Tag Archives: lecture

narratives and conclusions, part 2 – week 11

by

the lecture this week again was consisting of discussions regarding conclusions, narrative and nonlinear in regards to korsakow. it seems people are pretty hung up on the fact that korsakow is different to what we’re used to. different doesn’t mean worse (it certainly doesn’t mean better), it just means different, it’s not what we’re used to. and this is still getting to some people. maybe they’re just xenophobic (although i never thought xena was that scary. sorry, that was a terrible joke).

people’s main issue appears to be that of a lack of conclusion with the k-film. that you can’t determine how or in what order someone will view it and so you can’t provide the conclusions that you want. this brought up the question, “should you have an end SNU?”. this was a yes and no kinda answer. obviously it depends on the kind of film you’re trying to make and the kind of experience you want your viewers to get. end SNU’s can be problematic because if they come up to early in the viewing of the film then the film will end prematurely without al the right stuff getting out. but an end SNU can also give clarity or information that might be needed ago end the film or deliver the final message of the theme. an end SNU is useful for a film with a strong temporal link or a literary timeline. again, the use for an end arises when we think mostly in linear narrative form. if we want our film to be a traditional narrative then we will want it to have a traditional conclusion and in that situation then yes, have an end SNU. but that’s not what korsakow is supposed to be a bout. it is decidedly different and allows you to be different. so why revert to the traditional when this is the way to do something new, non-linear is the way of the future (according to adrian). my favourite point from the lecture was again about conclusions. we are all hung up on them, on linear storytellings with narrative endings. but not every story has an ending, even ones told in linear fashion. and the example adrian gave was soap operas. soap operas are a story. they tell a narrative in linear fashion for half an hour five days a week. but they have no conclusion. ever. they just keep going. people can stop watching them if they want. and form their own conclusions about what that means or what might have happened. but in reality, thy have no conclusion. and that doesn’t seem to phase anyone. narratives and conclusions relate but they are no code pendant. you can have one without the other and we need to grasp that and understand it because by the look of things, that’s where we’re all headed in the future.

narratives and conclusions – week 10 lecture

by

more discussion about k-films in this week’s lecture, we discussed themes, emotions, narratives and conclusions. looks like everyone has the major k-films on their minds. the major point that i took from the whole lecture was about  the k-films not being a way to literally express any point but as a way to experience something for each individual. the point of the k-film is for everyone to interpret the content individually, they become a part of experiencing something without being told exactly what they are supposed to be experiencing.

how important are themes in a k-film? a theme gives us something to work around. like we discussed in one of the previously lectures, constraints are good. they allow for greater creativity. and a theme can do just that. limits that we work both within and around. even without a defining theme, as humans it’s within our nature to try and find any form of pattern or link between things, without pattern, all we see is chaos. our lives are associational because we link everything together so a them in a k-films allows them to feel more cohesive than they may be without one. however, the important part, like in the previous point, is to not always be too literal with the themes. infer a theme or idea without explicitly stating it. give the audience a means to enjoy and experience for themselves. its not so much the theme itself but how the content explores the theme. of course, this also depends on what the theme is, some can be far more obvious than others. for example the theme we have decided on for our k-film is superpowers and reality vs. fabrication. one of these is more obvious with the other and we are using this first theme as a means to explore the latter one. so while the superpowers themselves might seem obvious, the way that they are delivered and the ideas that they are being used for (reality vs. fabrication) will be more inferred than explicit.

does a lack of narrative or conclusion give an unsatisfying experience? the first answer to this was that we really need to move away from the ideas of linear narrative storytelling as a way of communication. that’s not what this course is about. of course, simply moving away from that isn’t that easy, it’s something that we have grown up with as part of society and is pretty much all we know. even though adrian says that non-linear is how we think, that’s how we think sub-consciouly, consciously we live in the world of linear narratives. what was a good point is that narratives and conclusions are separate. you can have one without the other. k-films can end. they can provide a specific ending clip. but even for the ones that are meant to go on forever, they must end. and that is when the viewer gets to decide the conclusion, which in a way makes that conclusion even more powerful because the viewer has decided upon it themselves (even if it’s just because they were bored with the film they were watching). and even without a set conclusion, we will always try to prove some sort of context or meaning to whatever we’re watching. even if the ending doesn’t make sense.  we don’t watch a film for the ending, we watch it for the experience. our k-filsm are the same. another really good point i liked was that the internet is kinda like a giant k-film. its comprised of links in and out, is uniquely experienced by each individual and has no end (except for those decided upon by the user). there is no meaning on the internet, we give meaning to what we see and contribute to it as well.

