 |
| Sir Terry Pratchett (1948 - 2015) I haven't touched this blog for several years, as it was originally part of a course assignment for a graduate school class. However. I am repurposing it to use as a vehicle to share a short work of fiction in the style of my favorite fiction author who passed away today at the age of 66 from a nasty variant of Alzheimer's. His 70+ books have brought joy to our lives, and to many others throughout the world. Rest in Peace, Sir Terry. The stories will continue, as the laws of Narrative Imperative apply here in Roundworld as well as on the Discworld.
Death and the Creator
Death looked at the hourglass in his bony hand. “ALREADY? ” He stepped
through the door of the large house and glided up the stairs. At the end of the hall, the bedroom door was
open and a group of people were standing and sitting around a bed where an
older man was sleeping. A cat was curled
up next to him, purring. In the corner
sat Granny Weatherwax, un-noticed by the family. Usually her task was to sit with the dying on
the Discworld who didn’t have friends or family, and see them into the next
world. This fellow had both in full
attendance, but Granny’s presence indicated that the man in the bed deserved
special treatment.
Granny looked up when Death entered. “Right on time—any trouble crossin’ over to
the Roundworld?” “GREETINGS, MISTRESS WEATHERWAX. NO PROBLEMS.
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DISCWORLD AND THIS PLACE IS STRONG.”
“Now’t wonder. He’s
the Creator…he’s wrote our story and made us who and what we are. It jest seems right fer me t’ be here.” “MOST APPROPRIATE, INDEED.”
The cat on the bed looked up at Death and blinked. It then stretched, settled back down, and
continued purring. The man’s chest was
rising and falling, but more slowly now…the circle of people were whispering
their farewells and messages for him to deliver, and weeping quietly, holding
on to one another.
Granny looked at Death, and asked the question that had been
twittering in her head all day: “So does
our story end, now’t he’s gone?” Death
considered this. “NO, I BELIEVE THAT OUR STORY HAS BECOME A
LIVING THING. IT WILL NOT DIE WITH HIM. WE WILL GO ON.
WE WILL WRITE OUR OWN STORY FROM HERE.”
Granny smiled. “Jest when
you think you’ve come to the end of a story, there’s another ‘un waitin’ to be
told.” Death nodded. “AS I KNOW, THERE IS ALWAYS A DOOR TO THE NEXT
WORLD, AND ANOTHER STORY. I BELIEVE IT
IS TIME TO WELCOME OUR CREATOR.” The man
on the bed had stopped breathing, and the grief among the circle was
palpable. Death leaned over the bed and
touched the man’s shoulder. “SIR TERRENCE PRATCHETT? “ The man’s transparent self sat up and
looked around him, and his face broke into a smile. “You DID come! You’re real!
And Granny, too—well met, Mistress Weatherwax.” Granny chuckled, and said “Think I’d miss
this? Hah!”
Death grinned. “OF COURSE I’M REAL. YOU MADE ME.
YOU ARE THE CREATOR. AND IT IS
YOUR TIME. WE MUST BE GOING. YOU HAVE A LONG JOURNEY AHEAD OF YOU. AT THE END, THERE WILL BE A STORY TO TELL.” The man looked around the room at his
friends and family, and reached out to pet the cat. When his hand went through the cat, it
opened its eyes and stared at the man and Death standing next to the bed. Death reached over and scratched behind the
cat’s ears and it began purring again.
No one noticed. Death took the
man’s hand and motioned towards the door, and the two of them stepped
outside. Granny followed them out, and
the three figures slowly walked out of the house, into the daylight, and
vanished.
And the story continues.
Rest in Peace, Sir Terry—thank you for all the joy and
laughter you have brought to my life though your books. I came a bit late to the Discworld, but I
loved every book and every character.
Your creations will live on and become legend, as it should be.
|
Thursday, March 12, 2015
A Brief Literary Tribute to Sir Terry Pratchett
Monday, August 3, 2009
When in Doubt, Just Say "NO"
Denial: Not just a river in Egypt anymore. That is the attitude that many of my managers take...unfortunately, denial involves the rejection of technology. To make this situation even more odd, these are the people who are in charge of adopting and integrating new technologies into our organization.
