Locative Media & The City

The presentation on the Murmur Project tonight (11/16/06) makes me feel inspired... to think of projects that involve groups of people. Projects that somehow get people involved can turn into something quite powerful. I guess like all art and art-type projects, it's interesting to make an impact on a community as well as make an imprint on people's minds.

Putting these projects out there can make people think, or give them something to ponder. With this type of project, it can evolve into something greater than originally imagined. This type of project can educate people on history of an area -- a city, a street, even a building or park bench.

These stories help to personify a city, giving the city a type of voice, a type of identity. While the stories may be coming from people, in the end it's almost like the places are telling the story through the people. This interesting connection starts to develop more and more in my mind, as I listen to more recordings of people on the website. I don't really know what to make of it. I mean, one knows that the people are telling the stories about these places, but sometimes -- because of the clarity or details given -- the physical places begin to breathe.

Listening to Murmur being explained enacted something within myself again, to want to create or or do something that impacts the world and people in a positive way. It doesn't even need to be any massive undertaking. It just needs to positively affect.

===Response to Chris Ferrari's Thoughts===

I do understand where Chris is coming from, with the thought that the Murmur Project could be viewed as "scripted" because of the audio editing. While I agree that over-slicing and dicing the audio passages is not a good thing (because it gets away from the "true" recordings of the people involved in telling the stories), as long as the original meanings and messages are not changed by the editing, I don't feel that it is that big of a problem. (Taking out some "ums" and "uhs" probably makes the audio clip more understandable and helps it flow.) It's one thing to edit like the news media might, for brevity and conciseness; it's a totally different thing to edit like political campaign ads do.

But it was also stated in the presentation that the audio clips are sometimes rearranged, for the timeline of the clip to make sense. This could leave to bigger problems down the line.

However, on the imagery standpoint, I do agree with Chris. Chris mentioned that images of people are often digitally airbrushed on the covers of magazines and stated, "Imagine if the pictures of the buildings in the Murmur project were all photoshopped to look perfect. EX - broken windows fixed, weeds removed, minor/major blemishes touched up." Photoshopping the images of the city doesn't really tell the story of the city. Sometimes a missing brick or other blemish is just the thing we need to remind us that many city buildings have been around longer than some of us have been alive, and that in their imperfection, these buildings (to me) are more 'perfect.' (Not saying I want to live in a rat hole or anything, but some blemishes add character.)

"I guess what I'm getting at is in order to get an accurate impression and reading of a city, the evidence should be unaltered and come as it is - absent of any modification or altering process. These are just my opinions, and I dont want to sound against the project," states Ferrari.

I think there could perhaps be a happy medium between throwing unedited, raw audio up on the web and slicing up the stories to make more sense, which in a way alters the original story and it's perhaps intended meaning. However, who is to draw the line between the two distinctions?