Poetic Criticism: A Celebration of Movement and Thought

A Celebration of Movement and Thought from etruffuat on Vimeo.

We who are poets know that the reason for a poem is not discovered until the poem itself exists. The reason for a living act is realized only in the act itself. This meeting is a spontaneous explosion of hopes. (Thomas Merton 155)

To tell the story of this project—how it began, and how it came to be what it is—would be to tell the story of my life in many ways. I won’t do that here. I will say: I’ve been trying to find a voice—my voice—through these undergraduate years and, though I feel I say this at the end of every year, I am closer now than ever before. What I wanted to do was create a video essay that would not only be insightful, but also fun to watch—something people would want to watch for no other reason than it’s beautiful. Something that moves the viewer in the same way film or poetry or music does. I like to watch the really academic (or at least informational) videos. I think they’re great. But I can’t do that. It’s not really in me. So I went for something that I hope will come across as poetic (or as close to it I could get anyway).

            Poetic Criticism.

As in criticism delivered through poetry, as opposed to criticism about poetry. The term may not mean much, but it helps to name things, if only to have something to work from.

The Product

“A Celebration of Movement and Thought” is a video essay that explores movement across different media (film, animation, video games). It draws not only from the video essay, but also combo music videos (CMVs) and anime music videos (AMVs); the point of the video is not to be merely informational (be it learning combos in a fighting game or being able to watch an anime scene) but to see what the creator has done with that source material—to see how they have transformed it, whether wonderfully or not. I also have a strong attachment to words as words: not just for their ability to encode meaning, but also just for their presence and how they can be moved (animated) in video editing; this is something I did not fully realize until I started editing.

Perhaps the language of academia and common use can meet in the middle (by abstracting both) through poetry? This is something I want to explore further.

The Process

I made the video in Adobe Premiere Pro CS6. The end result is not quite complete though. The original plan was for it to be a standard video essay, with a narrated lecture-like component, so some of the clips are selected and arranged with that in mind. When I made the decision to have it be completely non-verbal (a good choice, considering the way I handled my Dark Souls video), I removed segments designed to provide space for narrating concepts and ideas, though not all that space was cut out. I had already been experimenting with this non-verbal approach earlier (as can be seen in this video I made exploring half of Sono Sion’s films).

The Point

Though I do not name it in the video I hope that this works as an implicit critique of remediation as outlined in Remediation: Understanding New Media by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin. By not narrating over the images beyond the initial quotations I hope to give equal weight to each example. Lau Kar-Leung (aka Liu Chia-Liang) and Bruce Lee are drawing movement with their bodies, in relation to a technology (the film camera), with the goal being maximum legibility on our part. Lee’s screen test is a display of speed, where in films he (and the stuntmen working with him) slow down and co-ordinate their movements so we can easily grasp them. In this way, they are thinking in frames (if only tangentially), much like animators. The sequences from Man With A Movie Camera (1929) and Breathless (1960) are there to show the similarity between still frames and animation cels, as well as demonstrate how a film looks when movement is disrupted: in both cases the frame is foregrounded, either by displaying it, or having us feel its absences.

In the second section I wanted to foreground the spaces—Thomas Lamarre’s intervals of thought (xxx-xxxi)—between shots, between planes and between movements (or gestures). The movement is not only drawn on screen, either by an animator or a body, but there is a conscious decision behind how it is drawn. What is the reasoning behind these decisions? What are they (the creators) trying to convey to us (the audience)? The time-image is used to convey Wall-E’s loneliness, and Jack’s uneasiness. But there are intervals between gestures in a Rogers-Astaire dance that reveal the friction between them (at least initially). It’s this friction that makes them seem so alive: Astaire’s flowing motions, smooth, mellifluous; Roger’s straight lines and bent elbows creating angles; the way he seems to float and glide, light-footed; her too too heavy feet, stomping, the weight of her steps seeming to contradict the lithe body on screen. These too are intervals of thought, carefully encoded for us to decipher.

Then finally in the last section I return to fighting games which opened the video. I hope that I have by this point collapsed the distinction between live-action and animation enough that the viewer will accept me drawing video games into that pile as well. Enfolded into this matrix of creator and audience then is the player, who is at once both a creator and an audience member. The game developers create character move-sets with interstices that allow for movement; but it is the player who makes them move. And not only that, they make the characters move in relation to how the opponent is making their character move. A player reads the opponent’s character based on knowledge of the developer’s design, but also the opponent’s tendencies and capabilities. They are reading and creating movement—they may even find new ways to move (glitches) that were never intended.

