109. GreenScreen Goleta Beach: A Great Day with Dr. Art Sylvester!

Dr. Arthur Sylvester, photoshopped image from http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/sylvester/

Goleta Beach map, image from http://www.sbparks.org/Scripts/ParksDetail.asp?ParkID=4

Santa Barbara County, from http://www.househunt.com/

Santa Barbara County within California, United States, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_California_highlighting_Santa_Barbara_County.svg

Interview Questions, Page 1

Interview Questions, Page 2

Interview Questions, Page 3

Interview Questions, Page 4

Interview Questions PDF File: http://stokastika.googlepages.com/8.greenscreengoletabeach.pdf
Right now I am mentally exhausted (probably more from anxiety due to the upcoming AAAS conference), but I am so relieved that today's shoot for Goleta Beach Greenscreen went very well (or so I think!). It was the first time I was put in charge as the "interviewer" and also advising people what to do--like being the question-asker or frame the camera in a certain way, or check the sound, etcetera--and I feel stress the entire time because all summer of 2007 I was a solo film-maker and suddenly I have a crew of three other people, and oh gosh, I feel so sorry for them they have to put up with me! I don't like bossing people around, so every time I tell someone to do something, I try to make it more open-ended, like "this seems to be the best set-up, but adjust accordingly. I trust your judgment." or "Well, ask these set of questions, but if you have any questions in the back of your mind, please ask Dr. Sylvester!" or my "Well, I'm saying this but take-it-or-leave-it" trademark disclaimer about my giving advice. I must gloat and rave that my crew--"Ace," Noah, Aaron--was *spectacular*! We were all so well coordinated! I felt that moment where it's like you are an individual, but you collaborate so well in a group that the summation of the individuals creates a larger coordinated whole, like some type of functional super-organism. Not that I'm into Gaia or anything. But it's the first time I felt that way. Aaron was in charge of good audio, a camera on a tripod, and the more "distancing 3/4 body shot" of Dr. Sylvester, which also included his hand motions, and the aesthetics of Goleta Beach behind him. I already had a pre-existing interview, so Noah (very intelligent and opinionated individual [in a good way], I overheard him talking about the United States of Amnesia) got to ask the questions. I handed him the interview sheet and realized my priority was superb audio and video and I can't get that while simultaneously interviewing (without a tripod). And gxd forbid, I was not using a tripod. I was being as cautiously playful with the shots as possible. I know I messed up the first 4-6 minutes of audio of a 60 minute tape--the audio needs to be raised higher when edited in the computer for those few minuts--and I know I messed up in tiny fragments of where the camera was pointed in terms of visuals and where Dr. Sylvester was talking, but overall I think it was good material. At least we have 56 minutes of solid audio. Amen for my new audiotechnica shotgun mic I strapped down to my camera with a rubber band and bungee cord (old school, eh?)! And Ace? I found out retroactively he got a parking ticket that morning. That sucks! Ace came a little late because he was trying to assemble the boom pole and the shotgun mic. It ended up that the assembled contraption didn't work. Well, that's why I got the shotgun mic. Can never rely entirely on the Film and Media Department for optimal equipment. We already had enough audio difficulties this entire filming experience! Ace did some very creative B roll during the first part of our interview, and he was a much needed back-up interview camera when Dr. Sylvester was being the "weather man" for Goleta Beach coastal erosion, making conceptual diagrams on the white board I bought at Costco! Ace also accompanied me to Goleta Beach (we drove there in my dirty dirty dirty car... poor Ace and Dr. Sylvester!) and Dr. Sylvester gave us a quick ten-minute point-around just like he did to a local politician in terms of where all the key factors were located on the beach: (1) the new permeable groin, (2) the rock revetment, (3) the gas-lines and pipes, and (4) other minor issues about the park and the beach. It was a very good and brief orientation. Ace questioned me on partly chopping off Dr. Sylvester's head with my framing. I said it's a visual aesthetic technique that I do in photography and people do all the time in the magazines. That was a good question. I tried to do rule of thirds as much as possible, but I do admit sometimes my hands were shaking when holding the camera. I had to use my chest and rib cage as support. I was in pain and stiff after a while of doing that! Dr. Sylvester teased me, wondering why I didn't use the tripod in the first place! Well, first off, the Film and Media Department tripods aren't in the best of shape (they're giving us the tiny ones) and I have more room for creative motion if I just hold the camera. I can be more adaptive to the situation! So I'll sacrifice the pain for a creative picture any day!

