The Clockwork Penguin

Daniel Binns is a media theorist and filmmaker tinkering with the weird edges of technology, storytelling, and screen culture. He is the author of Material Media-Making in the Digital Age and currently writes about posthuman poetics, glitchy machines, and speculative media worlds.

Category: Blog

  • Things organised neatly

    I asked AI to make me more productive and all I got was this stupid picture (made by DALL-E 3, 31 Dec 2023)
    Image generated by Midjourney, prompts by me.

    I spent 2023 learning a great deal about myself. I know everyone always says that around this time of year, but in my case it’s true on a personal, psychological, physiological and personal level. Leaving all of that to one side, it’s also the year that I devoted the most time (too much?) to finding and building a system of notetaking, resource- and time-keeping, and knowledge management that really worked for me.

    At the end of the year I’ve managed to consolidate everything down to a handful of tools:

    • Obsidian (notes, connections, ideas, daily scribblings; always open)
    • Readwise & Readwise Reader (highlights, literature notes, read-later)
    • Raindrop (bookmarks, sorted and organised per life/work commitments, e.g. research, writing, story resources, health, fun stuff)
    • Todoist (task management)
    • Day One (private journaling, morning pages, reflections, mood tracking)
    • IFTTT (general app connections and automation)

    I pay for premium versions of all of the above; partly because it keeps me accountable for what I’m using and doing, but also because I like the apps, have always had great support from their teams, and think they’re products worth supporting, so that those who maybe can’t afford to pay, can still use.

    Project management remains an issue, but I think I’ve finally accepted that I might just have to delegate or outsource some of that, somewhere, somehow.

    Other processes I tried and let go of this year include Notion, bullet journaling, and a variety of other apps like Zapier, ClickUp and Inoreader. I had tried many of these before, but this was a proper test to see if they could be worked into and add value to the system.

    Like many things in life, you’ll hear a million ways to ‘do’ productivity, and you’ll listen to a few key phrases, but you won’t ever take them in, or implement them. The main one for me was ‘ignore every other system and work on your own’. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t check out what others have done, but you cannot and should not then immediately try to copy most of their system.

    I would fall into this trap a lot. It begins with watching a great video by Nicole van der Hoeven, or FromSergio, or even letting out a little squeal when Python Programmer jumps on the Obsidian bandwagon (look, one day I’ll learn Python, but 2024-5 probably isn’t it). You then dive into the description, download every Obsidian plugin they mention, immediately change the frontmatter and template of every current and future note, then tweak your Notion or your Todoist or your calendar or your bullet journal to exactly mirror the Perfect System that this Productivity God hath wrought.

    But of course, none of the systems are perfect. I mean, they might be perfect for Nicole or Sergio or Giles at the time, but these folx are almost certainly tweaking, adjusting, and refining constantly, not to mention that they are informational content creators: they might present a cool method or system that they’ve come across, but they also plainly state in their videos that it might not be for everyone.

    Cherry-picking the bits of different systems that work for me has been a game-changer, as has case-based or small scale testing. It sounds so simple when I type it out like that, and is basically the ethos of every ethical/responsible/sensible experiment ever, but for me, it’s taken some time to really internalise these ideas. In my case, my system/s will never be perfect, because there is no perfect. You just plug away, do the best you can, and try not to let too much obsession with shiny things get in the way of actually working on what you need to work on.

    Organising my notes isn’t my job. Tweaking my frontmatter isn’t my passion. I won’t get promoted for nailing the GTD workflow in Todoist, nor will I feel a warm glow at the end of the day by removing extraneous apps from my phone. For me, if it ain’t broke, I don’t need to lose time trying to fix it. If I find myself obsessing, maybe it’s just time to step away, go and look at a tree, read a book, or play some music.

    My system works for now. I enjoy reading about systems and how other people are thriving, and might take the odd piece of advice on board here and there. But for 2024, my goal isn’t the system; nor is it using my system to be productive. My main goal for 2024 is to be just productive enough, wherever I need to be, to try living for a change.

