Welcome to The Old Times. Nick is a Digital Media Production Student at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge.
He is a retired HR Practitioner (DEI and Communication Specialist) and is an Authorised Lay Minister in the Church of England (since 2009).
Written explanation of audio configurations (5.1, 7.1, IAB)
Record and mix audio (not using mobile phones or camera audio)
Demonstrate the use and your knowledge of lighting
Build a brand or identity for your content (made up news programme or documentary production company)Storytelling backed by research
Call sheets, equipment lists, shooting schedule, lighting diagram and storyboards
Reflection and Team/Peer review
Out of my comfort zone again this week with video production – it makes me nervous as I feel very ill equipped to deliver a high quality product.
The key points from the project brief indicate that the focus should be on:
Professional production values and solid, research-backed storytelling
A high technical bar
Filming in manual mode (LOG or RAW)
Strong lighting skills
Pristine audio
No built in mics (e.g. Tascam recorder with boom or lapel mics)
Meticulous monitoring of levels (-20dB ans -10dB)
Written explanation of various audio configurations from Mono to 7.1 surround sound and IAB.
Paperwork: Call sheets, storyboards, and written reflections are mandatory to pass.
There are two options for the main assessment either: Option 1 create a dynamic, branded news show incorporating at least three different media types, while Option 2 focuses on producing a compelling 5-minute documentary or interview exploring someone’s personal journey.
The plan is to work together in teams – initial thoughts are to create a fun news show?
News or Documentary? Iva, Quinn and Me:
Quinn wants to do something cinematic
Documentary – amusing about university life?
Plan for Mondays to deliver – what is subject, how do we make it funny? Inbetweeners? Mockumentary
A mockumentary about life at ARU in the style of the Inbetweeners – 3 student – one young and cool, one a young mum and the other an elderly mature student. Exaggerated version of ourselves. What would the characters get up to – it must be filmed in the uni building and streets round about – we can involve other students or lecturers. Cinematic opportunities for Quinn. Documentary title? Humour like Curb Your Enthusiasm? B sheet style of script writing. What is the story? What are we trying to prove in the documentary ?
Note from Quinn: I was thinking for the video maybe very dramatic cinematic lighting and colours but contrast that but having the topic be really unserious and not dramatic
My Idea: “The ARU Film Festival”
Story: The 3 of us believe that we’ve been nominated for a prestigious ARU filmmaking competition.
We prepare emotionally and philosophically for “the awards,” only to discover it’s a small showcase.
Cinematic interviews build anticipation that deflates ‘hilariously’ at the end.
Opportunity for red carpet, fake acceptance speeches etc.
I set off early from St Neots yesterday for a Digital Media Production team visit to the Natural History Museum with colleagues from years 2 and 3.
Arriving at South Kensington Tube Station it was a short hop to the museum where the key reasons for the visit were to see some of the exhibitions designed by one of the course tutors, James Norton and to see the Our Story exhibition narrated by Sir David Attenborough – who celebrates his centenary birthday later this year.
Someone was even longer in the tooth than me:
I made a short video of clips from the trip
We visited the Visions of Nature exhibition – a mixed reality experience which gave me a few ideas for the ‘Victorian Machines’ project:
Saola Studio is a Paris-based creative studio specialising in augmented and mixed reality experiences for cultural institutions. Their work at the Natural History Museum in London, “Visions of Nature”, transports visitors 100 years into the future via Microsoft HoloLens 2 headsets, presenting eight richly imagined ecosystems in 2125 through interactive holographic animations and spatial storytelling. My “Victorian Machines” project sets the bicycle in 2085 where it reimagines the bicycle as a future – and futuristic- vehicle, Saola’s approach offers several valuable lessons. Their method of grounding speculative futures in credible research is directly applicable: just as they consulted NHM scientists to make 2125 feel plausible rather than fantastical. The learning for me is that I could anchor the bicycle’s redesign in real emerging technologies such as smart materials or urban mobility data. The layering of physical and virtual environments – whilst beyond my technical ability – suggests way to present my idea through mixed or augmented reality, allowing audiences to interact with the future bicycle rather than simply observe it. Most usefully, Saola demonstrates how future-world storytelling benefits from a clear narrative framework. Their AI guide, Hope, contextualises each scene with purpose. A similar guiding logic applied to my project could help audiences understand not just what your future bicycle looks like, but why it exists and what world it inhabits – this character looks, at the moment, like a 118 year old version of me!
Creating videos is not a strong point of mine but I was moved this morning to write a poem – which I ran through |Perplexity AI so is a joint production – after listening to coverage of the Gorton and Denton by-election which takes place on Thursday 26th February 2026. I have been impressed with the Green Party candidate and while I am not a member of that party (or indeed any party … been there, done that etc.) I think they offer hope at the moment which is lacking from other parties and their representatives. Here’s the poem:
I also asked Google Gemini to make an image to accompany the poem:
And that led me to practice some video skills for the upcoming projects for two of the three current modules:
Mistaken Identity!
So … I posted my video on TikTok and started to get some views – a few derogatory about my doggerel and others not so keen on the progressive political message. Such is life. I was especially pleased to get a message from Hannah the Plumber but less delighted when it emerged that there are two Hannah the Plumbers and I had tagged the wrong one.
This Hannah is US based and not standing for parliament at all but she was so pleased to be mentioned in a poem so she asked me if I’d do one especially for her. So here it is … Hannah the Plumber US Remix version and this time I have also tagged Hannah the Plumber MCR who IS standing for the Green Party later this week.
This week’s lecture focused on meme culture, exploring how digital viral images metastasize from the internet’s periphery to the mainstream. To be honest, I have never really be certain what a meme actually is so this module was particularly informative. I found the concept of memes as “tricksters” particularly fascinating, as it challenges the illusion of control we have over the digital content we create and share and it made me wonder whether the catchphrases and punchlines from the shows I enjoyed as a child, might be considered to be the pre-internet memes – especially, for example, a phrase like ‘Oooh matron’ made famous by Kenneth Williams in the ‘Carry On’ series of films. We explored the theory that memes possess a “mutant energy” that “screws with narrative,” ensuring that every historical event is now inevitably haunted by an uncontrollable – and often viral – meme. Applying this to my “Victorian Smart Bike” project, I want to design interactions within the “Social Velocipede Network” that rely on Victorian-style memes or viral pneumatic pamphlets to critique our modern addiction to algorithmic trends. Moving forward, I plan to explore the Meme Studies Research Network to better understand how I can integrate the visual language of internet memes into the speculative world-building of my 2085 bicycle.