And of course, Dr. Sylvester (seismologist, emeritus, Earth Sciences Department at UC Santa Barbara) was slick, smooth, clear, to-the-point, visual, and as usual--very lively, energetic, friendly, and approachable. I do admit--I love working with professors who have just started or are on the verge of being or are emeritus. Why? Because they have TIME on their hands. Their plates are not as full as those other profs. It's like they're real human beings, not machines working like they're on overtime in a factory of imprinting students' brains and cranking papers to get their tenures or promotions or whatever bureaucratic carrots these energizer bunnies are chasing after. I told my mom about Dr. Sylvester and she said she was very glad to hear that caring, intelligent, general-minded professors still exist in the university!

The shoot didn't go fully as what was planned in the question list and shot list I prepared, but it actually went even BETTER. At first I thought we were going to interview Dr. Sylvester in the office. It showed in my interview sketch, as I was just trying to create a controlled environment in my mind so we can clearly talk about the basics and not get distracted by outsider influences. But the day was so beautiful, so warm, and no wind... so we went outside to the Anacapa steps (the north end of the parking lot by the Marine Science Institute, also where Dr. Sylvester takes repeat photography) and did the main chunks of the interview all around there! Plus, it was Monday, so we didn't deal with a lot of student traffic; just a couple of surfers here and there. I think student beach-goers were discouraged simply because the tide was so high. The only major noise distractions we had were cars starting their engines. So... the order of the interview: (1) Noah asked very basic overview questions, (2) then more specific questions about Goleta Beach, related to visualization processes, (3) Dr. Sylvester did an in situ art gallery showing of his comparative photography of waxing and waning of UCSB beach, (4) then followed by Dr. Sylvester's coastal drawings of factors that make the beach and alter the beach structure when placing certain manmade features into the system, and (5) Ace and I accompanied Dr. Sylvester to Goleta Beach as he did a 10-minute pointing-here-and-there. Then we went back, picked up equipment, said thanks, went to Ace's car to drop off the technological baggage, heard from my friend Oscar, and were on our way to the weekly Greenscreen meeting (Monday's 1-2pm). I was there a short time, but it looks like I'll be pitching in ideas about how to edit value systems and sense of place portions of the film... and also it seems I am tentatively responsible for organizing the Dr. Ed Keller (a geologist at UCSB too!) interview as well. We'll for sure have similar methods and structures to the interview. It depends when Alexios will come back! When we were at the digital editing lab, I turned in the three tapes from the shoot today to Nicole Bulalacao (our new main editor!); it was a very, very rewarding feeling. I told her, "Oh boy! Nicole's our editor... we gotta give her some quality stuff! Transform drabby interviews into Saturday Night Live!" She laughed, and I sincerely hope she likes what she got!

To make a long story short, about a week ago I was going through post-turn-in-grad-school-applications-withdrawal, and I drove up to UCSB for the Greenscreen meeting. I was in there late. I plopped down, instantly found out that Alexios (main interviewer, director) had a family emergency in Greece, and then Nicole and Lauren (producers, organizers of the film) asked me if I wanted to do the interview with Dr. Sylvester next Monday. It was a very spontaneous response from my part, and I said, "okay!" I guess it was a case where a lot of heavy weight was dumped from my brain... freed up tremendously... and then instantly re-occupied with Goleta Beach matters, except this time, I'm deeper in the rabbithole with this film, much deeper than I thought! My mind started racing with all the pre-existing ideas I had and shared with the group but were never executed. I raced around, went to talk with Dr. Sylvester THAT DAY at his office in between 4-5:30, and he gave me the low-down with his website (check out his website above, underneath his photograph) and the situation of Goleta Beach from his perspective. And I coaxed him into the idea of drawing stuff. I told him I would make a question list that night (which I did), and I sent it to him. We then reconvened on Friday (I drove from Riverside to S-ba, accidentally missed Dave Panitz' course on website design due to traffic), and talked about what he thought of the questions.

Well to say in short, it's a very comforting feeling to talk to Dr. Sylvester. I feel like I'm right at home talking with my dad. They both practice comparative ground photography. They both listen to classical music. And both of their offices are packed with books and documents and maps and all sorts of funny bumper stickers and quotes. Not only that, Dr. Sylvester's main image on his website is of him surrounded in a field of poppies:. Ironically, my dad's current research us on historical wildflowers of California! I also felt at home because Dr. Sylvester had time to talk to me, like my dad gives me time... and LOTS of patience. Few professors have that kind of time to talk and think about big issues and ideas... and not rush you off so they can do the next thing. We even got into philosophical discussions about communicating science--like word choice, the notion of how much information to tell--enough to understand but not too much to bore, and even the idea of visualizing complex ideas, not dumbing down. By the end of our conversation on Friday, Dr. Sylvester informed me that his son-in-law Andy Bowers is in charge of an experimental media division of NPR called "SlateV" stationed in Santa Monica, and that the situation is so good and so hands-off and so breaking-habits-of-existing mass-media corporations, that it would probably be the best match for my situation in terms of a summer internship! I'm really excited and I'm most likely going to pursue such a rare opportunity!

