Martha Burtis at The Fish Wrapper via Ken Smith points to the Mojiti version of Michael Wesch’s two-week-old-already-famous video on Web 2.0. Mojiti was new to me. Like Martha, I find the Mojiti version very stirring. And I’m already scheming how to use this new site in my teaching.
But before I get to that, I need to say something about the spot sets at Mojiti. It’s extremely cool (I disagree with Ken that “cool” marks disengagement) to have the VH-1 popups all over the place. Those “popups” are what Mojiti calls “spot sets.” They’re the video equivalent of Flickr annotations on the image itself, but with the effect heightened because of the temporal dimension, and because the comment elements themselves can move. The comments truly become part of the video. But it’s even cooler that one can have both collective spot sets and individual spot sets. Ken discusses that dynamic here. Interestingly, the pull of individual authorship overtook Ken shortly after he posted, when he (I’m pretty certain it’s Ken) created his own spot set to illustrate his idea about online life and embodiment.
I have a lot of thoughts running through my mind about these spot sets. The concept is pretty simple. The complexity comes from the way the Mojiti creators have imagined the sharing. One can hide spot sets, for example, but still share the permalink (pointing not only to the video but to the video-plus-spot-set-commentary), which means that if one needed to restrict access to certain spot sets, one could–and that means that some teachers who are (understandably) reluctant to have all their classes’ work exposed to the whole world can nevertheless benefit from these tools. And for that matter, it’s great that spot sets have their own permalinks, allowing for precise location and citation.
Something about the flow of all this commentary fascinates me deeply. But there’s more. Something about the way these comments layer themselves into the original experience without erasing it (and after all, they can be turned off), and the way they can exist both collectively and individually, seems to me to reveal something hidden in plain sight. We write together because we are not each other, and because we are together. I don’t think any of this activity complicates our ideas of authorship. I think it does complicate some of the postmodernist assumptions about authorship by showing that the liminal states, and the way definitions get tricky near the borders, are not the only objects of interest. They may not even be the most interesting objects, given the energy and creativity released by both collective and individual commenting, especially when those distinctions are not only preserved but heightened in an environment that at every opportunity points to both as important and valuable.
CODA:
I’m very frustrated at this point, because I want to cite a passage from Amadeus. Unfortunately, two moves within six months have put many of my books in boxes, so a quick scan of the shelves in my temporary office has only confirmed my suspicion that I don’t have the play to hand. Because I live so much of my life online, “in the cloud,” I feel an irrational surge of annoyance that the text of Schaffer’s play is not available to me now, for immediate perusal and quotation, in an e-form I can get to right away. This is why I want a digital library. Not to replace the book, but to make these voices, these things I read and remember, instantly available for my orchestration and repurposing. But since Schaffer’s text is not available, this moment will pass, and a seed–for you, perhaps, or perhaps for me–will not be sown. To be surrounded by sense is the goal, and that surrounding must have its building materials ready to hand when the Muse reveals a blurred but compelling blueprint.
And what was the passage I wanted? The one in which Mozart talks about hearing voices sing together in opera, and how that uni-versity preserved each voice and each separate line, even as it enabled a synergy which no single voice could find on its own. If someone out there has the passage, I’d appreciate a bit of assistance. If not, I know: that’s what libraries are for. And thank goodness for them.
Pingback: Ruminate » Blog Archive » Gardner on the Mojiti Version
Gardner,
Do you mean when he explains opera to the emperor:
Sire, only opera can do this. In a play if more than one person speaks at the same time, it’s just noise, no one can understand a word. But with opera, with music… with music you can have twenty individuals all talking at the same time, and it’s not noise, it’s a perfect harmony!
T
That’s it! Beautiful. Thanks, Terry.
(Cf. “Fra Lippo Lippi,” 305-306a.)
You know, I had linked to the Mojiti version of the video but hadn’t really gotten a chance to play around with the tool. Thanks for taking it further. I think you’re right — the idea of user created spot sets has lots of potential in the classroom.
We were just talking in a DTLT meeting the other day about what a tool that allowed users to annotate video would “feel” like. If someone had described it to me before I looked at it, I would have thought that the idea behind Mojiti would feel very disruptive to the viewing experience, but it didn’t feel that way at all to me. I think that’s because I could easily trace the comments through the video, pause to read comments, and even turn them off if I wanted to. The whole experience felt very rich.
Thanks for the commentary about Web 2.0. I’m trying to learn as much as I can before I go hear a lecture from Bryan Alexander, “Web 2.0 and its implementations for higher education”.
This is a new technology that I’m interested in learning more about. I’ll be interested in learning about how you incorporate it into your classes.
Vickie–you’re welcome. Let me know how the lecture goes. Bryan’s presentations are always a treat.
Martha–You’re right. One would think the idea would make chaos out of the experience. Instead, it’s like listening to complex polyphonic music (for me, anyway). There’s an “all at once” as well as a “now this now that” feel. For me, the most intriguing thing of all, as you can tell from my post, is the way the individual and the collaborative can co-exist and be used for the strength of each. Unlike George Siemens and a lot of thinkers in this field, I do not believe that meaning resides in the web, or in the collective or its connections. I believe meaning emerges *both* from the individual *and* from the sharing. It’s Bakhtin and those utterances–which I’m working on for my Maryland presentation next week.
“I do not believe that meaning resides in the web, or in the collective or its connections. I believe meaning emerges *both* from the individual *and* from the sharing.”
Thanks for that. I don’t feel like getting in a pissing match with people — I sense a lot of coiled-up tension around the Connectivism discussion — but that simple articulation was welcome and useful for me.
And a great post overall — I’ve shared it with a few people now… oughta blog it.
I did find it disruptive, but then I didn’t think to stop the video and I don’t know how to turn off the comments. How do you do that?
Brian–thanks, a lot. I have more to say on this score.
Steve–mouse over the buttons at the bottom of the video window, and you’ll see the one that turns the spot set off.
I must say, it is a fine line between opera and the play – too many voices becoming noise, but the right amount of comments could indeed be opera.
Pingback: My Reader Runneth Over » CogDogBlog
You should also check out bubbleply, which is a tool similar to mojiti, but much better to use in some fields. This video was very disruptive and the comments interrupt the video, while with bubbleply you can have seperate comments on the same video, using a roll down menu. Check it here – http://www.bubbleply.com