Values and Criteria Analysis Pt 2

The piece of new media that I chose to use from the first part of the Values and Criteria Analysis is the parody video by Not Literally Productions.

EVALUATION:

Core

To what extent does this project convey a clear message?

  • In order for this project to convey a clear message, the watcher would have to be familiar with the HBO series as well as fan reactions.  The video is, in a way, lamenting the constant character death that happens in the television show.  It is meant to bring the fanbase together as well as parody the actual show itself; it contains a bit of a narrative structure in it as well, in which the girls are telling about their own experience with Game of Thrones.

Does this project have a substantive, controlling idea?

  • Yes.  The controlling idea of this project is that the show can be emotionally trying for its viewers, and the people in the production are parodying both the show and the fanbase’s reactions.

Form and Content

Do the project’s structural or formal elements serve the conceptual core in an effective and efficient manner?

  • Yes.  The scenes in the video serve the purpose that they are trying to convey.  They reconstructed scenes from the show to go along with the lyrics of the song.  The video also does a really good job of keeping everything well-timed.

Are the project’s design decisions deliberate, controlled, and defensible?

  • Yes.  The video’s design and content are very controlled and deliberate.  The choice of the song, parodied off of Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used To Know” was well-written and follows the same patterns as the original.  The video also includes clips from the television show on the television that the girls are watching.  The viewer really gets a sense of the emotional reaction that many fans have had through the parodied and exaggerated expressions of the girls.  The recreation of the characters and the scenes were also necessary to enhance the quality of the video.

Is the project accessible and usable under reasonable circumstances?

  • The project does not have visual lyrics like some other videos, and YouTube does not offer closed captioning for it for hearing impaired viewers.  The sound quality, however, is good.  The parody is virtually inacessable to someone with visual problems; they would be able to hear it but there is nothing to make it more accessable and a description of what is happening (like some pictures have under them) would not be feasible with the video because it has sound.

Audience

To what extent does it engage the intended audience?

  • The video definitely engages the intended audience because not only do they recreate parts of the show, they make the video related to fans’ reactions to the television show.

Ethical Issues

Does the project successfully and ethically integrate borrowed information?

  • There is no link to the original song that was parodied, but the video does not use a lot of actual footage from the HBO show.

I feel that the heuristic that we developed in class was more useful for evaluating the example of “This is Scholarship” than the YouTube video/parody.  I found it incredibly difficult to evaluate the work according to the heuristic that we came up with in class because I was not sure exactly what parts applied to the parody video, especially since it is more of something done for fun and entertainment than education.

With “This is Scholarship”, however, I think that our heuristic works really well.  Overall, I think that what we have come up with will be effective for evaluating our Concept in 60 projects.

Overall, I think that our heuristic is very easy to use and the fact that its general lack of specificity is perfect for our projects.  Since the Concept in 60 project is not really constrained to one type of media, we need a broad heuristic in order to objectively examine what we create and whether or not it meets the criteria for the project.

I think that the fact that I was able to apply our heuristic to something that was not created for education or school and is not scholarly in the least says something about the ability of our heuristic to successfully evaluate works.  While it was difficult to figure out exactly how to use it at first, I think that it’s a good way to evaluate any work that takes life as a different form of media.

Our “Core” section allows us to evaluate whether or not the project has achieved what it has set out to do: does it convey a clear message and does it have a controlling idea?  Because our Concept in 60 projects must be so succinct and timed so perfectly, we have to be able to make sure that we did not lose the focus of the concept that we are presenting while trying to keep it within time constraints, as well as what we use to present our concepts.

The part of the heuristic that  I struggle with the most is the “Form and Content” section.  I don’t think that it needs to be more specific; I think that  most of the difficulty I had with using it came from the fact that I found it difficult to figure out what the parody video’s form and content were.  For our project, I think that we need to leave this section as is.  Again, because of time constraints, the choices that we make to present our idea must serve the “core” (i.e. present our idea effectively and help us to present our concept) effectively and efficiently.  We must also be able to examine whether or not the choices that we use to construct the content of the presentation are used correctly.   Because this class is about writing for new media, we must be able to have our content accessible in various ways to different types of  people, be it disabled or otherwise.  Would someone who had no idea what we were doing with our project be able to understand the point we are trying to make?

The “Audience” section does not need elaborating on either; we must be able to judge whether or not the content was engaging for the intended audience as well as how effective the project was at getting the point across to the intended audience.

Since the project is a scholarly work, we must make sure that we follow the correct use of borrowed information.  The “This is Scholarship” video does a good job of this but it’s harder to evaluate parody works with this criteria.

Overall, I think that the heuristic we have developed for our class projects suits our needs.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s