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.

Tag: academia

  • Like No One Is Watching

    Title slide of my paper “Like No One Is Watching”.

    I’ve kicked off a month’s research sabbatical in France, hitting the ground running…

    My first invited presentation was today at Université Paris I: Panthéon-Sorbonne, as part of the journée d’étude “L’intelligence et l’éthique de la télévision à l’ère des algorithms”. Today’s talks looked at de-ageing as a quest for immortality and fracturing of the present, televisuality and intelligence, and teaching LLMs about humans by making them watch a lot of TV; the seminar concludes tomorrow.

    My own piece, “Like No One Is Watching: The Form of Television in the Algorithmic Moment”, examined how episodic storytelling navigates the constraints of the platform and attention economies. I looked at the chaotic inconsistency of The Bear and the aggressive tedium of The Pitt as shows pushing formal boundaries to reassert a direct relationship with their audience.

    The talk had three key moves.

    Firstly, I re-establish television as the ‘miscreant medium’, drawing from John Fiske and John Hartley’s seminal work. On the one hand, television has always served as a scapegoat or delivery channel for whatever moral panic is current at the time; alongside this, it is a medium perennially torn between the strictures of institutions and technology, and the creativity of its artists.

    Secondly, I argue that platform logic holds two contradictory assumptions about audiences. On one hand, there is an assumption that audiences are passive and distracted. This assumption leads to baked-in redundancies, including explicit exposition and constant re-explanation (a phenomenon that Will Tavlin explores in his piece ‘Casual Viewing’). On the other hand, platform capitalism is contingent on metrics of retention; active, engaged viewing, then, is assumed.

    In the third section, I spoke to sample clips from The Bear and The Pitt, both shows that embody and embrace this presumptive schizophrenia. From The Bear I played part of the seventh episode of the first season, which includes a 17-minute unbroken take. I also shared a couple of mundane conversation scenes from the premiere episode of The Pitt. I used formal analysis here as a diagnostic tool, to observe how creatives push against (or acquiesce to) the algorithmic frame of their distribution. In the case of both shows, I offered that formal experimentation — whether at a dialogue, scene, episode, or series level — demonstrates friction as an exercise in meaning-making: a conversation and negotiation between creator and audience quite apart from questions of data, platform, capital.

    What close formal analysis reveals is that television is not a medium in decline, but one still jovially misbehaving; always exceeding what the discourse says it’s capable of, and still worth watching.

    This talk was a return to formal analysis for me, and it felt great to be home. I’ve been very lucky to be taught by or to work with a bunch of academics who really value close textual analysis, and I think it’s such an incisive and enjoyable means of understanding texts and their contexts.

    It’s highly likely an edited collection will result from this gathering, so fingers crossed that this work will be in print soon!

    Giving my talk at Université Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne. Photo thanks to Sandra Laugier.

    I now have a little breathing room before my second presentation, so I’ll be using this time to actually get out and wander around Paris a little, but also to feed and tend to a few items moving through the publication pipeline.

  • RIP Reviewer #2: Are All Peer Reviewers Dicks Now?

    Civility, care, and the ethics of critique in academia

    Here are some (lightly edited, anonymous) highlights from some recent peer review reports I received on submissions to Q1 journals.

    “a rather basic, limited and under-referenced overview”
    “I do not see how it contributes any original scholarship to the field”
    “The claim that [XYZ] is nonsense.”

    … and these weren’t even from Reviewer 2!

    Perhaps more distressingly, the following quote from an editor:

    “The paper might be interesting but is not well prepared, and not technically accurate or insightful, as revealed in biting commentary from the best of two reviews”

    The editor tries to be encouraging while also defending the same “biting commentary”:

    “Authors may take advantage of these excellent and insightful review comments, and possibly compose a new paper for a possible future submission”

    You may be thinking “Suck it up, snowflake.”

    Sorry but no.

    I’ve had harsh reviews before. I’ve written harsh reviews before. But you never call someone’s work ‘nonsense.’ You never call someone’s work ‘unoriginal’ or ‘basic’, even if you may think it. You certainly never do so without providing any suggestions as to how to redress these critiques, as these reviewers neglected to do.

    I might take about half an hour to write a blog post. Maybe up to a day or so if it’s a bit longer, needs some referencing, editing or proofing etc. I don’t really care if people don’t read or don’t like this work. It’s mainly for myself. However, the articles that these comments received took between four and twelve months to write: you expect some level of engagement and at least basic common human courtesy in how responses are framed.

    Reviewers: don’t be a dick.

    Editors: shield contributors from harsh reviews.

    Academia is intimidating and gatekept enough without this actual nonsense.

  • From Caméra-Stylo to Prompt-Stylo

    A few weeks ago I was invited to present some of my work at Caméra-Stylo, a fantastic conference run every two years by the Sydney Literature and Cinema Network.

    For this presentation, I wanted to start to formalise the experimental approach I’d been employing around generative AI, and to give it some theoretical grounding. I wasn’t entirely surprised to find that only by looking back at my old notes on early film theory would I unearth the perfect words, terms, and ideas to, ahem, frame my work.

    Here’s a recording of the talk:

    Let me know what you think, and do contact me if you want to chat more or use some of this work yourself.

  • Re-Wilding AI

    Here’s a recorded version of a workshop I first delivered at the Artificial Visionaries symposium at the University of Queensland in November 2024. I’ve used chunks/versions of it since in my teaching and parts of my research and practice.