finally, we discussed the kuleshov effect, a topic that was brought up a couple of times last year too. the kuleshov effect reminds us that when we are making, not just our k-films but anything, that it’s not the shots themselves that meaning anything but rather each shot in its relation to those around it. meaning only comes from relations, the shots or clips themselves have no meaning.

a picture paints a thousand words – week 9

by

hitting up the other blogs this week. kevin always has some good stuff on there. this week he’s posted a photo in response to something that was discussed at the lecture, that “language rules the universe” (i believe he is quoting adrian). kevin rebuts this statement with the old saying “a picture is worth a thousand words”, claiming that the photograph transcends language. this is because no prior knowledge or information is required to understand an image, it can just be appreciated and experienced. language does require knowledge and not everyone can understand it.

however, i think kevin may have been a little confused coz i remember adrian talking about language not being the be all and end all because it is restrictive but how images existed way before language did, back with cave paintings on the walls. thats why client film worked. or why kids watch tv and read books before they can actually speak or read. because images are universal. language is limited.

return to norm – week 9 lecture

by

things are finally getting back into the swing of things. that break kinda threw everybody but it’s starting to seem back to normal. at least for now anyways. who knows what it’ll be like in a week.

this weeks lecture was all about the k-films as people start preparing themselves for the major project. to start with, adrian had a lot to say about cinema being visual, not language based. which makes sense. you think about the first films, they were silent. these could be viewed, understood and enjoyed worldwide because images can be received by everyone. yes, we have sound now, but language was never our first port of call for communication. long before there were ever words and language, their were drawings. even in our k-films, we use the still thumbnails as a port of communication to tell what is coming next. people look and see before they read and hear. another example adrian gave was the idea of grammar. in language, a sentence cannot be out of order. the wrong grammar means it won’t make sense. but you can take any series of film clips and put them in any order and they will still make sense. maybe not the same sense that the creator intended but they can still be understood. again this is where korsakow thrives, because it can exist beyond the realm of linear storytelling.

one topic that has been of a lot of discussion has been lists. and an interesting point in the lecture was whether lists can create infinite possibilities. there were some different answers to this question, about it depending on what kind of list or who is listing. but when you think about it, i guess any list can be infinite. it’s like being given a constraint, like what was discussed last week, the constraint allows you to think not just of what you would normally think of but of what else there is out there. and what else can be infinite. there was also the idea that when a list only presents a sample of what is available, then whatever is left can have infinite possibilities. but the part i thought was most important wasn’t about what is or isn’t on the list being infinite or finite but the relationships between things on or off the list being important. because anyone can write a list. but the relationships take thought and time and can have infinite possibilities depending on the individual who is making it. similar to films and especially with k-films, it’s the relationships between clips that’s important, not the clips themselves.

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”

lists and lectures – week 7 lecture

by

almost break time and you can feel it in the classroom. everyone is ready for a week off. not there just yet though. still got this lecture notes to get through.

it’s all about lists this week as adrian discussed what the literary value was of lists compared to narrative. lists are quick ways of getting points across. they can reveal thought patterns more tellingly than a narrative. written stories have been thought over for ages, lists are the quick work of the immediate brain. but lists also move us away from the restrictions of narrative. they don’t conform and can allow the brain to go in many different directions which don’t necessarily have to relate to one another. perhaps lists don’t tell stories, but they are told by people can reveal just as much. they can provide a method for answering a problem, the true question is what to do with the content. a list has a far greater means of interpretation. lists allow for the creating of relations.

woo. go lists! i love writing lists. ok, maybe not so much

active audiences – week 6

by

a big part of last week’s lecture was the discussion of narrative in k-films and the ability to control interpretations.

