R., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J., McCarthy, I. and Pett, L. 2014, ‘Understanding gamification of consumer experiences’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 42, pp. 352-56


My Broader Online Activity

  • Recorded podcast, published on SoundCloud

  • Occasionally contributed to Twitter discussions

  • Blogged on WordPress

  • Updated my about.me profile

  • Made a LinkedIn profile

  • See Tiffit tally

PODCAST: Online Activism and the Standing Rock Water Protectors

blog

Transcript below.

In October and November 2016 over a million people on Facebook checked-in to the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in Cannonball, North Dakota, where activists opposed to the construction of an oil Pipeline had been camping since April. They were responding to a viral post that called for the mass check-in as a way to confuse police who were rumoured to be using Facebook to target activists at the camp (Levin and Woolf 2016). Many would consider this an example of ‘slacktivism’, especially as the rumour turned out to be untrue. However, the mass check-in drew substantial news coverage and brought international attention to the concerns of the Standing Rock water protectors . A month later, in early December, the US Army Corps of Engineers denied a crucial permit for the pipeline’s planned route under Lake Oahe (Wong 2016). Was this a case where ‘slacktivism’ won? What else can the standing rock protest tell us about online activism? Find out as I discuss how online tactics of the Water Protectors demonstrate the potentialities and limitations that online media offers to activists.

From the Zapatista’s pioneering use of the internet in the 90s to the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge a few years ago, the prevalence of online activism has increased and has prompted various responses about the potentialities and limitations it offers. Techno-utopians celebrate the emergence of new avenues for democratic participation and political expression as well as state and corporate accountability. In contrast, dystopian responses deride the vanity, ease and insufficiency of so-called ‘slacktivism’. Scholars like Mia Fischer take a much more sober view, affirming the potential of online activism to raise awareness, mobilise support and challenge dominant narratives while also acknowledging the obstacles and limitations it presents (2016).

Fischer points out the realities of the digital divide as well as the risks of being placed under state surveillance or censored by the corporations who own online media (p.762). The online campaign organised by the Standing Rock Water Protectors demonstrates the power of online media to drive social change. It also illustrates the risks of censorship and surveillance and reveals how the same tactics can be used by adversarial groups. Additionally, while the mass check-in on Facebook can be seen as ‘slacktivism’, it was also responsible for generating mainstream news coverage and further support for the Water Protectors.

Jenkins, 2006 and Castells, 2012, both assert that online media has profoundly increased opportunities for and the capacity of communities to challenge mass media and state power (in Fischer p.757). This was demonstrated by the Standing Rock water protectors who took advantage of online media to generate solidarity and material support, as well as mobilise on-the-ground participation and deploy counter narratives. Using various social media platforms, hashtags and their own website, the water protectors were able to explain their position and reasons for opposing the pipeline as well as provide themselves with a space for publishing news and circumventing a disinterested mainstream media (Sainato and Skojec 2016). When reports emerged that activists were armed and violent and that water canons had been used to put out fires they had started, the footage captured and broadcast online by activists revealed otherwise (IndigenousEnviroNet 2016). In exposing the militarised and heavy handed response from police and private security, the water protectors were able to deploy counter narratives against police and mainstream media reports and generate even more solidarity and support. Celebrities and politicians joined the protest and wrote letters to President Obama while hundreds of US Veterans braved the cold to lend their numbers in person (Chavez 2016, Wong 2016). These events not only bolstered the water protector’s efforts they also drew mass media attention to the wider issues. In a similar vein, the mass check-in on Facebook also generated mainstream media headlines.

Along with raising awareness and solidarity and mobilising on-the-ground supporters through online media, the water protectors have also so far raised over 3 million USD through various crowd funding platforms. The monetary and material support generated through GoFundMe, Fundrazr and Amazon Wishlist has enabled the water protectors to buy supplies and maintain their physical presence as well as pay for legal costs.