Sources:
Arkenbout, C., Wilson, J. and de Zeeuw, D. (eds.) (n.d.) Critical Meme Reader: Global Mutations of the Viral Image. INC Reader #15, pp. 8-11.
Godden, E. (2024) Thinking Digital: A Practical History of Digital Media – Week 5 Meme Culture. [Lecture notes]. MOD007295.
Meme Studies Research Network (n.d.) Meme Studies Research Network.
Preparation
In advance of the session, I posted the following memes to Emily’s ‘padlet’ site (the ones I posted are marked with a red cross):
The following memes were posted by the class team during the session and it should be noted that energy clearly remains on the question of the University’s backtracking on its promise of a £1 lunch deal:
As this session took place less than 24 hours after the first arrest of a member of the Royal Family since Charles I this meme – which I created – proved irresistible:
Finally, I was working on my project for the Digital Content Creation module yesterday and though I am not entirely sure if this is a meme or not – following the session, I now think that it is – this is a first view of a character in my proposed TikTok video series having taking inspiration from TikTokers who use a homespun approach and play all the characters – of all genders – in their videos.
This Morning with Richard and Judy – Clobbered by the Bible
In this Digital Content Creation Project, I have outline the concept and I have spent today turning the concept into a series of short scripts which I hope to record as short TikTok (or TikTok style) videos over the next week or two. The script will likely evolve but what follows below will give a flavour of what I hope to create during the course of this project. For me, the biggest challenge will be the videoing part – I was a homespun look as outlines in my previous post on this subject but I’d like to be able to competent videos which include most – if not all of the elements – I have described below.
‘This Morning with Richard and Judy’ – Clobbered by the Bible
Episode 1 – Intro: “Welcome to This Morning – Clobbered by the Bible”
Goal: Set up the storyline, tone, and “image of God” message.
[TITLE ON SCREEN] THIS MORNING – Clobbered by the Bible with Richard and Judy
Images: Created with Google Gemini (prompt: Create a title page for a parody TV show which is light, fun and takes the mickey from daytime TV shows. The programme is to be called ‘This Morning – Clobbered by the Bible’ and subtitle ‘with Richard and Judy’)
RICHARD: (cheerful, a bit smug) “Good morning, and welcome to This Morning, the only daytime show brave enough to ask: has the Church been reading the Bible upside down for the last few centuries?”
CUT TO: JUDY (soft jumper, mug of tea, amused) “And more importantly, Richard, if it has, can we all just calm down, apologise to the gays, and get on with arranging the flowers?”
RICHARD “Over the next few episodes, we’ll be looking at the Bible’s so‑called ‘clobber verses’ little snippets of scripture that have been used to justify some truly impressive homophobia for something that turns out to be… a translation error.”
JUDY “It’s a bit like discovering your gran cut you out of the will because she misread the instructions on a B&Q flatpack garden set.”
RICHARD “Each time, we’ll read the verse, we’ll show you how it’s been twisted, and then we’ll pop it back in its original context, like a lost sock or a bishop who’s wandered into the twenty‑first century.”
JUDY “And underneath all the Greek, the Hebrew, and the frankly dodgy committee decisions, there’s a very simple message: you are made in the image of God. You. As you are. Not once you’ve passed a parish sexuality inspection.”
JUDY – TO CAMERA “So if you’re queer, trans, non‑binary, or just very tired of watching straight people argue about your existence, make yourself a cuppa, and stay tuned.”
RICHARD “Coming up after the break: Sodom and Gomorrah. Was it really about the gays, or just the world’s worst Airbnb review?”
BOTH(?) “Tune in again for episode 2 of … This Morning – Clobbered by the Bible when we’ll look at the worst neighbours in the bible”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] “YOU ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.”
Episode 2 – Genesis 19: “The Worst Neighbours in the Bible”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] GENESIS 19 – SODOM & GOMORRAH
RICHARD “Today on This Morning we’re asking: did God destroy a city because of the gays? or because everyone there was a violent, abusive prat?”
JUDY (serious “Bible reading” voice) “Our verse is from Genesis 19: ‘The men of the city… surrounded the house … and said, “Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.”’ And by ‘know’, Richard, they don’t mean ‘share a cheese board’.”
RICHARD “For years, in the church, LGBTQ+ people have been told that
this sexual violence is no different to , ‘Two men holding hands outside Tesco’s and that will bring down the wrath of God. Upon them’”
JUDY “And yet the biblical commentary is very clear: the real issue here is violence, inhospitality, the joy of humiliating strangers. It’s less Pride parade, more stag do gone to hell.”
RICHARD “Other parts of the Bible list Sodom’s sins as arrogance, ignoring the poor, and general moral bankruptcy. A bit like a certain corner of Christian social media.”
JUDY – TO CAMERA “If anyone’s ever called you ‘Sodom’ because you’re queer, remember: you are not the villain in this story. The villain is the mob at the door— not the guests inside the house.”
RICHARD “You, my love, are made in the image of God. The mob are just badly behaved extras.”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] “SODOM’S SIN: VIOLENCE, NOT QUEERNESS.”
RICHARD “Coming up now: Leviticus. Is it eternal moral law, or the spiritual equivalent of clicking ‘accept cookies’ without reading anything?”
JUDY (reading) “Leviticus 18:22: ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.’ Strong words. Almost as strong as the polyester‑cotton blend in the vicar’s cassock.”
RICHARD “This one verse has been used to justify conversion therapy, youth talks so awkward they should be illegal, and a thousand badly written church leaflets.”
JUDY “And yet the same people are absolutely fine with prawn cocktails, mixed fibres, and shaving their beards into the shape of a theological mistake.”
RICHARD “The word ‘abomination’ here is toʿevah— a ritual taboo for a specific ancient community, living next to some very colourful cult practices. It does not mean ‘you, personally, are disgusting forever.’”
JUDY “This isn’t God sending a hate‑letter to your sexuality. It’s an ancient people sorting out their worship life in a very messy neighbourhood.”
JUDY – TO CAMERA (warm) “If someone has waved this verse at you like a divine eviction notice, hear this instead: you are not an abomination. You are a beloved image‑bearer who happens to be allergic to bad theology.”
RICHARD “If we’re banning anything, let it be weaponised scripture and beige buffet food. The gays can stay.”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] “ABOMINATION ≠ YOU.”
