JUMP CUT
A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY MEDIA

copyright 2013, Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media
Jump Cut
, No. 55, fall 2013

Part 2: essay

Movies in miniature

by Midi Onodera

I have been making mobile content since 2006 with mass-produced toy cameras that have a very low screen (280 x 240) and video (320 x 240) resolution.[1] [open endnotes in new window] My main camera was the Hasbro/Tiger VCam Now launched in 2005 with a 1.3 Megapixel sensor. Since that time I have made almost five hundred shorts that range between thirty seconds and one minute. As an artist with an experimental film background, the Structural/Materialist films of the 1970s and feminist New Narrative cinema of the 1980s have informed my work.

In this paper I will argue that mobile videos are a specific medium and that this field of media art, although informed by cinema and television theories and practices, needs to be positioned differently. I will concentrate on mobile videos that have been produced and are screened on a mobile device rather than mobile videos that are transplanted to the large screen. I am interested in framing this essay through a feminist lens because mobile videos have the potential to expand story-telling conventions and can empower disenfranchised voices through financially viable productions and the ubiquity of mobile video devices (distribution). The formal aspects of mobile video creation are similar to film and video in reference to aesthetics, recording and viewing practices and distribution, yet I will show that each of these distinct elements is specifically shaped by the mobile medium.

There has been very little written about video cameras embedded in mobile phones but there have been several research studies and academic papers on the use of the still camera feature.[2] My practice involves both still and moving image capturing and through the creation of mobile video content these two disciplines become cohesively unified through one device. Therefore I am using some of the conclusions about still camera phones and applying them to the video function.

With the proliferation of so many different types of cameras, the aesthetics of each image-capturing device is crucial to the creative process. I will focus specifically on the iPhone since this is the device I currently use in my work. When first released in 2009 the iPhone 3GS featured a screen size of 3.5 inches with a resolution of 480 x 320. The 3 Megapixel camera captured video at 30fps with a resolution of 640 x 480.[3] Since the resolution was so low, video captured on the iPhone 3GS appeared highly pixelated when viewed on a screen larger than the mobile phone.  Already an era of high definition video, consumers did not view the low resolution of videos shot with the iPhone favorably, and the ability to share video files through email was limited to approximately one minute due to the large file size. Aesthetically, I viewed the low-resolution standard and file size limitation as a creative restriction, similar to the grainy qualities of a three minute Super 8 film cartridge. The technical specifications of mobile devices with cameras continue to evolve and with these transformations new creative challenges emerge.

The ubiquity of mobile phones with still and video recording capabilities has shifted the photographic practice from one that reserved image taking for special occasions to an every day practice. As stated by Carole Rivière in her essay, "Mobile Camera Phones: A New Form of 'Being Together' in Daily Interpersonal Communication":

“Although this family-centered function of photography is far from having died out, technological progress has extended the use of photography to more and more diverse situations and rendered its use commonplace where it was once reserved for special occasions.”[4]

This observation is reinforced by Kato, et. al in their analysis of the most common subjects people record with their mobile camera phones and in Daisuke Okabe’s paper, Social practice of Camera Phone in Japan.[5] The common subjects recorded with camera phones are: friends, family, pets and interesting or “unusual things in everyday life.”[6] Specifically the transition from using a video camera for recording special occasions to shooting everyday subject matter with a mobile phone is noted in David Kirk’s, et al. conference paper, Understanding Videowork.[7] Although this 2007 paper examined the home movie-making behavior of twelve UK families, the results can be extended to a wider demographic given the pervasiveness of the technology in the past five years and observations on my own practice. When considering the habits of the teenagers, the researchers noted that, “they spontaneously used their (mobile) cameras at any and all times, and not so to speak, at ‘special times.’” (65)

Similar to the casual or amateur practitioner, the subject matter of my mobile videos consists of everyday occurrences or mundane scenes. I look for the punctum of the moment and if it’s still apparent by the time I am ready to edit, the post-production work enhances or plays with this element. According to Roland Barthes in Camera Lucida, punctum “is an addition: it is what I add to the photograph and what is nonetheless already there.”[8] I apply this term to video, something Barthes claims he cannot do to moving images:

“Do I add to the images in movies? I don’t think so; I don’t have time: in front of the screen I am not free to shut my eyes; otherwise, opening them again, I would not discover the same image; I am constrained to a continuous voracity; a host of other qualities, but not pensiveness; whence the interest for me, of the photogram.” (55)

Technically restricted by the rudimentary video features of the iPhone, I find myself drawn to moments of stillness, fractures in the frenetic pace of the everyday. In order for me to take my camera phone out, I must be struck by the sight before me. I must be compelled to stop mid-step and be willing to have a dialogue with my subject. Yet, this brief encounter is a mere primer to the video footage. Only later, perhaps weeks, sometimes years later, as I look through the eyes of the spectator, do I effortlessly recall the impulse to record and observe it anew. Based on this second viewing, I draw on different editing techniques to hopefully enrich the footage and create the final mobile video. Since most audiences listen to audio through headphones, sound plays an important role in the construction of the mobile videos. I frequently use sound files found online through sites such as Freesound.org or self-created remixed music tracks. The titles I choose often reference popular culture, creating a familiar association that provide an introduction or context for the work. What I have described is admittedly rare, but when these crystallized moments occur the creative gratification is so irresistible that it fuels my desire to taste that sensation again.

Unlike film and video, mobile video allows for a spontaneity and immediacy that can be prohibitive in the time-consuming and costly production stages of film and video. Yet I do not see mobile video as a replacement for film or video, rather it is an addition to my image-making practice. I employ mobile video rather than film or video because of its’ succinctness, the intimate relationship with the viewer, the cost-effectiveness of the medium in production and distribution and because of its’ minimalistic poetic form. As Anne Jarrigeon states: “like a haiku, it allows us to transfigure the everyday through calculation and spontaneity…” (31).[9]

Most mobile video phones like their photographic counterparts are limited by their fixed lens, small aperture and autofocus function. A fixed lens means that if the user desires a close-up they must physically move closer to their subject. This reduction of physical space can create a more intimate bond between the camera operator and his/her subject, however it also highlights the action of recording and hence the subject may alter their behavior knowing that they are being photographed.[10] The fixed lens can be perceived as a deterrent to the consumer who is accustomed to zoom lenses commonly built into digital cameras. However, I view this limitation as an aesthetic of mobile video recording. Since I am interested in unscripted moments in everyday life, I tend to frame in wide shots and include people as anonymous subjects rather than focus on their individuality.

Without the assistance of camera accessories, in order to create movement within the frame, such as a zoom, pan or tilt, the mobile camera and operator must act in concert with each other to create the recorded action. The smooth flow of this action depends on the steadiness of the operator and can be difficult to achieve depending on the situation. In a sense the camera operator must treat the mobile phone as an extension of his/her body, envisioning the camera as a prosthetic. But generally the fixed lens encourages the aesthetic of a static camera.

This visual trait can be traced back to the early days of cinema when motion picture cameras were first developed with fixed lenses. In terms of the technical development of mobile video phones, the fixed lens can be seen as an important stage in the evolution of the device and can be compared with different cinematic developments. As stated by Eric Faden, “…with each major technological transition in film history, we find a temporary return to static framing” (61).[11] For example, the reappearance of the static camera was seen in the early days of sound recording when both the actors and the camera had to remain stationary in order to accommodate the recording equipment. The static camera resurfaced again with the development of Cinerama and the early period of computer generated imagery, both due to the limitations of the new technology. In terms of this stage in the development of the mobile video, the days of the static camera may soon be over with the recent release of the Noika 808 PureView camera phone which houses a zoom lens and 41 Megapixel sensor or the much-anticipated release of the iOS7 for the iPhone which allows zooming while video recording.[12]

Considering shot construction for the mobile screen, Max Dawson gives a succinct overview of the difference between shooting for television and shooting for the mobile screen:

“The mobile television production community cynically refers to this repertoire as ‘filming to the phone’ (Manly, 2006): trading long shots for static close-ups, fast zooms for slow motion replays, and pans for cuts, increasing the size of props and graphics, and reducing program duration to between 45 and 75 seconds.”[13]

Further, Dawson states: “spectacle, depth, and detail are sacrificed; however color, contrast and visual rhythms are concentrated.”[14] Although these guidelines may not apply to artist-created mobile videos, this references the hardware limitations that all mobile video producers are forced to consider such as bandwidth and downloading speed, limited memory capacity, video compression and battery life.