By the time Monday rolled around (which is today), Dr. Sylvester and I were both very n-sync, like-minded, and very pre-meditated about the entire shoot. He actually provided a lot of feedback in terms of setup and backdrop (it turns out that Dr. Sylvester's had previous experience in getting interviews from news stations, like ABC Primetime!) And then the shoot happened, and voila, here I am, writing my little mind's heart out about how well it seemed to go! THE ONE LESSON I LEARNED ABOUT COLLABORATIVE PRE-MEDITATED INTERVIEWS IS THAT THE INTERVIEW YOU GET OUT OF IT TENDS TO BE A GEM. The interview may seem predictable and routine since it's pre-meditated, but it also challenges you to do even more spontaneous and weirder gutsy things on the shoot! I think with documentaries, it's probably good to do two interviews: one interview to document the intrinsic process of human spontaneity, and a secondary pre-meditated interview to generate concrete solidity in story-line and plot. Then merge both together, and presto! Maybe something that will work for Nicole to edit! :-)

I think I'm all written out, but I am glad I made it through this day. The first time of being in charge of a crew in a decentralized way. I'm so thankful for everyone! I just hope everyone else had just as much educational fun as I did! Now, I for sure shall take a nap!

103. Greenscreen: A Day of Filming at Goleta Beach, California

http://s202.photobucket.com/albums/aa109/stokastika/GoletaBeachPhotos011907/?start=all
Check out all the images in the link above (photobucket)!

I have been participating in Greenscreen for so long at UCSB, I feel ashamed that I have no tangible product for the experiences I have gone through thus far. Therefore, I decided to write a first blog. For all of those who do not know what Greenscreen is... it's not just a "green screen," or your neon Christmas wrapping paper slapped against a wall to make some whacko student film. Greenscreen is actually a new program at UCSB funded by the Coastal Fund (and perhaps a few other agencies) to produce student films in concern of regional environmental issues. There are three films going on: a mocumentary on development in the Gaviota coast, a "feature film short" about a student who goes psychotic after being brainwashed with global warming media, so psychotic that he starts to interact with talking fish (that, I think is a good plot to work with on such a film), and me? I am a part of the Goleta Beach project, which in part, when thinking about it, you can go a bit psychotic. Why? The situation is that Goleta Beach is a heavily recreated Santa Barbara County beach, but there are huge problems on how to manage it since the beach is chronically retreating. There are some folks who want to see "managed retreat" and other folks who are into more human-imposed visions of a landscape: dredge sand and create structures to keep the beach in place. It's kind of liking maintaining one giant backyard. One way or another, as Cheryl Chen (on the board of Coastal Fund) states, "it's a lose-lose situation." All possible outcomes will be costly and someone will get hurt. It's just a matter of who. So, it sucks. And those who want to do "managed retreat"--a more "natural" coastal geomorphological process--also give me a head ache, because the beach was in part MANMADE in the first place (after World War II, I believe). So, as I had to explain to the manager of the Java Jones coffeeshop this morning, I have to maintain a "healthy" interaction with the project, and not get too involved, otherwise I will go nuts and start seeing talking fish. Maybe in this case, the retreating sand will take me on a "magic carpet ride." I'm just going to enjoy the "circus" of perspectives, so to speak. What I am interested in all of this is the underlying logic structures and "cognitive mapping" systems of people involved in Goleta Beach. In addition, I need a social pill, and I need to maintain my camera skills... AND I need to take breaks from being in a room all day... so this is a superb outlet for me. In addition to that, it's also a huge learning curve for me in terms of the process on how to collaborate with a larger group of people. Production groups are like microcosmal government systems, and it's very interesting how the dynamics of individuals play out. As of now, I'm a field videographer... and quasi-responsible for sound. I'm slowly participating a bit more than I have before. My role is malleable and I can be happy placed anywhere, just as long as I am outdoors. But it came to a point today where I thought, geez... I've been following this for a whole quarter. You would think I'd have some "tangible product" to reflect upon my experiences thus far? Nothing really. So, today, since I had to leave around noon and would have been of no use for an interview that would have extended beyond noon... I decided to whip out my Nikon D80 and take pictures. I felt like, though I was part of a group, I had a sense of individualism and control, that I was observing and manipulating rather than being under the gun, all through occupying a cinematic niche space no one else was assuming responsibility for: photography. There I went, a fleeting happiness and spontaneity to document in still shots things you couldn't necessarily see or notice when making a film. Earlier there were some dolphins coming out close to shore, and Matt--a new, enthusiastic member of the team--came out with me to frantically prep my camera and take some shots. Though I had a quasi-telephoto lens, it was as close as I could get. That was a ticklish experience. In the images above, I took pictures of the crew at work, Ace and Matt working on setting up the steady cam, Alexios and Aaron filming, and typical beach sites: tractors by the pier, a more generic collage, and the grand finale collage: "Collision and Coexistence: the Boy, the Tractor, the Restaurant, and the Beach." Sounds like a title for an environmental soap opera, eh? I just made it up on the fly. After creating this collage and collection of photographs, I feel a little better about myself... that I have dumped some ideas from my brain, though it's loaded with so many more. It's a heavy weight for sure.