The End
Episode 4 – Leviticus 20:13: “Everybody Dies (Apparently)”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] LEVITICUS 20:13 – EVERYBODY DIES
RICHARD “Today’s question: Leviticus 20 – timeless moral code, or an early draft of Midsomer Murders?”
JUDY (reading) “Leviticus 20:13: ‘If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death.’ Also up for execution in this chapter: adulterers, cheeky teenagers, and anyone who’s ever sworn at their mum.”
RICHARD “Funny how modern Christians don’t actually fancy stoning their stroppy fourteen‑year‑olds, but are very keen to keep this one handy for queer people.”
JUDY “If we enforced this chapter literally, half the parish would be wiped out before we even got to Easter.”
RICHARD “These are civil penalties for an ancient theocracy. Christians don’t follow them literally. We don’t stone people, we don’t burn people, and we only sacrifice goats if it’s for a curry.”
JUDY “So dragging one death‑penalty verse out of the pile and bolting it to modern queer lives isn’t ‘being biblical’. It’s being cruel.”
JUDY – TO CAMERA “If someone has ever threatened you with this verse, that’s about their fear, not God’s character.”
RICHARD “You are not on God’s list of things to get rid of. You are on God’s list of things that look like God.”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] “DEATH PENALTY: RETIRED. IMAGE OF GOD: STILL IN FORCE.”
The End
Episode 5 – Romans 1:26–27: “A Brief City Break in Ancient Rome”
Opening Pic
[ON SCREEN TEXT] ROMANS 1:26–27 – CITY BREAK
JUDY “Pack your bags we’re off to ancient Rome. Land of bathhouses, dodgy emperors, and absolutely zero concept of sexual orientation.”
RICHARD (reading) “Romans 1:26–27: ‘Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another…’ Sounds ominous, if you ignore the entire paragraph around it.”
JUDY “This passage has been preached as ‘Why your bisexual cousin is definitely going to hell,’ despite involving precisely zero lesbians with Netflix accounts.”
RICHARD “Paul is talking about people swapping the worship of God for a sort of imperial‑religious orgy with built‑in slavery.”
JUDY “Sex in that world was about power, status, and using other people’s bodies like furniture not two queer people arguing over whose turn it is to buy milk.”
RICHARD “‘Against nature’ here means ‘against their own cultural norms’, not ‘against your DNA’.”
JUDY – TO CAMERA “If you’re in a loving, consenting queer relationship, you are not the thing Paul is warning about here.”
RICHARD “Frankly, the people Paul would have a word with are those still using his name to bully teenagers off church pews.”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] “ROMANS 1: AGAINST ABUSE, NOT YOUR LOVE.”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] 1 CORINTHIANS 6 – TRANSLATION DRAMA
RICHARD “Tonight on This Morning: two weird Greek words, one mistranslation, and a whole lot of unnecessary misery.”
JUDY (reading) “1 Corinthians 6: ‘…neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders…’ At least, that’s how some Bibles put it.”
RICHARD “Here, ‘homosexuals’ has been parachuted into the text like a badly trained theology intern.”
JUDY “The actual Greek words are ‘malakoi’ and ‘arsenokoitai’— which we have cheerfully turned into ‘All LGBTQ+ People, Please Do Not Inherit The Kingdom’.”
RICHARD “‘Malakoi’ literally means ‘soft’ sometimes a general insult, sometimes used for pretty boys kept by rich men.”
JUDY “‘Arsenokoitai’ turns up almost nowhere else, and seems to be about exploiters and abusers, not your girlfriend who likes good knitwear.”
RICHARD “Some translation committees looked at all that nuance and said, ‘No thanks, let’s just lob “homosexuals” in there and see how many lives we can ruin before lunch.’”
JUDY – TO CAMERA “If you’ve been told this verse is God’s final word on your identity, hear this instead: you are not a mistranslation. You are a whole, beautiful image of God.”
RICHARD “The real drama isn’t you coming out. It’s the Church refusing to come out of bad translation.”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] “YOU ARE NOT A MISTRANSLATION.”
Episode 7 – 1 Timothy 1:9–10: “Vice List Bingo”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] 1 TIMOTHY 1 – VICE LIST BINGO
JUDY “And finally, a game of Vice List Bingo: murderers, slave traders, perjurers… and, apparently, you for fancying your own gender.”
RICHARD (reading) “1 Timothy 1: ‘…for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers…’ and so on.”
JUDY “Some modern translations have helpfully updated ‘sodomites’ to ‘those who practice homosexuality’ because why not stuff us in between slave traders and liars, for balance.”
RICHARD “Once again, that odd word ‘arsenokoitai’ has been turned into ‘Everyone who doesn’t fit my 1950s gender expectations.’”
JUDY “The likely target here is exploiters, abusers, people who use others’ bodies like property, not your non‑binary neighbour trying to survive family lunch.”
RICHARD “If that’s not you, this list is not about you.”
JUDY – TO CAMERA “So when Auntie so‑and‑so waves this verse at you over Sunday roast, remember: the Bible is not her personal weapon.”
RICHARD “You are not on God’s blacklist. You are the spitting image of God you’re just unfortunately related to Auntie so‑and‑so.”
[ON SCREEN TEXT] “IMAGE OF GOD > AUNTIE’S VICE LIST.”
References used in creating the scripts:
(All accessed using Google and not in actual copies of the books referred to):
Brownson, James V. Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
Vines, Matthew. God and the Gay Christian. New York: Convergent Books, 2014.
Gushee, David P. Changing Our Mind. Canton, MI: Read the Spirit Books, 2014 (rev. eds. later).
Gagnon, Robert A. J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. (Often engaged as the conservative foil.)
Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Gagnon, Robert A. J. “Why the ‘Heterosexual Orientation’ Interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Cannot Stand.” (Article often cited and critiqued in queer‑affirming work.)
Furnish, Victor Paul. “The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading the Texts in Context.” In The Moral Teaching of Paul, 2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1985.
Ed Oxford & Kathy Baldock’s research (associated with the documentary “1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture”).
Helminiak, Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. Alamo Square Press, 2000.
Cheng, Patrick S. Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology. New York: Seabury, 2011.
Also the Bible in various editions via Biblegateway.com
Google Gemini has created the images used in this post
Find a existing online digital project that you like and has a good following (or use one of the
examples) – this could be for branded goods, a marketing campaign, a personal story, experimental, social, sustainability, nature based etc.
I did a bit of a personal brainstorming session about the things which shaped the content I like. I NEVER watch horror movies and enjoy things that are ‘nice’. I remember watching Laurel and Hardy films which were on TV a lot during my childhood, along with programmes like The Banana Splits and was definitely engaged by humour despite the fact that I was often seen as rather a serious child.
