Global village hut broadcasting
Via Omni Brain: Neuro Aesthetics -Watch-: videos from a Columbia conference on neuroaesthetics, Art and the New Biology of Mind, are now online. They features talks by VS Ramachandran, Eric Kandel and other huge names.
Bora of Science and Politics also blogged it, objecting that the artists' comments after the talks were apparently the best part but are not on the videos.
Some online lecture videos do include the Q&A; it's a better format since it may answer viewer questions, and as Columbia has now discovered, it'll preclude outcry over perceived censorship. I doubt that was considered. It could be that the webmaster was trying to save bandwidth with shorter clips in smaller files, or maybe thought remarks were irrelevant. Many people would like to know what Laurie Anderson's comments were, though, even if negative. In presenting it online, the aesthetics and marketing of neuroaesthetics are, ironically enough, mostly ignored.
It'd be great if we had skilled journalists covering conferences to get that kind of comprehensiveness: packaged video documentaries covering of all aspects of an event. Not just the lectures; a lot of interesting stuff at conferences comes from informal talk over coffee breaks, and there could be "confessional cams," etc. But these are early days of crappy badly lit RealVideo online, somebody setting up a camera almost as an afterthought, and it seems we're lucky to even be getting that. Most conferences are still offline.
Institutions creating webcasts, and podcasters, could learn a lesson here. New media i.e. the intarwub, is a synthesis of old media used in new ways - learn about the old to more effectively use the new. (Columbia is renowned for its journalism program, and yet they present webcasts like this.)
Oh, and didn't anyone attending that conference have a videocam on their cell phone and a blog with RSS, or a YouTube account? Could be that those post-lecture comments, and reader comments on those, are already online.
That'd be too easy, wouldn't it?
Tags: neuroaesthetics videos media
Bora of Science and Politics also blogged it, objecting that the artists' comments after the talks were apparently the best part but are not on the videos.
Some online lecture videos do include the Q&A; it's a better format since it may answer viewer questions, and as Columbia has now discovered, it'll preclude outcry over perceived censorship. I doubt that was considered. It could be that the webmaster was trying to save bandwidth with shorter clips in smaller files, or maybe thought remarks were irrelevant. Many people would like to know what Laurie Anderson's comments were, though, even if negative. In presenting it online, the aesthetics and marketing of neuroaesthetics are, ironically enough, mostly ignored.
It'd be great if we had skilled journalists covering conferences to get that kind of comprehensiveness: packaged video documentaries covering of all aspects of an event. Not just the lectures; a lot of interesting stuff at conferences comes from informal talk over coffee breaks, and there could be "confessional cams," etc. But these are early days of crappy badly lit RealVideo online, somebody setting up a camera almost as an afterthought, and it seems we're lucky to even be getting that. Most conferences are still offline.
Institutions creating webcasts, and podcasters, could learn a lesson here. New media i.e. the intarwub, is a synthesis of old media used in new ways - learn about the old to more effectively use the new. (Columbia is renowned for its journalism program, and yet they present webcasts like this.)
Oh, and didn't anyone attending that conference have a videocam on their cell phone and a blog with RSS, or a YouTube account? Could be that those post-lecture comments, and reader comments on those, are already online.
That'd be too easy, wouldn't it?
Tags: neuroaesthetics videos media
posted by Sandra at 22:55
3 Comments:
I'd be interested not only in the opinions of artists, but of some more imaging studies with artists. I'd also be interested in more empirical work in the field in general.
And I wish cognitive psychologists would get in on the art game. After all, appreciating a painting or sculpture isn't just about vision.
Exactly. It's really a very interdisciplinary thing.
From what I heard, Marina Abramovic was the real killer on the artists' side. I wish someone taped the stuff she said. I wish I was there myself!
Post a Comment
<< Home