That the practice of softvideo raises significant and productive questions
for traditional cinematic practice and theory ought to be obvious.
One major question revolves around the way in which softvideo problematises
montage as a fundamental mode of time based discourse, for
each of the works discussed shifts the location, role and function of montage
away from the preselection and serial ordering of an eventually fixed
sequence towards other possibilities. Montage as a principal of selection
and organisation can now reside somewhere between the shooting or gathering
of material, a dynamic combinatory system of construction (more or
less automated), and a user who (more or less) knowingly controls and
determines the particular montage event and sequence.
The use of multiple windows further complicates this as the relation of
window to window offers a complex collage practice, whether this be via
a multiwindowed work or, in the case of the vogs, that the works appear in
an always and already multiwindowed environment (the PC screen) so
that a simultaneous visual relationship to other windows is always present.
When time is added to this, so we recognise that the collage that is the
computer screen also varies in time (this window now opens over that
window) then we have a combination of collage and montage that does
appear to be one of the major formal properties of such digital environments
(Landow 1999; Manovich 2001).

Miles, A. (2003). Softvideography, Cybertext Yearbook 2002-2003. Edited by Markku Eselinen and Raine Koskimaa. Vol 77, Research Centre ofr Contemporary Culture
the complete article is available from
http://lists.myspinach.org/pipermail/fibreculture/2004-April/003731.html

The Adrian Miles’ presentation on softvideo and vogging on May 5 provided a prescient counterview to my reading’s of Manovich’s theory. Which is to say I’ve never met Lev and can only approximate his theory from a series of his projects, articles and books, read out of sequence in terms of their creation dates… and I assume his theory is dynamic and evolving.
I’ve always considered that a first hand account where the participants are able to engage in Q&A with the presenter always renders concrete results as opposed to the comparitively slow deconstruction of ideas facilitated by reading the linear narrative of a book/documentary/movie. This is not to discount the validity our history of linearity, but is to reinforce the validity and value-adding of well- constructed lectures that seek to engage in the multi linear. It’s why I like Tarkovski.

My point here is that Miles lecture, driven by a variety of visual presentations of the key ideas presents as a wheel within a wheel: it closely mirrors the theory being discussed; softvideo is a collage of content, a collage of contributors leading to multiple outcomes/interpretations.

What is most valid is that the theory and its dissemination appear to be striving for a shared attribute; to create an open forum for investigation and thought in real time.

of interest…
Miles, A. (2003). Softvideography, Cybertext Yearbook 2002-2003. Edited by Markku Eselinen and Raine Koskimaa. Vol 77, Research Centre ofr Contemporary Culture
This article considers the hypertext of multilinear narrative with respect to interactive video, and presents a model for softvideo. It relates to desktop cinema practice but the relevance to this paper is that the implications are equally pertinent to perceived opportunities in mobile telephony.

Manovich, Lev (2003) Soft cinema: concepts extended version. Softcinema: http://www.softcinema.net/form.htm.
This site presents Manovich’s concepts of Soft Cinema and introduces the concepts of database narrative and macro cinema.

http://www.manovich.net/cinema_future/toc_old.htm

http://www.manovich.net/LNM/Q&A_Manovich.html
a self interview by LM