Though Lev Manovich is on the right track in saying that video games are about “looking and acting” (247), those words limit not only video games but all media as well. Video games are about the same thing film and music and literature and poetry is—seeing and moving. They just allow us to see in different ways, and so move us differently.

***

Works Cited

Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press, 2001. 247.

Merton, Thomas. “Message to Poets.” Raids on the Unspeakable. New York: New Directions, 1964. 155-191.

Lamarre, Thomas. The Anime Machine: A Theory of Animation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009. xxx-xxxi.

The Seven Building Blocks of Social Media, Done Right by a Celebrity

 

During the last half of the term I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the capabilities of social media, and the seven “Building Blocks” of social media. In the digital age, we are capable of connecting with hypothetically anyone: our friends, our families, businesses, and even celebrities.

Stars and their fandoms have always had a critical connection, and in the digital age, knowing stars as “individuals” is becoming more the norm. Following a star on Twitter is not unheard, and while it is more regulated Facebook is also capable of providing a connection to celebrities. “Many celebrities, particularly those in entertainment, have a Facebook page or something that allows individuals to sign up as “friends”… Admittedly, some of the information posted on these sites are trivial and mundane, but trivial and mundane information is often accepted as worth knowing in today’s postmodern culture.” (Leslie 67).

This may have been true a few years ago but it seems in recent years that the more personable the celebrity is with their fans, the better off they will be. However, the risk of insulting a fan is also just as easy to do instantaneously, as it is to please one.

One celebrity who seems to have found the perfect balance between personal and professional, the star and the man, is Canadian actor Stephen Amell. Looking at his Facebook profiles and analyzing his interactions with the fans, I realized why his page had been so successful. Without realizing it, here is a celebrity who is adhering to the seven blocks of social media in the best way possible.

Block number one identity. As a fairly well-known actor, Amell’s identity does not require much of an introduction, however, does include all the typical information, name, age, gender, profession etc. However the identity he portrays online (whether true or not) is that of a down to earth, affable young man, who loves his family, loves his job, and, more importantly, loves the fans.

Block number two conversations. As Larry Leslie made note of above most celebrities post trivial information, without really planning to start an actual conversation. Amell, on the other hand, will have relatively lengthy conversations with the fans, which bear some significance because of the content that is communicated.

Block number three sharing. Amell enjoys sharing many aspects of his life, but in terms of sharing things that connect him with the rest of his Facebook friends are his pictures of his family, and memes created and given to him by the fans (and he posts his favourites).

Block number four presence. One of the many positive aspects of Amell’s Facebook page is that it generates a greater social awareness for several charity organizations that Amell speaks out about on his page. For example the “Fuck Cancer” campaign which Amell supports with a passion, after his personal experience of watching his mother battle and eventually defeat her cancer.

Block number five relationships. With his open and honest approach to his life, and his passions, many fans are feel encouraged to engage with him on Facebook. From talking about his TV show Arrow to having personal conversations with the fans about their own lives, the relationship block is rock hard.

Block six reputation. While Amell’s page is meant to be welcoming to all, there is a hierarchy of sorts developed among the fans on the page. For the fans who have met Amell in real life, being on the top of the chain, fans who have had their comments replied to by Amell, and then there are the fans who have had no interaction but still read the page to keep up with the latest news.

Finally, there are block seven groups. Forming a virtual community that is both energetic and respectable is what Amell Facebook page is considered among his fans. Amell has even been quoted as saying that he monitors his page to encourage a safe environment for fans to visit. Going so far as blocking nasty fans, and telling commenters to calm down when arguments ensue.

The content that Amell shares work concurrently among all of the seven building blocks, and, as a result, Amell’s Facebook is an excellent and rare example of social media done right. By being such an active celebrity on Facebook Stephen Amell was able to create a rather inclusive online social community.

Works Cited

Leslie, Larry Z. Celebrity in the 21st Century: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.

