Natalie Milidoni

This week’s reading by Frankham discusses the fragmented form of documentary, including a broader definition of montage, and the construction of lists, and how it is being used to create a means of expression that further includes the audience. The ideas she presents can directly relate to Korsakow and how it works to create non-linear works.

Realtional asethetic (Nicholas Bourriaud, 2002) refers to how the asethetic of the work itself creates a space that allows the audience to connect and respond to it. This can be related to how Korsakow films rely on the audience’s involvement in order to be viewed as it relies on the audience clicking on the possible videos presented as previews on the main frame. This brings the audience closer to the work as they create their own meaning of the associations formed between clips by choosing which clip they would like to view next.

She also discusses how categorical links are used in poetic documentary to draw relationships between elements. This is also evident in Korsakow films as they require the makers to categorise their clips by using in and out keywords to create patterns and form relationships between vision that may not be normally associated.

In her discussion of associational form she demonstrates how relationships are created through “conceptual alignment, emotional impact, visual similarities and territories of gesture” going on to say that they create relationships between elements that are more emotional than logical. This reminds me of last week’s Matt Soar reading in which he states that he believes the patterns (keywords) in Korsakow films should describe the meaning of the clips rather than their aesthetic. With saying that, how would we as media practitioners create emotional links between our ‘noticings’ rather than grouping them in a logical way? Would it require more planning when making a K-film, rather than the find and shoot process that we used for our sketch films? Would we plan what we would film, or just plan the keywords to reflect an emotion? Or would we centre our K-film around a particular emotion?

The questions that these ideas raise suggests to me that if used in this way, we would be thinking more about the audience and how we want them to feel while watching our K-films. This contradicts Adrian’s point that we should be making our films for ourselves and not have the audience in mind. It also contradicts the idea discussed by Frankham (and has been mentioned by other academics aswell) that the audience would be able to form their own meaning from poetic documentaries and the relationships created by patterns in K-films. “The potential for a more keenly felt and critical engagement may be enabled by relinquishing absolute control over the way the work is read” (Frankham) – describes just how K-films allow the audience to engage with the work in their own way and take their own perception from it.

Another interesting point I took from the reading was Philip Rosen’s belief that a documentarian should transform raw artefacts of the world (he calls them documents) into meaningful constructions. This idea touches on the way in which we have been using Korsakow to film ‘raw artefacts’ and give them meanings through the way we construct our K-films and SNUs. As Frankham says, “in a poetic approach to documentary, the issue becomes one of finding the balance between offering a definitive, unquestionable single pathway at one extreme and presenting a loose collection of raw documents at the other. It is a process of centralizing and restricting meaning, making knowledge accessible through the ordering and contextualising of material. In effect it is the organisation of complexity.” This is evident through Korsakow as if you link your clips with keywords that offer no order or no clusters of similar clips, then they become more randomly generated and forming meaning from them can be difficult. However, if you link clips with keywords that create clusters of similar clips, more meaning can be formed by the patterns observed.

Frankham also states that poetic documentary “is a process of curating, selecting, ordering, sequencing, connecting, providing context and signalling intention.” This description can be matched to the processes we went through when making our K-films as we discussed in our tutes and is a good way to track the progress of your film.

The cool cats from the Monday 4:30 tute have come up with some interesting questions from the Matt Soar reading for the week 8 symposium.

1. Soar argues that makers should choose keywords based on meaning rather than visual appearance. Does this contradict the way we’ve been using Korsakow?

2. Why would we choose Korsakow as a filmmaking system if it only can be viewed on certain, limited technologies?

3. What is the point of having a technology that might soon become obsolete – is there any way the authors of Korsakow films can preserve their works without fear that they may not function (if for example; Adobe ceases to exist)?

4. Is it a possibility that Korsakow will allow an ’embed’ function that links to other media (Ie. Vimeo, Vine, YouTube)? And what might this mean for K-films?

5. Is Korsakow a place purely for artistic expression or is there any potential for it to be used commercially?

6. Is technology leading us towards a purely graphic/symbol based method of storytelling that is independent from linguistics?

