This is our attempt
at 3 different mixing styles, recognizing that each person has his/her
"own blend...[his/her] own mix" (39). As you listen
to/watch/experience each mix, here are some thoughts from the chapter to keep
in mind:
- As
we think about “the mix,” remember the “new and renewing possibilities
that are emergent in the many complex practices of the DJ providing the
mix: selection, arrangement, layering, sampling, beat-matching, blending.
In the thought that anything – any sample, any sound, any tradition, any
clip – is available to be used in any text” (35).
- “And
one must teach in the idiom – not just the language practices but the ways
of seeing the world, the ways of being in the world, the values,
attitudes, knowledge, needs, hopes, joys, and contributions of a people as
expressed through their language” (49).
- When
people “see themselves as griots” they “value the oral tradition and print
and digital literacies, and…develop writing and rhetorical practices that
link the three toward the goals of building community and deep democracy
through critical literacy” (83).
We present the mixes in no specific
order. Feel free to experience them as you want…
Mix 1: http://digitalgriotreadinggroup.tumblr.com/
(Password: readinggroup2014)
Mix 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRV28dwoMaM&feature=youtu.be
Mix 3: http://youtu.be/ToMEtT3Yjw8Christine, Heather, and Logan
If any one has trouble accessing Mix 3, try this link instead:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToMEtT3Yjw8&feature=youtu.be
In the "Groove" chapter we were discussing last time we met, Adam Banks notes, "Long before Chuck D made his declaration that Hip Hop was black people's CNN, the black radio DJ fulfilled the griotic function of delivering and interpreting the news for African Americans" (24). Key for me here was interpretation. As I interacted with all of the various mixes our griots provided, I was intrigued by the changes in emotion I experienced. With Logan's mix, I was laughing and quite entertained. Watching Christine's video, I became immersed in the conversation and had a rather cerebral reaction.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it was Heather's that had the most fascinating effect on me. As I listened to her mix, I wound up not paying attention to any of the discussion--I got overwhelmed by the (aptly selected) music. Specifically, "Walk This Way" got me thinking about that particular collaboration/remix and how innovative it was. However, Public Enemy's "He Got Game" really sent me on a contemplative journey.
I wound up reflecting on how interesting the choice Public Enemy made was. Essentially, they took Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth" (a song about Vietnam) and made it a societal commentary/title track for a movie that was--fundamentally--about a son and his father (with some basketball!). While the two seem disparate, the song just works for some reason.
Then I got to thinking about the movie He Got Game itself, specifically the title characters name--Jesus Shuttlesworth. I was always fascinated by the father's (Jake, played by Denzel) explanation for his son's name. Early in the movie, when his son admits his anger over the name, Jake claims it to be a Biblical name. However, his later explanation is rather thought provoking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdzfTA0jUUk). In a way, Jake's action could be viewed as having a potentially griotic function. Reacting to the media's attribution of "Black" to Earl Monroe's nickname, Jake ensures that the name can be carried by an African American, passing it down to his son. Beyond preservation, this naming act serves as a sort of rebellion.
Anyways, random diatribe aside, I actually thought it was quite unique that, while it caused me not to pay attention to the actual conversations we had, Heather's post actually sent me on quite a contemplative journey about the subject matter of that conversation. The conversation persevered in my head and took on new manifestations, even if it wasn't directly connected to the original thread anymore.
Multimodality was all over this. Between Logan's use of silence, images, pop culture and humor, to Christine’s use of video, editing technique and scrapbooking, to Heather’s use of verbal, music and djing, this makes it quite evident how many resources and materials we have at our disposal, and how agency still plays a key role is our decisions for such creation.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s clear, as Bruce states, is the difference in delivery of the same message. How this is delivered then affects how the message is interpreted and received. They all made decisions on transitions, placement of text, what should be added, how it should be arranged, what desired response did they want from the audience. This demonstrated how digital technologies afford us different ways to fade, transition, layer and create.
Looks like I am not the only person who got behind in posting for this with the speaker cancelation and such. So sorry.