Their philosophy is relatively simple: to stall and delay new ideas and concepts, clinging to the status quo for as long as possible. I find it intriguing that these people seem to have no curiosity or imagination, and are unwilling to consider either changing or stepping aside to allow others who are willing to evolve and adapt to new ideas and technologies.
There are policies to encourage innovation--these are interpreted as loosely as possible in order to minimize the amount of change that is implemented. This is all a source of great frustration to me.
The example of this is the use of game in training. My job is to integrate and develop games to enhance and even replace traditional training classes that are both currently being taught as well as future requirements for training. So far, so good. However, there is a great deal of reluctance on the part of management to actually allow this to happen. First, they wnat to ensure that we refer to games as "SERIOUS games" so as not to possibly confuse higher management and suggest that someone might enjoy training (like it should hurt?). Then, they cite all the possible excuses: we don't have the funding (I have some offers of games that would not cost us anything), we can't put games on our intranet because our network people won't allow it (yes, this is a major obstacle), and we don't have anyone to do the coding required to do high-level gaming (I have computer science interns who have volunteered their time and effort--several actually have concentrations in game development). Suffice it to say that the past 9 months have been a time of great learning for me--all about games and game development and technology, and learning how these ideas quickly get marched into the closet, never to see the light of day again by my management.
If I were dealing with normal and rational people, I would use Keller's ARCS model in the following manner:
Attention: I would arrange for a demonstration of new gaming technology that is designed to support serious learning and government organizations. I would make sure I had some of the coolest and best-designed content available to put up on the screen in order to show the flash and sparkle that games can uniquely provide.
Relevance: I would present a course outline for a new course that a real requirement has been put in for that incorporated a game rather than conventional platform instruction. This will also include the learning objectives as well as the rationale for using a game.
Confidence: I would present a compilation of the research that is already published on the use of games for teaching and the effectiveness of these games as compared to traditional instruction. If necessary, I will do some research within my own organization to show where a game has been demonstrated to be more useful and applicable than a traditional approach. This answers the "are you sure that this will work?" concern that is likely to be asked.
Satisfaction: I will provide feedback data from courses using my game to show student scores as well as student satisfaction as indicated on their Level 1 evaluation forms.
Remember: I said that this approach would work with normal and rational people. I haven't found an abnormal and irrational approach that will work with my management yet (but I'm still looking!).
Their philosophy is relatively simple: to stall and delay new ideas and concepts, clinging to the status quo for as long as possible. I find it intriguing that these people seem to have no curiosity or imagination, and are unwilling to consider either changing or stepping aside to allow others who are willing to evolve and adapt to new ideas and technologies.
There are policies to encourage innovation--these are interpreted as loosely as possible in order to minimize the amount of change that is implemented. This is all a source of great frustration to me.
The example of this is the use of game in training. My job is to integrate and develop games to enhance and even replace traditional training classes that are both currently being taught as well as future requirements for training. So far, so good. However, there is a great deal of reluctance on the part of management to actually allow this to happen. First, they wnat to ensure that we refer to games as "SERIOUS games" so as not to possibly confuse higher management and suggest that someone might enjoy training (like it should hurt?). Then, they cite all the possible excuses: we don't have the funding (I have some offers of games that would not cost us anything), we can't put games on our intranet because our network people won't allow it (yes, this is a major obstacle), and we don't have anyone to do the coding required to do high-level gaming (I have computer science interns who have volunteered their time and effort--several actually have concentrations in game development). Suffice it to say that the past 9 months have been a time of great learning for me--all about games and game development and technology, and learning how these ideas quickly get marched into the closet, never to see the light of day again by my management.
If I were dealing with normal and rational people, I would use Keller's ARCS model in the following manner:
Attention: I would arrange for a demonstration of new gaming technology that is designed to support serious learning and government organizations. I would make sure I had some of the coolest and best-designed content available to put up on the screen in order to show the flash and sparkle that games can uniquely provide.
Relevance: I would present a course outline for a new course that a real requirement has been put in for that incorporated a game rather than conventional platform instruction. This will also include the learning objectives as well as the rationale for using a game.