Here’s the list, as they say, in no particular order
Victoria Wood, Reggie Perrin, That’s Life, B Dylan Hollis, Chloe Charles Queer Sober Therapist, Rev Brandan Robertson, The High Life, Scooch, Scotch and Wry, Kenneth Williams, Are You Being Served, Like serious content in a light-hearted way – realistic attitudes made ridiculous, Laurel and Hardy, The Banana Splits, Round the Horne, Radio comedy, Carry On Movies, Innuendo – Tom Lehrer, Flanders and Swann (I was once in a tribute act!), Polari, Remember seeing a man in a restaurant on my 10th birthday and he was sitting in a chair and made occasional comments and the people broke into gales of laughter, But … I have s serious side and would like to be able to bring together my desire for social change with humour. This list could go on for hours.
Victoria Wood’s Kitty
The Banana Splits
The High Life
Kenneth Williams – Stick up Your Hands
It will be 100 years since Kenneth Williams was born on 22nd February 2026 – I am already celebrating his centenary on BBC Radio 4 Extra. He died by taking his own life on 15th April 1988, just before my 21st Birthday. I remember crying a lot that day.
Come say hello 🙋🏼♂️👋🏻🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ If you have stopped by to say hello, welcome ❤️ If you’d like to follow along or sign up for the newsletter that would make you hotter than Katy O’Brian in LLB 🔥🥵 #lgbtq🏳️🌈#queertiktok#nonbinarytiktok#sapphic
There is a clear mix of influences which combine a love of humour with faith and other serious content and more than a smattering of camp, queerness. That’s kind of me in a sentence.
Task 1: Create an online presence.
Find a existing online digital project that you like and has a good following (or use one of the
examples) – this could be for branded goods, a marketing campaign, a personal story, experimental, social, sustainability, nature based etc.
1. In your blog add the link or links to the project, use screen grabs to show the graphics layout,
design and platform.
2. Explain what the storytelling methods is/are and what is the narrative.
3. Explain what the platform/platforms are and why you think they have used those.
4. Explain who you think the audience is.
5. Explain what you think is successful.
6. Explain what you think is engaging.
7. Explain what ethics are involved.
8. Explain what you think could be done to improve.
As a boy, I’d normally sit near the back – though I desperately wanted to be seen and to be a performer, I also wanted to be invisible. I wasn’t a troublemaker, quite the opposite in fact, and I suppose I chose that seat so that I could people watch and I still enjoy people watching.
When I was about 5 years old I got into trouble with my mother for impersonating the way a neighbour ran to chase her own child – it wasn’t nasty but it was funny and I liked the reaction my impression got. Later, in primary school, I was well known for impressions – particularly Dame Edna Everage (voice only sadly) – and as a late teenager had an audition for Spitting Image.
I was always good a telling a story and found I ‘raconteurs’ like Peter Ustinov fascinating even if I didn’t always understand what the were talking about. I was too shy to join the school drama club and eventually came out of my shell (well one of them at least) in hospital radio from around the age of 17.
I grew up on Victoria Wood, which taught me that the funniest things are the most ordinary things, the Breville sandwich toaster, the sad sandwich at a works do, the quiet devastation of being slightly not quite right in a world of people who seemed to have got the memo he hadn’t received. Victoria never punched down. She punched sideways, at the absurdity of life itself.
And I found some LPs (and later CDs) of BBC Radio’s Round the Horne. I loved the fun, the word play, innuendo and electricity of characters like Julian and Sandy – outrageously, flamboyantly, entirely themselves tucked inside the BBC Home Service between the jingles. The straight audience laughed because they half-didn’t-get-it. The queer audience laughed because they entirely did. Polari. The secret language. The wink inside the joke. I learned something profound: you can say the truest thing in the world and disguise it as a punchline.
The Carry On films gave me innuendo as theology. Meaning lives in the gap between what is said and what is understood. Laurel and Hardy showed me the man who doesn’t quite fit the world around him, Stan’s bewilderment, Ollie’s look to camera, the appeal to the audience: you see what I’m dealing with? I understood Stan. He was Stan even though I looked more like Ollie.
On my tenth birthday, I remember being in a pub restaurant. A man sitting in a chair, making occasional comments, quips almost, nothing sustained, nothing performed, and the table erupting. The man wasn’t telling jokes. He was observing. Seeing clearly and saying so, with precise timing. I stored this moment as a precious memory.
One of the first people I followed on Tik Tok was B Dylan Hollis confirmed something: enthusiasm is its own comedy. Deadpan-but-delighted, taking the ridiculous seriously and the serious ridiculously and the odd innuendo and queer-coded comment and ‘set’. And then Chloe Charles – Queer Sober Therapist on TikTok and Brandan Robertson arrived, people dealing with serious topic – psychology and scripture in each case – doing so with kindness and humour while wrestling with their topics honestly.
1. The Project — Links and Visual Identity
Image: I was fortunate enough to meet Brandan at the launch of his book in London in November 2025.
Brandan Robertson is a queer theologian, author, and activist whose digital presence spans YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and his own website. His work directly addresses LGBTQ+ inclusion in Christianity, using scripture as his primary tool rather than his opponent.
You Tube
Instagram
TikTok
He also has a website which is a kind of central place for all of his work including books for sale, speaking enquiries, blog posts, and links to all platforms. It is the serious anchor beneath the social media accessibility.
2. Storytelling Method and Narrative
Robertson’s storytelling method is the personal-to-universal journey. He consistently begins with the human cost, these passages have been used to harm real people, before moving into the intellectual and scriptural argument. This is a classic narrative arc: establish the stakes emotionally, then satisfy intellectually.
The narrative running beneath every piece of content is the same story told different ways: the Bible has been misread, the misreading has caused suffering, and a careful honest reading reveals something radically different. It is a story of rescue not of people from God, but of people from a bad interpretation of God.
He also employs what might be called the confident explainer mode the narrator who has done the work, is not angry about it (mostly), and is genuinely puzzled that this isn’t more widely known. It moves the viewer from defensive to curious.
There is an autobiography running through everything: Robertson is himself queer and Christian, and the personal weight of that gives every scriptural argument an emotional undertow that pure academic theology lacks.
3. Platform Choices and Why
Robertson uses YouTube as his primary long-form home – 10 to 20 minute videos that allow a full argument. YouTube’s search function means his content is discoverable by people actively looking for answers: the teenager whose pastor just quoted Leviticus at them, the parent trying to understand, the student with a private question they haven’t asked out loud.