ReplyDeleteI am drawn to the ways in which multi modality prevails in these three variations of last class. I also think that together, they tap into the "rubric" of sorts that Dr. Lathan outlined after the first post: (1) interpreting current events (2) raising social critique (3) entertainer (4) and the person responsible for passing down communal values. I especially see critique and interpretation in Logan's tumblr--it provides a commentary on our conversations in class. I also see interpretation in the ways in which Heather mixed and remixed our conversations with music. The music helps show the kinds of interpretations she drew from the conversation as well as interpretations of the text that we had as a class. The video highlights the passing down of information. But the editing Christine did helps to speak to some of the other valuable components of the Griot. All three versions are entertaining. Furthermore, I can see how their work embodies the quote the reference from page 83 of the text.
This pushes me to think about multiplicity and multimodality. Had we only had one of these three interpretations, what would our understanding of class look like? It reminds me the value of incorporating multiple resources (and voices) to express a "whole."
In terms of the quotes the group provided to think with as we engaged with their work, I am most drawn to this one: "And one must teach in the idiom – not just the language practices but the ways of seeing the world, the ways of being in the world, the values, attitudes, knowledge, needs, hopes, joys, and contributions of a people as expressed through their language" (49).
I connected to this because of the discussions we had regarding community/home and place (for which Heather chose wonderful music for).
It raises questions for me such as "How do we examine the contributions we all express through language when it becomes "digitized"? What, gets left out in that translation? But, more interestingly, what are we able to include with these sorts of conversations?
The answers to these questions are definitely constrained by questions of access, but I think the availability of recorded vs print text is useful in terms of preservation and circulation. I'm thinking here specifically of the DLAN at OSU that houses literacy narratives. When I went through NWP we submitted to it, (and then my friend Krista collected one from me at feminisms and rhetorics 2011.) The nuances of language, potential connections to "home/community" can surface in ways in these video stories that are often not present in traditional texts. Here, I am speaking specifically about the Appalachian dialect and studies of that nature (though there are new, interesting text such as HillBilly Speak that are hot off the presses). I think this also speaks to the affordances these different ways of composing provide.
I was really impressed by the way Logan, Heather, and Christine took one conversation and digitally remixed it into such interesting and creative interpretations. Although they all build off of one dialogue, each one tells a slightly different story or account of the class meeting. Like Bruce, I was intrigued by the different interpretations each digital griot created. I saw Christine's video most closely resembling a narrative. Although there were many cutaway shots, and one hour was cut down to five minutes, I believe the video most closely resembled the actual conversation. I found Logan's remix to have a very expressed social critique, that entertained but was quite suggestive of his feelings on discussion topics. Heather's music compilation seemed to give the most understated interpretation, that as Bruce illustrated, could carry various meanings to different people depending on the audience's connection with the song.
ReplyDeleteI think as a whole, this group has fulfilled the role of a DJ (in the digital sense) that Banks describes in Chapter One. Banks says that DJs must have a set of skills, abilities, and understandings to perform their roles as culture bearers and to produce texts in a wide range of spaces (27-28). First, Banks says a DJ must be a historiographer and improvisor at the same time by having a vast knowledge of music traditions and the ability to make connections between past beats and the present situation. I think here, a vast knowledge of music traditions translates into a vast knowledge of pop cultural traditions (not just musical, but also cinematic, iconic, and literary references) for the contemporary digital griot. For example, in Logan's remix, I think most of us could associate with at least some of the pop cultural references in the gifs included, which really determines the effectiveness of his remix.
Secondly, Banks says the Dj must have a mastery of different techniques and technologies. Clearly, the group shows they have a mastery of a range of techniques and technologies to convey meaning. The group utilizes print, image, moving stills, video, collage, and music as they layer, blend, sample, mix, and alter melody and beat with spoken word. Lastly, Banks says not only must DJs master all these skills, but most importantly, DJs must know their audiences and know what to play and say at all times. If Logan had chosen to use gifs from Korean dramas, we would probably not have found his tumblr as entertaining or would not have understood his commentary. Each of the digital remixes showcases something our tribe can identify with, whether its the familiarity of our own faces, music lyrics and beats we can identify with, or cultural pop icons we find entertaining.