Despite these technical limitations, it is important to acknowledge the vast array of different software applications that can transform the traditional eye of the camera. For the iPhone, these apps range from simple textural and colour filters to stop motion animation and time-lapse capabilities to tilt shift functions. It is now possible to record video and audio, edit and upload finished mobile videos on one device within a collapsed production, exhibition and distribution chain. These diverse tasks realized through one device, financially reduce the expense of image making, broaden the makers’ community and disrupt conventional screening opportunities.

Since the advent of digital video and photography, cameras now commonly have screens that allow the operator to frame their shots without looking through a viewfinder. This shift in technology has created a change in how we consider image capturing, now the screen is between the operator and subject. Or as John Ellis states, in "What are we expected to feel? Witness, Textuality and the audiovisual," "(t)he live image is always already framed and screened on the digital viewfinder. The image-object, the document, is visible at the moment of its creation” (67).[15] The screen on a mobile phonenot only acts as a viewfinder in the process of recording, but it can also be the screen on which recorded videos are viewed. This mobile screen is different from other screens in cinema, video and computers. In the latter, the screens project images that transport our imaginations and alter our spatial and temporal senses, through what Anne Friedberg has termed, the “virtual gaze.”[16] When looking at a mobile screen either to frame a shot or to watch a video, other elements come into play that are not applicable to larger screens.

The mobile spectator may be viewing a video in a changing landscape such as in a train or waiting for a bus and his/her surroundings can impact the content of the video. Mobile videos can be easily accessed through QR codes that instantly link video content on the mobile device to the physical location of the QR code or they can utilize built-in GPS systems and connect the video with the material space of the viewer. In this manner, mobile videos can become locative whereas film and video are perpetually linked to their specialized viewing environments.

Since 2006, I have focused on an annual mobile video project that is disseminated online. For 2013, I have launched the mobile website, vidoodles.com, in conjunction with a series of twelve videos for “The Classifieds” project. Drawing on real online classified ads, I create mobile movies that visualize the chosen ad. For instance, the first video produced in this series, was inspired by an ad for a free bottle of bath oil. Twice a month, I place a new classified ad, listed under the same category as the original inspirational ad, and post it on nine classified sites in fifty-six cities across North America. Each ad contains a combination of an URL link and/or QR code to the Vidoodles website, a brief description and a video still. On the mobile website there is no explanation for the video or link to myself as the author. However on my own website, Midionodera.com, I have summarized each month with various viewing statistics, an example of the Vidoodles classified ad and comments on the subject of the video. This project combines social media, mobile video consumption, and consumer advertising.

For some, watching mobile videos can be a distraction from reality, an activity to relieve boredom or an escape to avoid social interaction in a public space.[17] Films require specialized projection equipment and a darkened screening environment. Screening a film is an event, the theatre becomes a social destination whereas mobile video can incorporate this social dimension wherever it is viewed. For the most part, watching a mobile video is a personal activity rather than a group experience such as going to a movie theatre. In this way, individual spectatorship can be seen as more intimate and private, even though the mobile videos may be consumed in public.

Heidi Rae Cooley, in her essay, “It’s All About the Fit: the Hand, the Mobile Screenic Device and Tactile Vision,” argues that mobile viewing introduces a way of seeing that extends beyond sight, one that involves the hand and that becomes tactile. She has identified the term “fit” to describe the relationship between the mobile device and the hand.

“…(F)it enables a more direct and vital mode of experiencing one’s surrounding, which while not directly about televisual space, is in conversation with it” (137).”[18]

The concept of “fit” is influenced by discourses on biomechanics and industrial design and defines the material relationship between the mobile device and the hand, or the moment when the hand and device become one.

