Quoting what Matthew said in the tutorial, “When you come up with a statement of something instead of questioning it, it’s easy to become didactic.” Being didactic is not wrong. In contrast, I am trying to do my work in a soft tone because the topic itself is about revealing the potential endangerment of technology, which can be very serious. Still, throwing a found onto people’s faces can be rejected.
The thing I’m doing this term, or should I say from the start of Unit 2, was taking my previous practice — cataloguing, and manifesting it into a more rigorous way of doing it. How can I find the hidden message under the massive source material? To what extent should I use it to recreate, to put my transformation into practice? Using this way of appropriation, what’s the value of the source material? What will be changed or enhanced if I use them and make the change?
Currently, the tool is the search engine Google. The source material was the visual outcomes generated by it. Last term, I found the biases of the search engine, such as gender biases and racism. But instead of stating the biases within the algorithm nowadays, I would rather say there is a limitation, just like the limitation of human recognition.
With the massive source material, how can I use them to create narration and yet reveal the hidden message? The medium I choose is matter. A printed material/publication has a particular format and speed to convey the message, and it can interact with the audience, giving the audience more freedom to engage with it. A film/video can be embedded with sound, and the author primarily controls the speed and narration. What can a publication do and can’t do? What can film do and can’t do? How are they gonna affect the same materials?