Instagram and TikTok serve a completely different function: they are interruption platforms. Someone scrolling who wasn’t looking for theology encounters 60 seconds of Robertson and thinks wait, what? and follows. The short-form content is a door into the long-form argument.
The multi-platform approach is strategically sound because the audience segments don’t overlap neatly. The 45-year-old ally who watches YouTube documentaries is not the same person as the 19-year-old questioning their faith on TikTok. Robertson is fishing in all the relevant waters simultaneously.
The website and books anchor the whole enterprise in credibility he is not just a content creator, he is a published theologian with institutional standing. This matters enormously when your subject is scripture, because the implicit question from a sceptical viewer is always but who are you to say?
4. The Audience
The primary audience is LGBTQ+ Christians and people raised in Christian contexts, people for whom the Clobber Passages are not an abstract intellectual exercise but a lived wound. These are people who need to hear not just that they are welcome, but why the texts that said otherwise were wrong, because for them the texts have authority. Vague affirmation without scriptural engagement doesn’t reach this audience. Robertson knows this, and it shapes everything.
The secondary audience is allies and questioning believers, straight Christians who sense something is wrong with their tradition’s treatment of LGBTQ+ people but lack the theological vocabulary to articulate why, and need someone to do the careful work for them.
Another audience, perhaps underestimated, is the openly hostile viewer, the person who arrives to argue and stays to think. Robertson’s tone, unhurried, calm and rigorous is specifically poorly matched to the person looking for a fight, which is its own kind of genius.
5. What Is Successful
The most successful element is the combination of emotional accessibility and intellectual rigour. Robertson never talks down to his audience, and he never loses the human stakes in academic abstraction. He holds both simultaneously, which is genuinely difficult to do and which most content in this space fails to achieve either too scholarly (and therefore cold) or too personal (and therefore easily dismissed).
The consistency of output is also remarkable. Regular content, across multiple platforms, over years, builds the cumulative effect of a trusted voice. A single video can be argued with. A body of work is harder to dismiss.
The confidence without arrogance of his delivery is also quietly extraordinary. He does not hedge. He has done the work and he states his conclusions clearly, which is reassuring to an audience that has often been made to feel the question is too complicated for a definitive answer.
6. What Is Engaging
The engagement hook is the relief of permission. For an LGBTQ+ person raised in the church, watching Robertson is the experience of someone finally saying aloud what you had hoped might be true. That is an intensely powerful emotional experience, and it creates fierce loyalty.
The “wait, really?” moments are also highly engaging, for example, the discovery that the sin of Sodom is defined in Ezekiel as inhospitality, not homosexuality; that arsenokoitai was a word apparently invented by Paul and its precise meaning is genuinely disputed by scholars; that Jesus says nothing, directly, about same-sex relationships. These are the moments a viewer will clip, share, and return to. They have the quality of the Hollis revelation you’re not going to believe what’s actually in here.
The comments sections on Robertson’s videos are also notably moving — people sharing that a video helped them leave a harmful church, or reconcile with a family member, or stay alive. This community dimension, visible on the platform, becomes itself part of the content’s power.
7. Ethics Involved
Several ethical considerations run through this kind of project and Robertson navigates them with varying degrees of success.
The ethics of authority and qualification: Robertson is an ordained minister with genuine theological training. He is entitled to make the claims he makes. The ethical issue arises for anyone without that background who might present the same material. The project is clear that this is an argument, not a final ruling, and that matters.
The ethics of the audience’s vulnerability: Many viewers arrive already hurt, already in crisis. There is an ethical responsibility not to exploit that emotional state for engagement, and to present even hopeful information carefully. Robertson generally handles this well, though the short-form content necessarily strips out nuance.
The ethics of selective scholarship: All theological argument is selective to some degree, but there is an ethical obligation to represent the strongest version of opposing views before dismantling them. Robertson sometimes moves past the conservative scholarly position too quickly, which leaves the work open to a fair criticism of straw-manning. The ethics of representation: Speaking for or about an LGBTQ+ experience from a position of relative privilege (white, male, ordained, published) while other queer voices, particularly queer people of colour, remain marginalised in mainstream Christian discourse is a genuine tension the project doesn’t always address.
8. What Could Be Improved
The production quality is deliberately modest, which works but the audio quality on earlier videos in particular occasionally undermines the authority of the content. A modest investment in sound would pay dividends without disrupting the intentional unpretentiousness of the visual approach.
The TikTok content sometimes sacrifices too much nuance for brevity, leaving partial arguments floating without their foundations. A pinned comment or link-in-bio system directing short-form viewers to the full argument more efficiently would help.
There is an opportunity for more explicit storytelling bringing in the voices of LGBTQ+ Christians directly, perhaps as interviews or as read correspondence, rather than Robertson always being the sole narrator. The personal-to-universal method would be strengthened by more personal voices alongside his own.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly: the comments need moderation and pastoral care infrastructure. When content reaches people in genuine spiritual and psychological crisis, there is an ethical obligation to have something in place beyond an algorithm. A signposted community resource, or a pinned crisis link, would acknowledge the emotional weight of what the content stirs up.
In your blog add the title of your project.
I’m thinking of calling it something like ‘Leviticus and the Big Mistake’ but I am not 100% sure at present.
Explain what is/are the storytelling methods and what is the narrative.
My current thinking is to create short videos – perhaps with myself playing various characters with appropriate props in a style common TikTok. Ideally I’d like there to be a light or comedic element in each video and to the series as a whole but this will depend on whether I can create a ‘script’ which addresses the issues seriously but is also engaging.
Explain what the platform/platforms could be.
Almost certainly TikTok but I may also consider YouTube and as I am a big fan of radio and audio content I may try an audio platform. I will probably opt for a video based platform as this takes me more out of my comfort zone.
Explain who you think the audience is.
The primary audience is the LGBTQ+ person who still has one foot in faith or did until one of the Clobber Passages was thrown at them. The secondary audience is the ally who wants to help but keeps losing the argument and finally those who are quietly curious about the subject but who isn’t sure what they think.
Explain what you think will make it successful.
I think a combination of warmth, humour, information and connection is likely to make the series successful. Although, I am not certain whether success is to be measured by view or by effectively getting the message across in a simple to understand and engaging way. My approach is likely to be more tabloid than Brandan’s perhaps as I am not a well qualified theologian.