 

Can narrative be anything other than cause-effect stories?

– cause – effect are conventional narrative. k-films allow us to step outside conventional to redefine narrative. we can’t just restrict narrative to one meaning

– when making a narrative, someone has put any given something in particular order to give a particular meaning. we organise our k-film in a particular order to give a particular meaning. even if this meaning can be interpreted and experienced differently. there are still causal relations between events.

– just because we have these storytelling techniques doesn’t mean everything is a story

 

how can filmmakers control interpretation?

– can they even control interpretation? it depends on what. some things are easier to control than others. but in anything that is made there will always be elements that cannot be control. there are different amounts f control that you can have and there will always be multiple interpretations.

– people are always coming up with new ways to interpret and analyse media and content

– everything is defined by it’s relations to other things and words. nothing can just sit by itself. it needs to be interpreted to exist. for example, in a dictionary, words can only be described by using other words. they do not just exist. they have been interpreted.

 

my favourite quote from the lecture (and i’m sorry, i don’t remember who said it) was that “it’s how you tell it that matters. not the story itself”. i think this is important because the story can be taken and changed and understood differently by any audience but they will still take in how the story is communicated. this is like with korsakow, it matters how the story is communicated because everyone will make their own story from this method of communication.

Art for art’s sake – week 5

by

the lecture (sorry, symposium) last week finally felt like we were making progress and answering mostly useful question that were related to the subject. of course, the lecture was last monday, the day which i am now regarding as the worst day of my life so far (don’t ask me why, it’s been a shit week) so i have blacked out most of what happened that day. thank god i took notes in the lecture or i would literally not have remembered anything. it’s been a tough week for me and i am trying to catch up on everything now so rather than my usual meaningful posts, i’m sorry to say that this week you’ll be getting some simple points and recaps. but enjoy anyhow and feel lucky that i’m even ok enough to be doing this.

Are K-films art for arts sake?

yes and no. they change the way we see things. repeating films or certain objects/things forces you to notice them in ways you wouldn’t have before. gain a new understanding.

our sketch films are observational abstract – looking at regular objects in abstract ways. by taking the familiar and making it unfamiliar we see it differently. see the whole world differently.

documentary wants to engage with the world and change your understanding of the topic. are k-films documentary? do they provide and explicit engagement with the world?

making a K-film (not just watching them) change the way you think and do things. forces us to rethink : relations between things, our roles as makers, our roles as viewers, narration, all films.

 

self structuring K-films

interactivity is offering new possibilities for audiences. how different can films be when using the same footage? it’s all based on individual choices (eg., cutting up the story from first week in editing media texts). each person decides on the length, clusters, repetitions, links. billions of different options, there is no canonical fixed order. every single person would describe the same thing differently because they all see it differently.

you don’t need to define something to deconstruct it.

 

interpreting experimental films

experimental films are filmed AND interpreted differently – it all relies on the interpretation. K-films use abstraction for greater interpretation.

don’t make the films for a specific audience. just make and let them interpret. you can’t control what people will do or how they will interpret your content.

But my life is a story – week 4

by

we finally got an interesting, (mostly) relevant and even somewhat entertain (towards the end) lecture/symposium this week. adrian and the others actually appeared to be answering the given questions (although i’m not too sure how that first question about reality tv related to the course) and there were some rather interesting points brought up.

for me the most interesting question and subsequent discussion was in regards to the increased accessibility of media nowadays and whether or not this is ‘ruining’ films. what was important about this, as jasmine (i think it was jasmine) said, is that ‘ruin’ is a very strong word. which is true. ‘ruining’ depends on how you classify and describe ‘films’ in the first place. its a very personal word and thus it differs for every person. Adrian then took over to discuss this in further detail, claiming that what is made on technology such as iPhones doesn’t even classify as film. first off, that’s because it’s not recorded on film, nor is it a physical video. it’s an all new thing. lets just call it a moving image (or MI) for the sake of this post.

