Monthly Archives: May 2014

back from the break – week 8 lecture

by

this week’s lecture was all about interpretation and being creative when it comes to K-films.

my favourite point that Adrian made was that without constraint, you can’t have creativity. this was really interesting to consider because normally when we are given task with which to work around, we can find (and often complain that) it is limiting our creative ability to create what we want. but this was a different take on things. being given a constraint gives us something to work around and towards. it allows us to think outside the box of what it could simply be and to create something much more interesting. without a constraint to guide us, we are limited to simply what we can think of. but if we are given a limit, suddenly we have to think about what we couldn’t just think of, something new. the constraints allow for interpretation and that’s what makes them so creatively accessible, everyone can interpret them differently.

that brings us to the next major part of the symposium lecture, whether interpretation can transfer onto a k-film when making an essay. while any type of text allows for a huge amount of individual interpretation from any viewer, k-films allow a far greater level of subjectivity than a normal film or essay by allowing the viewer to decide what they will experience and when. interpretation can never be controlled by the creator so k-films and k-film essays use this to their advantage to create for a more in depth of exploring ideas on a multi linear plane. there is so much more effort required to make a liner essay, in a true essay, all thoughts should be connected. this is why multi linear works, it allows all the different ideas to be connected to anything the relate to, not just the next point.

one final great point from the lecture was that multi linear k-films and essays mirror the way we as humans experience, understand and interpret the world. our world is made by association and that is how korsakow functions. as adrian said, “it makes thinking out loud visible”

how many lists can you list in a list? – week 8

by

this weeks reading introduces the idea of “lists”. we learn about connections and montages and even Adrian himself gets a mention.

now, when i think of lists, i think of a shopping list. or a list of school books. or a list of names of all the 194 episodes of supernatural. but this is different. this is lists in regards to documentaries. and narratives. and montages. it was a little confusing. below i’ve got some points taken from the reading so i can try and understand it a little better.

“the use of structures that effectively de-form familiar story shapes can provide the means for a poetic approach to documentary to respond to conditions of complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity and ambivalence”

“the list is an approach that permits a sense of cohesion at the same time as it increases the gap between project elements.”

so from these i’m gathering that the list is a kind of anti-narrative. it goes against the formal conventions, stripping a narrative down to it’s components, then using those components by themselves to tell a story by allowing the viewer to form the links that would normally just be presented in a given narrative.

“the list as a structuring device in creative screen based documentary is a formal approach that also speaks of the infinite possibilities in combining and making connections across a networked field of elements. Components are gathered and assembled according to a logic that may be thematic, topical, place based or conceptual (to name just a few possibilities) but the relationship between parts is kept loose.”

“idea of the etcetera of the list whereby the elements included refer outwards to other possible inclusions. It is the incapacity of the list to be definitive that allows it to reference the range of potential elements.”

“Here we see indication that in the spaces between and around list elements there is room (perhaps even a requirement) for the audience to augment what is given.”

hmmmm, these three points seem to remind me of something. something very familiar. something we may or may not have spent 8 weeks discussing. ah yes, that’s it, korsakow! korsakow and the k-films we made are in the process of making again are all about the space in the gaps between the content. we don’t want anything to be set in stone, the audience creates the meanings and connections for themselves. k-films are limitless in this sense, they can never be specifically defined because every person views them differently, both from each other and between different viewings. and so, like k-films, Frankham is discussing the infinite possibilities of lists to portray anything, they are left to the viewer’s imagination, both in creating relationships and meaning between items which are on the list and in forming connections and associations to those which aren’t on the list. pretty nifty.

“There are thematic and structural relations generally established amongst the parts of the list but narrative links tend not to be strongly formed. Nonetheless, the potential may exist for narrative links to be activated or imagined.”

“Often structured around unifying themes or existing categories and classifications, the list can also inspire thought that follows the structure of memory, impulse and flashes of association.”

are we talking about korsakow or lists here? is korsakow just a tool for making awesome, interactive lists? are our k-films lists? reading this i’m beginning to think so. even when a k-film has no distinct theme or pattern (even though most of them tend to), the viewer will still create some form of connections between the content. it’s human nature to do so. we understand by association. with no narrative present, our brains strive to see one. to form connections using the content given. k-films, like lists, generally don’t have a strong narrative presence, and yet links between them still exist.

“connecting together material from disparate places through our use of the internet and in our fragmented daily life.”

why this is all possible (or even discussed at all), the internet. where would we be without it? probably reading some book and learning. but the internet is fragmented. it is made up of infinite links leading in and out of everywhere. just like a, you guessed it, k-film!! so, is the internet a list? i guess you could consider it that. it contains pretty much everything there is, a list of all the information we know. and yet it is infinite, like a list, because it is constantly expanding, not just by gaining new information and items to add to the list, but as each individual contributes their interpretations and connections and associations, it grows, forms more links. perhaps we are all just one big, never-ending list.