 All right, we're going to get started with the next session, just because we're running really, really late. I'm just going to talk for two minutes really quickly about camera. Cameras really, I think, pens response to the same questions that came up in the last section about institutionalizing multi-modality. I put up our mission right here. I'm not going to read through it, but really what we are is multimodal researchers. We want to take that seriously. We want to think with multimodality. We want to make in sound, film, image, digital installations, perhaps, in the future. And we want to teach about this stuff. Our showcase event is the screening scholarship media festival, which is coming up next week. It's kind of the next part of this. If this is about theorizing about these things, that's about making, really, and digital making. So I think our theme this year is performing the digital. Everybody coming all over the states and the world will be presenting on this. We have a great filmmaker, Renan Alexandrovich, who made the film, The Law on These Parts, Sundance Jury Prize, just a brilliant film. And I guess what I'll say, passing it off to these guys, is over the three years, we really thought, man, we want to legitimize film. We want to legitimize multimodality. And kind of we've been able to do that in some ways, but it's become a little bit insular. And the problem, I think, is not amongst us here. We all kind of have the same language that we're sharing. It's talking across those who don't already have that language and really teaching. So it's a pedagogic thing that we're undertaking now. And what's kind of happened really in a funny and great way is that we've come on in a lot of ways as consultants for projects where people have said, really, we want a filmmaker to come and help us think about research and film together, or we want to create a digital installation, or a museum space where we're using film and photography. How do we do that? And us as graduate students have come in and been able to say, OK, well, here's how we think about doing it. Let's add it to your portfolio as well. We sometimes get paid for that. That adds in a whole another level of graduate labor questions. And I won't talk about that right now. But the other thing that came up is these kind of short workshops where Kammer really thinks about how professors who don't really have any language to think about this stuff or any of the tools to think about this stuff can get that in 30 minutes or an hour or in a day long workshop. So this is one of our showcase workshops. And I'll just let Gabriel and Sophia take it from here. So that was Arjun and he's the co-director of Kammer. And just to reiterate, Kammer is a mainly graduate student run organization. It has graduate students participating from across the university. We have religious studies folks. We have anthropology folks. We have education folks. We have communication folks. So it's been a really rich space for all of us to really think about what we're trying to do when we do research and who we're trying to reach when we do research and how we can make research. So as Arjun also said, one of the things we've been doing are running these small and sometimes longer provocations. So workshops that get people to think about the ways they see when they go into spaces and do qualitative work. So what is this engagement with the world and ourselves in this kind of connection that we make with the world as we see, as we listen, as we feel. So Sophia is going to open up the conversations. I'm going to run around with the microphone. This is really about you guys talking. So we're going to ask some questions. We're going to show some of the products that you all made. And hopefully that'll push us along to think together a little bit before it's time for the next panel or a coffee. Actually, before it's time for coffee. Thanks. Great. So this workshop is really about thinking about the ways that when we deploy different modalities to both produce and represent ethnographies or to capture different phenomena in social life. So what happens when we do that? So for those of you that weren't here earlier, these were the instructions. We asked people to go out in pairs to find something interesting out there and to capture it. And the only instructions we gave are that one person has to capture it in text and the other one has to capture it in a non-textual format. And then to send their pieces to me. And so we're going to start with our first example. We have Roxanne and Amy. And this is what they captured in text. So take a minute to read through it. And this was their non-textual representation. Yeah, maybe the blinds. So here we have those, the text and the photograph together. And sort of our first question is just simply what do you see? What does the text and the picture evoke separately and together? And what do they evoke differently? So if you raise your hand, I'll bring a microphone to you. So yeah, I see a contradiction here. There's a complex set of intricate impossibilities between, you know, growth, strength, and buds, and then this picture of bleakness. Thank you very much. Well, I think in some ways it's interesting because we have to know that, you know, it's near the end of March. And there's all this context to when this picture was taken that make us so that we can interpret, you know, spring strength, growth, and buds. Whereas if it was taken, you know, earlier in the winter then. I just love those single syllables and the punctuation. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. There's a marked sense of lack of people and persons. Like even the text somehow doesn't communicate to me like it's talking about human bodies in any way. It only seems to be the relationship of space to space. So I don't know. Do I make any sense? I was going to echo to what the first comment said that you can't see any buds in the growth in the picture. And when I read the text, I walked here today. And I saw a bunch of crocuses in the snow. And so when I read that text, my context was expecting to see somebody went out and took a picture of like the crocuses growing up through the snow. So when I saw that picture, I wasn't expecting that. So it's interesting. I just want to point out some of the things that I heard that people said. So initially Jesse's first comment, like it's a lie. Maybe it comes from looking, thinking about just the text, right, and then maybe the picture or the thoughts that it evoked for him versus this picture, right? And how that maybe created a dissonance or maybe based on his experience of today and not wanting any more cold weather, right? And this gentleman over here also pointed out that you have to know that it's March and maybe people want to expect more spring-like weather and then we get more snow. But I also heard people say something about the text evoking something in particular, right? So perhaps in the ways that we write, we can evoke certain things. And in the ways that we choose to take a picture, we can evoke maybe different things, right? So the ways that text can evoke pictures in our heads that pictures don't do that because they have that there. Anyone else might want to add something to what we've seen so far? Okay. Did that stir anything? I think just following on from this conversation, I think there's a sense of difference in proximity and scale that comes through in that word image difference. And it really makes you aware of the question of framing and the selection of the perspective and the ability of, you know, in a single photograph you choose a frame but with the words you can choose to kind of move it in and out and so it'd be interesting also to, you know, there was a video as well to put up here and think about how that would extend the conversation. Great. And I think with that thought about framing and zooming in and out, we can go into the next group