Explain what you think will make it engaging.
Mmmm … a good question. Perhaps like beauty, engagement is in the eye of the beholder. I would like to think that the homespun, amateur nature of the production will attract attention and a novel approach to the subject will encourage people to stop in the knowledge that they will find something interesting by taking time to listen to this video’s content.
Explain what ethics are involved.
I want to be honest about the ethical questions this project carries, because dishonesty about them would undermine everything it’s trying to do. While this is not academic theology, I do believe that there must be an element of personal interpretation to this work and it is based upon what I believe rather than wholly upon what I can prove to be true – others will definitely disagree with my point of view entirely (which is the point of the exercise, right?). I think the following ethical considerations are involved:
The ethics of authority. I am not an ordained minister nor qualified theologian. I am a Lay Minister and someone who has read carefully, who has spent a long time with these texts, who has consulted the scholarship seriously. The argument should stand on its own merits, not on institutional authority but viewers deserve to know who is making it and from what position.
The ethics of the vulnerable audience. Many people who find this content may be in genuine distress people who have been told by their church, their family, their tradition, that they are not welcome with God.
The ethics of scholarship. Theological argument involves choices about which scholars to cite.
The ethics of comedy. Humour is power, and power requires responsibility. The comedy in this project punches at misinterpretation, at centuries of careless scholarship, at the absurdity of the situation
Task 3
Leviticus Mind Map
The Clobber Verses
The term “clobber passages” refers to a specific set of biblical texts that have historically been used to condemn homosexuality and marginalize LGBTQ+ individuals.
The primary “clobber passages” (often referred to as the “Big Six”) are:
Old Testament
Genesis 19:1–38 (Sodom and Gomorrah): This passage tells the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Traditional interpretations argue God destroyed the cities because of homosexuality, while affirming scholars emphasize that the actual sin depicted was inhospitality and the attempted gang rape of strangers.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (The Holiness Code): These verses forbid a man from lying with a male “as with a woman,” labeling the act an “abomination” (or toevah). Affirming interpretations argue these texts are part of a ritual purity code meant to separate Israelites from surrounding pagan nations, or that they specifically condemn exploitative sex, rather than addressing modern consensual same-sex relationships.
New Testament
Romans 1:26–27 (Unnatural Relations): In this passage, the Apostle Paul writes of women and men abandoning “natural” relations for “unnatural” ones. Affirming scholars often argue Paul was describing heterosexual people engaging in idol-related sexual excess, pagan temple worship, or violating the patriarchal gender norms of the time, rather than condemning same-sex orientation.
1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10 (The Vice Lists): These passages include lists of wrongdoers who will not inherit the kingdom of God, using the Greek terms malakoi (often translated as “effeminate” or “male prostitutes”) and arsenokoitai (often translated as “sodomites” or “homosexuals”). Scholars debate the exact translation of these words, with many suggesting they refer to economic exploitation, pederasty (exploitative relationships with young boys), or abusive power dynamics.
Additional Passages Sometimes Included While the six passages above are the most common, some sources expand the list to include other verses used as “prooftexts” against homosexuality:
Jude 1:6–7: Refers to Sodom and Gomorrah going after “strange flesh” (or “other flesh”). While some use this to condemn homosexuality, alternative interpretations suggest it refers to the attempted rape of angels (non-human flesh).
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 and 1 Kings 14:24 & 15:12: Passages dealing with “temple prostitution”.
Judges 19: The story of the Levite and his concubine in Gibeah, which parallels the gang-rape narrative of Genesis 19.
Genesis 1-2: The creation narrative of Adam and Eve, which is sometimes used to argue that God’s intended design is exclusively for male and female sexual relationships.
As a gay Christian for whom these passages have been more than problematic for much of my life, I’d like to focus the creative energy of this project into a fun, light and easily accessible deconstruction of the prejudice and mistranslation which lies behind the traditional interpretation of these verses. I hope it will not be too long before the relationship between my love for camp comedy and this weighty theological topic begins to emerge.
As a starting point for this project, I was inspired by the work of Christian theologians who have spent years critically examining these “clobber passages” i.e. the six biblical verses most commonly weaponised against LGBTQ+ people. After a decade of study, one such theologian – Rev Brandan Robertson who wrote the article linked above – concluded that these passages are not straightforward condemnations of same-sex relationships at all, but rather address “sexual exploitation, abuse and idolatry” in very specific cultural and religious contexts.
Taking Leviticus 18 as an example, the chapter is fundamentally about God warning the Israelites away from the ritual practices of neighbouring pagan nations and not laying down universal moral law. Similarly, Romans 1 describes a descent into idolatry, with the sexual behaviour condemned being tied directly to Roman idol worship and exploitation of conquered peoples.
This kind of contextual reading reveals that the clobber passages have been consistently misapplied. That injustice together with the very specific, often bizarre historical contexts behind these verses felt like rich territory for a light-hearted digital content project. If the scholarship is this compelling, there’s real power in making it accessible, engaging, and even fun.
And so I began thinking about how I could do this using inspiration from some of those comedians, films, TV and radio programmes which have long informed my love for humour. After much thought, I have decided to work on a series of TikTok videos which will set the scene and debunk the false theology – taking inspiration from the videos of Brandan Robertson as well as some of the comedic videos of creations like Munya Chawawa – a British based Zimbawean comedian who plays all gender roles in his videos, I am going to attempt to recreated the atmosphere of ‘This Morning with Richard and Judy’ to tell the tale of centuries of misunderstanding of queer people by the church (and churches)
Throughout the series, which I have tended to publish each Tuesday, I have been sharing the episodes with members of the St Neots Walk and Talk for Men group – the subject of the podcast – and have received some really encouraging feedback including this:
And here is the text of the poem based on To A Haggis:
To A Walking Boot (with apologies to Robert Burns)
Written to celebrate the end of the St Neots Walk and Talk for Men JOGLE challenge on Burns Night 2026
Task: In your blog Write down three possible themes and briefly describe why they interest you.
1. Unclobbering Faith (Social Issue & Personal Journey) This theme explores the intersection of LGBTQ+ identity and Christianity, specifically focusing on deconstructing the “clobber passages” – verses historically used to marginalise queer people. Drawing on the work of Rev. Brandan Robertson and the 1946 documentary project, this narrative would challenge the traditional interpretations of texts like Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, arguing they address exploitation rather than loving relationships. This interests me as a continuation of my “Out in the Light” and Joseph projects from last semester, moving from personal visibility to active theological reclamation and “building our own table”.