These three (re)mixes make me ask questions about multimodality and genre conventions.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I was reminded of a quote from Hull and Nelson’s “Locating the Semiotic Power of Multimodality.” They argue that “through a process of braiding… or orchestration…, a multimodal text can cerate a difference system of signification, one that transcends the collective contribution of its constituent parts. More simply put, multimodality can afford, not just a new way to make meaning, but a different kind of meaning” (225). So, as I viewed Christine’s mix, I considered not only the individual parts, but also questioned what meaning is made from the mix as a whole, how the juxtaposition, overlap and highlighting over particular modes affected the meaning I gained. Christine’s video shifted from book, to conversation, to cork board, sometimes overlapping, sometimes standing on its own. What would we have gained or lost from removing one of these elements or adding in another? What would have happened if we didn’t begin in the book and instead were dropped into the middle of the conversation? Because it begins with the book, we are anchored in Bank’s words rather than ours. Banks was our starting point for conversation the first day, but last time, the first group’s video was our starting point. What happens to the way we understand the group’s conversations and events during reading group when we change our starting points?
I was also struck by genre conventions and what happens (positive or negative) when we break out of them. For example, as I clicked into Heather’s YouTube video, I spent the first 15 to 20 seconds wondering when a visual would come in. During this time, I had trouble concentrating on the audio (which is brilliantly mixed). After I went back and listened to it, I wondered what we gain and lose when using a platform like YouTube outside of its expected use.
Molly raises some interesting questions that I'd like to try to take up: "How do we examine the contributions we all express through language when it becomes "digitized"? What, gets left out in that translation? But, more interestingly, what are we able to include with these sorts of conversations?
ReplyDeleteIf we are evoking a Digital Griot tradition here, I have to believe that these contributors are seeing themselves as storytellers who are passing down tradition and culture (as digitized information) by providing access to traditions and concepts. Per that definition, I think that Molly is raising two questions about the evaluation of griotic stories based on a mediacentric rubric. [1] Did the griot (or can the griot?) negotiate the print, oral, and digital literacies that are necessary to "translate" our reading group into a digital composition? And [2] does the griot have the rhetorical prowess, skill, and bravery to create a digital text that has both transformative moments (scratch, fade, etc.) and transformative potential?
When I say transformative potential, I am thinking of Banks' second chapter where he describes dismantling the barrier between Syracuse the city and Syracuse the university by developing a long-running a neighborhood-based community literacy project in Syracuse proper.
I don't want to evaluate these texts based on my reading of Molly's questions. Instead, I want to point out how different this criteria is different from comparatively sterile concepts typically associated with mediacentric composing: affordance and constraint.
In my day-to-day interactions with composers, with platforms, and with digital texts, my thinking reads much like the kind of thinking that Banks indicts: "I've always been clear that technology in/with/and writing means far more than simply creating documents with iMovie or Photoshop or FinalCut, more than mashups or blogs or wikis or Facebook profiles, more than the newest shiny objects or most advanced software or sense of the cool to be found in geek culture" (78). In other words, my efforts to write multimodally are often too limited by sterile terms and concepts: affordance and constraint. I often think too much about what a platform can do. I need to spend more time considering what I should do with it. And most importantly for whom I should do it.
This Banksian theory of multimodality - a reading that Logan is heard and seen praising in two of the three posts - is less so about understanding generalized processes of mediation. Instead, what we have here is a theory of multimodality that evokes historical, rhetorical, cultural, and living contexts. And it evokes those contexts simultaneously.
There's an ethos component here. There's a moral component here. And most importantly, there's an advocacy component here. In short, I think the stakes are too high to not meditate and try to incorporate the list of goals Banks lays out on 78&79.
I like this:
ReplyDeleteWhen people “see themselves as griots” they “value the oral tradition and print and digital literacies, and…develop writing and rhetorical practices that link the three toward the goals of building community and deep democracy through critical literacy”
So, a griot is a DJ, a composer, a communicator. And the goals of a griot are to develop writing and rhetorical practices that "build community" and "deep democracy." So Banks is answering a very important question about what writing/composing is for, and why we should be teaching it: because it builds community and (deep) democracy.
But what is deep democracy? I found this:
http://www.deepdemocracyinstitute.org/deep-democracy-explained.html
"Unlike 'classical' democracy, which focuses on majority rule, Deep Democracy suggests that all voices, states of awareness, and frameworks of reality are important. Deep Democracy also suggests that all the information carried within these voices, levels of awareness, and frameworks is needed to understand the complete process of a system. Deep Democracy is an attitude that focuses on the awareness of voices that are both central and marginal.
