So, given that context, take a moment and reflect on the process to date. How has this process of simple videos going? What kind of connections and misconnections do you see between “the writing process” as we’ve studied it and as you’ve experienced it, and the “video making process?” Do you see the point of Anderson’s advocacy for the use of “low bridge” technologies like the ones we are using for this project? Or is this comparison between writing and multimedia/video making hogwash, comparing apples and oranges, etc., etc.?
It is clear that some people have talent and aptitude for multimedia/ video technology and via machine can produce art, and reach out beyond their physical proximity, and use videos and multimedia as creative channels. The sheer number of people involved in these types of communications validate them as a movement regardless of any academic controversy or criticisms or preferences. The Tyger and the Lamb collages are just one form of proof that this is a type of intelligence, they were so beautiful. They affected me as a viewer, and they had a positive effect on the students who said they enjoyed making them very much, and were happy to be able to express their original interpretations of the poetry- Daniel Anderson says creativity is marginalized is public education systems. I am involved in virtual communication as I write this blog and participate in this course, though for me it is a matter of convenience rather than preference or inclination. Though I see writing as being a part of a lot of the process or delivery of videos, I don’t consider low-bridge videos to be writing in themselves, but they are as important as writing- maybe the next step? Anderson quotes Selber who talks about multiple modalities and multiliteracy, I’d never considered the word literacy outside of reading and writing. I think technology should be taught just like art, music, physical education, etc. It is a really smart thing to learn because machinery and electronics are such as integral part of everything now- stoplights and computers and stocks and everything.
I found the brainstorming process to be similar for filmmaking and writing, getting beyond the logistics of meeting up, getting introduced and such. More minds are coming together but it is basically generating an idea, feeling it out until it is solid, building an argument or a plot, and deciding how things make sense. Working collaboratively on the video, in person, was a lot more fun than writing a paper and connected us fellow student on a more personal level than, for instance, peer review or electronic communication. Our ideas only really grew and matured when we were discussing everything in person, each contributing ideas. So, I conclude that nothing can replace personal interface. Once ideas are established electronic communication and computers can really facilitate the editing and production process.
Of course we were all able to offer our own resources to bring this together, as far as script writing, props, technical skills, etc. I learned it was not nearly as demanding as I thought to produce a movie and post it on youtube (Thanks Tracey).
So after this class I can see the virtues of technology and virtual communication. But still can’t ignore the fact that the majority of people who utilize it are not a positive reflection of us, and the majority of it is junk.
Interesting note- yesterday I saw my stepfather with a dictionary and I asked him why he had it, he’s a chef and has never done a lot of extended writing like full sentences and such. He said ever since he started text messaging he looks up all of the words in the dictionary to make sure he spells them right. 
Low bridge= free, consumer level