now, of course, the definition of a film is different for everyone. when we think about film in the traditional sense, does this include television? or can it only include what we see up on the big screen in a movie theatre? is there a difference between a film and a movie? where do short films fit into this? or youtube. and then we get to vines…. are they films? they’re not tv. but isn’t television just film being broadcast to an electronic box? when you start to think about it like this, it all gets very confusing and the lines start to become very blurred. but i think that’s all what this course is about. blurring the lines between all the separate technologies, everything is connected today.

i’ll give you an example that adrian gave us when answering a different question in the lecture. this example was big brother. when we think about big brother, we think it is a just a television show. but it goes far beyond that. for one, it is happening live and continuously. even when no-one is watching or when the cameras aren’t on, the tv show is still going. and we see it on tv. but it goes beyond our television sets. it has it’s own website – an online forum where people can find out more information about the ‘characters’, see extra footage that they watch online or even rematch old episodes. we see recaps of it during the week during other programs, news about it written in the newspapers and interviews with eliminated contestants and hosts on the radio. then there’s the voting system, which incorporates the vastly growing medium of the mobile phone. people can not only watch from any time from their mobile devices, but they are a part of the show, sending in votes to determine who stays and who goes, a mechanism which rakes in millions of dollars. so, what does this have to do with the point i was just making? i’m not too sure, i may have gotten a bit carried away there. but this example showcases how widespread our media is today across the different mediums. interactivity is the key. people want to be able to be a part of what they are experiencing.

this is where korsakow comes in. if interactivity is what the public wants, korsakow is here to give it to them, albeit in a weird, abstract way thats not well known and kinda difficult to understand. but surely this is where the future of film and tv and other motion pictures are heading, to the realm of the interactive media where people can choose their story so that it is unique to them, they can be a part of the narrative. all this accessibility to production means ins’t ruining film, it’s creating new types of film, new categories that can’t even be defined. and are allowing for more people than ever to be creating their own content and experimenting and interacting with something that once only the elite and rich could do. this is what Sørenssen was talking about. this is what adrian means. this new accessibility is creating a new era of film or moving image. it is free, it is raw, it can be interactive, it can be made by anyone. the only reason we keep holding back is when we call it film. it is not film any more and that title is constraining us. we need to be able to drop that title and move forward. create new things. interact and experience all new mediums. woooooo!

my only question i would ask, based of the boardwell and thompson reading, is whether our korsakow films are supposed to follow a certain structure? should they be exhibiting cause and effect? narrative plot lines? or are they supposed to be random and abstract and experimental?

finally, i would like to add that the discussion (argument) at the end of the lecture between adrian and one of the students was brilliant. however, have to disagree with adrian, i believe our lives are narratives. they have beginnings, middles and ends. there is no meaning in a narrative until the reader assigns a meaning and that is the same with our lives. we take what happens and we give it meaning. our lives follow a cause and effect structure just as narratives do.

A new start – week 3

by

here we are again, new year, new semester, new subjects. same blog. I’m back!!! did you all miss me? i probably should have done this post before my previous ones but oh well, we all know hind sight is a bitch (especially when it comes to captain hindsight – please enjoy that video) . but i’m here now so let’s talk!!! how have you been? good holiday? ok who am i kidding, i know no-one is reading this.

so what else is there to discuss? not really sure. we could do the lectures… although not much really happened in the first one except a nice little introduction to the course. at least now we know what we’ll be up to this semester (a lot of interactive video stuff from what i can gather, which is exciting to get to do). and then of course the lovely labor day meant we didn’t have a lecture this week so there’s nothing really to talk about there either. but i’ve been doing my best to stay up to date with the subject blog, checking out what adrian is discussing/blogging (i liked the feather video) and seeing what all the other students are up to on their blogs. not many have started posting yet (at least from what i could see) but i did really like Tiana’s post about the reading and it had a link to this really awesome site about the scales of everything within the universe. i’d Screen Shot 2014-03-14 at 4.45.15 PMreally recommend it, it’s a cool scroll through. although, that japanese spider crab is terrifying, especially how big it is compared to humans. if i ever saw that, i would die of fright before it would even have the chance to attack me.

anyhow, stay tuned… there’ll be more to come!