Category Archives: conversations

Week 11: Meeting notes

In this week’s meeting, we began file consolidation by renaming all of our files for consistency and moving them to Imogen’s hard drive. We looked at the .gifs Ren had made, but then decided to instead go with a shorter, smaller clip that had the colour drained out of it and would move as a .mov file when rolled over in Korsakow. We decided our constraints for this would be three seconds of video (with the audio wiped), and we will experiment with colour drain to get the effect we want.

We had a further discussion about the compression of each file and the size we were trying to get to. One of the benefits of how we’ve structured our shooting schedule is that we are doing our recording and post-production at the same time, which is helping us stay on top of our tasks.

When another group was presenting their second prototype, Seth mentioned something about fine tuning your fragments so well that you can then go on to mass-produce them. I think this is what we have effectively done so far – even though it has been a learning curve along the way.

Continue Reading…

Week 10: Meeting notes

During class, Imogen showed us the Gantt chart she had prepared using the software SmartSheet. We all agreed on the timelines, even though we set them quite early to allow for mistakes and competing pressures from other projects. We continued discussing project management and how we were going to share the tasks we have left to complete for the project.

We assembled our skills matrix after discussing each team member’s strengths, weaknesses and what they have to offer. We believe that we have delegated the tasks in a balanced and efficient manner in order to produce the best outcome.

We have decided that we are going to try and embrace the spontaneity of our project. The entire point behind it is to explore the diversity and intricacies of life, so we have to try not to stage, create or stunt moments from happening.We want to try and capture as many characteristics from each person including all of their nuances and flaws.

The three of us have began thinking about keyword ideas we might use, despite only having a limited number of clips. Our ideas so far are:

  • family
  • love
  • trust

We are going to try and have the shots done by next week so that we can focus on the editing, essay writing and keywords (which are contingent on the footage we record).

The rest of the lab was dedicated to listening to presentations from other groups, as well as getting some preliminary feedback from Seth and our peers after our first prototype presentation (for a bonus 5%). Seth had concerns about whether the content was complex enough, and asked if we needed to refine the question yet again. He reminded us that we need to get something ‘interesting’ out of each interview, so we might have to ask our subjects to elaborate and give personal anecdotes behind their life lessons. He also got us to consider whether we were ‘close’ enough to the subject in our filming. He suggested that we could use more extreme close-ups to make it more intimate. We did question whether he was asking us to treat each fragment too individually, as opposed to concerning ourselves with what the cumulative effect of the work will be.

We had a really interesting experience separating the video footage from the audio for the first time and listening without the visuals. It was a very different experience with the artefact, which I think helped us further open our eyes to what we are trying to achieve with the work – insights into people using only their voice and feet.

We then went outside to shoot footage for about two hours. Ren was our wonderful cameraman and got some amazing footage. I found it very intimidating approaching strangers and asking to film their feet, however we quickly learned the best way to approach and phrase our invitation. We also discovered that approaching groups of people made them feel more comfortable as they could bounce off their friends and didn’t feel so under pressure. We decided to focus the question a little more towards the notion of what advice you would give someone as a life lesson. We found that probing the question got more interesting, personal answers. We’re really looking forward to seeing how this project comes together.

(Image via flickr)

Week 09: Meeting notes

This week we met to show each other our test clips and discuss which direction to continue taking our idea for the final Korsakow project. We decided to refine our prompt to “filming individual’s feet while interviewing them to get a glimpse into their lives and how they’ve found their feet, without ever showing their face.”

We established some more constraints in order to ensure that our project will run smoother. We agreed on a file management system, which includes how we label the clips and where we store them (on Imogen’s external hard drive). We also decided we could compress our video and thumbnails as we go, aiming for the former to be under 8-10MB each.

We arranged to meet after class next Tuesday (13 May) to film a selection of shots together in various locations around the city. We created a final deadline for all shots to be Monday 19 May.