“This bonding produces a ‘mystical feel’ that arises out of a ‘combination of a good mechanical marriage and something in the nervous system.’” (139).

This sense of bonding is echoed by Christine Rosen’s research into the relationship between a mobile device and the user:

“you constantly see people taking their little pets out and stoking the scroll wheel, coddling them, basically ‘petting’ them.” (30)[19]

Within the framework of “fit,” Cooley outlines the relationship between the mobile spectator and the screen. She views the mobile screen as one that “encourages an experience of encounter” (143).

“…(T)hat which is being viewed (and perhaps recorded) no longer exists separate from that which is framing it. The object, formerly located on the other side of the frame, converges or fuses with the screen, its physicality becoming the physicality of the screen.” (143)

According to Cooley, “fit” is distracted and sensual. It is active and forms a tactile vision that “results as hands, eyes, screen and surroundings interact and blend in a syncopated fashion.” (145) Cooley’s analysis of mobile spectatorship is supported by observations on the relationship with the hand and mobile device made by James Katz, Mark Aakus and Virpi Oksman as noted by Gerard Goggin in his essay, “The mobile invention of television.”[20]

This tactile viewing on mobile devices connotes an intimacy between the device, user and his/her surroundings. Although Cooley has detailed this form of viewing in her essay, she does not specifically reference moving image content in her analysis and refers to the materiality of the mobile device and the embedded screen, rather than the relationship between video content and tactile viewing. I was unable to locate any analysis that used Cooley’s theories and applied them to mobile videos. However, I am particularly attracted to developing this relationship further through the content of my mobile videos, one that invites introspection and contemplation of the everyday.

Politically my work is grounded in feminist politics, therefore I am interested in possible gendered readings of mobile videos and mobile productions by women. I had hoped to uncover specific feminist writings on mobile videos or find mobile works produced by women, but instead there was a noticeable absence.[21] This absence is also reflected in the dearth of women in key creative roles in Canadian feature films. Women In View, a non-profit organization, recently released their report, which examined 139 films released in 2010 and 2011. Women comprised less than 20% of directors and 21% of screenwriters, and of this low percentage only 2 were First Nations or “racialized” minority women in the role of director and/or screenwriter.[23]

According to Women In View’s second report on Canadian television production, the situation for women in key creative roles is even worse than in the feature film industry. Evaluating 21 live action television series, during the same period found that no “racialized” minority women were employed as directors and no women cinematographers were hired by these series. Of a total of 272 individual episodes, employing 87 directors only 14 were women.[24] These astonishing statistics prompted me to consider the role that technology plays in embedding gender power relations. Men have long been associated with technology that is oriented with industrial machinery and the apparatuses of war, and as Judy Wajcman states in her essay, "Feminist theories of technology,"

“The taken-for-granted association of men and machines is the result of the historical and cultural construction of gender.” (143).[25]

Although feminist science and technology studies scholars, academics in international communications and feminist economists have argued for the importance of domestic or everyday technologies, this work is still considered marginal.[26] Wajcman states:

“A revaluing of cooking, childcare and communications technologies immediately disrupts the cultural stereotype of women as technically incompetent or invisible in technical spheres.” (144)

The stereotype of women as technically incompetent is historically noted by Charles Acland in Curtain, cart and the mobile screen, his history of the development of media in the classroom:

“And while figures of women appear in many of the advertisements for media products as a primary target market of users they also appear as a way to connote ease of use and portability” (164).[27]

Examining how mobile communications are positioned in today’s advertising, it is evident that these stereotypes of women and technology continue to persist in various incarnations. For example, Rogers Communications has produced a series of advertisements that deliberately position women as less intelligent than their smart phones or slower to respond than hi-speed Internet.[28] Rather than position mobile communications as gender neutral, mobile phone manufacturers and advertisers have deliberately highlighted gender differences and reinforced gender inequality through the material design of mobile phones, marketing and social positioning of the communication device.[29] These stereotypical portrayals and the dominant culture of masculinity and technology do not encourage women to engage with innovative technologies; therefore it is no wonder that there is a lack of mobile video content produced by women.

