I've been working on a response to a question raised by a blog called Digital Poetics:

Does the digital camera evoke more "realistic" or naturalistic performances from actors, who are accustomed to home video cameras in private life? . . . To take this a step further: does the shape of the performance correlate to the shape of the camera?

Its taking much longer than expected because I kind of detour into a rant about the importance of accuracy when making grand generalisations about art movements (the author of said blog asserted that Russian Ark was shot " on DV". Having been involved heavily in academia (I have two honours degrees!), I am skeptical of academics focusing so much on their theory that they overlook, deliberately or otherwise, the actual reality*. Sometimes this is just an amusing mistake, my Cyberlaw tutor claimed that Netscape invented the WWW, in other times I consider it dangerously mislead (equating a largescale HD production as being in the same 'creative vein' as a small scale DV production).

... and then getting into the meat of the issue (construction of "naturalistic" performance) is quite involved itself.

Anyway... I've set myself somewhat of a task. When I finish it, I'll post it. Consider this a teaser.

* Although, I admit, sometimes their inaccuracy becomes an excuse to not engage with their ideas. Digital Poetics, for its few flaws (particularly when assessing interactivity in cinema), is a blog worth reading. The ideas are challenging and intriguing even if you don't agree with them. Which is what academia should be doing.