One challenge we are facing at this stage is finalising the question which we will ask our sixty participants. For our test clips, we began with two questions which were:

  1. What excites you/gets you going/get you up on your feet and why?
  2. What’s the biggest lesson you’ve learned (and how has this helped you find your feet)?

After speaking with Seth to get some preliminary feedback about our idea, he suggested we continue trying to refine this question in order to come up with a perfect one-liner we can ask all participants. He pointed out that the success of our piece will be entirely determined by our interviewing techniques, which is important to keep in mind as we go along.

We agreed to try and incorporate as much variety in our fragments as possible – through things like movement (to keep the eye engaged), a variety of interfaces (which we will talk about and design next week), and variations of different feet in different situations (which aligns with our goal of showing that a person’s feet and environment can tell a lot about them. We also talked about whether we want moving or static previews, which we are going to experiment with once we have started filming. We discussed the use of text in our project and whether it would add or detract from what we are trying to do. We ultimately decided to leave the project as a visually-driven piece that doesn’t spoon-feed its viewers with text cues.

Imogen presented the visual research she had conducted by showing us some examples on vimeo which she was drawn to (including ‘Hands + Feet’ by Jeremy Snell, and ‘Looking Down’ by Hrrrthrrr. Ren also discussed the Polish film ‘Talking Heads’ (1980) by Gadajace Glowy which has a similar interview style which we are attempting. Seth also pointed us in the direction of Gillian Wearing’s works to further our research. He also suggested that we could use lapel microphones to get the best sound quality we can, and create another layer of intimacy with the interview subject. He thinks we should conduct the interview first and then record the footage, as this may help us get an idea of the visual footage we might want after hearing the content of the interview.

We are now beginning to think of how we will keyword our Korsakow project, and whether this will be thematic or visual. We like the idea of using the responses of our participants to categorise the clips and group together certain emotions and ideas (i.e. love, family, success, etc.). We also have a very rough working title which is ‘Finding Your Feet’.

(Image via flickr)

Week 08: Meeting notes

Today Imogen, Ren and myself met for our first brainstorming session in the class lab for our final Korsakow project. We began by individually brainstorming our initial ideas and thoughts, before pitching five of them to each other and finalising a concept for our final project. Below are our individual brainstorms:

Emily:

  1. Contrast of business/urban life (buildings, roads, suits) Vs. natural spaces (parks, recreational areas, greenery) in Melbourne.
  2. Bicycles – different viewpoints as cyclists navigate a city. Difference between recreational riders and commuters (cycling perceived as dangerous in the city, but relaxed and leisurely in the suburbs).Could explore helmet fashion, or the politics of bike lanes.
  3. Weather, and how it’s going to be changing in the next four weeks while we film. Fluctuations in temperature, landscapes, clouds, skies, colder mornings, more heating, more blankets on beds, etc.
  4. The process of making something – not sure what (a magazine? A meal? A house?). Concerns about how this would translate into a multilinear non-narrative as it could be confusing if not presented chronologically.
  5. In focus – using depth of field to show abstracted images, objects and places before gradually shifting them into focus to reveal what it is. This will encourage the audience to look at familiar things in new ways.

Imogen:

  1. Creating environments without showing people in them. For example, a person’s happiest moment of the week (whether that be pub on a friday night, playing with their kids on the weekend, etc). Using recorded sounds and footage from the locations, along with short interviews with different people, to create atmosphere without ever showing them. Could also contrast with the worst moments of a week (waking up on monday morning, etc). A similar documentary is Body of Memories which asks people about their personal memories.
  2. Filming feet – a walk in someone else’s shoes. Using footage of feet to describe people by showcasing the movements of their feet, the footwear they choose, and the location they’re in.
  3. Noticing Art in the Ordinary. Seeing everyday art in things that go unnoticed, such as floral displays, baristas and their coffees, etc. Focusing on visually beautiful things.
  4. Ageing – Contrasting footage of old people, children, adolescents, adults, to question what it means to be a certain age. Also using challenges to stereotypes to get a wide picture.
  5. Habits – both good and bad. Capturing people fidgeting, procrastinating, nose picking, etc. Looking at body language and every person’s little idiosyncrasies.