Yet I am hopeful that in the next few years we could see a shift in mobile videos produced by women. According to a Pew Research study titled “Teens & Online Video” from 2012, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of girls who say they shoot and share videos online.

“In 2006, online boys were nearly twice as likely as online girls to report uploading video they had taken, with 19% of boys and 10% of girls reporting the activity.”[30]

In 2012, there are nearly equal shares of boys (28%) and girls (26%) engaged in online video uploading and sharing. In a related Pew Internet survey titled “Photos and Videos as Social Currency Online,”[31] there seems to be a correlation between creating and online sharing of videos and social media activities. Of the 1005 adults (ages 18+) surveyed, 56% of Internet users have either created and or shared videos with nearly equal shares of men and women. Although the statistics of men and women who use Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are roughly equal, women seem to dominate Pinterest (women 19% and men 5%) and Tumblr (women 7% and men 4%).

Online video sharing or creation is not solely a product of mobile video production. It speaks more to the potential distribution of all video works. Traditionally produced videos and films can be disseminated both online and on mobile devices thereby accessing an audience in locations other than the movie theatre or home. Most mobile video works, due to the technical limitations (resolution, aspect ratio, etc.) are usually either viewed on mobile devices or online and may be accessed through social media platforms or video-sharing sites such as YouTube or Vimeo or embedded into websites and personal blogs.

Since mobile video phones are ubiquitous and many people record videos for their private use or share unedited clips online, there is a tendency to treat this medium as an amateur or a non-professional format. In this regard there becomes a “mass amateurization” as termed by Clay Shirky in his essay, “Everyone is a media outlet.”[32] Although the essay mainly focuses on print journalism, much of what has been written can be applied to the flow of video. Like journalists, videographers are seen as professionals attached to broadcast networks. They too are seen as gatekeepers since the recording equipment required to maintain broadcast standards is so costly. However with the lowering of broadcast standards, the rise of high quality consumer cameras and the increase of a wider image-gathering public, the definition of the professional videographer has shifted. To blur the distinction between professional and amateur further, now professional photographers and artists are utilizing mobile devices in their work.[33]

Simultaneous to this “mass amateurization,” traditional television broadcasters, mobile service providers and feature film companies are all grappling with the economic viability of mobile video content. There are two main practices of mobile video content: the production of videos made specifically for the mobile device and the re-packaging of existing content for mobile distribution. The former practice requires an economic investment on behalf of the production company or service provider and at this point, in North America, there is no definitive pricing method that makes these mobile productions economically viable.

The latter practice usually involves either “unbundling” or “redaction” as termed by Dawson.[34] “Unbundling” describes the practice of segmenting traditional television shows into short packets that can be consumed on mobile devices. “Redaction” refers to “the act of creating new material out of existing content” (242). An example of this would be the creation of entertainment-focused segments that combine footage from TV, film, electronic press kits (EPK), archival interviews etc. to create new programs. Film companies have used mobile video as a publicity platform creating mobile content such as trailers or short interviews to create interest in their theatrical productions.

For the artist working in the field of mobile video, this shift to “mass amateurization” has mixed results. On the one hand more artists have access to inexpensive equipment and distribution venues outside traditional art institutions have expanded. On the other hand, with the expansion of different viewing platforms, it becomes more difficult to contextualize one’s artwork both inside and outside traditional institutions such as galleries or commercial theatrical spaces.

The exhibition of mobile video artwork within institutional frameworks is challenging and requires different display technologies other than visual artwork. Audience reception is predicated on technologies supplied by the institution (ie: handheld devices) or individual viewers owning the devices themselves. Furthermore, different networks or ways of distributing digital video files need to be employed that may be out of the realm of art curators or installers. Outside this institutional context, an artist could choose to distribute their artwork through established online platforms such as YouTube or Vimeo. However, it is easy to become lost in a sea of video entertainment.[35]

The medium of mobile video is still in its infancy. The transition to the small mobile screen requires a re-thinking of the traditional forms of moving image production, distribution and exhibition. Technically there are specific concerns in regards to hardware, software, broadband infrastructure, and content licensing that apply to this medium.