I look forward to hearing how the panel answers these questions.

This K-film is so interesting in that it provokes the viewer to think about the questions being asked and how they would answer them, while listening to what interviewees have said. The two questions posed to them are “What is your proudest moment?” and “If you could go back and relive a moment of your life, what would it be and why?”

This is presented at the beginning of the film, every time you open it, by the makers of the film, explaining what the film is about and how to navigate through it. This gives the audience a better understanding of what the makers hope to achieve with their film and more importantly, what the interviewees’ answers are in relation to. Without the introduction, the audience would be a bit lost and unsure of the film’s objectives.

The audio of the answers are out of sync with the vision of the person in their natural surrounding. This provides a different experience from a traditional documentary, where the person’s answers are shown in ‘real time’ and in sync with the vision. It helps the viewer to focus on their answers while getting a better understanding of them by seeing them in their natural environment. A small title with their name, occupation and interests is used to introduce them.

People from various ages, backgrounds, and of different interests are presented; giving a wide range of answers to the questions. It’s interesting to notice how the older interviewees cite their grandchildren, or children’s marriages, or meeting their spouse as their greatest moment compared to the younger interviewees who cite travelling experiences, and meeting their role models as their proudest moments.

This film is probably one of the most interesting K-films I’ve watched as it doesn’t follow a narrative, but still manages to provoke thought in the audience as they reflect on their own lives. It is also really interesting to see what people’s responses to the questions are and just how varied they can be.

Matt Soar is a co-developer of Korsakow and writes about what makes Korsakow different from other authoring programs, addresses some of people’s issues with it and explains where digital interactive narratives are heading.

Korsakow is an open source application, meaning that the original source code is freely available and can be redistributed and modified by the general public. One of the main positives of open source is that the works made last longer because the software is usually housed in publicly shared repositories, meaning that they are able to be modified and updates to the program won’t negatively affect already published works. The program doesn’t require any programming knowledge and is very simple to use.

Another positive of K-films is that they’re self-contained, aren’t networked, and don’t depend on links to media outside itself in order to be viewed. They can be exported and viewed on a hard drive using a web browser. This ensures that problems with outside links are avoided. K-films can also be continually updated with new material, or changes to original film with ease.

However, there are still some issues with Korsakow. While you can embed part or a whole K-film into a website, you are unable to embed online content (eg; YouTube video) into a K-film. K-films also depend on the viewer’s investment in watching and paying attention to the film; therefore the ‘success’ of a K-film depends on the subjectivity of the viewer.

Soar addresses some academics’ issues with Korsakow; one saying they don’t like how basic the program and subsequent films are and if there is a way to make them more appealing or attractive.  As Soar points out, the program is simple in nature and aesthetic to make it easier for authors to create their own films without fuss. He also makes a point that the main focus of K-films is the presence of the author’s voice in the work rather than creating a spectacular show for the viewer.

An interesting observation I took from this reading was Daniel’s note that “the act of designing the interface is a form of argument.” I never thought about how the interface the maker chooses itself can present their argument, and this is something I will keep in mind for my major project. Another interesting point by Soar himself is that he doesn’t believe Korsakow radically empowers the viewer to put them in the position of editor, but still does give them creative freedom in using their own perspective to create a story from what clips they choose to watch and in what sequence. This draws on Adrian’s point that we should be making K-films for ourselves rather than for a particular audience.

Soar’s argument that the keywords a maker chooses should be based on the meaning of the clips rather than the visual appearance of them confounded me as we have discussed all semester that we should be finding patterns between the clips and using them as keywords and allowing meaning to derive organically from how Korsakow links the clips together. This is really thinking in the opposite way, by finding the meaning of the clips and the film as a whole and working backwards rather than allowing the program to create a meaning from the keywords you have picked. My question then is, “Do you think we should have a clear understanding of the story or meaning of our K-film before we look at the patterns of the clips we have created?” “Should we allow meaning to be derived from the program itself, or try to have more control over it?”

