Slippage

Today I met up with the fellas. We had words due, but I proposed an exercise more related to our general attack plans.

We each wrote out our plans and spent a while talking about them one at a time. The general comment that arose was 'slippage' - where a single word can be used in a variety of confusing contexts.

More appropriately, one word can mean several things, with each being radically different from each other. Take Ed's use of space and place. For he and Jason, the two terms mean the same thing, but for me, each term means the exact opposite of what the boys think. 

This lines up neatly with my issue from yesterday. I explained my idea of Remediation (past/historical) and Remediating (current/active). Jason thought the 'active' was a nice - useful - touch, and we each tried to insert this idea (slippage) into each of our plans just to see if they held up.

Results:

Essay Outline

Chapter One

Remediation - introducing the historical idea of remediation, which itself opens the door to immediacy and hypermediacy

Immediacy - transparent immediacy, the ideal of realism and the focus of each new development always searching to outdo the last 

Hypermediacy - non-realism, mechanics and the inevitable by-product of progess

Remediating - active, in-work remediation, where the 'twin logics' function simultaneously.

Chapter Two

The Fourth-Wall - introducing the idea of an interface in a physically co-present medium.

Immediate Theatre - the fourth-wall's alignment to realism and by association, immediacy, from it's inception until the early 20th Century

Hypermediate Theatre - breaking the fourth-wall and the introduction of theatre's general trend towards hypermediacy as a genre

Remediating Theatre - current theatrical trends, and how in all guises theatre presents more hypermediate trends than any other genre

Chapter Three

Case Studies - most likely Gob Squad and Punchdrunk, with the possibility of a more 'common' (normalised) format (Musicals or Contemporary Opera) to balance the equation.

The gist is to show that theatre is unique, but not because of theatre's general claim to immediacy. Rather, theatre is separate because of hypermediacy - and it has always been this way. By showing this, theatre stands apart from every other visual media addressed by Bolter and Grusin, which may been seen as an attack on them if addressed in terms of Remediating, but not in lieu of Remediation.

Viewed in this way, theatre can been remediated to create film/tv, especially in terms of the time period film/tv emerged, when the general theatrical consensus was that of realism, but theatre's current usage is extremely hypermediate, perhaps in opposition to film/tv but also perhaps as a general trend of the theatrical genre.

The thesis does not address WHY, only that it IS.

All in the quest to avoid Slippage.

 

The Argument

A great song by Fugazi, and tonight's query.

Preface: My Research Question.

"By using Bolter and Grusin's 'Remediation' on the fourth-wall of theatre, is immediacy no longer the 'ideal', and has hypermediacy become the dominant desire in theatre?"

Current: Today

Expanding on my prior essay offers mixed results. I find that the essay works as a stand alone piece. Even though it deals with most of the elements of my thesis, it takes an alternate direction. THIS IS ACADEMIA, where the same concepts can be applied in a variety of ways to achieve vastly different results.

Let's pull it apart via my question. Firstly, Remediation is two-fold. By this I mean that it can be applied conceptually (for me) both historically and within a singular work. I've separated these ideas as Remediation (the historical) and Remediating (in-work - note the active usage of the term). 

B&G (Bolter and Grusin) also identify in this manner - I just need a convenient shorthand for ease of writing/thinking. As far as I can tell, Remediation is always in pursuit of immediacy, whereas Remediating is not.

This in itself poses a huge dilemma. Theatre as an art form is consistently Remediating, but in terms of history there is a distinct period (mid C17-approx. 1900) where the general trend of theatre was toward the immediate.

Just over the last century, theatre has done as much as possible to dispel this line of thought, but the problem still remains:

Is hypermediacy a by-product of theatre, or a sought-after end-point?

Dear chosen deity, make it stop...

Again with the pieces

I cut up the essay so far into little parts and ended up with a lot less than I thought I had, especially when removing the case studies from the equation.

I'm also questioning where I need to put theatre into the mix. Is it safe to assume (NO) that people will get it, or must I spend valuable words defining my notion of theatre in terms of this essay?

Another thought that comes to mind is the exact nature of the fourth-wall, and how much I should write about the phenomenon. I feel like unpacking it over history then following that up with how it works today is kind of bogus, whereas if I marry the two together it has much more flow and actually leads into the place that the writing needs to end up - the case studies.

From there, the case studies themselves pose an issue. I don't think I can do just one, but three is way too many if I'm going deep, so two seems like the best option. However, because I'm really only talking about one facet of theatre, it might be best to do a cross-section of several practical uses of the alternate fourth-wall.

So it comes down to getting a good set up. I think the first chapter is shaping up okay, and the second one is going to cause the issues, but the faster I write the faster I'll find out.