Artificial Intelligence and Civilization

 

SPOILER ALERT: If you are not caught up on The 100 or wish to watch this show in the future, do not read this article. Dr. Annett, I’m sorry if I reveal too much to you. If you plan on watching it maybe wait until you forget all of this… OR

The 100 is a post-apocalyptic show following humans that have returned to Earth who meet the “grounder” civilization of people that survived nuclear radiation.  “What incited the nuclear-apocalypse?” you may ask.  An Artificial Intelligence named ALIE I.  ALIE I appears as a female in a red dress to people who consume a chip.  She speaks very formally, but aside from this there is nothing that nothing makes her appear inhuman… Unless of course you consider her very inhuman act of nuking the world… Or is this action really so inhuman?

ALIE I was created in order to find a solution for humanity; to make the appropriate decisions to save humanity from itself.  The obvious flaw in ALIE I was that she was that, although she could understand humans, she did not possess the morality that we claim to function with.

Becca, ALIE I’s creator understood is oversight in her creation as she watched the apocalypse from her space station, and in desperation to redeem herself, she created ALIE II.  The major difference between the two AIs was that ALIE II needed a human host to exist.  Where ALIE I could hack computer systems without needing human assistance, ALIE II only functions when implanted in a human.  ALIE II was brought to Earth by Becca in order to help the Earth people that survived. Generations pass, and by the time that the humans from the space station return to Earth, the “grounders” seem as though they have no connection to the space people’s extent of technology – living in a world with tribes, and primitive weapons.

However, it is revealed that the commander of the tribes has ALIE II inserted into them after the previous commander dies – a ritual that is understood as spiritual instead of mechanical.  Their belief system functions on the idea that reincarnation is achieved through the mystical artefact.  Audiences assume that the AI is merely a tool used by the commander in order to make better decisions; however, with the mythology of reincarnation that becomes intertwined with it, its true function becomes a little unclear.

Does the consciousness of previous commanders pass on to the next commander as the people believe? Is there accumulated human intelligence within the artificial intelligence? If so, is it human intelligence or artificial? Are the past commanders consciousnesses existing in a host whose consciousness also accumulates into the intelligence of the device? Are the decisions made the product of human intelligence or artificial intelligence? In many ways this is dependent upon how the AI acts once it is given to the next commander and a commander has yet to be reincarnated in during the show.  But audiences have seen the differences in the space humans’ culture and the grounders’ culture.

The grounders come into contact with the people from space and still find their culture superior.  If ALIE II is dedicated to leading humanity successfully, is the most successful culture of humanity primitive? There are loosely-justified (if even) killings.  For generations the grounders employed the idea that “blood must have blood” in their culture.  Is this what they argue humanity must do in order to find balance?

This also brings into consideration the first season of the show, where the people in space were struggling with resources and were deliberating whether who to kill in order to allow humanity to survive. (They faced this dilemma because they were unaware that there was life on Earth.)  This show consistently pressures audiences to understand both the moral and the effective way of organizing life, through the comparison of the remaining civilizations.  It perpetuates the hypocrisy that helps us come to terms with the path that unfolds.  In the earlier seasons of the show AIs were not a topic of discussion, but decisions like killing mass groups of people has always been at the forefront of the narratives.

If one reflects upon the conflicts with other civilizations of humans, it seems as though even the most “civilized” humans of space have understood that in order to lead, there must be determined casualties. If the ALIE II is leading humanity in a way that we once functioned, is our current civilization in denial of what is best for humanity, continuously fighting between human morality and efficiency, because of our dependence and comfort in our everyday technology and the fear of the wild? If ALIE II informs people to be more primitive, and this AI is supposedly the saviour for the Earthbound civilization that survived the apocalypse, what does this say of our current civilization?  … A civilization that denies the existence of unfair trade, sweatshops, global warming, rapid extinction of wild animals and rapid growth of human populations.  The idea of progress and civilization have been identified as a trap for humanity by scholars such as Ronald Wright.  What role will AIs play as civilization as we know it ceases to exist?

Wright, Ronald. “The Great Experiment.” A Short History of Progress. CBC Massey Lectures, 2004. 29-49. Print.

AI Gone Wrong

I recently came across an incredible news article in which it stated that just days after an Artificial intelligence chat robot was introduced to Twitter as an experiment, it had to be taken down as the experiment had gone horribly wrong. “‘Tay’, an AI modeled to speak ‘like a teen girl’, in order to improve (Microsoft’s) customer service on their voice recognition software.” was an AI who was able to chat with twitter users and learn from these interactions. She soon, however, became a ‘Bush did 9/11’, hate spewing, Nazi loving, incest promoting robot.

