1. I totally agree with the description of context as risen from activities. Indeed, no human, no interactions, no contexts. Even the concept of context, is summarized after the activity of “acting in a context”. People find excuses after they have done something. This and that subject, this or that context, are all just ideas co-exist in multiple brains.
2. About “ordinary”, I recalled what my editing teacher said when reading. Conversations are based on assumptions and backgrounds, so do editing. No matter what you are doing, a documentary or a fiction, you are trying to communicate, trying to tell something “remarkable”. And before showing the “remarkable”, you have to show people what is “normal”. For example, if it is a disaster movie, before a storm coming, we see shots of warm families and happy activities. These are the shots that set up the time period (modern or ancient), location (China or America)… and more importantly, the “ordinary” situation of the normal world of this movie. Peaceful situation, then anti-peaceful, hence the “disaster”. If disaster comes first, the “remarkable” is weakened. And I believe, by setting up the “ordinary”, we set up (or pick up elements from the co-known concepts, like “house is torn down by wind, disaster”, to form) the context of this conversation.
3. This week, I re-read all the readings so far and I found out they all indicate one thing: the world has changed. Nowadays, people invent and adapt technology, and then use them in so many ways that during these practices, people create new meanings, new contexts, and even new ideologies. These new things have the power to change behaviors, of communities. But it is always people’s minds and ideas that have made the whole circle goes round and round again.
DW