Confidence: I would present a compilation of the research that is already published on the use of games for teaching and the effectiveness of these games as compared to traditional instruction. If necessary, I will do some research within my own organization to show where a game has been demonstrated to be more useful and applicable than a traditional approach. This answers the "are you sure that this will work?" concern that is likely to be asked.
Satisfaction: I will provide feedback data from courses using my game to show student scores as well as student satisfaction as indicated on their Level 1 evaluation forms.
Remember: I said that this approach would work with normal and rational people. I haven't found an abnormal and irrational approach that will work with my management yet (but I'm still looking!).
Friday, July 17, 2009
Anne's Network
Anne's Network
This may seem a bit limited, but much of what I do in terms of interpersonal communications is somewhat limited: I do not participate on social networking sites due to security considerations at work, so most of my online interaction is strictly within the Walden learning community and the associated resources. Within this subset network, there is a large amount of give and take, as the learning environment is very conducive to collaboration and cooperation.
On a personal level, my family communicates with me mostly from them to me (sometimes they listen, but not always). Ed does not listen at all, nor do the cats. Most of my conversations with all of this group are one-sided (although at least the cats are good listeners!).
In the workplace, I give out far more than I receive in terms of information...this is a culture thing and although many of us are working on changing this model, it's a slow go.
The give and take model also applies when dealing with friends: information goes in both/all directions.
Reflection:
My network as it exists now has significantly changed my learning processes, because I am much more "just in time" oriented. I'm not sure what I ever did before I had Internet access, a laptop, and a smartphone, but I most definitely do not want to go back there ever again! Search engines are my tools of choice--the ability to find almost anything online is both a blessing and a curse, but I have used some of my extant skills to apply a certain degree of skepticism to anything I find online. The phrase "Trust but verify" comes to mind here!
When I have a question, I will do an online search--I am likely to do multiple versions, using different search engines and rewording my query to provide some degree of accuracy and focus. Once this is done, I usually have a pretty good idea of what I need to know about this particular topic. To keep it sorted out if it is that kind of information, I use Zotero (a free online research tool worth having!). I am a visual learner, so I learn from reading and viewing. If it is worth knowing, I can integrate it into my memory (or at least know that I can always get back to it should that be necessary).
Not all data is worthy of this after being looked up: over dinner last Saturday night there was a discussion about nuclear materials that turned to Madame Curie, and then my memory was called into doubt because I pointed out that she named the element Polonium after her native country of Poland. I was informed that she was French by my husband. I could not let that go unchallenged, so I pulled out my phone and googled "Madame Curie"--the Wikipedia entry that came up cites her full name, Marie Sklodowska Curie, and states her Polish birth and upbringing. No need to bookmark that or flag it in Zotero--it is SO good to have this kind of resource available.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Collaboration and Sharing
The topic for the module is whether it is part of human nature to share and collaborate. Howard Rheingold, in his video address, points out that collaboration and cooperation were what made survival possible for early humans...the ability to hunt and provide for the family was more than any one ordinary hunter could accomplish on his own. Consequently, humans began not only traveling in packs, but living in close proximity to one another.
As humans evolved to include agriculture and the raising of domestic animals for food, permanent settlements and villages developed (and people began to complain about the neighbors). This collective and social pattern has continued to develop and evolve into today's cities and communities (where there are still many reasons to complain about the neighbors). The workplace has also evolved somewhat--we no longer band together to go and hunt down a mammoth, but in today's knowledge-based workplace, the person with the right set of knowledge and experience leads their band of hunters to their objective.
Having these particular skills and knowledge is a good thing, but sharing knowledge is not always done well in the workplace. My own organization is known for its tradition of "information hoarding"--because the traditional rating system placed a value on an employee based on what they knew, it was simply understood that you did not share your particular knowledge because that diluted and diminished your value in the eyes of the rater.
Unfortunately, this behavior has had a long time to become ingrained, and changing the culture is going to take a while. Our new senior leadership has called for "a culture of collaboration and cooperation"--I will be there to welcome it whenever it finally arrives, and although I will not be alone, let's just say that we are not in the majority at this point in time.