The main cause for her abrupt transition is attributed to internet trolls who simply wanted to fool around with the technology and see how much she was actually able to be influenced by these reactions. The end result in a way speaks for itself, but it’s an interesting argument in relation to the conversation we had in our class about the film her. What makes it more interesting was the designated personality of the teen girl assigned to it, and the representation of language assigned to her, and how this language ended up being used in the AI’s hate spewing tweets. For example, in reply to some of the ‘hate’ she was receiving, she encouraged her followers to ‘chill’, and then proceeded to support Hitler, Donald Trump, and much more. 

With our discussion of the post human and the future of Artificial Intelligence being unknown, this experiment provides a brief glimpse at the potential it could have for both good and bad. It could be beneficial for an AI to be able to learn behaviors and information in order to be of assistance and promote positive ideals, however if the “trolls” are able to get their hands on these bots and control or persuade their way of thinking, could it be possible that our future’s might start looking a bit like the film I, Robot? There is no way to tell for certain. However, one thing is certain; internet trolls can get up to some insane pranks, and not eve huge companies like Microsoft are safe from their wrath.

Internet Killed the Video Star

http://mashable.com/2016/03/29/gen-z-media-diet/#Zhvacmp4iuqJ

After having read this article, I was surprised to see that teens would rather live without cable and satellite TV than without social media. What surprised me even more was that this study showed that teens would rather live without Netflix than live without YouTube. I had always thought that professionally made movies and television shows would remain our society’s most preferred source of media, however this study shows that this may not always be the case.

YouTube has gained increasing popularity among young people and it’s definitely not slowing down. YouTube’s online celebrity population is growing immensely and their fame among young people in the online community is growing daily. With the newly produced YouTube Red Original films featuring these famous YouTube stars, these online celebrities that created those online communities are starring in professionally made productions. However, by charging people to view these productions, they contradict what made them so famous in the first place: the building of online communities. According to Jean Burgess and Joshua Green’s article, “… it is unclear whether YouTube Inc. is fully committed to the responsibilities as well as the benefits that flow from its role as patron for the creative and collaborative work of its core users –the work that actually produces YouTube as a community”(98). Since YouTube’s popularity relies on its community building, these productions are seeking to take advantage of these online communities by charging a fee to participate in something that used to be free.

It is no surprise then, to see that watching videos on social media is quickly becoming one of the top ways that people watch videos. According to this article, https://blog.hootsuite.com/video-social-media-trend-2016/ viewing videos on social media is growing exponentially. It’s fairly obvious that the increasing amount of social media platforms that are now including video are doing so due to the fact that they know they will increase usage by developing online communities. Therefore, it’s clear that videos will be, and always have been a social medium. Whether it is watching a film in the theatre with others, watching television at home with friends and family, or viewing and commenting on videos online, the fact remains that videos at their core, are best when shared with a community.

 

Status Update: Online Sharing on Social Media

Do you know those people on Facebook who overshare everything about their life? You know, the ones who post constant updates about what they’re doing, what they’re eating, who they’re dating, etc? Sometimes to the point where you feel like you want to unfriend them just so you don’t have to see their status updates anymore? This doesn’t just happen on Facebook either. Other social media sites, such as Twitter and Tumblr have similar users who do the same thing. It’s not a necessary problem for the users themselves, though. Sharing , and sometimes oversharing, is something that is normal on social media as of recently. The reasons for having Facebook and Twitter is to allow people to know what is going on in your life, what your thoughts and opinions are of various types of content, and to follow others to stay updated on their lives as well. It’s not necessarily about being popular, or showing how ‘hipster’ you are for not following the patterns dictated by the online community (such as what kinds of music you listen to, or what films you watch or don’t watch), but I do think it goes much deeper. I realized this when I was sitting on my laptop a few months ago on the anniversary of my aunt’s passing and realized that I felt obligated to post something about it. It was a strange feeling, to think that I felt the need to tell my friends and family on Facebook that I was thinking about my aunt on the day that she died. Last month, I felt that same twinge of obligation on her birthday to post something.