It has to flow. That is the key to everything. I want to write it so the argument almost isn't there, as if you read this thing and its as if the conclusion was already in you - you just didn't know it yet. 

I can't decide whether I want images, but I think since I'm talking visual medium it is better to go down that path. With two of the guys I'm interviewing I need to see if photos exist from our work together - that way I can agree to images of myself being used and credit the gents while we're at it.

Again with the pieces and the details.

The future

I fired off a couple of queries about journals today, along with a potential audition.

It sounds like it's not part of my research, but considering I need to have PhD applications in before my thesis is done, and that requires publication, it sure feels like it.

Plus, in my case, part of my (well, loads of my) research and practice involves performing, and it's hard to just sit on front of a laptop and create only words. 

My practice is in my body and far beyond film, which while much easier on time and sanity is nowhere near the same as getting stuck into a play.

So today I did a lot of work that relates to the future - and gives me more time to spend on the present task at hand over the next three days.

Playtime

I went to a seminar the other day, and my love of play was re-awakened enough to make me do something about it. 

I emailed Floyd about getting my game into action. As much as I don't really have the time, I work better when I'm busy, plus it's a practical way of getting some work published for future PhD possibilities.

Floyd told me to get back to him later, which is fine because I have a lot of stuff to do between now and then, but aside from taking on extra stuff I'm on target.

- Blogs up to date.

- Journal likewise.

- Chapter being expanded and edited.

- All the little things done.

- Meeting 3 with the boys set for -Wednesday.

- Work rearranged.

- List of journals to approach compiled.

Now, do I attempt to direct a short play at Short + Sweet? Or do I have enough toys to play with for now?

Marky-Mark

Marking other people's work is tough.

Aside from not wanting to hurt fellow's feelings, the impetus is on giving your compatriot the best feedback you can to make their work better. 

An unfortunate (immediate - and yes, I realise the irony) side-effect is that you can easily see in others' work what is present in your own.

This is two-fold. On one side you can see mistakes in writing, arguments, referencing and the like that you yourself make. On the other side you can see the better parts of your writing not captured by your fellows.

This makes the whole process rather infuriating, as you scream silently to yourself "how did you not see this?!?", while simultaneously slapping yourself for making the same error.

It is repetitive, robotic, annoying and very worthwhile. I can't wait to see where I've been torn apart, to see exactly what other people feel about my output.

But tonight is Friday, and marking aside I've been busy taking care of alternate tasks (PT, Tax) and the whole day has taken it out of me.

I might watch some mindless entertainment (football) and get an early sleep.

The excitement of Honours is unbounded...

Picking nits

Expanding the remediation chapter is easy in theory, but as it contextualises the whole essay it's easy to get bogged down.

However, getting stuck in the details makes for zero progression. The key lies in where to steer.

Today's question:

Remediation is based in visual, non-theatrical media. Do I unpack in chapter 1 ONLY in these terms, or do I start to weave theatre in from the get go (before the case studies)?

The end.

Shrinkage

Went to the seminar. First Flora spoke, then Floyd. I'm going to have to say I was much more taken with Floyd, not just for material (even though some of the stuff Flora dealt with was absolutely amazing - interactive tables are like Minority Report, and way beyond my imagination) but also in delivery and what he's trying to achieve.

What really struck me about the whole seminar was the concept of a good turnout. There were perhaps 30 people there and that was good. I am not used to that.

These research lectures had years worth of material in them, and they were delivered pretty much in-house to a small audience. The timing was also horrible, as the sun set halfway through proceedings which elicited yawns and early exits.

I'm glad I stuck around for Floyd though, as I came up with a bunch of ideas while that was going on - and I'll likely be in touch.

And the meeting with the boys? We spent most of the time looking over Ed's Korsakow film (I now kind of know what that is) and discussing options for shrinking down Ed's project - which gave me a better idea on how to attack my own.

We decided to write for next week, seeing as the thing we all get stuck on is writing. Jason takes too long to write anything, Ed is a little shaky on where to start and I write heaps but most of it is useless. With our powers combined, perhaps we can nut out how to approach our own work by looking at each other's. 

So, the themes of the day are inspiration (and how it comes from the strangest places), ideas for other projects being allowed to exist at the same time as Honours, and shrinking things down to expand on them more.

Ethics version 75.2

Missed the posting last night so today I'll pull a double.

Why?

Because I made a whole bunch of alterations to my Ethics proposal AND NONE OF THEM SAVED.

Which means I got fed up and went to bed.