2. The Architecture of Misinformation (Social Issue) Drawing on the module’s focus on “fake news,” “deepfakes,” and information ethics, this theme would investigate how digital platforms accelerate the spread of disinformation. I am interested in how false narratives, whether political conspiracies or religious mistranslations, shift culture over time. This theme allows for an exploration of the “ethical implications” of content creation and the responsibility of the creator to verify truth.
3. The “Anarchic” Commute (Experimental Storytelling) Inspired by the weekly task to film a journey to ARU, this theme would transform a mundane daily commute into a surreal, non-linear narrative. By using “short-form” video techniques common on TikTok, I would aim to turn a passive travel experience into “active participation” for the viewer. This interests me as a low-stakes way to experiment with visual effects and “disrupt” the viewer’s expectation of a standard vlog.
Step 2: Research & Find Inspiration
Study existing digital narratives in your chosen format (blog, podcast, video, etc.).
Identify what works well:
◦ How do they hook the audience?
◦ How do they structure the story?
◦ What emotions do they evoke?
Look at how different platforms shape storytelling techniques (e.g., Instagram Reels
vs. YouTube documentaries).
Task: Find two digital storytelling examples that inspire you and break down their narrative and storytelling structure.
I am going to focus my project on option 1:
Unclobbering Faith (Social Issue & Personal Journey) This theme explores the intersection of LGBTQ+ identity and Christianity, specifically focusing on deconstructing the “clobber passages” – verses historically used to marginalise queer people. Drawing on the work of Rev. Brandan Robertson and the 1946 documentary project, this narrative would challenge the traditional interpretations of texts like Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, arguing they address exploitation rather than loving relationships. This interests me as a continuation of my “Out in the Light” and Joseph projects from last semester, moving from personal visibility to active theological reclamation and “building our own table”.
On that basis, here are two examples of digital storytelling that inspire me:
1. Brandan Robertson’s TEDx Talk: “Gay and Christian, No Contradiction”
Hook: Robertson hooks the audience immediately with a high-stakes personal anecdote – a knock on his dorm door at the conservative Moody Bible Institute where a peer confesses, “I’m gay,” prompting Robertson’s own admission, “Me too”.
Structure: He uses a Hero’s Journey structure. He starts in the “ordinary world” of non-affirming theology, experiences a “call to adventure” (the dorm confession), crosses the threshold into investigation (studying the history of the word “homosexual” appearing in 1946), and returns with the “elixir” (a theology of inclusion).
Emotions: He evokes vulnerability through personal risk and intellectual relief by providing historical evidence that resolves the tension.
2. 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture (Documentary/Campaign)
Hook: This narrative utilizes a Mystery/Discovery hook: “What if the word ‘homosexual’ was never meant to be in the Bible?”. This instantly disrupts the viewer’s worldview.
Structure: It functions as an Investigative Thriller, following researchers into archives (Yale University) to uncover the “smoking gun” (the RSV translation committee notes). It interlaces this “cold case” intellectual narrative with emotional “testimony” from those harmed by the text.
Emotions: It evokes shock at the recency of the translation error and vindication for those marginalized by it.
Step 3: Define Your Audience & Platform
Who is your ideal audience? Consider age, interests, and engagement habits.
Which platform best suits your story? (e.g., TikTok for fast-paced, visually engaging
content, YouTube for longer narratives, blogs for detailed analysis).
Task: Define your target audience and platform choice, explaining why it fits your idea
Target Audience: The “Spiritual Exile” & The Seeker
Retro Fit: Although I have given some thought to the audience which I have outlined below, I am generally more engaged with the topic and how I would like to produce something which shares my view of it than looking first at the audience. I have to say that my antennae aren’t great – or perhaps my taste is unusual – but those things I generally think might grow an audience, or go viral, normally do not. I’m fine with that.
Demographics: Primarily Gen Z and Millennials (ages 18–40). This demographic correlates with the rise of the “ex-vangelical” movement and is statistically more likely to identify as LGBTQ+ while retaining an interest in spirituality or social justice.
Interests: They are interested in deconstruction, social justice, and reconciliation of identity. They are likely familiar with the pain of the “clobber passages” but may lack the theological tools to refute them. They are looking for content that validates their existence and offers a “gospel of inclusion” rather than condemnation.
Engagement Habits: This audience engages with “edutainment” – content that educates while entertaining. They often scroll for validation and community, seeking “micro-learning” moments that challenge their worldview or offer relief from religious trauma.
Platform Choice: TikTok
Why TikTok?
1. Established Niche: Brandan Robertson, a key influence for this project, is known as the “TikTok Pastor” and has garnered over 400,000 followers by spreading a message of inclusion on this specific platform. This proves that there is a hungry audience for progressive theology in short-form video.
2. Format Fit: TikTok creates an environment for “disruptive” storytelling. The “Unclobbering Faith” narrative relies on a “myth-busting” structure (e.g., “Did you know the word ‘homosexual’ wasn’t in the Bible until 1946?”). This “hook-and-reveal” style is native to TikTok and perfect for dismantling the six “clobber passages” in 60-second bursts.
3. Visual Storytelling: The platform’s tools (Green Screen, text overlays) allow you to visually display the Bible verses and “cross them out” or re-translate them on screen, making the theological argument accessible and visually engaging.
Accessibility & Inclusion Strategy
• Subtitles/Captions: Essential not just for the deaf and hard-of-hearing, but for the “sound-off” scroll habit common on TikTok. Every spoken word must be captioned.
• Inclusive Language: Following the guidance of organizations like ReconcilingWorks, the content will use identity-first language where appropriate and respect the full SOGIE (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression) spectrum. This includes using correct pronouns and avoiding “microaggressions” such as implying that being cisgender is the “norm”.
• Content Warnings: Given the focus on “clobber passages,” which have caused significant harm, videos will include Trigger Warnings (TW) for religious trauma or homophobia in the captions to ensure ethical storytelling and duty of care
This week’s session moved beyond the software of the previous week to interrogate the physical “afterlife” of technology, focusing on Garnet Hertz and Jussi Parikka’s concept of “Zombie Media.” I was interested in the argument that media never truly dies but instead “decays, rots, reforms, remixes, and gets historicised”, which challenges the tech industry’s narrative of linear progress and inevitable obsolescence.