The other encouraging trend that I see is that our new hires are accustomed to group projects and collaborative efforts and teamwork, and do so without being threatened, cajoled, begged, or directed to do so. As long as we can keep the senior management from undoing these good behaviors long enough for that generation of dinosaurs to become extinct, the culture will change under its own weight. The emerging technologies that make it easier and transparent to collaborate and share data and information and ideas, as well as to communicate with one another across organizational boundaries.
If we were industry, there would be economic and monetary incentives to change quickly: Rheingold cited Toyota and Eli Lilly as two examples of corporations that have collaborated and evolved to meet new challenges. I would hope that an update of this presentation would also include GM and Chrysler among the "thought leaders" of the automotive industry.
In short, I see that there is a basic human tendency to work together. That tendency can be overridden by self-preservation instincts and other environmental factors. I believe that human best behaviors will prevail over the long term--I've seen substantial change in my own career so far, and change is happening more quickly as technology drives it forwards. The light at the end of the tunnel may just be daylight.
Resources
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
As humans evolved to include agriculture and the raising of domestic animals for food, permanent settlements and villages developed (and people began to complain about the neighbors). This collective and social pattern has continued to develop and evolve into today's cities and communities (where there are still many reasons to complain about the neighbors). The workplace has also evolved somewhat--we no longer band together to go and hunt down a mammoth, but in today's knowledge-based workplace, the person with the right set of knowledge and experience leads their band of hunters to their objective.
Having these particular skills and knowledge is a good thing, but sharing knowledge is not always done well in the workplace. My own organization is known for its tradition of "information hoarding"--because the traditional rating system placed a value on an employee based on what they knew, it was simply understood that you did not share your particular knowledge because that diluted and diminished your value in the eyes of the rater.
Unfortunately, this behavior has had a long time to become ingrained, and changing the culture is going to take a while. Our new senior leadership has called for "a culture of collaboration and cooperation"--I will be there to welcome it whenever it finally arrives, and although I will not be alone, let's just say that we are not in the majority at this point in time.
The other encouraging trend that I see is that our new hires are accustomed to group projects and collaborative efforts and teamwork, and do so without being threatened, cajoled, begged, or directed to do so. As long as we can keep the senior management from undoing these good behaviors long enough for that generation of dinosaurs to become extinct, the culture will change under its own weight. The emerging technologies that make it easier and transparent to collaborate and share data and information and ideas, as well as to communicate with one another across organizational boundaries.
If we were industry, there would be economic and monetary incentives to change quickly: Rheingold cited Toyota and Eli Lilly as two examples of corporations that have collaborated and evolved to meet new challenges. I would hope that an update of this presentation would also include GM and Chrysler among the "thought leaders" of the automotive industry.
In short, I see that there is a basic human tendency to work together. That tendency can be overridden by self-preservation instincts and other environmental factors. I believe that human best behaviors will prevail over the long term--I've seen substantial change in my own career so far, and change is happening more quickly as technology drives it forwards. The light at the end of the tunnel may just be daylight.
Resources
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Learning Theory Holy War
OK--that title should definitely draw some traffic and interest! I just finished viewing Bill Kerr and Karl Kapp's respective blogs, and I have a few observations and ideas that emerged as a result of this "new data":
Kerr mentioned that there was a need for some theory to support new ideas and concepts in learning. If it weren't for theory providing a foundation, there would be nothing to keep schools and other learning organizations from joining the "Flavor of the Month Club" of educational/training philosophy. Having worked in a government organization that did that very thing some years back (anyone remember TQM?), I know firsthand the angst that gets produced in the workforce when the official view of "what should be" gets whipsawed around as senior managers with short attention spans read the latest literature (but only the abstracts).
As I see it, any good new idea about learning should still be grounded in some kind of theory or a combination thereof--I am a pragmatist! Ideas that spring half-baked and ill-conceived from the minds of consultants and defense contractors should be avoided at all costs.
Kapp brought up an interesting thought as well: what exactly DO we mean when we refer to learning? You can learn to walk, learn to dance, learn to play a musical instrument, learn good manners and social skills (although my husband skipped this particular area in its entirety), learn a language, learn calculus, learn to paint, learn to use the APA style in writing, and even learn to write a dissertation. These degrees of learning have different outcomes, and upon analysis, it's interesting to note that these learned skills span the broad spectrum of human knowledge. If you are familiar with Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences (of course you are if you are reading this!), each of these areas of intelligence has aspects that can be learned (and therefore, taught).