This type of awareness can be focused on groups, organizations, one's own inner experiences, people in conflict, etc. Allowing oneself to take seriously seemingly unimportant events and feelings can often bring unexpected solutions to both group and inner conflicts."
So in order to see a process clearly, we need all of our voices. Logan, Christine, and Heather started us off with their clever remixes of the conversation. Here, we add our own voices to the mix in an effort to create greater community and deep democracy.
But it seems to me that the "critical" literacy element is also crucial: we build community and democracy through rhetorical practices, but they have to be critical of existing power structures.
Remixes, then, cannot simply reproduce existing power structures. They must be somewhat subversive. Maybe the nature of sampling--the often mischievous borrowing of elements from unrelated sources--is innately, to some degree, subversive, critical.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn our last reading group, we spend quite a bit of time discussing community and the ways that people function as both insiders and outsiders within communities. Interestingly, as much as the three mixes present a recording of our discussion about community, they also present a reading of Reading Group as a community.
ReplyDeleteThe first mix – the collection of memes - seems to focus primarily on commentary, recording both the broad strokes of our conversation and the groups’ reactions to those ideas. The memes, for example, illustrate that while some of us remained attached to our home communities, others of us sought to distance ourselves from them. In recording our ideas and reactions, though, the memes also provide information about who we – the members of reading group – are as a community. Logan’s use of memes is predicated on the groups’ shared knowledge in terms of both content and form (assuming that Logan, like a good rhetor, chose to use memes because he anticipated that the group would have a certain level of familiarity with them). Logan has chosen memes – Jennifer Aniston, Kermit the Frog, etc – that many of us are likely to be familiar with. Even if we are not familiar with all of them, most of us can find at least a few references that we understand. In addition, Logan draws on our shared knowledge regarding the language of the meme, of knowing how to read memes and make the appropriate connections between the text, the images, and the ideas we discussed in class. This shared knowledge – and the way that Logan uses it – can be used to identify some of the groups’ literacy practices.
Heather’s mix likewise functions according to shared knowledge, allowing listeners of the mix to hear what Reading Group thinks about community as well as who we are as a community. Just as Logan relies on a shared knowledge of popular culture, Heather relies on a shared knowledge of music. Even though she uses multiple songs, each group member should at least be able to identify at least one. I would think that, if nothing else, we have all heard Walk this Way before (either the Aerosmith or Run-DMC versions). The mix, then, is representative of music that people in the group may be familiar with. Also, like Logan’s, Heather’s mix anticipates that the group will be able to read the language of the remix, that we will be able to make connections between the music and the ideas. Again, this provides a listener with information about who we are as a group.
Christine’s narrative video does the same. Obviously, the video captures our discussion of community because it is a video of us having that discussion, but it also presents ideas that we value as a group, as Christine selected only a handful of specific ideas from an hour-long conversation. The medium of video, though, also allows the viewer to observe how we behave as a group. The tape allows the viewer to see that we sit in a circle in order to engage with each other, that many of us read along with and mark references to the text, that many of us take notes, or that we seldom interrupt each other. The video, in other words, captures the behavior of an academic group, particularly highlighting behaviors that we share. Interestingly, Christine used enough shots so that everyone in the group is featured – including a close up of the text - even if those shots do not represent everyone as speaking. Thus, everyone gets included in the community. The viewer, then, is able to see how we behave as a community, as well as how we theorizes about communities.
I'm interested in Jacob's ideas about reaching beyond affordances and constraints to ask about a platform "what I should do with it. And most importantly for whom I should do it," specifically about how those ideas intersect with David's notion that "deep democracy" needs to be critical of existing power structures. When taken together I can see the seeds of the digital griot as subversive and as generative. I think these memes and remixes we saw this week suggest ways in which our understanding of an academic text, and our general behavior as a community in an academic setting, can be remixed either to appear relatively straightforward and traditional (like Christine's), or that they can be remixed to be unconventional, perhaps even subversive (if need be) or critical and thereby deeply democratic (which Heather's and Logan's border on doing).