Aesthetically, the creation of mobile content requires another set of parameters that are different from large screen productions. A diverse flow of distribution needs to be more fully explored: one that considers the profit-driven desires of traditional television and film producers and one that encourages artistic exploration and innovation, although these are not mutually exclusive. The consumption habits of the mobile viewer and the relationship between the device and the viewer have expanded our conceptions of media engagement. This new frontier of mobile video has wondrous potential: it is cost-effective and easily accessible through the ubiquity of mobile devices capable of video playback. As a feminist mobile video producer, it is my idealistic hope that it can also become a platform to address gender inequities and stereotypes.

Notes

1. In 2005 Apple introduced their 5th generation iPod with video playback and in 2009 they launched the 3GS iPhone with a 1st generation video camera. Glen Sanford. Apple History. 1996-2012. 4 November 2012. <http://apple-history.com/iphone_3gs>. [return to text]

2. Gerard Goggin. “On mobile photography: camera phones, moblogging, and new visual cultures,” Cell Phone Culture. (London: Routledge, 2006) 143-161.

3. Liane Cassavoy. “iPhone 3GS Video Recording: Better Than Expected.” Gigacom. 22 June 2009. 4 November 2012. <http://gigaom.com/video/iphone-3g-s-video-recording-better-than-expected/>.

4. Carole Rivière, “Mobile Camera Phones: A New Form of ‘Being Together’ in Daily Interpersonal Communication.” Mobile Communications. 31 (2005): 167-185.

5.

6. Kato, et. al 305.

7. David Kirk, Abigail Sellen, Richard Harper and Ken Wood. “Understanding Videowork.” CHI 2007 Proceedings: Capturing Life Experiences. April 28-May 3 2007. San Jose CA.

8. Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc.) 1981

9. Anne Jarrigeon. Images in Mobile Uses: A New ‘Middle-brow Art’? Images in Mobile Communication New Content, New Uses, New Perspectives. ed. Corinne Martin. Thilo von Pape. (Germany: Springer Fachedien Wiesbaden, 2012) 21-40.

10. Erika Reponen, Pertti Huuskonen, Kristijan Mihalic. “Primary and Secondary Context in Mobile Video Communication.” CHI 2006, April 22-27. Montreal.

11. Eric S. Faden. “Assimilating New Technologies Early Cinema, Sound, and Computer Imagery.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 5:2 (1999). 51-79.

12.

13. Max Dawson, “Little Players, Big Shows Format, Narration, and Style on Television’s Smaller Screens.” Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 13:3 (2007): 231-250, 235.

14. Dawson, 237.

15. John Ellis. “What are we expected to feel? Witness, textuality and the audiovisual.” Screen 50:1 (Spring 2009). 67-76.

16. Anne Friedberg, Window Shopping Cinema and the Postmodern. (California: University of California Press) 1993.

17. Petteri Repo, Kaarina Hyvonen, Mika Pantzar and Paivi Timonen. “Users Inventing Ways To Enjoy New Mobile Services – The Case of Watching Mobile Videos.” 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2004. 1-8.

18. Heidi Rae Cooley. “It’s All About the Fit: The Hand, the Mobile Screenic Device and Tactile Vision.” Journal of Visual Culture. 3:2 (2004):133-155, 137.

19. Christine Rosen. “Our Cell Phones, Ourselves.” The New Atlantis. 6 (Summer 2004): 26-45. 4 November 2012. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/our-cell-phones-ourselves

20. Gerard Goggin. “The Mobile Invention of Television: Post-Broadcasting and Audiovisual Politics.” Global Mobile Media (London: Routledge, 2011) 80- 98.

21. Michelle Adolfs and Pertra Muller. “Deep-Claps Video Edition.” 10 November 2009. 4 November 2012. <http://www.deep-claps.de/content/e_edition.htm>
An extensive online search for mobile video works by women resulted in locating the work of two artists from Germany. Michelle Adolfs and Petra Muller have produced a series of web videos entitled, deep-claps, short videos that deal with emotional ambivalence in word and text combinations. However it is unclear if these works were designed specifically for mobile device playback.