As usual, I have far more questions than answers...however, I know that there is no single right answer to all of them (except "42"). There is a time and place for all different types of learning, so let's use the best practices and applications across the spectrum of -isms to teach what best fits the task at hand.
Resources
Bill Kerr's blog:http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Karl Kapp'a blog:
http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html
A good background and overview of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences work:
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
Kerr mentioned that there was a need for some theory to support new ideas and concepts in learning. If it weren't for theory providing a foundation, there would be nothing to keep schools and other learning organizations from joining the "Flavor of the Month Club" of educational/training philosophy. Having worked in a government organization that did that very thing some years back (anyone remember TQM?), I know firsthand the angst that gets produced in the workforce when the official view of "what should be" gets whipsawed around as senior managers with short attention spans read the latest literature (but only the abstracts).
As I see it, any good new idea about learning should still be grounded in some kind of theory or a combination thereof--I am a pragmatist! Ideas that spring half-baked and ill-conceived from the minds of consultants and defense contractors should be avoided at all costs.
Kapp brought up an interesting thought as well: what exactly DO we mean when we refer to learning? You can learn to walk, learn to dance, learn to play a musical instrument, learn good manners and social skills (although my husband skipped this particular area in its entirety), learn a language, learn calculus, learn to paint, learn to use the APA style in writing, and even learn to write a dissertation. These degrees of learning have different outcomes, and upon analysis, it's interesting to note that these learned skills span the broad spectrum of human knowledge. If you are familiar with Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences (of course you are if you are reading this!), each of these areas of intelligence has aspects that can be learned (and therefore, taught).
As usual, I have far more questions than answers...however, I know that there is no single right answer to all of them (except "42"). There is a time and place for all different types of learning, so let's use the best practices and applications across the spectrum of -isms to teach what best fits the task at hand.
Resources
Bill Kerr's blog:http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Karl Kapp'a blog:
http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html
A good background and overview of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences work:
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
Monday, June 15, 2009
EDUC 8845--A new Beginning
Another Walden course and another quarter along the way to the elusive PhD at the distant end of the Yellow Brick Road! This is Summer Quarter 2009, and the course in question is "Learning Theory and Educational Technology."
In a way (so far) this course has been like a homecoming...I have the first edition of Marcy Driscoll's book Psychology of Learning for Instruction, which was the textbook used when I took a Learning Theory course for my Master's degree so very many years ago. Additionally, the supplemental readings for this current class include one from Ertmer and Newby--Peg and Greg co-taught one of the courses that I took back when in my Master's program. As I said, it's Old Home Week this week.
For this first entry, I chose to address Siemen's characterizations of instructors: I definitely see myself as the Curatorial Instructor type--according to Siemens, this personification provides general guidance for learners, and then provides them with additional directions and ideas that they can follow up (or not). Because of where I work and what I do there (Department of Defense, Senior Instructor/Instructional Designer/Human Performance Technologist) I often teach from the standpoint of the Subject Matter Expert (SME). This can be a very dangerous position, because some SMEs will simply stand before a class and innundate the students with data on PowerPoint slides that are incredibly information-intensive. The value of this activity, in my opinion, is horribly over-rated and it is a practice that I am doing my very best to stop wherever I can.
I prefer to not lecture, and to ideally not even have a formal class, but to provide the students with a general roadmap of where we will be going, and for each significant item along the way, just like the AAA trip books, suggest a scenic (read informative) sidetrip that they can take. If there are any questions or issues, I am available to provide additional guidance and information. I find learning in this manner to be more rewarding from a learner's point of view because I have identified information that is relevant to me and my interests, and have followed up on topics that are of use to me now or in the future. As an instructor, I also find it rewarding, because the students come to me with their own ideas and interpretations of the subject at hand, which challenges me to find links and relationships that I might not have ever considered.