Ren:

  1. Depth and distance through perspective. Using wide-angle shots, still frames, constructed angles in complementary and opposing ways.
  2. Movement – through vehicles, humans, animals, and imagery (such as wind blowing through the trees).
  3. Man and Machine.
  4. Speed – slow motion, fast motion, and time lapse.

We then discussed all of the options we had, and rearranged each post-it-note idea into piles which had similarities. We realised that we were going to be able to incorporate elements from all of our favourite ideas into one of two ideas. These were:

  • Man vs. machine (contrast between nature and urban life)
  • Footsteps (following the lives of individuals and creating portraits through their feet)

We settled on the latter idea, and began speaking about the possibilities this option could give us, and exactly how we would do it. We want to use low-angle perspective to document 60 individual’s feet to provide a glimpse into their personality without every showing their face. We think we will choose one question which we can consistently ask each person we film that will offer an insight into them. The more we thought about it, the more we realised how much you can tell about a person from their shoes.

To further focus our work, we set some preliminary constraints that each clip will be less than 30 seconds, will be a single take, and have brief voiceovers to explain an element of our ‘characters’. We agreed that we all like stylistic qualities such as consistency (where shots have a relatively easy to understand relationship with each other), and visually pleasing aesthetic shots. We decided to film all of our clips on our personal DSLR cameras. We foresee that our keywords will end up being about body language (grouping together all subjects with crossed legs. or all subjects who fidget, etc).

Seth and our classmates had come great comments about our idea, which helped us to further define our prompt. One person suggested that we will almost be creating a typology of feet, which was an interesting notion. One response was that it was going to be hard to find 60 different people and still have them be distinctive, however we think that this could ultimately contribute to the overall point of the piece. Someone else likes that it will get us out of our comfort zone to interview and film people we don’t know. In this way, it will be an exploratory process not only for the viewer, but for the creator as well. Seth thinks the fact we have strong, defined constraints will help us, but asked us to consider what the work as a whole will be doing – whether it is specifically about shoes individually, or more about the shoes’ relationship to the people.

We are now going to research some documentary examples which will align with our project and start thinking about a digital mood board on which to collate our research. We will aim to have some test shots ready for next week’s class to see if this will work.

(Image via flickr)

Week 07: Linear, non-linear, and multi-linear

It’s taken me quite some time to get my head around the concepts of linear vs. non-linear narratives (and non-narratives) throughout the IM1 course. And then there’s multi-linear works, which play off the way that our world is developing to become more and more entangled.
This is very foreign to my way of thinking, and it’s something I want to be able to understand, I just think it might take some grappling with.
Some things that I need to start thinking about are:
  • Chronology
  • Hierarchy
  • Primal order
  • Causality
  • Immersion
  • Memory
  • Flashbacks/flashforwards

What about Godard’s famous quote: “I agree that a film should have a beginning, a middle and an end but not necessarily in that order.” It reminds me of the Latin term in medias res – which translates to ‘in the midst of things’ – which refers to the act of starting in the middle rather than the beginning.

I think Woody Allen’s Annie Hall (1977) is a good starting point for me to think of non-linear film. Or even the more modern Inception (2010) or Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind (2004).

However, I’m not sure that there are any popularised versions of a multi-linear work that I can as easily relate to. Obviously, I have the exposure I’ve had to K-films and interactive documentaries in IM1 so far, but I wonder how it would translate in a more ‘mainstream’ media society.

I asked a few friends of mine, what does multilinear mean to you? Some of the things they said were:

I think it means when many story lines are all going on at the same time.

Another agreed with the above, but went on to say:

I think it’s also when those multiple stories intersect and interact with each other finally. Like in Love Actually or something.