The water protectors have so far been successful in preventing the pipeline’s construction, however they’re online campaign has faced various challenges. As demonstrated by Mia Fischer, activists using online media are faced with the risks of surveillance and censorship (p.762). Although police at Standing rock denied using Facebook as a surveillance tool (Levin and Woolf 2016), the possibility of using past online behaviour against protesters remains along with prospect of being identified through other social media. The risk of being censored, or silenced by media owners is another limitation inherent to the use of online media by activists. Facebook has admitted to censoring some of the Standing Rock activist’s video streams based on community guidelines and have also been accused of suppressing Standing Rock related news on its Trends platform(Emerson 2016, Constine 2016). Alongside these challenges, the ubiquity of online media means that anyone, including corporations with vested interests and greater resources, can use the same online tactics to discredit activists. This is the case with the Standing Rock protest, where various pro-pipeline groups launched the Standing Rock Fact Checker website and were also accused of creating fake Twitter profiles, called ‘sock puppets’, to convey anti-protest messages (Meisel, 2016).

The Standing Rock water protector’s online campaign shows that using online media has massive potential for activists. It also illustrates some of the limitations and challenges fundamental to its use. For now the water protectors have won. However with an incoming president who has expressed enthusiasm for, and previously held interests in the Dakota Access Pipeline, the cybersphere looks set for another viral showdown.

MUSIC: Bart Schofield – Untitled 41

CHANTING SAMPLE: freesound – dnlburnett – Taxi protest distant XY (CC0 1.0)

THUMBNAIL IMAGE: #NoDAPL Graffiti by Exile on Ontario Street (CC BY 2.0)

REFERENCES

Chavez, D. 2016, ‘122 musicians sign letter to President Obama about Standing Rock protests’, A.V. Club, 2 December, retrieved 5 January 2017, <http://www.avclub.com/article/122-musicians-sign-letter-president-obama-about-st-246817

Constine, J. 2016, ‘Standing Rock pipeline protest was absent from Facebook Trends’, Tech Crunch, 31 October, retrieved 20 December 2016, <https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/31/broken-pipeline/>

Emerson, S. 2016, ‘Dakota Pipeline Protesters Claim Facebook Censored Video of Mass Arrest’, Motherboard, 14 September, retrieved 3 January 2017, <http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dakota-pipeline-protesters-claim-facebook-censored-video-of-mass-arrest>

Fischer, M. 2016, ‘#Free_CeCe: the material convergence of social media activism’, Feminist Media Studies, vol. 16, no. 5, pp.755-771, DOI 10.1080/14680777.2016.1140668

IndigenousEnviroNet, 2016, Video of water cannons being used on protectors in 26°F/-3°C at barricades at barricades in North Dakota 📷: @johnkdangers #NoDAPL, [Twitter] 20 November, retrieved 4 January 2017, <https://twitter.com/IENearth/status/800551370344513536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw>

Javier, C. 2016, ‘A timeline of the year of resistance at Standing Rock’, Fusion, 15 December 2016, retrieved 29 December 2016, <http://fusion.net/story/372387/timeline-nodapl-protests-standing-rock/>

Levin, S. and Woolf, N. 2016, ‘A million people ‘check in’ at Standing Rock on Facebook to support Dakota pipeline protesters’, The Guardian, 1 November, retrieved 11 December 2016, <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/31/north-dakota-access-pipeline-protest-mass-facebook-check-in>

Meisel, D. 2016, Big Oil is astroturfing pro-DAPL tweets, like they did for KXL. All these accounts with 0 followers tweeted in sync: [Twitter] 13 September, retrieved 5 January 2017, <https://twitter.com/duncanwrites/status/775842719809822720>

Sainato, M. and Skojec, C. 2016, ‘CNN, Mainstream TV News Continues Ignoring Dakota Access Pipeline’, Observer, 22 November, retrieved 4 January 2017, <http://observer.com/2016/11/cnn-mainstream-tv-news-continues-ignoring-dakota-access-pipeline/>

Wong, J. 2016, ‘Dakota Access pipeline: US denies key permit, a win for Standing Rock protesters’, The Guardian, 5 December, retrieved 5 December 2016, <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/04/dakota-access-pipeline-permit-denied-standing-rock>

RELEVANT LINKS

NoDAPL Facebook Group

#NoDAPL Twitter feed

Veterans For Standing Rock Facebook

Standing Rock Fact Checker

Me, Myself and Social Media

blog, Uncategorized
Social Media 01

Social Media 01Rosaura Ochoa, CC BY 2.0


In a 2009 interview, Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg declared that, “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity” (in Kirkpatrick 2010, p.10). According to this stance, many of us should probably be considered morally corrupt, duplicitous and deceitful. Zuckerberg’s attitude seems to have softened since then, however his original statement reflects common assumptions about internet users as “simply representing or expressing their identities through profiles and interaction” (Cover 2014, p.58). It is also characteristic of an approach to identity in general that relies on a fixed and single, true identity. Upon reflection of my online activity, the above themes seem obsolete. A more practical way of approaching how I behave online is by viewing identity as a “moving target” (Smith and Watson 2014, p.72). Drawing from post-modern ideas that reject an essential self, my online identity can be viewed as prismatic and constructed through performance and the way I present myself depending on context and purpose.