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of a discussion on social networking last week wherein a tenured literature professor posed questions about whether digital books might somehow mean the end of democracy as we know it. My response: yes! and isn't that awesome! Primarily because I was thinking both about "deep democracy" and what we can make our technologies do, and about traditional democracy and who gets left out of those processes--in other words, what are its affordances and constraints, and for whom might the griot advocate?
Since Monday, I have been thinking about the quote that I brought up in reading group: "Thus, one must have a teaching voice, a scholarly voice that allows one to teach, politic, build, act, plan, in the idiom of the people - whoever 'the people' are in the settings in which we hope to work" (49). I asked, in response to this question, about how this idea can be applied when teaching in multicultural settings where there are multiple idioms of the people.
ReplyDeleteIn thinking through this, I want to mix a couple ideas together - David's explanation of what "deep democracy" means, the voices/words/thoughts that are and are not represented in Christine, Heather, and Logan's mixes, and a quote from LaToya Sawyer's "A Village Movement": "whenever an intelligent black person opens his or her mouth to speak about black unity, without fail the seed planted so many hundred years ago rears its ugly head and says, 'but we're not one monolithic people, we're too different.' While this is true on one level, it should not be the end of the discussion as it often is" (Banks 74).
When I see these three elements juxtaposed against one another, I am reminded of Burke's terministic screens, of what is selected/reflected, and what is deflected. On the one hand, there is the desire embedded in deep democracy to value all voices, the desire to build a place where "everyone knew that he or she would have room to speak and would be supported" (Banks 69). This helps me to understand with greater nuance Sawyer's vision to create unity through community - one-ness in with-ness. But, as Logan, Christine and Heather show us, when we represent others, and even when we represent ourselves, the representation is always partial, always foregrounds some things while obscuring others. However, this partiality should not be cause for despair, "it should not be the end of the discussion as it often is." Recognizing this partiality suggests the possibility that by attaining a greater sensitivity to the silences, to the unrepresented, I can better understand the idioms (with their histories) in which I speak and use that understanding to create/maintain spaces where other idioms can be heard and welcomed (rather than ignored or rejected). This conclusion is still a place of tension and confusion for me, but I feel like at the moment it is the best answer I have.
I thought this post was well done, thorough, and very smart. I love the intersecting mediums; I feel like the group, through their griot practice, worked to answer one of Bank’s initial questions:
ReplyDeletewhat relationships exist between digital communication and other forms, other genres, other traditions? How do we understand the connections that will endure between text and screen, between image and voice, between the oral and the textual? (Banks 10)
Talk about connections between text and screen, image and voice, oral and textual, and genres! In this post we see a convergence, an amalgamation, of all of these things, and all to document one reading group meeting. I see multiple modes here, simultaneously tackling the task of relaying one experience to a community which undoubtedly has varied technological and media preferences. This is amazing. The griots were, through their use of multiple mediums and modes, connecting people with varying platform preferences within our reading group; that is, they were opening up access to the same idea through platform avenues, namely Youtube and Tumblr, and those who prefer one or the other could experience the group’s information through a medium they preferred or had some kind of fluency in.
I want to talk about the Tumblr page, specifically. Tumblr is a blogging platform that lends itself very well to hosting gifs, graphics, and images alongside verbal text. Many of the Tumblr blogs I’ve seen are not only comprehensive and effective in terms of the information they present, but they’re also usually visually and emotionally compelling. Often, Tumblr blog builders will create their page with the goal of moving their Tumblr followers; they want to build emotion, create empathic moments, and connect based on shared beliefs, feelings, and experiences. There are a few blogs that I follow that do all of this but specifically in relation to academia. Even though these blogs are meant to be funny, I feel a more substantial emotional connection with them because I understand what they’re talking about. Tumblr is great, in this way, about fostering virtual bonds, encouraging reflection, etc. and the (usually incredible) visuals only expedite this effect (because multimodal appeals of single messages reach audience members more comprehensively).
I really enjoyed and appreciated this group’s Tumblr page, and work I general. It accomplishes so much; it (visually, audially, and verbally) documents shared experiences, communicates ideas, and serves to connect all of us who participated in that moment or moments like it. I think it, as work, definitely fulfills Bank’s definition of griot in that it values “the oral tradition and print and digital literacies, and…develop[s] writing and rhetorical practices that link the three toward the goals of building community and deep democracy through critical literacy” (83).