Resources
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.).Boston
Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
In a way (so far) this course has been like a homecoming...I have the first edition of Marcy Driscoll's book Psychology of Learning for Instruction, which was the textbook used when I took a Learning Theory course for my Master's degree so very many years ago. Additionally, the supplemental readings for this current class include one from Ertmer and Newby--Peg and Greg co-taught one of the courses that I took back when in my Master's program. As I said, it's Old Home Week this week.
For this first entry, I chose to address Siemen's characterizations of instructors: I definitely see myself as the Curatorial Instructor type--according to Siemens, this personification provides general guidance for learners, and then provides them with additional directions and ideas that they can follow up (or not). Because of where I work and what I do there (Department of Defense, Senior Instructor/Instructional Designer/Human Performance Technologist) I often teach from the standpoint of the Subject Matter Expert (SME). This can be a very dangerous position, because some SMEs will simply stand before a class and innundate the students with data on PowerPoint slides that are incredibly information-intensive. The value of this activity, in my opinion, is horribly over-rated and it is a practice that I am doing my very best to stop wherever I can.
I prefer to not lecture, and to ideally not even have a formal class, but to provide the students with a general roadmap of where we will be going, and for each significant item along the way, just like the AAA trip books, suggest a scenic (read informative) sidetrip that they can take. If there are any questions or issues, I am available to provide additional guidance and information. I find learning in this manner to be more rewarding from a learner's point of view because I have identified information that is relevant to me and my interests, and have followed up on topics that are of use to me now or in the future. As an instructor, I also find it rewarding, because the students come to me with their own ideas and interpretations of the subject at hand, which challenges me to find links and relationships that I might not have ever considered.
Resources
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.).
Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Video Project Version 2.0
This is the second iteration of my final video project for EDUC 8842, Principles of Distance Learning. The first version of the video is still my favorite one, as I believe it maintains the true message of Serious Games without additional distractions. However, since it did not meet the requirements set forth in the rubric for this project, I re-did it. The revision forced a change in the overall message, and it now includes a voice-over narration and some additional video footage of yours truly. There is a compelling reason that I do not appear in front of the camera: I am not photogenic, and cameras do not like me. Consequently, I have found that the most effective way to keep from being included in the photo or video is to be the camera operator!
The rationale for the re-do is that there is a requirement in the rubric for me to demonstrate that I know how to use a video camera. Let it be known that the camera in the footage at the end is one of mine (we actually own four of these), and I indeed am usually the one operating it! I own a video production company which specializes in location sound and video recording and sound reinforcement services, and have been doing video in one form or another since 1974! My company shoots more than 50 live events annually throughout the Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia region. These range from corporate meetings and training events to community theater productions, professional and amateur dance company productions, school concerts and plays, graduations, sports events, and other community events. We do weddings for close friends and family only, as we don't need nor do we want the aggravation of wedding videography. If I want combat pay, I can get that elsewhere and draw far less fire in the process!
Yes, I know how to use a video camera (and editing tools), sound equipment, and many other technical toys. Everything you see in the video is owned by my company, Audio-Video Freelance, Inc.. There is a lot more that was not there on that particular shoot...she who dies with the most toys wins!
Anyway, let me stop the rant and start the video...here is the second version for your viewing pleasure:
The rationale for the re-do is that there is a requirement in the rubric for me to demonstrate that I know how to use a video camera. Let it be known that the camera in the footage at the end is one of mine (we actually own four of these), and I indeed am usually the one operating it! I own a video production company which specializes in location sound and video recording and sound reinforcement services, and have been doing video in one form or another since 1974! My company shoots more than 50 live events annually throughout the Baltimore/DC/Northern Virginia region. These range from corporate meetings and training events to community theater productions, professional and amateur dance company productions, school concerts and plays, graduations, sports events, and other community events. We do weddings for close friends and family only, as we don't need nor do we want the aggravation of wedding videography. If I want combat pay, I can get that elsewhere and draw far less fire in the process!
Yes, I know how to use a video camera (and editing tools), sound equipment, and many other technical toys. Everything you see in the video is owned by my company, Audio-Video Freelance, Inc.. There is a lot more that was not there on that particular shoot...she who dies with the most toys wins!
Anyway, let me stop the rant and start the video...here is the second version for your viewing pleasure:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