Throughout the twentieth century scholars developed approaches to identity that questioned traditional conceptions of identity. Irvine Goffman put forth the idea that there is no essential self and that an individual “performs identity through both of the forms of intentional and unintentional expression” (Cover 2016, p.11). Similarly, Judith Butler describes how identity is an illusion constituted and reinforced by repetition of current discourses or norms (which can be challenged), and fluid depending upon context and time (Cover 2016, p.7).

Extending the above to my participation in online spaces, the contexts and purposes for these activities vary and, as such, so does my self-presentation. The multiple identities I present across my social media accounts are consistent with observations made by dana boyd in her study of adolescents’ use of social media. Boyd discovered a common theme in which users decide to represent themselves “in different ways on different sites with the expectation of different audiences and different norms” (2014, p.38). The content I share, the language I use and the tastes I reveal are dependant upon my purposes and who I am targeting my profile towards.

I have six different profiles that I maintain on various social media which are strategically targeted towards a specific audience for a specific purpose.


bbf56377fa9af164fb1aa75933abba5a

5 Barts, main social media profile pics. Images by Bart Schofield 2010-2016


I have Facebook for social networking with friends and family. My privacy is fairly locked down and I purposefully keep my friends list exclusive to people I already have a connection with offline. In this space, I perform an informal and personal version of my identity by sharing travel pics, humorous memes, articles and music videos. My language is colloquial, sometimes profane and my opinions are rarely held back.

I use LinkedIn for professional networking and employment. It is a relatively static profile that outlines my professional experience and links to my main Twitter and my WordPress for those interested in connecting with me. The identity presented here is strictly professional and formal due to the audiences I am targeting who expect a cohesive and professional identity and are not interested a funny meme or a picture of me drunk in Paris.

My WordPress is used for blogging and my writing portfolio. The identity presented here shifts between professional in my portfolio sections and informal in my blog. This is to show interested audiences that I am capable of a variety of formal and informal writing styles.

My main Twitter is for study, wider social networking and news. The identity I perform in this context is informal, however, not as colloquial and less focused on sharing personal information or tastes as my Facebook account. The Tweets embedded below demonstrate how I have used my Twitter in an attempt to engage with ALC themes and try to spark discussion.




I also have a pseudonymous Twitter account which I use to make acerbic observations and post opinions that inevitably infuriate alt-right trolls. I am aware that this activity may be seen as transgressional, which is why this account is held under a pseudonym. The version of my identity here is one that is adversarial, fiery and smart-alecky.

Instagram is for keeping a visual diary and showing some of my art portfolio. The images I post are of a lowbrow, sometimes controversial nature. My Instagram account is kept pseudonymous and seperate to each of my other social media profiles because I am trying to build an organic following without relying on already established networks. This version of my identity is informal, irreverent and creative.

The activity outlined above demonstrates my awareness of how I perform various versions of my identity in online spaces. It also reveals how identity formation is an ongoing process that allows and requires individuals to constantly modify, evolve or switch between identities depending upon purpose. Excluding my pseudonymous Instagram and Twitter accounts, the identities I present across my social media are generally cohesive and only slightly modified for context and purpose.

My pseudonymous accounts allow me a space to experiment and express myself free of scrutiny from my more conservative networks. Both dana boyd and 4Chan founder, Christopher Poole describe how people use online anonymity and pseudonymity to enable creativity, freedom of expression and identity exploration without being shackled to mistakes, previous attitudes or the expectations of other people (boyd 2014, p.43; Hill, 2011).




In the offline world I am a different person depending upon the context and purpose and the same goes for my online activity. I would never invite my mother to a boozy night out with a bunch of mates (sorry, Mum!) and I would never invite a potential employer around for Christmas lunch. I wouldn’t attend an important conference wearing the singlet and shorts I have on right now and I wouldn’t blast an expletive laden gangsta rap track in the office of the non-profit I volunteer with. Humans have diverse lives and complex personalities, to be confined to a single online identity would be contrary to how I live and express myself day-to-day.