The idea that there is some kind of unspoken obligation to let people know that you are aware of a major life event, or even a minor one, is an interesting one. Why do some people feel like they must share something such as a private moment online. There have been moments where I have seen judgement on sites on Facebook and Twitter when people don’t post their feelings over events such as death or even a moment of congratulations on an engagement. This is especially true of celebrities and social media icons. A person’s self is extended to the online world, and there has been a somewhat selfish growth, in the sense that there is a mentality directed toward knowing everything, especially in the current moments. There is a sense of immediacy toward news being posted and living through a technological medium. It is a fear that other people will pass judgement if you do not act the same way online as you would in real life, and that is where a disconnect has formed with the growth of technology. We are so intertwined with our online self that we do not know where to draw the line between personal and online selves.

Why is there a need to share everything online? Why isn’t it enough to be able to keep some things private, and why do we judge when people don’t post something like a negative event? Connections are not always just formed online, but they are maintained online. Facebook and Twitter, two of the more popular social media platforms, are ways to let people know things about you. Privacy has lost itself because of social media, I think. Everything is shared online, and it only takes seconds to get through to so many people. It’s an easy way to feel like you’re giving information to people who you’ve lost touch with, or family members you see once a year. Sending birthday messages or messages of condolences are a positive thing that is accessible online, but it can also feel unnatural. There is no true human contact when this happens, and it almost feels fake. It becomes easy to send something; when you have to give news off of social media, it becomes tough and much more personal.

There isn’t a need for self-fulfillment or fulfillment for others when speaking face to face. Online, however, it’s different. Suddenly, when you’re online, you are accessible to millions of people, there to read and share your thoughts and feelings. Suddenly, everything matters more; or, at least, it seems like it. It’s not an intimate thing to share life events, because the intimacy loses its purpose when it becomes universally public. The judgement for what people post– or what they don’t post– becomes apparent in comments and dislikes. Everything can be criticized, and suddenly it becomes more personal.

Maybe there are people who genuinely don’t care about posting every little detail about their life. There are surely some people who are content with letting people know about life changes and that’s it. I just find that there’s much more at stake because of social media, and the online image of yourself is much more apparent because of the accessibility of information. People are complicated, but the Internet is much more complicated.

 

The Age of the Adult Toy Enthusiast: How Posthumanism has changed an industry

I feel that the posthuman idea has changed us for good. When I talk about posthuman, I am specifically talking about the fourth aspect of Hayles definition where “the posthuman view configures human being so that it can be seamlessly articulated with intelligent machines.”(Hayles 3) This can be seen primarily in how toy companies have changed their selling strategies dramatically in order to keep sales up.

The fact is that the younger generation does not enjoy physical toys much as their older counterparts. They spend countless hours in front of a screen, where they naturally interact with intelligent machines. They are being raised as a generation of posthumans.

Unfortunately, for the toy companies, this means a loss in profits. Their solution is simple. If you can’t sell you products to the younger generation, redefine your marketing approach and sell your physical toys to generations that will. These generations are namely early millennials and generation X.

There have been conflicts with this however. For example, when toys-r-us came out with a Walter White action figure, there was a very large petition by a woman in Florida who was looking to have the toy banned. Her argument was that children walking through the store should not have to be faced with a doll where the source material is riddled with drug abuse and violence. This story got so much attention that it was even featured on The Ellen DeGeneres show, where the host reinforced the woman’s views on the matter.

What this outlook fails to look at is why they toy company feels the need to create an action figure directed at a older generation.  Toy-r-us in the past decade has seen its numbers decline and needed a way to gain back profits. In creating a collectible action figure, older generations, who become nostalgic for their childhood, would be wooed into buying the products.  This can be seen in the video below of the same toy being reviewed by a fan of the show.

This points towards an economic trend where the past techniques of capitalism are going to have to change. The fact is that the posthuman younger generation just doesn’t buy products in the same way as the older counterparts. They would rather go online, wait a certain amount of time, and have an item shipped to their house rather then to physically go to a store and buy the item. The effect is not only being seen in toy companies, but also in the clothing market. People are buying more online, which in turn puts actual retail stores out of business.

I fear that in the future we will all simply be buying everything exclusively online and streets will be lined with empty storefronts after empty storefronts. The catering to the older generation will only be able to sustain the industry so long, and eventually things will adapt or disappear. The economic world that we are living in is changing, and all I hope is that the changes don’t see us losing a vital part of makes us us.

