The authors touched on many different points through individually writing separate paragraphs. Did that help you in gaining a better understanding of what they were trying to accomplish and what they were talking about?

I think so, it was interesting on how putting in different ways on how editors try to omit different authors, or the conflict between authors on whose name goes first was completely ridiculous and interesting. I don't understand how they came up with the conclusions that eliminating authors so there is only one, or putting certain authors first made a difference in which people read the books.

1. Why would the authors of the Kinsey Institute sex survey quarrel for that long as to whose name goes first? when readers read the title page, do they naturally assume that the person whose name is listed first did more research or is more important than the other author? or was their argument legitimate?

2. Why do you think. as stated by the authors, that scientists who do research and fail to argue or 'squabble' are more likely to fail?

3. Do you agree with the idea stated that if two authors were mentioned on the title page of the book "The High Cost of Death" would mean less sales? Do people actually look at the fact that there are multiple authors and decide against reading the book?

1. last wednesday when it was really windy, there were leaves that formed a perfect 'tornado' and went in a straight line down Green Street
2. On the surveying building, there is a big chunck of the base ripped off and the texture looked really cool
3. in one of my classrooms, there was a bulletin board full of colorful flyers that i've never noticed before
4.Walking up the stairs in my apartment, there is color rubbed off the wood on the side of the actual stairs, and the color is rubbed off on the same spots on all the stairs, which is weird because it is not where the foot falls when going up or down them.
5. on the back of the chair in front of me in one of my classes, it has a bunch of drawings and doodlings on it, which look pretty cool when you can't make out all of the specific details.
6. in one of the buildings the walls were cracking and made really cool designs across the ceilings.
7. looking out of my apartment window the street lights make a cool design at night
8. when i stopped at starbucks i put cream in my coffee and i caught it right at the point when it was making a bunch of swirls before it dissolved
9. when walking my roommates dog, it jumped in a pile of leaves and they flew up and back down to the ground, and the random layout of them looked pretty cool
10. when i was walking to class, the sun peaked out and made really cool shadows on the sidewalk from the tree it was peaking through

3.Many of the ideas discussed in this article seem more like tools that directors use to further there view points. A good example of this is Micheal Moore. He uses many of the visual faux pas to further his ideas. Besides the information he misrepresents, he uses visual misrepresentation as well. So, when a visual conflicts with what was said, is it necessarily bad?

It is bad in the sense that he is trying to pass fictitious things off as facts. It is misrepresentation. He is stating that it is news, or, an 'enlightened aspect of news', and yet it is for the most part false, and he is just trying to make himself famous. It he did not call his 'documentaries' fact, then there would not be an issue, but because he tries to come off as an intelligent source for news that is not true, he loses the sense of his work to be considered a serious form of documentation. Therefore, he uses the tools for a documentary well (except from what Hampe discussed as doing interviews, which Michael Moore does do).

1. How did the effect of the close-ups with the boy and 'Miss Darling' ruin the type of effect that Hampe was going for?

2. therefore, can cameras really capture what the person in the moment is seeing?

3. how would a silent film be shot differently due to the lack of sound?

podcast

The first thing I did for this project, was decide that I wanted to do something a little more upbeat; so I decided I wanted to do a podcast about the best upcoming Christmas gifts for 2008. Luckily, my sister works for Target Corporation in Minneapolis, so she has had the Christmas catalog of the 2008 since August. So all of the items on the podcast is what Target and other retailers are going to be promoting this Holiday Season.

First, I wrote out an outline of what I wanted to say in my podcast. However, my voice did not sound enthusiastic, and I did not have a so called ‘radio voice’ that meshed with the music that I had decided to use, “It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas’ by Johnny Mathis. So I had one of my friends record their voice on Audacity. I was unable to download Audacity on my computer, so I tried to use Garage Band. However, due to the many people in the library, it was difficult to record in the library. So my roommate let me download Audacity on her computer.

After we recorded his voice, I used the microphone to record sounds off of Youtube.com. In order to get the sound effects in-between the different takes, I had to highlight the recording after where I wanted to put the sound effect, duplicate it, then delete the top line portion, add the sound effect, then paste the duplicated part of the end back to the end of the added sound effect. I had to do this for the picture sound, the ‘You’ve Got Mail’ sound, the WII sounds, then the Elmo Live sounds.

Next, I had to add the music to the talking audio. I deleted the beginning bells of the song because they were just annoying and ear piercing. I then did a fade in so the loudest part was ‘It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas’, I then did a fade out so the audio was audible. Because on Audacity you cannot lower the volume to different volumes throughout the song on Audacity (you could do it on Garage Band, but not on Audacity), so I cut the song after the fade out, created a ‘new track’ underneath it, cut the beginning part of the audio up to that point, then lowered the sound to a softer level so the speaker was easier to hear. The other problem with the audio was that the song was not long enough at all. So I copied the middle portion of the song, found a similar interlude later in the song that matched the portion at the beginning, and pasted that portion in a ‘new track’ portion underneath it. I had to do this twice in order to make the song long enough for the podcast. The timing ended up working out perfectly for the length of the podcast including the additional sound effects that were added.

3) Does equipment make a difference? (if the picture is clearer or easier to hear, are you more likely to gravitate toward a 'professionally' made one compared to a lesser quality one?)

I think it does make a difference. if someone is looking to really connect with the documentary, perhaps one that is a lesser quality would better connect with you. however, for me personally, i prefer to watch something that is theatrically advanced, but then it takes away from the documentary feel. in the reading, it was discussed how the author was asked what kind of camera was used when taking a meaningful picture, and he laughed about it later because he used a cheap kodak film. his point was that the characters in the picture made the picture, not the equipment. while i do agree with this idea, i think the equipment adds a certain finese to the final product.

Questions for Sept. 14

1) How come documentaries aren't as popular today?

2) would you consider 'reality tv' a form of documentary?

3) Does equipment make a difference? (if the picture is clearer or easier to hear, are you more likely to gravitate toward a 'professionally' made one compared to a lesser quality one?)

WAM

WAM syllabus

file:///Users/labuser/Desktop/WAM%20Syllabus.pdf

2. What did Val do instead of making a physical prototype of the museum?

She instead made a cd and had you 'go through' the different exhibits. For example, she did one on Hollywood, and made it really boring (highlighting the ironicy of it as seeing as it dominates our culture today) and she did a 'music room' where she had different kinds of music. but it was through a cd and she gave the listener a pamphlet to follow along with.

Questions for week of Oct. 7

1. what is the difference between 'soundly engineered' and digital?

2. what was the point of Val making the Hollywood room boring? would you have done this? is it ironic?

3. both students created a pamphlet to go along with their 'cd'; do you think this took away from the point of creating a 'sound experience'?