 

screen-shot-2016-12-13-at-4-23-55-pm

Social Media Timeline, 2016, made with Canva

 


(1002 words)


References:

boyd, d. 2014, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Cover, R. 2014 ‘Becoming and Belonging: Performativity, Subjectivity, and the Cultural Purpose of Social Networking’ in Poletti, A. and Rak, J. (eds.) 2014, Identity Technologies: Constructing the Self Online, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 55-69.

Cover, R. 2016, Digital Identities: Creating and Communicating the Online Self, Academic Press, London.

Hill, K. 2011 ‘Chris Poole, The Anti-Mark Zuckerberg, Elegantly Campaigns For Freedom of Identity on the Web’ in Forbes, 20 October, retrieved 4 December 2016, <http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/10/20/chris-poole-the-anti-mark-zuckerberg-elegantly-campaigns-for-freedom-of-identity-on-the-web/#2a81683c6baf>.

Kirkpatrick, D. 2010, The Facebook Effect, Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, New York.

Smith, S. and Watson, J. 2014 ‘Virtually Me: A Toolbox about Online Self-Presentation’ in Poletti, A. and Rak, J. (eds.) 2014, Identity Technologies: Constructing the Self Online, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 70-96.



Broader Online Activity

  1. Blog about Black Mirror and gamification
  2. Attempts at Twitter engagement and ALC themes
  3. See Tiffit tally

‘Fifteen Million Merits’, Gamification and Online Identity

blog

The first time I watched Black Mirror: Fifteen Million Merits, I was left shaking and speechless for a few minutes. So bleak and so brutal!

I watched it again last night for my blogging unit, ALC708, at Deakin and it hasn’t lost any of its impact. I’ve seen all the other episodes of Black Mirror, but this one probably affected me the most because it’s just so plausible. I can definitely see society being complacent enough to let that type of world become reality.

I think Fifteen Million Merits raises some interesting and ominous ideas about the possible consequences of some aspects of digital technology that I have recently started to explore for ALC708. These are the gamification of life and online identities.

FMM depicts an extreme version of gamification gone-wrong and a society where online identities have eclipsed our analogue selves. In this society, all of your waking time is spent in front of screens. You earn “merits” as you cycle to power the world and the screens around you and you spend these “merits” on non-tangible items for your avatar while watching asinine, obnoxious and rapey reality shows. You are forced to watch adverts, charged “merits” for skipping them and tortured with an increasingly piercing squeal for closing or covering your eyes.

The gamification of life in FMM has gone too far. It has been twisted, used to enslave and pitted everyone against each other.  Where the emerging concept of gamification can be an effective tool for motivation and productivity, in FMM it has become a diversion and a distraction from the monotony of cycling nowhere and watching crap.

screen-shot-2016-11-16-at-9-54-00-pm

Scene from Black Mirror: Fifteen Million Merits , 2011. Author’s Screenshot.

The same can be said about the expression of online identity in FMM. The near-total replacement of analogue self-expression with not-even-very-good-avatars called Dopples has seemingly left this world’s inhabitants devoid of meaningful relationships. Any that do form are swiftly crushed by FMM’s reality. In FMM online identities have nearly taken over completely, to the detriment of humanity.

Anyway, in regard to the gamification of life, I’ve started using this app called Habitica. It’s basically a fun to-do list that gamifies your life by offering rewards and punishments for completing or not completing tasks, maintaining good habits and achieving set goals. You earn experience points as well as diamonds and gold and silver coins which can be used to purchase weapons and armour for your avatar. You can also unlock quests but I have no idea about these as I’m not that far along yet. I guess we’ll see whether I cultivate more productive habits or (spoiler alert!) wind up holding a shard of glass to my throat and dropping truth bombs.

screenshot_2016-11-16-16-49-16

Habitica Avatar and Profile Bar, HabitRPG, Inc., 2015. Author’s Screenshot.

References:

‘Fifteen Million Merits’ Black Mirror, season 1, episode 2, Channel 4, 11 December, 2011. Informit EduTV, http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?qurl=http://edutv.informit.com.au/watch-screen.php?videoID=462340.