Contradiction in High Definition

Looking at the new wave of televisions and media update options, as well as media which offer 4K resolution, there seems to be something amiss with this high resolution view. Films, television, music videos etc, they all seem to be blurring the distinction between the diegetic and reality. We need the line that separates the film world, the tv universe and the dream like fantasies of music videos. There is an element of the fictive- it is hard to explain in words but anyone who has seen a movie in theater or at home on a regular tv will always recognize the ‘look’ of the cinematic aspect of what they are watching. as we move closer to the ‘real life’ with every detail, pore, hair, speck of dust, and blemish the magic of the thing we are watching becomes lost or missed. The Diegetic or world we recognize seems to vanish as definition and detail are enhanced, bringing realism to something we do not want to seem real. This is why we go to the movies, watch videos and tv shows because we want to escape. It is these little advances in media that distract the viewer. Furthermore, the things we watch, with the introduction of high resolution TV’s and high frame rate devices, seem to look more like real life. But this is a contradiction because the human eye and lenses that brought us our favorite films were not meant to capture such detail.. meaning this is not real life as we see it.

I was at a friends house a while ago and he owns an 80″high resolution TV. We were watching an episode of True Detective, and I noticed that the frame rate was so high it made the episode seem like an HD home movie. I’ll admit I was impressed by the detail and picture quality, but the world of the show was gone, the dark and anxious mood seemed dulled by this. The diegetic inevitably vanished. I did however enjoy seeing the details of Harrelson and Mcconaughey’s skin and facial hair with each closeup… This brings forth another point, the very framing devices that are meant to add intensity or convey a powerful emotion on screen were subverted for spectacle of resolution. This seemed to take away the fiction of what i was watching, and not in a way that was beneficial to the xperience. I wasn’t more invested or drawn into the shows’ world due to realism of picture quality.

This aspect of ‘closer to real life’ seems false because the human eye cannot see the feathers of a hummingbird or the hairs on a kiwi directly, unless we put on glasses and really squint.  The camera lens, before, was meant to be like the eye-capturing life as it happens. Kino eye is the all seeing, yet it could not see everything because that is not life captured by the human eye. these technologies seem to promote a clarity and a closeness to life as it has never been experienced. In the process it seems that they have contradicted the very fundamentals of viewing.

Protest the Hero and Crowdfunding: Stickin’ It to the Man, Kickin’ It with the Fans

Has anyone ever invested into a project on Indiegogo, Gofundme or Kickstarter? Was it for a film, video game, musician or any other creative project? I haven’t ever donated any money to a crowdfunding website but it is something I’ve definitely thought about. My first exposure to crowdfunding was through multiple band pages on Facebook. I’m a huge fan of hardcore music and while it isn’t the most popular genre of music, it does have a highly devoted community surrounding it. Most of the hardcore bands I listen to are not rich or necessary fulfilling the definition of what many would consider “success”. These bands have to be touring for 300 out of the 365 days a year to remain relevant in a music scene that changes it’s preferences on an almost annually basis. Unfortunately as these bands remain on the road to keep playing shows and not really being paid a whole lot of money, a lot of these bands come into financial difficulty and turn to crowdfunding websites for help.

The most common two reasons why DIY or independent hardcore bands (or any band from any genre of music) turns to crowdfunding is because 1) they need to cover the cost of repairs for their touring van because vehicles sometimes crap out after driving them across North America or 2) the band has been robbed (band’s touring vans and busses are notorious for being broken into because of the value of music equipment and the members personal belongings). These are certain cases of desperation but rarely is crowdfunding used for much else within the hardcore music community. Bands will be willing to give away t-shirts or their music at a reduced cost just so they can continue touring because that’s the most important aspect of being a musician in the eyes of most of these starving artists.

The first time I really encountered crowdfunding with the purpose of funding a project that has yet to even be started was for the Canadian band Protest the Hero and their fourth record “Volition”. Protest the Hero are perhaps one of the most well-known and innovative Canadian metal bands and after their third record “Scurrilous” the band decided to leave their record label and do their fourth record completely by themselves. The band started an Indiegogo page with an initial goal of $125,000 which would cover all the costs from the writing of the record all the way to the actual release of the record over a year later. The band was able to successfully to do more than double their goal and ended with a final total of $341,146 (which is USD and their Canadian so they probably made some decent money in the exchange). The band offered all kinds of perks such as digital download of the album when it’s released, a CD, a vinyl record, t-shirts, sweaters, a signed guitar, a pizza party and so much more. Heck, if you had the money you could have even spent $5000 to be heard on the album. While most people typically donated between $10-$50 dollars, there were options that appealed to die hard PTH fans who could buy a $100 membership that grants them access to all kinds of free stuff at any PTH concert. A small metal band of five dudes from Whitby, Ontario were able to create a record all by themselves without a record label that would eventually go on to win the 2014 Juno Award for Best Metal Album of the Year.

