As I said this afternoon, I wasn’t expecting Writing for the Web to be like this. I really thought it was going to involve a lot of essays and a bit of computer stuff. I’m happy I took this class though, especially since this is the last time it’ll be in this format, and especially since Prof Campbell was the one teaching it. She really tries to make her classes interesting and fun, and she genuinely cares about the course and her students.
I really didn’t love this class, but I didn’t hate it either. It’s one of those classes that you know what you learned will actually be useful later in life. I’m not really tech savvy, and as Prof. Campbell said, I’m really more of a consumerist when it comes to technology and the Internet. I’m more appreciative of both of them now though, because I now know how difficult it is for the people who actually work on both for a living.
I know I’m not going to be the next Mark Zuckerberg or work in Silicon Valley, but at least I know where to start with video production, editing audio pieces, making a website, or Photoshopping a celebrity’s mouth’s shut with a zipper. I’m not sure how those things factor into studying Creative Writing, but who knows, they may come in handy one day.
This is a very rudimentary method but I tried really hard and it gets the job done, so bear with me. If you need to censor a word, this is what you do:
First you select the track and pick out the time of the audio position with the word(s) that need to be censored.
Then go to the tab and click on Generate. Under Generate, go to Tone. There you can adjust the frequency and amplitude of the audio that’s selected.
Then you align the tracks (because there’s a new one with the audio you censored) and play them simultaneously (I’m sure there’s a better way to do this; I just did this to make sure it came out right).
4: And that’s it! That is how you censor a track!
FYI, this was the source I looked at to figure out what to do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BLV3nYuiL0
I’m not sure what’s more interesting tin the particular portrait: Delanie’s room on the right or the look of confusion on her face on the left. She looks like she just woke from a nap and wasn’t prepared for a picture. Her bedroom, on the other hand, is orderly and tidy to the point of looking bare. The dark lighting exaggerates this as well. The room is slightly stark and the few items seen look strewn around. Additionally, the room isn’t entirely in the photo and it looks like it was clearly taken at an angle, which makes the photo look off-kilter. But you can tell it still follows the rule of thirds. At first, everything appears off balanced and it’s easy to assume it’s uneven but it’s actually symmetrical. It’s easier to focus on the essential elements in the scene since the whole room isn’t in the photograph.
I had a lot of questions while I looked at Delanie’s room. Why is it so dark? Even if it’s nighttime, isn’t there a window? Why is it so clean? What nine-year-old is that tidy? Why is it so bare? Delanie doesn’t seem like she has a lot of belongings. And why was the picture taken at an angle? You can’t see the rest of the room which makes me wonder what else is there. But on the whole, it looks like the room that belongs to a little girl. Even though it’s dark, you can tell the walls are pink. There are white dresses hanging on the door, a nightlight on the wall, and a butterfly on top of a vanity. There’s also a piano next to the wall, a pink foot mat and a bedspread with flowers on it.
Delanie’s room contrasts heavily with the other photos in the photo essay. Not all of the children have rooms to call their own and obviously live in environments different from Delanie’s. Some of the photos were difficult to look at and it’s hard to imagine a child trying to fall asleep in some of the conditions they’re in. Mollison’s artwork beautifully captures these children’s lives for a moment in his photo essay, but it’s also easy to wonder what their lives are like outside that.
Archivists determine how information is catalogued and therefore understood by the public. Additionally, archivists deliberately choose what goes into the archive and what does not for a number of reasons. These include insufficient data from the source material, data being unable to be formatted or converted for the archive, or the belief that some of the data is simply unnecessary. Consequently, archivists selecting certain information or data for documentation creates a new wealth of knowledge in the archive.
This process illustrates the arrangement of the archive and demonstrates why archivists make certain decisions that lead the creation of the archive and how they become part of the archive as well. Thus, when working on group projects such as Documenting a Citizen, digital media makers who work on video production and graphic images have to decide what gets cut out and what gets left in the editing process. If a clip of the citizen in question is cut down from twenty to ten minutes for editorial reasons still complete? Is a shot depicting the citizen in a different perspective than usual inaccurate? When the video portrait is complete, parts of it have been removed and altered and the result is a product that is eventually archived, does it still count?
As time goes on, archivization will become more advanced and there will be several complex methods of categorizing information. Choices will be made on what to include in futuristic archives and the necessity of documentation more prominent. Therefore, these two important questions we will need to ask ourselves when generating archives: what information is not included and why.