week 8 – summary

This week directed my focus on a new (google) blog I developed for the micro ethnography, incorporating a study on YouTube. My choice of a BBC documentary (Schama on Mark Rothko) is relating to my forthcoming dissertation topic on aesthetic spaces.

My activity on the Google blog turned my attention away from the WordPress course blog, extending the ensuing narrative and course interactions into different directions –  it gave me the ‘rizhomatic’ insight which I then used to illustrate the blog.

The choice of online platforms to illustrate the ethnography was overwhelming in view of the time constraints. I looked at Timetoast, Glogster, Prezi and Issuu, but in the end settled for Thinglink. Here I opted for an image that could visually map or draw together my blog posts and ideas.

I am interested in how technology affects online academic discussion and attempted at using my blog along an X and Y axe as a 2-D timeline,  with X representing the linear timeline and Y some of the emerging concepts.  This resulted in writings on  ‘rhizome’ and ‘alloy’, with future suggestions (‘affordance’) to be developed.

In the meantime I also continued with the online serial of ‘love sick’, and illustrated the ethnographic blog with a soundscape (another YouTube upload, a cover of an old favourite).

The diverse ethnographies of my fellow students have offered me a better perspective on how to create visuality within the various online platforms.

1 Comments Short URL

One Response to “week 8 – summary”

  1. Steph Carr March 11, 2013 at 8:07 pm #

    Hi Gina,

    I’ve tried to post this on your ‘other’ blog but not sure if I’ve done it correctly – so I hope you don’t mind me posting it here too!

    I thought your ethnography was very interesting. I really liked how you separated your ‘workings’ from your theorising. It allows the reader/viewer to make their own conclusions in the first instance; which are then justified/skewed/enhanced/dismissed by reading your thoughts in the tabs. Lovely.

    To add to the conversations with Jen and Candace. I thought the study showed how fragile the understanding of a so-called ‘online community’ is. It seems to be almost by default that web 2.0 applications receive the ‘community’ moniker by users and by owners; and they are judged by their users according to pre-concieved notions of what ‘community’ should look/behave like. The poster who was quite rude about the YouTube group potentially did not understand what YouTube was all about, but perhaps he can’t be blamed given the owners are bandying around the word ‘community’ willy nilly.

Leave a Reply