Soar also points out that works created by Adobe Flash player are reliant on Adobe’s continued investment in the application, drawing comparisons to Korsakow’s donations based funding. My question to this is, “Will the future of authoring programs rely on donations and crowd-funding rather than corporate funding? If so, will these programs (including Korsakow) be able to survive on donations?”

http://www.themediastudents.net/im1/2014/natalie.milidoni

This week’s reading highlights how difficult it is for theorists to classify K-films and the idea that they are a cross between fiction, non-fiction and experimental films. Through the author’s research, many interesting points are raised about what makes the up the essay film which we can relate to K-films.

One of the main points raised is the personal, subjective and reflective voice of the author that comes through these films. As K-films are first-person observations, the personal idea of essay films can be applied in this way. It demonstrates the author’s critical reflections on a problem and doesn’t close an argument but provokes thought. This is true for K-films which don’t explicitly state the author’s argument through voice-overs like other documentary style films, but provokes thoughts, ideas, and meanings that the audience interprets in their own way.

The text suggests that essay films aren’t anonymous or collective, but represent a single authorial view. This is interesting as it picks up on a point that Adrian has been driving home since the beginning of semester; that when making K-films you should be making it for yourself rather than having the audience in mind.

Lyotard’s view that “there is no truth, just truth-making” is interesting as it reflects the idea that essay films and K-films alike shouldn’t be explicit and tell the audience the truth, but should allow the audience to take their own interpretation of the author’s version of ‘truth’. The text also mentions that the meaning of the essay film is constructed through the dialogue between the author, film, and spectator. It is also heavily reliant on the spectator’s subjectivity as they can take their own meaning from it. This can also be said for K-films which allow authors to convey their observations and ‘reality’ through the way they convey meaning through the patterns between their clips, and allows audiences to find their own meaning through their interaction with the film.

Good says that essay films “aim to preserve something of the process of thinking” which suggests that while K-films may not be able to be defined by genre, they most certainly are a snapshot of the author’s observations, the meaning they take from their footage, and the thought provoking interest that allows audiences to interact with it.

Through their use of partial framing, and focus on the movements of hands; the makers of the 2013 K-film ‘Hands: Thinking Out Loud’, demonstrate how important our hands are in our everyday lives, how they are used to communicate with others, and how they can reflect our unconscious emotions.

The patterns within the film and that link the clips together include; the gestures that hands make during conversation, during eating or dining with friends, and washing or cleaning objects. The makers could’ve used a combination of different in-keywords and out-keywords to create their SNUs. They could’ve chosen to use keywords that describe the actions or scenario of each clip such as, ‘conversation’, ‘cleaning’, ‘washing’, ‘social’, ‘party’, ‘friends’; or could’ve chosen to distinguish between the ages of the people being filmed, ‘young’, ‘old’, ‘middle-age’, ‘teenager’, etc; or even a combination of both. While the keywords used create clusters of clips with similar SNUs; there are some key clips which would have multiple out-keywords which can branch off to different clusters. For example; the clip showing a man’s hands washing a sponge leads to a cluster of a young person sketching a drawing, an old lady looking at a picture frame, and somebody reading a book. Key clips such as these ensure that there are links between clusters so that the flow of the film isn’t broken; creating a dynamic viewing experience, and emphasising the links between the content, the patterns the makers have found between the clips and how they work to reflect their observations of hands as a communication tool.

There is no starting SNU, meaning that you can begin the film wherever you like and each time you watch it you can have a different experience. While most clips lead to new and different clips due to a variation in out-keywords, there are times when the clip leads to previews on the interface that have all been watched already. A solution to that problem could be to have more than one out-keyword per clip so that they have more opportunities to link to other clips.

Another pattern that occurs in the film is that the camera always focuses on the actions of the hands and doesn’t frame the person’s face, giving them an elusive quality. Each clip captures a portion of the whole scenario, a part of a conversation, a part of an action or behaviour; so a pattern may be that they demonstrate a candid part of everyday life.  This leaves the meaning and emotions that are demonstrated through the actions of the hands shown up to the viewer, as only a portion is shown in frame and isn’t shown in its full context.

