missing information
A friend of mine who works for a publication told me over dinner one night that it didn't really matter if one didn't really know anything about the subject in which he was writing about, rather, it depended more upon how much controversy one stirs, and how many letters to the editor one generates within the public sphere. It seems in our day and age- and perhaps not unlike past generations- we live in a society of the spectacle, and controversial figures and personalities are always great for publications. It was better that people write in with letters of acrimony than with no response at all. That seemed to be a consistent relationship between content-providers, publications and advertisers, a perplexing state of affairs in which advertisers ultimately dictated content. This didn't seem too far replaced from DeBord's commodity fetishism. The loss of quality so obvious at every level of the language of the spectacle, from the objects it lauds to the behavior it regulates, merely echoes the basic traits of a real production that shuns reality. -Guy DeBord, "The Society of the Spectacle"
No one really wanted to know all the facts of a story, rather it was more effective to use the methods of narrative story-telling to create intrigue within the viewer/ reader. This odd amalgamation of fact and fiction, carefully interwoven then was the most powerful way to get one's message across.
However, the current generation had seen it all. Nothing upset them anymore, they ceased to be shocked by events having been carefully desensitized by the exhibitionistic times that have sufficiently numbed their senses. To show all was rather predictable these days.
Having memorized most of the 50 plot lines for most stories, I have found that a more effective way of the re-telling of old tales was the tactic of purposely leaving out important information.
I have realized that it does not matter where in the timeline one samples the information from, as long as it is in non-linear form and is ambiguously connected to the preceding images. One of the ways the mind naturally worked was by filling in missing information and making connections between seemingly random images and events. Viewers, I've found, do not want to be told everything- they want to make their own inferences, using their own sphere of experience to project their own version of events.
No one really wanted to know all the facts of a story, rather it was more effective to use the methods of narrative story-telling to create intrigue within the viewer/ reader. This odd amalgamation of fact and fiction, carefully interwoven then was the most powerful way to get one's message across.
However, the current generation had seen it all. Nothing upset them anymore, they ceased to be shocked by events having been carefully desensitized by the exhibitionistic times that have sufficiently numbed their senses. To show all was rather predictable these days.
Having memorized most of the 50 plot lines for most stories, I have found that a more effective way of the re-telling of old tales was the tactic of purposely leaving out important information.
I have realized that it does not matter where in the timeline one samples the information from, as long as it is in non-linear form and is ambiguously connected to the preceding images. One of the ways the mind naturally worked was by filling in missing information and making connections between seemingly random images and events. Viewers, I've found, do not want to be told everything- they want to make their own inferences, using their own sphere of experience to project their own version of events.
posted by sierra choi at 4:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home