NG (Day 3) : proposals for action

Make an audio recording of some comments related to one of the videos we viewed. Place this comment on the map right next to the video.

Contact some of the people and interview them. Ask them why, how and for whom they made the video.

Choose three videos from three different genres, or from the different categories that we created based on the videos we found. Do a further analysis of how much it has been watched and how location is related to content. Encourage the users whose content you like the best to grow their collection and add more to the map.

Physically geo-tag a video that you find on YouTube that you would like to be tagged.  Take a screen shot of the video, make a sign with the link and the message “please give this video a geo-tag”. Hold the sign at the physical location where the video should be. Make a video document of this intervention, put it on YouTube and geo-tag it.

Do an intensive ethnographic research of a city. Look at what kinds of videos and what different areas in the city look like. Observe things like historical or cultural context, demographics, migration and visibility.

Think about the title of the video as giving you an idea of content and therefore drawing you toward it. The title brings us in. How do we actually choose? We could think of taking the key image and title and give context to this.

The activity of video bombing, or populating an area of the city with a particular type of video and by the same author. Examples that we saw: the sex shop, the propaganda videos and the television shows. We can think in that direction by returning with the same amount of videos, really making of video of the location and putting there. The end result is many videos in the city that are really about location, and not about television shows or propaganda rants.

We could just go with one video we have seen. We write a story about it by engaging in readings of the video at different layers. We start with the title and the screen shot, then go to deeper and deeper layers. It could be multiple readings by different people. How many different paths could you take from analyzing the same material?

We are already aware of us not being active (as content providers). And we are very aware that the map is half-empty. Maybe we should just add content in reality. What kind of content would that be?

I would also like to raise awareness of what is there and how to work with it. We should send a message of encouragement to the more creative producers. We should make them aware about how the content that they produce is related to the map.

What I find curious is that there is no video response to the Skopje 2014 video. There is one from a video blogger. He’s put up a couple of videos that critiques the city reconstruction project. Here’s a couple of examples. But why doesn’t he geo-tag?


For me our interpretations are more interesting than looking at their stories. How we discuss it, related to the content, location and context. It would be more interesting to first establish our own hypothesis of what we have seen, to arrange a map, based on our findings, just to see the representation that we get and try to understand what is the source of that representation. Putting the video is one step, the geo-tagging in another. These are all subjective actions. If we do a tally of all the subjection actions, then can we give many different readings of an area?

I’m thinking about the situation of walking through the city while also seeing the same thing through YouTube video. For example what would happen if you saw a video of somebody in a house and then that person suddenly came out on the street. What would that experience be like?

This entry was posted in Cartography, Workshops and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Powered by WP Hashcash