Applying this to my “Victorian Smart Bike” project, I plan to treat the bicycle not just as a historical artifact, but as a “zombie” medium, perhaps a dead (or dying) technology resurrected to critique the “black box” nature of modern algorithms. I might design the “Quantum Routing Consciousness” to have a transparent chassis, physically exposing the mechanical “decision-making” gears to the rider. Moving forward, I intend to investigate the history of “planned obsolescence” to better design the “Wonder Credits” economy of my 2085 world.
Image: First iteration of my project cover for this module.
This week, we moved beyond the physical machinery of the Victorian era into the fluid concepts of “Cybernetic Serendipity” and “Intermediality.” We examined how the Fluxus movement and artists like John Cage dissolved the boundaries between distinct media forms in the 1960s. I was struck by Norbert Weiner’s definition of cybernetics as “control and communication in the animal and machine,” which reframed my understanding of how biological and digital systems intersect.
The session also engaged deeply with Kenneth Goldsmith’s Wasting Time on the Internet. We discussed the concept of “aimless surfing” as a form of literature and the “alchemical recuperation” of digital debris. The class explored Goldsmith’s “data duels”—an exercise involving swapping laptops and deleting files—which highlighted a “radical vulnerability” and challenged our fears regarding privacy and digital intimacy. We connected this to Derrida’s concept of “hauntology,” suggesting that new media is always haunted by the ghosts of the old. Finally, experimenting with “Hydra play” allowed us to practically apply Roy Ascott’s theory of interactive data streams, remixing our own webcams to become part of the cybernetic structure.
Fluxus Experiment
For the Fluxus Experiment, we decided to put up a ‘MISSING’ poster for something that wasn’t actually missing, this was mine:
During the week, I received (so far) three responses – two in the form of photographs and the third in the form of an invitation to take part in a medical research programme on the subject of the affect of sustained cocaine use on the brain (at least, I hope this is where that invitation came from …)
The article argues that contemporary digital culture is built on planned obsolescence and massive electronic waste, and proposes “zombie media” and circuit-bending–style practices as an art-led method to expose, repurpose and critique this condition.[ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws]
Zombie Media summary
Problem framing: The authors start from the scale and toxicity of electronic waste, noting that hundreds of millions of still-functioning devices are discarded annually and that obsolescence is structurally built into digital media through rapid product cycles, design choices like sealed batteries and proprietary connectors, and a cultural expectation that “new media always becomes old.”
Planned obsolescence as design logic: Tracing the idea from Bernard London’s 1930s proposal through mid‑20th‑century marketers such as Brooks Stevens and Victor Lebow, the article shows how shortening product lifespans became a deliberate economic strategy that now operates at the micropolitical level of industrial design, where devices are intentionally blackboxed and made non‑repairable.
From media archaeology to art method: Building on media archaeology (Huhtamo, Ernst, Zielinski and others), the authors argue that media should be understood as layered material archives – circuits, chemicals and objects that embody time and memory – and that media archaeology must move beyond historiography into a practical methodology for contemporary art.
Circuit bending and DIY practices: Using Reed Ghazala’s circuit‑bent “Incantor” toys as a key example, the article presents circuit bending, hardware hacking and other DIY manipulations of obsolete electronics as tactics that reappropriate blackboxed devices, challenge their intended functions and foreground issues such as planned obsolescence, infrastructural opacity and user agency.
Black boxes and “bending” archives: Drawing on actor‑network theory and Latour, the authors describe consumer technologies as nested black boxes whose inner workings and dependencies remain hidden until breakdown, and propose “depunctualization” and circuit bending – of both hardware and historical archives – as ways to open these systems up and reveal the sociotechnical relations they contain.
Zombie media concept: The central concept of “zombie media” reframes “dead media” as media that persist materially and ecologically, returning as toxic waste or being resurrected through artistic reuse; zombie media thus names media that are out of use but reanimated into new contexts, highlighting non‑human temporalities and the fact that media decay, rot and re-form rather than simply “die.”
Ecological and ecosophical stakes: The article insists that information technologies are never immaterial: they depend on natural resources (such as gutta‑percha and coltan) and, when discarded, re‑enter ecosystems as pollutants, demanding a media ecology perspective that connects political economy, environmental damage and the overlapping ecologies of nature, technology and subjectivity.
Shift to an archaeological phase of digital media: Positioning digital technologies on Gartner’s hype cycle, the authors argue that many communication technologies have moved from speculative “new media” to mass commodity and now into an “archaeological phase,” where amateur DIY, reuse, remixing and sampling in art and activism become more important than celebrating technical novelty.
Strategic proposal: Overall, the article proposes that artists, theorists and activists adopt media-archaeological circuit bending – opening circuits, archives and infrastructures – as both an analytical and creative strategy for engaging with electronic waste, exposing the temporal and ecological dimensions of media, and inventing new, critical uses for the living dead of media culture.
Using chatgpt – or your imagination! Make up some fluxus instructions and if your feeling brave and they are safe, give one a try, record it and upload documentation of it to your blog
Here is an example of fluxus instructions in action – scroll to 2:00 to miss the lengthy introduction:
I aasked Chat GPT for some ideas and was able to conduct the following this week:
1. Kettle Symphony No. 1 (At home Tuesday 10/02/2026)
Fill a kettle with water. Do not turn it on. Sit with it until you hear it boiling anyway. When it does, applaud politely. Take a bow on its behalf.
2. The Apology Piece
Walk into a room alone. (Eaton Socon Surgery, Tuesday 10/02/2026) Say, out loud: “Sorry.” Wait. Leave before anyone forgives you.
In a library, whisper to a book: “It’s wild out there.” Move it slightly further onto the shelf for safety.
4. Pedestrian Crossing Benediction (St Neots High Street, Thursday 12/02/2026)
When waiting at a crossing, quietly bless each pedestrian in your head: “Safe travels, fluorescent hat.” “Godspeed, person eating crisps.” Cross only when you feel spiritually ready.
After exploring the Ars Electronica website, the new AI for Social Impact Initiative stood out most. This collaboration between CARE Austria and Ars Electronica seeks projects demonstrating how artificial intelligence can create concrete positive change in social, environmental, and humanitarian contexts. What makes it particularly interesting is the explicit focus on perspectives from Africa, Latin America, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa, positioning these regions as sources of innovation rather than just application sites.
The 2025 festival explored the theme “PANIC – yes/no” with remarkable nuance, examining different attitudes toward crisis. I was also struck by how Ars Electronica is evolving from a festival into an entire ecosystem, with the Center, Prix competition, Futurelab, and various initiatives working together. The 2025 festival attracted over 122,000 visits, with 1,472 artists from 83 countries.
