"The truth about stories is, that's all we are." Thomas King
A story is a narrative, that re-presents relationships between one or more subjects. Stories are the form in which we teach, entertain, maintain our identities. Stories can be life lessons, a folk tale, a parable, etc. Stories can be confessions, declarations, truths, and lies. I say, if stories are all that we are, then for many of us- we're one sided, half finished, and so self-centred that we don't see how we constantly telling multiple stories. This blog post is inspired by a guest lecture by Allan Lavine on digital story making. Correction, he talked a lot about story telling, but the obvious focus was digitally and the use of images.
One highlight from the session was playing pechaflickr. I was able to participate with several colleagues, where we improvised a story from seeing images that we had never seen before. It was a neat improv, where Allan provided the creative constraints that we needed to focus the story on the search for Alec, and also pick up where the previous storyteller left the story. Each of us were responsible for one image. We. Crushed. It.
It was an exercise to show the power of creative constraints, and show how people can practice to develop their presentation and storytelling skills. As a theatre creator- this is absolutely my schtick. As a theatre educator, I'm constantly referring to improvisation as a practice to develop connection speed. What I mean is, by training ourselves to release our self-consciousness we are able to connect with others at a deeper, faster level. This past summer, I attended the International Institute for Critical Studies in Improvisation in St. John's, Newfoundland. There I studied along side multidisciplinary improvisers from music, theatre, film, technologists, etc. One colleague, Jayden Pfeifer, a recent MFA candidate at the UofR studying improvisation shared some really insightful perspectives on the work. He said, "When we enter an improvisation, we're entering an agreement, and the stories and interactions we create are all based on those agreements." What he was referring to was a multi-layered look at how we collaborate in a scene/story/game. Within theatre improvisation, a common phrase is "always say 'yes'" and that refers to when one scene partner offers a suggestion, you are expected/encouraged to always say 'yes' to the suggestion with the intent of furthering the story. For example, in the Pechaflickr, there were lots of nature themed images, and also one image of a pantless person in the woods, as the story teller described this image, and offered it as part of the narrative, the other story tellers continued with that stream of narrative, even as the images changed, to build a consistency and continuity to further the story. But to what end? I believe that storytelling is a practice of connecting with a community, and building a communal identity- even if it is for a short time.
In storytelling criticism, we break down stories into characters, situations, themes. With characters- we break them down to archetypes and roles that appeal to listeners. I believe this is heightened when we integrate social media and online interactivity with storytelling. With films/stories such as Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc. Even within the stories, the characters are typed, profiled, and staged based on their personalities or abilities. All this, so that we can associate ourselves, and imagine ourselves in the story, either by the familiarity/association to one character, or the alienation/distancing from another. We get so engrossed that from the original stories, we create fan fictions, take online quizzes to see what Hogwarts House we belong to, or what type of Jedi Knight we would become. For the record I'm actually split between Raven Claw / Gryffindor. I think it's because I'm sassy, but hopefully honourable.
Anyway, my point is that we project ourselves onto stories and images- so much so, that we fill in our own narratives on other stories. And with the continual evolution of user produced content on social networks, we create our own stories to interact more with the stories we're told. I've mentioned this in previous posts, and will talk a bit more about it here, within the creative constraints that we 'agree' to, there are so many things we tell about ourselves within our stories. Suffice it to say, we share a lot about ourselves- everytime we perform. In some ways, when we tell a story, listeners engage in the narrative as much as in the way we tell it. And they are less engaged in our narrative as opposed to providing their own.
An example of this is in the memes and videos that Allan showed. The images invoke our own memories in an attempt for us to relate to what is happening. He showed a poignant budweiser drunk driving commercial, and the purpose of the story/commercial was to sell beer, but the narrative was one of animals that draw us into relate to the person who buys the beer, and his relationships to his creatures. It's one where we associate with him via the relationship he has with his dog. If we share the same views, we feel a part of the story. I think this is the core to all those viral videos, which is to say that- their spreadability is based on the level in which these stories resonate with how we indentify, and how much we distance ourselves from them.
So going back to the top, with my big bold statement about us being one sided, and self-centred... What I'm saying is that, we seek validation and want to create/be associated with specific communities so much so, that we often alienate or do not see the experiences of those who may differ from us. This is a big part of one of these affordances within social media. We actively get to choose, and have to consciously- continue to- engage within a community to maintain our membership. The best way to engage is to share our stories and demonstrate how our stories are the same.
Below I posted a video of Simon Simek. He is a social media strategist. In it, he breaks down stories in terms of sales pitch. He says, nowadays, "people don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it." I wanted to post this as a response to Allan's video from Kurt Vonnegut on the architecture of a story. In Simek's video, he breaks down many presumptions and ignorances that people have on social media advertising, and essentially how that is changing the way we communicate. More and more, with upworthy videos, and commercials online, etc. the products are not at the forefront of the videos/adverts, but it is some story or narrative, that is meant to bait us into watching it. With a witty tagline, and accessible character, we become vulnerable to them based on how they make us feel.
I'm saying, If we don't start listening to stories outside of our comfort/familiarity zone, we will continue to ignorantly alienate those around us, and not recognize the possibilities of other stories- which is what prevents us from having full stories. So long as we continue to be #selfie focused, we limit the ability to empathy to other people on a human level.
Thanks! Check out the vid, lmk what you think!
No comments:
Post a Comment