1. If you could sum up everything you feel we should have learnt this semester in one sentence, would what it be?
2. Why is it important to learn about interactive media, especially Korsakow?
3. Is Integrated Media 1 more like a film making course than network media?
4. What can we take from our study in/of Korsakow that is practical with other media stuff?
5. What is the future of Korsakow?
6. Do we think that the concepts from IM will eventually take over the traditional media or it is always going to be experimental?
7. Is it not so much that things don’t have structure and more that we don’t know how to approach “the unstructured”?

A bedraggled, illness ridden week. We have carry over questions:

• How can we emphasise moments of contemplation through making our korsakow films?
• How as filmmakers do we decide on the right amount of “glue” (cohesion) if we are unsure of our user’s media literacy?
• In her discussion of associational form, Frankham states that these films cause relationships between emotional elements rather than logical elements. If we were to implement this in our K-Films, would it require more planning, focussing on content or keywords to portray a specific emotion?

And we also have:

• How important is the theme in a k-film? Is there a risk of losing the cohesion of the film if the theme is not strong enough, or if the theme is too strong, hammering it into the audience too much?
• Does the absence of narrative and conclusion make something unsatisfying to the viewer? Is it something that we search for and in the absence of create ourselves?
• The reading claims that a collage cannot resolve. Can a Korsakow film have a resolution, or is it only able to explore its content?
• Shield claims that all mantages imply a meaning through the juxtaposition of shots. Is the meaning lost when a viewer chooses how they create the montage with a Korsakow film?
• How do I keep a viewer engaged without creating a sense that my K-Film is building towards something (a climactic moment, an ending)?
• Shields describes most films and novels as being predictable, tired, contrived and purposeless. Yet he believes that literature is a form of thinking and wisdom-seeking. How are K-Films so lively and purposeful?

Intriguing list of questions from the Thursday 4:30 class:

From Ryan reading:

1. What is the point in redefining narrative as anything more than ‘cause and effect’?
2. Ryan notes ‘we can never be sure that sender and receiver have the same story in mind.’ Korsakow films allow for greater freedom of interpretation. Do you see this as a positive or negative? How can the filmmaker control interpretations?
3. Ryan argues that sender and receiver will always have a different story in mind. Would this be a negative for us when trying to convey a story or meaning with Korsakow?
4. Do you believe the meaning of narrative has been diluted through its descriptive use in society?
5. What is the difference between the components of story and discourse?
6. When considering non-linear narrative, how important is Ryan’s sixth criteria for identifying narrative; the notion of ‘closure’?

From Bogost reading:

1. Apart from reminding us that narrative is made up of ‘everyday stuff,’ what can lists achieve as a literary device?
2. Why and to what end are we to be freed from the ‘tyranny of representation’?
3. Bogost writes ‘lists do not just rebuff the connecting parts of language but rebuff the connecting of being itself.’ How do lists do this?
4. If a list was to be created through a random non-human selection is a narrative still created?