22. Rina Fraticelli. Women in View on Screen. 2010-11 Film Report. October 2012. 1-5. Women in View. 2012. 17 November 2012. <http://www.womeninview.ca/>

23. Ibid.

24. Rina Fraticelli. Women in View. “Women In View On TV” 2013. 31 May 2013. 23 June 2013. http://tinyurl.com/n34ty3y

25. Judy Wajcman. “Feminist theories of technology.” Cambridge Journal of Economics. 34:1. (8 January 2009). 143-152.

26.

27. Charles R. Acland, “Curtain, cart and the mobile screen.” Screen. 50:1 (Spring 2009). 148- 166

28.

29. Leslie Regan Shade. “Feminizing the Mobile: Gender Scripting of Mobiles in North America.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies. 21:2. (June 2007). 179-189.

30. Amanda Lenhart. Pew Internet & American Life Project. “Teens & Online Video.” Pew Research Center. 3 May 2012. 24 June 2013. http://pewinternent.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-online-video.aspx

31. Lee Rainie. Pew Internet & American Life Project. “Photos and Videos as Social Currency Online.” Pew Research Center. 13 September 2012. 24 June 2013. <http://pewinternent.org/Reports/2012/Online-Pictures.aspx>

32. Clay Shirky. “Everyone is a media outlet.” Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. (London: Penguin Books, 2008). 55-80

33. Lauren Russell. CNN. “Mobile phones give artists new tools to create.” CNN Living. 19 September 2012. 17 November 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/living/iphone-art/index.html>

34. Dawson, 242.

35. According to YouTube Statistics, “100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute.” And viewership on mobile devices account for 25% of YouTube’s global watch time. Statistics YouTube. 24 June 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html>

Works cited

Acland, R. Charles. “Curtain, cart and the mobile screen.” Screen. 50:1 (Spring 2009). 148- 166

Adolfs, Michelle and Muller, Pertra. “Deep-Claps Video Edition.” 10 November 2009.
 http://www.deep-claps.de/content/e_edition.htm 4 November 2012.

Arfin, Jamie. “Rogers Commercial starring Jamie Arfin.” YouTube. 8 April 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saKNFwNuJvQ&feature=related 4 November 2012.

Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc. 1981.

Cassavoy, Liane. “iPhone 3GS Video Recording: Better Than Expected.” Gigacom. 22 June 2009. http://gigaom.com/video/iphone-3g-s-video-recording-better-than-expected/ 4 November 2012.

Crow, Barbara and Sawchuk, Kim. “The Spectral Politics of Mobile Communications Technologies: Gender, Infrastructure, and International Policy.” Feminist Interventions in International Communication: Minding the Gap. ed: Katharine Sarikakis and Leslie Regan Shade. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2008. 90-105.

Cooley, Heidi Rae. “It’s All About the Fit: The Hand, the Mobile Screenic Device and Tactile Vision.” Journal of Visual Culture. 3:2 (2004):133-155.

Dawson, Max. “Little Players, Big Shows Format, Narration, and Style on Television’s Smaller Screens.” Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 13:3 (2007): 231- 250.

Ellis, John. “What are we expected to feel? Witness, textuality and the audiovisual.” Screen 50:1 (Spring 2009). 67-76.

Faden, Eric S. “Assimilating New Technologies Early Cinema, Sound, and Computer Imagery.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 5:2 (1999). 51-79.

Fraticelli, Rina. “Women in View on Screen 2010-11 Film Report Women in View.” Women in View. 2012. 17 November 2012. http://www.womeninview.ca/ 1-5.

Fraticelli, Rina. “Women In View On TV” 2013.” Women in View. 31 May 2013. 23 June 2013. http://www.womeninview.ca/news/wiv-news/women-in-view-on-tv-report-released-today/

Friedberg, Anne. Window Shopping Cinema and the Postmodern. California: University of California Press. 1993.

Goggin, Gerard. “On mobile photography: camera phones, moblogging, and new visual cultures,” Cell Phone Culture. London: Routledge, 2006. 143-161.

Goggin, Gerard. “The Mobile Invention of Television: Post-Broadcasting and Audiovisual Politics.” Global Mobile Media. London: Routledge, 2011. 80- 98.