Anyway, I managed to get it all sorted out today and send it to the right place(s), but the form seems to have changed so just to make certain I filled in the new form as well and sent that off.

Having met with Larissa and another of her supervisions (also named Josh), I have a feeling my annoying bout with the whole ethics thing will actually come in handy for others.

All that aside, I'm really hoping it goes through so that I can start interviewing. I have these bold ideas to interview 8-12 people, but to do so in a week, plus transcribe the whole thing then write a six-thousand word chapter in a fortnight might prove a little too much.

Anyhow, with ethics momentarily out of the way I'm about to sit through our second study group session (with Jason and Ed) with a lot more direction this time. I brought my essay for the boys to shred, and I'm, sitting in the Honours space with the sound of fingers on keyboards and a general feel of work going on.

I'm also off to a seminar run by the DERC about bodies in gaming and performance, which is the first of the 10 BILLION emails the centre has sent that I'm actually interested in.

I'll report back later.

Return to Earth

Today was mixed.

I was dreading the feedback, meetings and all the rest, but excited about getting back into the swing of things.

The first (and only) class was a pleasant surprise. Here, we discussed practical ways of dealing with the coming semester and our marking/assignment schedule was unveiled - which looks remarkably similar to my undergraduate performance stuff - consisting mainly of a 'journal' or sorts plus the added bonus of a 1000 word write up about Honours in general. 

After that, I had my meeting with Larissa. I thought I was going to be murdered but we had a good laugh and for the first time I felt like I was leading the exchange, directing where the research is going and establishing tough but realistic deadlines - and associated accountability. 

With that done, I went to visit Adrian and get my crappy essay back, only it was 10% better than the last one in marks and the most red ink was a positive write-up on the back. We talked about it and after a little discussion Adrian agreed that while we might not see eye-to-eye on the theory I'm employing, for me it works and for Honours it does the same.

After all that, I went out to purchase a new pen and note-book. Having kept several 'journals' for performance, it's the one exception I have to the paperless system. There is something to be said about a nice pen landing on quality paper, and how this translates into the mind and memory.

So when I say today was mixed, I mean that I woke up with dread in my stomach and received only (relatively) good things. Confusing, but not bad.

So, targets...

General

Daily: Blog

Tri-weekly: Journal

Weekly: 2000 words

Specifics

Draft Thesis: Week 8

Draft Chapters: Every fortnight

Interviews: mid-late August

Others

Publish

Publish More

Scope for PhDs

Welcome back, or in the words of The Boss (Larissa), 'no time for sleep'.

Hitting my head against an invisible wall

And it begins again.

After a couple of weeks off and a week spent very ill, my latest precisé is in and it's all about remediation and the fourth-wall.

I'm chasing interviews, resubmitting my ethics and about to start mining for more resources.

At this stage, I can definitely start writing on the remediation chunk. It's everywhere I look and there are loads of takes on it so it's a good place to begin. I've already written a short version of this chapter so time to expand the words and refine the detail.

I meet the boss in about a week and I really want to bring something to the table. The faster I generate material, the more time I have to edit. And edit. And edit.

Plus I only work under pressure, so if every week has a deadline I'm bound to get it done!!

PhD Workshop 1

Here it is for those who missed it. Most of it applies to everyone but there may be a few me-specific notes within:

PhD Workshop 1

How to get funded/apply?

- RTS (research and training scheme?)

- 3 years - can be extended, but unlikely

- 2 supervisors (either senior/junior or co-supervisor), depends on the rules

- apply direct to Universities

- apply for scholarships

- work with good people, work in a good area

- applications close before our results are finalised

- mid-year enrolment is possible

- make contact with supervisors beforehand - and get endorsed

What Happened Last Year

- RTS places were uncapped

- First year of new model

- Points allocated (80% academic - honours, publications, other stuff)

- creative works count

- DO OUTSIDE STUFF

- Minimum is an H2 at RMIT

- Scholarship - H1 + other stuff

- You can defer, do it part-time, apply for scholarships later

- APA, Uni specific - about the same amount as APA

- PhD students need to be aligned with research schools within University

- Clearly show where the research question is regarding the project

Other Stuff

- Work Experience must align with Research

- Find potential supervisors now

- HDR (was Angelina, now Adrian Danks)

- 'Consultants' - outside 'supervisors'

- RMIT research centre in Barcelona

Applying

- Tick the Scholarships box

- Get a Supervisor

- Decide on a topic/write a proposal

- Write a bibliography

- Referees

Publication

- Look for Journals (Online is faster)

- Counts if it's 'forthcoming' (has been accepted)

- Journals need content - themes can be flexible

Teaching

- need a qualification above the level you're teaching

- honours counts