  • r and/or r

    Photo by EVG Kowalievska.

    This was totally going to be ‘the place’ to keep up with my goings-on while I was away from work. Or, more likely, a place for myself to note down anything of interest while on leave. As it turns out, leave thus far has mostly been about resting and recovering.

    While not keeping up with the latest in creative tech news, I’ve watched the entirety of Breaking Bad (yes, for the first time), as well as finishing The Final Empire and Cibola Burn. I replayed and re-completed Grand Theft Auto V. I’ve also taken myself game arcade-ing and ten-pin bowling. For someone who used to bowl league in high school, the latter was a painful return (Wii Sports bowling this ain’t).

    For the rest of my time off, I’m planning to watch a few movies, attempt to finish The Witcher III, and maybe do some media things that aren’t 10+ years old. I’m currently reading Owls of the Eastern Ice, which is proving a pleasant non-fiction change from my usual fare. We’re also popping away for a week to rest and recover even harder.

  • What makes good academic writing?

    Photo by Pixabay from Pexels, 21 December 2016.

    I’m often asked by students for samples of writing that align with what’s required for assessment tasks. This semester is no different, so I actually spent some time digging through old courses and studios I’ve run, finding a few good examples that I can share with the students.

    Very often my feedback on student reflections tends towards hoping they’ll integrate or synthesise research, ideas, and thoughts on their making. I usually find myself saying ‘take a position and argue it’, by which I mean that reflective writing — at least in an academic context — shouldn’t be about a summary of everything achieved, every decision made. Rather, choose a single point — be it a creative choice, or a quote from a journal article, or something watched — and then unpack that single point to make connections to other researchers and scholars, other makers, other reflections/insights the student generated in the class.

    This is difficult to achieve, even for seasoned researchers. Add to this that the accepted conventions of academic writing — the vast majority of it in many fields — are so restrictive in terms of expression as to be incomprehensible. This means that students become terrified of approaching any academic writing. It’s seen as boring, or dense, or difficult. This greatly stifles their curiosity, or their interest in finding the connections I try to encourage.

    If only, I hear them say or imply, academic writing was easier to engage with. Which reminds me that there are some truly wonderful, writerly, scholars out there. You just have to look. This is far from an exhaustive bibliography, but here are a handful of scholars that I read for the joy of experiencing good writing as much as for research.

    • Ingold, Tim. 2011. “The Textility of Making.” In Being Alive, 219–28. Milton Park: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818336-28.
    • Jagoda, Patrick. 2016. Network Aesthetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=4427890.
    • Miles, Adrian, Bruno Lessard, Hannah Brasier, and Franziska Weidle. 2018. “From Critical Distance to Critical Intimacy: Interactive Documentary and Relational Media.” In Critical Distance in Documentary Media, edited by Gerda Cammaer, Blake Fitzpatrick, and Bruno Lessard, 301–19. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    • Murray, Janet Horowitz. 2017. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Updated edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
    • Peters, John Durham. 2015. The Marvelous Clouds: Toward a Philosophy of Elemental Media. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226253978.001.0001.
    • Pomerance, Murray. 2008. The Horse Who Drank the Sky: Film Experience beyond Narrative and Theory. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
    • Stewart, Kathleen. 2011. “Atmospheric Attunements.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29 (3): 445–53. https://doi.org/10.1068/d9109.
  • I bought an NFT and all I got was this stupid NFT

    Today I bought an NFT.

    I realise that with this post I run the risk of coming off as Steve Buscemi with the skateboard. But — despite my being a reasonably tech-savvy person, even I struggled to really wrap my head around NFTs until I managed to scan, verify, and confirm my way through several phone and browser-based transactions. I’m still not sure I really get it, but here’s how it went down, for the Nifty-curious.

    Note that this post is not about the IP, industrial, ethical, and environmental implications of NFT and blockchain technology, though I am working on a piece that takes all of these issues and more into account.

    (more…)
  • A Saturday

    The roof structure at Industry Beans, Fitzroy.

    Phone calls, coffee, vinyl. A Melbourne cliché.