and we have the text here. So I don't know if my analysis here, was she here? If you'd like to read it out loud for us, so I'll move on to the non-textual representation both together. And for this example, and my Aisha and Annalisa are here, I'm not sure if they're... Okay. I want to ask both of you sort of what going into this exercise, what was the experience of going into it with one person having this charge of doing it textually and the other person non-textually? Originally the challenge was finding something that we both agreed caught our eye. So we thought, is it something that catches our eye collectively or individually? Because that's sometimes the problem, right? It's where we have different experience and we're looking at different things differently. So I think we try to collaborate and agree on what was interesting and try to figure out why we thought it was interesting. So I think that was the challenge because we spent quite a bit of time looking for something that we wanted to capture. And then when we found this object, I don't even think I read the text panel. Annalisa, did you read it? I don't even know the history of the object or anything. I was really trying to study it to see what, to explain why is this interesting. So that's part of the challenge is explaining why something is captivating. You were the one who drew the picture? Yes. So how did you, so you were thinking about what was captivating about this as you were drawing? Or? No, I think it was more of the first step was to find the object, to examine the object and agree like, is this interesting? And then the next step, we actually, at that point, we both executed at the same time. Like I was drawing while Annalisa was writing. So it was very much collaborative, but very much individual. Like we were working on our project separately after we discussed and agreed like this is what we wanted to do. What you might have been thinking about when you said that. And also for those of you who participated, whose work might not be up here. And for example, the example I just showed, if maybe you can talk about how you approached sort of the task as well. For those of you who also, I know there was a group here who was also working on something. Okay, we both needed a partner and she said, can you sing? And I said, yeah, in church. And so she did the text and then I wrote a song. And so it came, that's how our collaboration came. You might wanna share more. And it was a process, not a thing, since that was a choice. So emerged from a conversation we had about our teaching over lunch. Great, so it became sort of representing this process of the conversation. The text and the song. Any others? Yeah, let's go into the third pair. So Ruth and Peter took up this challenge as well. And we have a video, right? We need some editing though. Flashes of light, quick lightning bolts on my right side, the periphery. I try not to look, so I won't see them. They come back one after another. I keep driving, trailed by those streaks. I flash as they're called. I will learn later. Lines cutting the sky. Next day I find an ophthalmologist. And just to clarify, this is sort of the text was represented in the video. So we have another sort of take up of this exercise, right, in something that is visual and it's moving images. So what did you guys see in the video? What kind of sense did you get of that space that they captured or that moment or that just to riff on that? I thought that there was something about the contextualization of what Ruth said in the morning, right? So all of a sudden now we have a snowfall in a 19th century building scene, right? We have a close up of Ruth's face and we have the paper kind of in the periphery and her glasses, yeah. And I mean, I thought, you know, having that kind of contextualization into a sensuous space changed the words, right? Or changed the meaning, at least for me, of what was being said. It placed it in a temporal chain and essential world, right? Yeah, so I really enjoyed that. I think like when you see a text or when you kind of even see words on a page, hear them, they're kind of, they can be active as well, but there's something kind of static and finished, like it's been polished, it's the words were chosen, the text is what it is. But something about, I think, her facial expression, the camera was kind of moving around, there was something active and unfinished about it, like she was almost kind of reinterpreting the text or there was room for kind of a lot of motion and vitality, both in terms of meaning and then I think in terms of what was gonna happen next that made it, gave it kind of a different energy. Time for one more comment. I was just gonna ask, I sort of posed another question to the audience. So taking some of these comments together, both about sort of Annalisa's point about thinking about their relationship between who's taking that video and what kind of lens is it an empathetic lens, how close or how far, questions about framing or questions about how you evoke in text, how can we connect that to both the practice of doing ethnography and also the ways in which it is represented in its ultimate form. I'm not really sure I can speak entirely to that but I think one of the things that was striking about the video to me was that in sort of along the lines of this empathy idea was that it felt very personal to me, like the kind of, like looking from Peter's perspective, like as the filmmaker, the kind of film you make of someone who's close to you and you guys are hanging out and you know it's very, it's sort of messy and it's like something you keep on your phone for you, whereas as an archeologist, the sketch of the piece of pottery was very familiar to me in a very different sort of way, where that to me is a, even though it was beautifully constructed and obviously it has a distance to it that the sort of movement of the film doesn't and then the photograph is one where it's sort of ambiguous, right? I think without the text it maybe could have been personal in some way, right? But then that disconnect that we've already talked about between the text and the photograph created a sort of different relationship to it, so I don't know that's sort of how I was taking it in. But just an observation on the tricksters here because your instruction said, do something that catches your eye. And I don't know if you did that on purpose, Peter and Ruth, but there's a trickster element to this piece that you did something that captured the eye that is about the eye getting captured and hanging on for dear life and you know, those were the instructions. So okay, unconscious sort of meta levels of the eye of the eye, et cetera. The other thing that I don't know if I got this right or not, but I felt a little tricked because during our panel and I was sitting up there next to you before it was your turn, I saw you with printed text, with typed text. And so did you rewrite that for your staging, restaging of the eye for Peter? You hand wrote. Yeah, you were doing. So we were tricked just now to think that you were reenacting the same text, but it was a handwritten. Yeah, I thought I saw that. So anyway, just a couple observations on the rascals amongst us. So I had a question. Can we hear the song? He may be an engineering student who whispers so you barely hear someone who struggles for fear what you may see with the children's wings and starts to fly. We start to see an angel just because he can see the sky. Thank you. As Gabriel said, this is sort of just a provocation and an exercise we like to do to think about what the affordances of different types of modalities, both in the engagement with the field and in the ways that they're represented. So hopefully this was a fruitful exercise for all of you. Thanks, you guys, that was great. So we have coffee break now until 3.30. So, and they've replenished the cookies. Leave the camera still.