I wanted to say sorry to the crew if I was a stiff butthead this morning. Though I may be a scientist, I am a human, and I am entitled to emotions, and though school and personal life should be divorced, ultimately they interfere. I'll briefly go through a list of mental and physiological disclaimers right now: (1) I lost 1450 to internet fraud, but there is a good chance I will get the money back, (2) I'm going through crisis trying to apply to graduate school, and (3) I found two "C"s on my report card that need explaining--both parties will write a letter describing that the C reflects some other criteria and does not reflect the product of the work turned in, intellectual and creative capabilities, nor drive or motivation. I am flipping out because of this, and I need to talk to a few profs next week. So, since my life is pretty drab right now, I'm partly in panic mode, and I am sure it reflected on the beach.

Ace brought the materials from Keith, but unfortunately we were missing one piece: the adapter that connects the microphone plug of the camera to the XLR cable of the boom mic. Since I am a field scientist, I am entitled to exclaim, "Shxt!!!" I said to Lauren and Alexios, "If we don't have good audio, we have nothing." So I flipped out under the regime of my own words, and instantly decided not to shoot. Instead, I went foraging for the missing part. I ended up going in circles for a while, finally encountered a Circuit City, had to wait ten minutes for the store to open (at 10am), ended up talking to a cool landscaper guy named Kerry, and we breezed about technology and the downhill of society (which passed the time quickly), got pissed because Circuit City didn't carry the part I needed, zipped back to RadioShack off Fairview (they also opened at 10am), found the part (which was in awkward form, no need to explain...) and zipped back to the beach. By then I probably wasted 10 bucks of gas and the interview in the Beachhouse Cafe was about over. I felt detached and useless by that point, but Matt came along, and we started assembling equipment again. Lauren came back with more equipment (it turned out that she went foraging for sound equipment as well), and we further assembled a fully functional audio-video unit. By then, I felt like I was getting somewhere in life, but we had to wait for a while for Ace to assemble steadycam, which I do not know how to use. I am not against Ace or anyone, but I told Matt, "I'm a technological minimalist. I use what I need and nothing more." Implication: just hold the camera in my hands and hope that the basal "balancing" neuron structure in my brain is in good operation. As Dr. Legrady (an art professor at UCSB) quoted Einstein: "Reduce systems to simplicity, but nothing simpler." So, this morning, when we had no adapter, the system was too simple: it wouldn't work. When we had a steadycam, I felt we reached a threshold of technological excessiveness. It's a phenomenon I call "overtechnologization." Typical of human society. It's like we humans are ornate with technological make up. We could scrap quite a bit of it and still function. People can just shoot me in my mouth, but it's just what I think. But what I think doesn't matter, so I'll just shut up, but no one will read this anyway because I'm just one in six billion humans so in the end it doesn't matter so I'll just say what I want. So, whatever, okay?

I left around noon, in frustration, feeling like I got nothing done, didn't help too much except print out three papers for the interview questions, try to buy equipment that we never ended up using, assemble a camera-audio system I never got to operate, and then... 11:30 hits, I'm no longer good for the interview, so I just take pictures. I wanted tangibility really bad, so I photoshopped some images and wrote a blog. I feel in a better state of zen.

As for my previous experiences in Greenscreen, that is a blog of its own. I've been invovled in two or three other interviews or filming events (some indoors and some outdoors), and have attended the good chunk of meetings, in addition to participating in a course called Films of the Human and Natural Environment (with Dr. Janet Walker and Dr. Melinda Szaloky). At first, my existence in the group had been rocky and I didn't feel too wanted around, but things are smoothing out, and things are starting to have rewarding meaning. It takes time to develop meaning in things. As I have said before, being a part of a production team is a human experiment in designing micro-government regimes. It's like experimental modern tribalism, or something like that :-). Nicole (the head of Greenscreen) philosophically tweaked in the beginning of this quarter, changing it from authoritative style to decentralized and more malleable in terms of roleplay and say. I don't have enough energy to describe everyone on the team at this time. Each person is an interesting character with his or her own unique properties and background. As of this moment, I think I have exhausted my writing attention span.