When the K-film first opens, the main frame is large and shows white text ‘HΔNDS’ which each individual letter flashing on and off rhythmically to the soft guitar music playing. Eleven smaller preview black and white thumbnails are positioned underneath the main frame. These thumbnails become videos when the mouse is rolled over them, giving the viewer an indication of what the clips will entail. The video previews available mean that you can select what clip you want to watch next, which can be both a positive and a negative. It is beneficial in that it gives viewers the feeling of more control over their interactivity and enjoyment of the K-film, but can be negative in the sense that it makes the viewer more subjective in choosing some clips over others and not allowing for a natural flow to occur. Unlike some other K-films which use different shaped thumbnails as their previews, this K-film doesn’t. The use of square, black and white thumbnails gives this K-film in particular a more sophisticated and professional look, and combined with the close framing on the hands, they demonstrate the intimate observations of the use of hands.

Once you click on a clip to begin the film, the interface changes. A grid of four same sized clips is shown (2X2), with even the main frame being the same size as the thumbnail previews. The main frame is always positioned in the upper left part of the interface and is shown in colour, compared to the black and white preview thumbnails. The preview thumbnails are larger than others I’ve seen used in other K-films, which in my opinion is a positive as you can get a real sense of the film by hovering over the clip, making you feel more immersed in the film. However, having the main frame the same size as the preview thumbnails is a negative, as it becomes difficult to focus all of your attention on the main clip playing. Having a slightly bigger main frame than the preview clips would give the viewer the opportunity to notice more detail in the clip.

The same music loops throughout the entire film which assists the flow and ambience of the film. However, the clips played in the main frame don’t loop. This is a hindrance to the K-film as it requires that you give each clip your full attention as you can’t replay the main frame unless an out-keyword of a different clip brings you back to it. If the clips were looped, it would give a continual sense to the K-film, rather than a pause which can bring the viewer out of the interactive experience and not make them feel as immersed as they should.

The content of the K-film includes partial framing of people using their hands; whether it be in conversation, washing or cleaning, or eating. Some of the clips shown include; a woman conversing with other women as she cracks her knuckles and moves her hands and fingers anxiously, an old woman’s hands tapping a table as she is in conversation, a young man eating, a woman stirring a pot of food, a man rinsing a sponge, a young lady holding a coffee, young people with technology, elderly in hospital, etc. Due to the framing choices made by the filmmakers, sometimes it is unclear as to what the hands are doing. This makes the film interesting and abstract, as it invites the viewer to interpret the clips in their own way. The variation in content as well as framing choices, camera angles and movements mean that the film is never boring.

The clips present a part of an action, behaviour, or conversation where only some of the conversation is audible. Even if some words can be made out, the conversation can’t be understood in context so the viewer’s attention is shifted from what is being said to focusing on what the actions of the hands are. This means that the viewer can use their own perception to interpret the clips, what is happening and how the person portrayed is feeling. For example; in the clip which shows a woman anxiously moving her fingers and cracking her knuckles while conversing with other women, the focus on her hands means that while we don’t know what she is discussing, we understand that she feels nervous about the topic or situation. This allows the audience to interact further with the film and draw their own meaning of the authors’ observations.

Most of the clips shown are a snapshot into the everyday life or activities of ordinary people and don’t appear to be staged. However, a couple of them do seem to be staged which breaks the flow of the other clips and their observational and natural sense. For example; in one clip a young boy is shown static, handballing a footy to himself over and over directly at the camera. If the camera was following him in a documentary style shot, or there was more camera movement, this clip wouldn’t seem as staged. These types of clips can bring the audience out of the experience as it breaks the patterns of previous clips that are shot in a natural style.

The sophisticated, observational framing and shooting of the content combined with the minimal and understated interface choices by the makers, and the clusters and pathways the patterns provide for the audience, highlights the poetic nature of the authors’ intention to notice the way hands are used to communicate.