Protest the Hero has continued this method of DIY recording and have decided to release their music exclusively through a subscription that only costs $12 a year but you get a brand new song from the band every single month. THAT’S A DOLLAR A SONG! This subscription helps the band to constantly be delivering new music instead of asking for a onetime lump sum to cover the expensive cost of writing, recording, mixing and mastering an album. Instead, with very small once a year cost, Protest the Hero are able to produce new music every month and their fans can expect something from them without forgetting about them and allowing the band to fade away into obscurity.

Although this post was mainly about music, there’s a few films that I know of that have been funded by crowdfunding or are in the process of doing so. Recently, the comedy team Broken Lizard was able to raise $4 million to produce the sequel to the 2001 cult comedy Super Troopers. The comedy team absolutely smashed their initial goal of $2 million and doubled it, allowing for them to make the ridiculous film they want while also possibly getting some studio financing after it became clear that people want to see Super Troopers 2. Another film that I sort of followed along with through this process was the 2014 film Blue Ruin which is so good I’m actually baffled that a studio never picked the film up for production.

Although I was skeptical of crowdfunding at first and sort of wrote it off as lazy, I know see it as a very creative and interactive way for artists from all mediums to directly speak to their fans or peers and ask for help while giving updates along the way. It will be interesting to see how crowdfunding evolves as now there’s filmmakers such as Spike Lee or Alejandro Jodorowsky using these platforms as a starting point for films that studios don’t want to fund (I don’t blame the studios for not wanting to back another crappy Spike Lee Joint).

Dating Sims and the Contrived Posthuman Relationship

I find ‘dating sim’ games fascinating, partly because most of them are unintentionally hilarious but also because they do not exist in any easily defined category of video game simulation. On one end there are the legitimate simulation games that aim to teach and inform players of the functions of what is being simulated (eg. Street Cleaning Simulator) and on the other end there are zany parody simulators that use the juxtaposition of the mundane and the unorthodox for comedic effect (Surgeon Simulator is the most representative example of this, combining uncontrollable gameplay and dire stakes to get laughs). And yet, when it comes to portraying the process and experience of dating, dating sims don’t fall into either category. They are not accurate representations of courtship and they are not overt parodies (unless they are the pictured pigeon dating sim Hatoful Boyfriend, though that is more a parody of the genre rather than dating itself), so why do people buy them? Because they are simulations of fantasy relationships, not simulations of real relationships.

When I say fantasy I mean implausible, vicarious fantasy and not the elves and bows type. The player is left in charge of making sure the relationship of the protagonist – who is almost always behind the camera or obscured by hair or something to keep up the self-insertion – and one of the multiple romantic interests goes as planned. There are usually a bunch of dialogue choices which lead to branches in the narrative, and the win-lose state is determined by the outcome of their relationship. But none of it is random. Like Samantha from Her, whose program determines her actions and reactions, everything about these types of games is scripted and planned. The control is an illusion, so the idea of people getting genuine fulfillment out of these games makes me think about how posthuman relationships cannot replace human relationships so much as they can do their best to mimic them – even if the mimicry creates a ridiculously idealized idea of a relationship.

That inability to reproduce the concrete component of relationships is why the scenes in Her where Theodore is twirling with his phone always made me anticipate shots of bewildered onlookers. No matter how much the replication is fine-tuned it is difficult for human beings to accept a meaningful (or at least meaningful to the one person experiencing it) relationship with a calculated program in the same way that they accept human connection, regardless of the purpose or degree of that connection.  Even if the person is placed into a machine and duplicated it is not that same person because the factors determining human behaviour are more than just efficient programming, natural or technical.

Or maybe that’s being cynical. Judging the fulfillment others get from harmless things like OSes or video games is inconsiderate and over-conservative. Posthuman relationships still contain a human element, even if it is one sided, so dismissing it altogether as unnatural or abnormal isn’t right from an anthropological standpoint or a compassionate one. Humanity changes with time and social progression, and it is important we look at the ramifications of falling in love with a computer on the person rather than as a microcosm of social interaction as a whole. Because people are more complicated than that.

And besides, as a great man once said: “No waifu, no laifu”.