So, if anyone reads this, and this person happens to be on Greenscreen Goleta Beach, sorry if I was a pessimistic tightwad (what does tightwad mean? I hope it's something bad) today. My life condition overall is not so good, and it reflected in my attitude. Nevertheless, this kind of experience can help snap me out of my ruts too. Help me slowly dust off my knees and move on.

P.S. I really enjoyed working with Matt today, with the audio and photography. He's the main person I interacted with. Matt has a super positive attitude and is very attentive and sharp. Superb qualities that are indicators of great success!

102. Random Poem "I Told You So"

I think my mind blew a fuse in the meeting today. It is too bad this blog is public. So, I must stay vague. I feel certain things but I don't want to hurt other's feelings. I wish I could say things freely and not experience consequences for them. But now being in a social group, I already feel constrained in terms of what I can say and do. At least I created a song today. Still not good enough for a pat in the back of productivity.

Is it right for me to say:

"I told you so, I told you so."

When I said the 'xact same thing

Nearly half a year ago.

Is it right for me to say:
"I told you so, I told you so."

When ultimately the people

Come, in time, to their own terms

Come, in time, to their own terms....

O my momma always told me

The Self's the only one you know

O my momma always pinned me

The Self's the only one you control....

So there's no use to play the boss

For the only way to connect the dots

Is the Self to come to terms

Is when the people'll ever learn

Is when the Self to come to terms

Is when the people'll ever learn....

In the freedom of their minds

They search the boundaries to define.

In the freedom of their minds

They sketch the borders an outline.

They search the boundaries to define....

I told you so.

I told you so.

I fold my arms.

I told you so.

But I've been burned.

I told you so.

When will they learn?

I told you so.

"I told you so"

Is just a ghost

Just my mind's ghost

But I say no.

I say no more.

I told you so.

I say no more.

I told you so....

Flock of the Dodos: Written and Directed by Randy Olson, Scientist Gone Film-maker, THE WEEK IN REVIEW

There is nothing like the sense of "completion" and coming together. How so? I was missing two sheets of paper last week: one sheet describing the Green Screen project and grading, the other sheet describing the weekly "reading logs" in which the undergrads of the course must critique the readings from the "green book." That was subliminally bothering me, to a point that I called Cheryl Chen last Wednesday asking her what those sheets were about. I usually don't like bugging people. I even dropped by Scott Bull's office to get Cheryl's number. Subliminal haunting number ONE, solved. Subliminal haunting number TWO: that being getting 596 units with Dr. Walker for the course. It had been a long discourse, which lasted for over a week. It started last Wednesday, never ended, and finally resolved yesterday during office hours, and after the Inconvenient Truth. At one point, Dr. Walker asked to deal with it tomorrow, and I told her that it would be nice if I could sleep better tonight (finally, today I received the add code from Melanie Miners), and so we took care of things then. One way or another, I am responsible for 12 pages of traditional "scholarly" writing (I'm not used to being it called "scholarly," moreso "scientific"), and basically "scholarly" writing in the social sciences and the humanities takes in the form of my essays from Miss Flory back in the 7th grade (flashback to my A+ for aggrandizing her frequently pooping toucan bird). That was the first time Miss Flory recognized that I had the ability to write. And we were in good terms for the rest of the year (despite the B+ first "trimester"). So, the point is: you have a central thesis. Then you dissect the thesis into several supporting subtheses (say, three points), and then which each subthesis, you have several lines of evidence to back up the statement (e.g. three forms of evidence to back up the statement), so in science we would collect masses and masses of numbers and data points to support our hypo-theses and our predictions (subtheses), but I guess in social sciences, it's only 3-5 lines of evidence. I shrug my shoulders. Why is it this way? Don't ask. It simply is. Dr. Walker didn't want all my projects to be "free-associative" (inventing new writing structures, creating new theories without citing lots of papers), but I told Dr. Walker that my writing in Question Reality is based on casual conversations with scientists. I cite them through "interview" just like Al Gore. Not necessarily through literature. Well, 12-pages of a longer essay it shall be. I'll be a bit more rigorously citational in twelve pages.

I guess "scholarly" is defined as play the hyper-association game with peer-reviewed, highly cited references. Compare "what you think" with what "everyone else thinks." And that's how things build.... But it's soo slow, this process. And my mind makes up things sooo FAST... I told Dr. Walker that I have two phases: I belch out creatively and invent my own structures. Then I calm down and take my creative belches and adopt them to whatever writing structure that needs to be adopted to.