I think that this way of thinking may be too time-based, and instead, how we should conceive of multi-linearity is more akin to ‘multi-tasking’. Essentially, it’s asking the brain to keep track of a few things at once, and possibly retain the information in case you need it later on to help make connections and relations. What do you reckon?

(Image via flickr)

Week 07: FOMO

I’ve been wanting to write this post on my IM1 blog for a little while. It’s going to be all about FOMO – the fear of missing out.

I don’t know if this is a trait I have always had, but I am a bit of a ‘completionist‘. I always have to experience and (attempt to) understand everything I encounter – whether this be crossing the road, where I have to be 100% entirely certain that I’ve accounted for all moving cars, objects, etc, or reading a novel, where I must have read every sentence in every paragraph on every page (yes, even the boring acknowledgements at the end). If I open a news article or (god forbid) a long-form piece, you can bet it won’t be exited until I’ve read everything on the page.

I recently got really into the world of audiobooks through the Amazon website audible.com. I would use these books as a tool to help me get to sleep when I was battling a particularly insomniac-like few months. But what would inevitably happen would be that I would leave a chapter on to play whilst I fell asleep, then wake up in the morning and have to listen to the entire chapter again to make sure I hadn’t missed anything.

What concerns me about Korsakow is that every time you view a K-film, you could have a different experience or a different trajectory. I know that this is one of the wonderful features of the software, which teaches us to think of media consumption in a new, fragmented way. But almost every time I’ve watched a K-film so far, I’m overwhelmingly concerned with the content that I might miss.

Because K-films are database-driven, there can be many relationships with many fragments because of the way they are pulled from the database. But they can also be independent and self-sufficient. The way you can build these ‘structures’ can vary immensely.

Sometimes I will see a preview that immediately grabs my attention and I know I want to view it, but if I decide to click another preview instead, it can take a very long time for the clip to resurface again (due to the key wording nature of Korsakow). Or, depending on how the author has set up the SNUs, it may ‘die’ and never reappear – denying me the option to ever experience and (attempt to) understand it, as I inherently do.

Something I picked up on early in the course is that interactive media, and K-films in particular, are designed to be grazed on. They are structured in a way that the user can leave and return as many times as they may want, and consume the content of a work in vastly different ways from the way we consume traditional media.

I’m not too sure if I’m ready to embrace this new method of viewing entirely yet. I’m all for it, but I might need to make some adjustments first.

(Image via shameonjade)

Week 04: Expectations

Bill Nichols three-part definition of documentaries is often the springboard for discussions about documentary practices and discourse. It was my first time encountering his ideas when I read the first readings for IM1. In particular, I was drawn towards his third statement about audiences and their expectations. I began thinking about my own assumptions that I bring with me when engaging with documentaries, and media in general.

Do I expect that I will be entertained? Educated? Enriched? Do I approach the artefact with any pre-existing opinions? Will I love it/hate it? Will it make me laugh/cry/cringe?

Recently a friend recommended an episode of ABC’s Four Corners program called ‘The Boy With The Henna Tattoo’, which delves into the underground sex work ring operating in Australia. Her precursor to the recommendation was that it is harrowing, twisted and hard to watch. She told me that a few times she had to question whether or not it was right for her to keep watching. However, she said she was rewarded with one of the most interesting and insightful pieces of media she’d seen in some time.

I have a habit of watching countless documentaries on YouTube – often in quick succession in one sitting on a cold Melbourne evening. Some of my favourites are those produced by Vice. I find their distinct style and unique/unconventional topics and niche interests never fail to entertain me and keep me falling down and down the rabbit hole, click after click and link after link.

I wonder if my viewing experience will change if next time I click through to Vice’s YouTube channel and stop to think about what my expectations are before delving into the content. I almost think it’s a more exciting and interesting experience when you don’t acknowledge your expectations, and let things unfold without your picking up on them. Although that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re not filled with expectations, it might just be the difference of paying attention to them in that moment which makes you cognisant of them.