i love the CCCC's. i love that we are talking about delivery. i used to think i wasn't cool enough if i read a paper . . . something in the "live performance" concept that i wanted to activate. but i defaulted to reading because that's what we do, that's a convention. and the thing is -- it's work to shape a piece of writing-to-be-read in ways that *perform* rather than *lecture* . . . so i've found it challenging and rewarding to read papers. now, i use film also, to sort of ramp up the entertainment value of my work (i hope) and to demonstrate my own engagement w/ a problem/question. it's both funny and sad that we are often talking in such dualistic terms about our work (to read or not to read . . . which is a silly question, not even a question because if we mean to say "read" as in "deliver," we are always "reading" at our conference presentations, always "delivering"). so but, i do love that we are thinking about delivery, even if we have to start in polarizing terms . . .
one thing i worry about is the CGI effect . . . just because we can deliver digitally and w/ a variety of design schemes, should we? it's a question a filmmaker must constantly ask and use as a guide in service to both rhetorical and aesthetic sophistication. i worry that some of the momentum for New Media work is encouraging Bad Media work . . . but that's how it goes, and sometimes Bad Media is an awful lot of fun (think John Waters or M. Dot Strange, for example).