Subliminal haunting number THREE: meeting and connecting with the Green Screen participants of the Goleta Beach project. I mean, I have been stressed out since the beginning of school, ever since I found out that I missed out on the Green Screen party/gathering because I wasn't informed by email. Yuck. But today was good. I finally met several players in the film around 11am Wednesday morning at the digital editing lab. Some familiar faces: Nicole Star---ski (sorry, don't remember), Ryan Bowles (editing guru). And the key new players I was able to meet was "el heffe" of the project--Lauren Wilson--who has a most agreeable, open, welcoming, supportive personality and pro-active attitude, I am already motivated and excited to work with her and the project--and Alexios Monopolis (mispelled?)--the "greekislander" email that Vic picked up a month ago. I finally broke ice with Alexios toward the end of the meeting and told him that I was the one who sent him an odd-ball email over a month ago about his situation in grad school with Bren, because I'm trying to transfer. Alexios is very athletic, and based his attire, I take it he was a soccer player for Dartmouth college. He speaks fast and in a hyper tone (but he may be hyper because he just came from the big Jacksonhole-Wyoming International Wildlife Film Festival). And he has a New Englandish hybrid accent such that it tremendously reminds me of Kuba (I think he's still at Harvard). I am glad he said he would be able to meet with me. I found out he's doing a "double" MFA in arts and a Bren Ph.D, which is gnarly shxt (in a good way), though he's right handed, which is cool. So I'm relieved, because he can send me in the right direction of things. It's rare enough to find a scientist who is also superb in art.

There is a comical, scripted movie going on about the development of Gaviota Coast, and I wanted to applaud the writer (Steven Ray Morris) for his good work (though he is missing key elements, such as the shifting baseline effect in development, a.k.a. "creeping development"), but since I initiated script writing and helped contribute to the script and already did a Goleta Beach photoshoot, what can I say? I'm pretty deeply "rooted" in this project, and the best part is I found out today that there are lots of things unresolved (such as stylistic effects, e.g. tripod or hand-held) and a little bit of a slow start in general. So, there's still lots of flexibility in terms of how the movie can look like, and what can be done.

So, anyhoo. Three stressful subliminalities now delt with. Those things are done, but as usual, I'm in a huge rabbit hole, so as soon as I elminate some stresses, more stresses creep or crash back into the "top of the line" of priorities of my pre-frontal cortex.

Okay, as for this week, what's happening? What happened. I will say briefly, I was a bit "understimulated" and depressed on Monday and Tuesday, because Monday Dr. Walker went over a lecture that was review for me from Blue Horizons: "Define Documentary." I chose not to participate because over the summer I had a huge mouth about it. But what I did tell Dr. Walker (on the second time around) that I am creating this "Matrix" of parameters, called "photoshopping the definition of documentary," where to "classify" a movie as a documentary or moreso fiction, that you have to manipulate "where along the gradient" does the movie lie in terms of a particular element. E.g. Was the movie free-filming, staged, or scripted? (from highest degree of freedom to highest degree of constraint) E.g. Were the people "real" and "in situ" or were they "actors"? E.g. Was it the "real setting" or was it an "animated simulation"? And most importantly, "was the film-maker's goal to portray Reality or Fiction?" or "Reality with a more specific message?" And then you have to look through all the factors and all gradients, and then do a PCA analysis (principle components analysis) to assess the degree of realism and degree of fictionalism the movie held, and then see whether it's good to label a movie as "documentary." Because I think the existing 3-part classification of documentary (as opposed to WHAT OTHER classifications? "I can only know what a documentary is, given that I know what a documentary cannot be.") Monday was also good because I bonded with the "Back Invaders" of class--those students who occupy the plentiful open space of the back of class--most importantly Sean and Aimee. We can cover each other's xsses just in case we miss class.

Tuesday is the day I talked with Dr. Walker before and after class, in addition to watching the Inconvenient Truth for the THIRD TIME. Somehow I didn't shoot myself. I started to feel sad in class, simply because I am in a classroom and not experiencing anything in the outdoors to bring into class. So starting up with some shooting for Goleta Beach is cheering me up A LOT, so I can bring real-world experience to a class loaded with information. I am not going to talk about Inconvenient Truth right now, because I could rattle on about that movie for quite a while... not to mention that a whole bunch of science-media programs are blossoming all over the country due to this movie, including Blue Horizons. I owe Al Gore my respects. I hope one day I can meet him in person and shake his had--say thanks for opening doors for me in my education that would have otherwise NOT existed.

