Video seems to be our opportunity to show things entangled and as messy as they actually exist. It might be a mistake to push video to show things too analytically, for example. Considering the fabrication/deconstruction theme, materials are experienced on site as a big homogenous mixture of lifecycles. It would be impossible to entirely separate a material from other materials to tell its full story without telling a portion of another material’s story (this really taps into the wicked site thing too). With video, we can really rely on the wild speculation and mystery that we ourselves experienced when we first discovered these different scenes.
So… we can define these characters in diagrams outside of the video possibly? This kind of goes back to video serving as a reminder of experiential phenomena on site again, only this time we’ll make sure that the camera and editing is more active to show these larger themes/processes (for example what is a fabrication type editing style? Erosion? Deposition?).
This doesn’t mean there cant be the occasional map overlay or animated diagram – but I think this is our opportunity to really tell the artsy/inspiring/lived side of the site rather than the more technical spiel.
So when thinking of the full presentation, you kind of get this gradient of expression to analytical (video to model (which would start to show materiality, some spatial remnant of site, etc) to diagrams/maps (shows spatial, historical, and processes)).
This is mostly a reminder to ourselves that we’re not just making a video that needs to say everything (like a documentary would for example) or just making designy diagrams that need to somehow depict what physically exists on site (which can get to be too much and too confusing) – they can all work together to tell the story.