Monkeycam See--Monkeycam Do: Considering Reflexive Aesthetics in the Teaching of Film and Video Production.
Gregory Gutenko · 1992
While in some respects it has never been easier to teach film and video production, in other respects it has never been more difficult and beset with inconsistencies. For instance, pervasive advertising products of video networks (i.e., epic scale commercials and music videos) frequently engage in anarchy of postmodern excess, making it hard to formulate an objective critique of work that superficially appears to be violating hallowed rules out of radical spite. How can a critique be developed for use of such imaging variables as black and white versus color, gain boosted CCD grain versus a low noise signal, Steadicam versus shakycam? The latter term, derived from one of many television production technique parodies featured on Late Night with David Letterman, has been referred to as the film school look, watering lawn, and monkeycam. The difficulty in distinguishing good from bad shakycam inhibits its usefulness for teaching purposes. Whereas experienced camera user develops a sense of composition in accordance with established guidelines (the rule of thirds, leading subject, and balancing of mass) guidelines for shakycam have yet to be developed. The destabilizing effect of technique disrupts ordinarily purposeful movement of viewer's eye to produce specific emotional responses. A consideration of fundamental characteristics of perceptual and cognitive processes can perhaps support rules that allow evaluation of good and bad shakycam. It is even possible to opine why, at this time, there is monkeycam--but not how much longer it has to be endured. (SAM) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are best that can be made from original document. *********************************************************************** Monkeycam See-Monkeycam Do: Considering reflexive aesthetics in teaching of film and video production