LEAVE OFF FOR A LATER TIME. A RANTING ABOUT AL GORE AND AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. One tidbit that struck me in class today: Al Gore has two generations of politicians in his family. Davis Guggenheim has two generations of documentary film-makers in his family. Al Gore Senior knew Guggenheim Senior, so I guess maybe Al Gore Junior and Davis Guggenheim were little kids playing together. Just like how Ray, Bub, and I have three generations of California ecology. I think such multi-generational effects creates a level of how to carry on the legacy of your parents, in addition to "how to break outside the box" of your parents. Al Gore went from politician to scientist side. And Vic is going from scientist side to treating human policy as science... So in traditional definitions, Vic is going toward a political realm with a very twisted perception of what policy is: a scientific experiment with humans being the guinea pigs inside the ratbox.

Well, today in class Dr. Walker went over An Inconvenient Truth, and a few terms (e.g. "self-reflexivity" and "interactivity") that describe techniques used to make the movie "successful." I honestly don't know what the term "romantic" means when they say this movie IS romantic. Honestly, everything from Hollywood IS romanticized. (In the back of my head, I hope Al Gore comes to UCSB or Santa Barbara sometime soon. The best part about Santa Barbara is that when you invite a guest speaker out here, it's VERY HARD to decline because even if they could pass another guest-talk, you can't exactly pass up a Santa Barbara utopia of climate and environment and people. Same with Dr. Steven Pinker.) Hmmm. I feel awkward calling Al Gore "Honorable." What kind of intro is that? I would rather just call him Dr. Gore, though he may not have a Ph.D., he very well deserves one.

In terms of the knowledge regimes of "film studies professors," I am slowly figuring out "what they know and what they don't know," and where I fit in, and am extending. For example, today when Dr. Walker discussed An Inconvenient Truth, she barely touched on the science, except for saying that it was highly visual and aesthetic (for me, was like an "art showcase for science" an art installation that I would love to do, and am planning to). She made note that she is not in the position to critique the science (where I fit in), but then went to look at techniques of movie-making. She focused on style, not content. So, then, Dr. Walker and Dr. Szaloky keep referring to Kant's essay on "aesthetics, beauty, sublime" (three frequently used words) in addition to a new philosophy essay by a female British philosopher who wrote a book called "what is nature" and explores the defintions and origins of these definitions and viewpoints. Separatist "versus" as man versus nature, or Integrist man as a part of and interacting with nature (honestly, the word "nature" and "culture" is SO bad it's like worse than cus words like fxck and bxtch, I feel like spitting every time I use those words). I went to Dr. Szaloky after class to ask her what her definition of aesthetics/beauty/sublime were, just to refresh and clarify. And I realized at that moment, to screw what Kant thinks. What matters in this course is "what Dr. Szaloky thinks what Kant thinks," because ultimately I have to communicate with the profs, not some dead guy who has his writing kept around and referred to by people to this day. So, in the eyes of Dr. Szaloky (I still probably am getting this wrong), she thinks that Kant thinks that there is this realm of "aesthetics" of a human's response to his or her environment. Under the umbrella of "aesthetics" there is "beauty" and "beautiful," which an object in one's environment can be tagged if one's pleasure center is stimulated just by its present (so, you are at this point emotionally stimulated but no rational thought). Beauty is a pleasure-center stimulation of the object itself with no further development. An object becomes "sublime" if that object (whether present or becoming a state of "abstract concept") becomes dissociated from the tangible reality of the object of "beauty" and the human mind creates this fractal branching network of intellectual thought and imagination and "trance enlightenment" all revolving around that object itself. But sublime is all a construct in the human mind, but beauty refers to a primitive mammalian pleasure center response to the object itself. It's almost as if Kant literally dissected these these two neurological programs in our minds. Good job, dude. You probably didn't even have to physically dissect a human brain to figure it out. Just enough self-introspection can do it :-). So, there, I think I understand.

This is a later add-in. When I was 11 year old, I stared at the paintings of Christian Riese Lassen. I enjoyed them for the sake of "beauty" itself, for I was a stupid kid back then who knew jack about the ocean and marine life. I developed a pleasure-center association with his images without extrapolating beyond that. I had close to no cerebral cortex development at that point. But now, I have constructed the ideas of "evolution of art" such that I have established a level of neurological association and construction beyond this primal pleasure-center stimulation of Lassen art. That, I do believe, in terms of extrapolating beyond the tangible entity into abstract concepts in my mind, and association with grander viewpoints... I guess over time I have transformed Lassen's art in my mind from "beauty" to "sublime." So... this is how I understand these terms now... This was entered November 23, 2007.

