Last week I wrote about a few things that I was still trying to grasp which I wanted to understand by the end of semester.
More specifically, I wrote about how I want to learn the distinction between maintaining anthropocentric storytelling methods, and cinematic literacy and aesthetic, and abandoning the stories in which we tell and what we tell them about.

“During this class I’ve thought a bit about creating and composing images that abandon ‘good storytelling’
Putting less thought into my reasoning behind when to cut a shot, or how long to let a clip play out, less thought into how to film an object or a space, no rule of thirds, no golden ratio, no wide lens for landscape etc. Initially I thought this was a way to rid my own agency as a film literate. It would allow the object to speak for itself without third party mediation in a sense. I thought that abandoning film structure, patterns, shot technique and so forth is apart of the abandonment of anthropocentric stories.”

My exact contention of this is still unclear to myself, but I feel that in doing the above muddies the water of what it means to tell stories that aren’t necessarily for people or of people, but still made by people. It goes back to the question put forth by Adrian, “what would it look like or sound like for the trees to communicate to one another?” and I’m sure trees don’t care much about framing or the fact that we favour a person anchored to the right third of the frame, or even dynamic range or colour etc.

My question is this: Does the abandonment of this film literacy have a place in our ontographic methods and exquisite corpse documenting? If so, to what extent?
I understand the theory more than the practical implementation of it. The practice has no rules which is why I’m uncertain. That being said I’m happy with what I’ve produced so far from the exquisite corpse exercise.

To learn this, I should investigate both methods during the production of Assessment 4. Maybe shoot one that is pretty and cinematically coded and one that is just me trying to tell it as it is. Although I am aware that this is problematic, because a decision to shoot without these tropes is a mediated decision nonetheless. What would a purely unmediated film look like? Does that exist? Even without me the camera itself is still a tool for mediation.
Maybe for my final short 1 minute film, I’ll tackle the question of ‘what is it like for trees to communicate to one another?’ or something of the equivalent from the readings. Or look at trying to create a pure minute of unmediated reality. Of what? How? A decision to film one thing instead of something else is still curating.

The only way to learn it is to test it really. So I’ll do that.