Jarrigeon, Anne. Images in Mobile Uses: A New ‘Middle-brow Art’? Images in Mobile Communication New Content, New Uses, New Perspectives. ed. Corinne Martin. Thilo von Pape. (Germany: Springer Fachedien Wiesbaden, 2012) 21-40.

Kato, Fumitoshi. Okabe, Daisuke. Ito, Mizuko and Uemoto, Ryuhei. “Uses and Possibilities of the Keitai Camera.” Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life. ed. Mizuko Ito, Daisuke Okabe, Misa Matsuda. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006. 301-310.

Kirk, David. Sellen, Abigail. Harper, Richard and Wood, Ken. “Understanding Videowork.” CHI 2007 Proceedings: Capturing Life Experiences. April 28-May 3 2007. San Jose CA.

Lenhart, Amanda. Pew Internet & American Life Project. “Teens & Online Video.” Pew Research Center. 3 May 2012. 24 June 2013. http://pewinternent.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-online-video.aspx

Mosco, Vincent. McKercher, Catherine and Stevens, Andrew. “Convergences: Elements of Feminist Political Economy of Labor and Communication.” Feminist Interventions in International Communication: Minding the Gap. ed: Katharine Sarikakis and Leslie Regan Shade. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2008. 207-223.

Noika 808 PureView. The game-changer.” Noika.com. 25 June 2013. http://www.nokia.com/global/products/phone/808pureview/

Okabe, Daisuke. “Social practice of Camera Phone in Japan.” Conference paper presented at the 2004 International Mobile Communication and Social Change, Conference http://www.itofisher.com/mito/archives/okabe_seoul.pdf . 4 November 2012.

Rainie, Lee. Pew Internet & American Life Project. “Photos and Videos as Social Currency Online.” Pew Research Center. 13 September 2012. 24 June 2013. http://pewinternent.org/Reports/2012/Online-Pictures.aspx

Repo, Petteri. Hyvonen, Kaarina. Pantzar, Mika and Timonen, Paivi. “Users Inventing Ways To Enjoy New Mobile Services – The Case of Watching Mobile Videos.” 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2004. 1-8.

Reponen, Erika. Huuskonen, Pertti and Mihalic, Kristijan. “Primary and Secondary Context in Mobile Video Communication.” CHI 2006, April 22-27. Montreal. 1-4.

Rivière, Carole. “Mobile Camera Phones: A New Form of ‘Being Together’ in Daily Interpersonal Communication.” Mobile Communications. 31 (2005): 167-185.

Regan Shade, Leslie. “Feminizing the Mobile: Gender Scripting of Mobiles in North America.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies. 21:2. (June 2007). 179-189.

Rosen, Christine. “Our Cell Phones, Ourselves.” The New Atlantis. 6 (Summer 2004): 26-45. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/our-cell-phones-ourselves 4 November 2012.

Russell, Lauren. CNN. “Mobile phones give artists new tools to create.” CNN Living. 19 September 2012. 17 November 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/living/iphone-art/index.html

Sanford, Glen. Apple History. 1996-2012. http://apple-history.com/iphone_3gs 4 November 2012.

Shirky, Clay. “Everyone is a media outlet.” Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. London: Penguin Books, 2008. 55-80

thecrystalmoonlight. “Rogers Commercial.” YouTube.13, April 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va4rpBXtKFc&feature=related 4 November 2012.

Wajcman, Judy. “Feminist theories of technology.” Cambridge Journal of Economics. 34:1. (8 January 2009). 143-152.

Tweedie, Steven. “Here’s Another Cool iPhone Camera Feature Coming Soon That Apple Didn’t Tell You About Yet.” San Francisco Chronicle. Provided by Business Insider.14 June 2013. 22 June 2013. http://tinyurl.com/k9nw4qe

Young Gillian. “Public/Private: The Hidden Dimension of International Communications.” Feminist Interventions in International Communication: Minding the Gap. ed: Katharine Sarikakis and Leslie Regan Shade. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2008. 33-44.

YouTube. Statistics YouTube. 24 June 2013. http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html


To topJC 55 Jump Cut home

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.