But you see. Here I go. I am analyzing dead guys' philosophical essays and I am teasing apart their own neurobiology of enlightenment. When you analyze a movie and just go based on the notion of aesthetics, sublime, those assumptions to me are SHALLOW, as shallow as Hollywood itself. It's surface value judgement, to me at least. So, as I told Dr. Walker before. We can't just stop at aesthetics, beauty, sublime. We, or at least I--as a biologist with a huge streak of evolutionary psychology personality in me--we as biologists have to ask why do certain images or elements of our environment come off as "aesthetic" as opposed to other elements as "repulsive. What is the biological basis of perception of human attraction and repulsion towards elements of one's environment? What elements of composition of an image that the human mind has "hyperfocus" over other elements of the environment? So... digging deeper in the biological realm of things...

I couldn't wait for the QandA component of Inconvenient Truth. I think the course is skewed towards consuming knowledge than equal feedback and exchange of ideas. It's like 5 hours of lecture and movies, and only a 15 minute question-answer session where students get to voice their thoughts... That is a bit skewed. Many people were cool with the movie, and the most imporant thing is that Al Gore "broke outside the box" for scientists, because he is a politician deeply tied with science in his experiences. A point that I made in class is that Al Gore was so eloquent and clear and very selective with his choice of words, and there was a lack of confusion in anything presented--WHY? BECAUSE AL GORE NEVER USED THE WORDS NATURE OR CULTURE! He talked about humans and environments. Bingo. Vic's type of talk.

And the other most dangerous component of global warming is that it is a DANGEROUS BLAME-ALL ECOLOGICAL GHOST due to the level of "intangibility" of climate, in addition to its ENVIRONMENTAL RELIGION properties, where it's a HYPERASSOCIATION PIGEONHOLE where you can blame nearly everything on global warming, which then masks and distorts thorough regional analysis of issues, which may be related to OTHER MORE RELEVANT ISSUES other than global warming (e.g. development patterns, erosion, landslide patterns, fire ecology), and then global warming taints politics because it is a MONOPOLIZED AGENDA for university research funding, so scientists purposely go through this association game of their pet pea hypothesis with global warming simply to APPLY and GET funding. Science becomes tainted because people are CHASING GRANT FUNDING and not making associations in pursuit of TRUTH. Hence my thesis "what's the point?" because science is the pursuit of individual truth under consensus and trial of others, and this pursuit of truth is now being so skewed and tainted by the bureacracy surrounded by science.

There are several other problems coming to think about it, but such is the quibbling of a scientist who has worn this scientist hat since she was a little twirp, playing in the hallways of UC Riverside's Earth Science Department. You have to take a step back, and remember that few people experience the lifestyle of a scientist, and that all this they are exposed to is all new and shocking and convincing to them. And it's beside the point for all science to be true and accurate because science undergoes constant change and revision, so the moment Al Gore gives a talk... is the moment that some of the work he presents is already out of date.

Due to the large size of the class, everytime there is a lecture with QandA, I make a point to ask AT LEAST ONE QUESTION, and say something that is INSIGHTFUL and challenging. So, at one point, there was a guy in the back of class who said that everything made sense in the movies except for Al Gore's griping after losing the elections in 2000 to George Bush. "There was a level of disconnect." And after that, my hand shot up close to the speed of light because (1) I had something to say and (2) it was unique, thouhtful, and challenging. I was the second to last person to talk, and finally I was called on (I'm in the back, remember?). I talked very confidently and loudly, not exactly in these words (but you'll get the gist): "I'm responding to the commentary on how there is a level of disconnect between the entire movie and Al Gore's presentation of his failure in being elected in 2000." Here are the points below:

This blog remains unfinished....

Blue Horizons Green Screen Red Box, Red Mars Green Mars Blue Mars

Suggested Readings for the Beginning of Constance Penley's Environmental Media Course

http://stokastika.googlepages.com/deathofenvironmentalism.pdf


http://stokastika.googlepages.com/meisterjappenviropopintro.pdf


http://stokastika.googlepages.com/ingramgreenscreenprefaceintrochapter.pdf






http://stokastika.googlepages.com/cubittecomedia.pdf

Above were a list of beginning readings for the Environmental Media course. All very helpful for identifying themes in environmental media, but I think I am going through a "mental transition phase" in terms of reading "a bit rambling" literature from the social sciences and humanities... as opposed to the terseness and conciseness of hard sciences language. Flashback to freshman year at UC Davis, reading the rambling literature of "Mountain Landscapes and Life," as well as history documents related to the ideas of comparing the 1890s to the 1990s.... What a headache.

I hope I myself can establish a happy medium between poetic rambling and scientific terseness, but still be able to get the point across optimally: say the most with the least amount of words, but say enough to stimulate intrigue and emotional uproar, and not scientific apatheticness and emotional detachment (as I have said so many times, scientific papers are by far the best sleeping pills on the planet, sleep-in-five-minutes, guaranteed).