Tag: assignment 3

Our interactive screen media project, titled Crash Course, encapsulates the qualities of modularity and variability.

The project is modular because each video/SNU is an independent fragment, that exists not in relation to or dependence of other SNUs, but as its own element that can be understood in isolation. Of course, the links between the SNUs snowball to create a deeper understanding of the themes present, but a solid basis of understanding can still be gleaned after each individual SNU. This is somewhat unlike my last project, where not every media element made sense individually.

It is variable because the user can create their own unique experience of the project (as if they are the editor) each time they engage with the project. The project is a web of paths and no path needs to be taken to understand the project. The emphasis of variability would only be expanded if the amount of data/SNUs in the project were to grow.

One of the main things I learnt about online screen production through making this project is that in a project like this (a project that is evaluating the variety, but also the commonality of experiences between people) will improve with more data- i.e. the more data, the better. This is because the definition of themes and the variability of links (between SNUs) relies on there being a lot of data. With only 13 SNUs, but still a diverse arrange of themes, it was difficult to have enough SNUs in each theme to allow the algorithm to truly pick which SNU would be previewed next. Because there was so few SNUs, I was able to know almost always which SNUs would be previewed when any given SNU was playing (as I mentioned previously).

This also impacts the clarity of the theme. With few SNUs, changes between themes were made often (even after I went through the simplification process). It also meant that we could not change the number of lives a SNU had (without forcing the user to a dead end very soon into the project) or the probability of SNUs appearing because we had so few that they were going to appear no matter what.

Consequently, I look forward to our next project and hopefully expanding the amount of media elements that we have.

Another thing I learnt through the creation of our project is that the effort to achieve aesthetic unity is worth it. I liked the fact that all of our photos in the project were very different, but I think next time we should try to give them a unifying factor- something that can visually link them. Similarly, I think we need a stricter time limit on the audio clips- they don’t need to be 30 seconds but I think over a minute is too long. Ideally, they would all be within 30-45 seconds long. I think both of these factors- more visually unified and a similar length of clips would help each SNU be more impactful.

I was happier with this project than the last one in terms of the seamlessness between media elements, and the overall design of the project. However, moving forward I would like to build on this again to make a more aesthetically pleasing interface, that takes advantages of different features allowed by different software.

Which brings me to my question as I look to the future: how can we, as students, create online (interactive) screen media that is equal parts insightful, engaging, technologically seamless and aesthetically pleasing?

Over the last four days, I have crafted our project on Korsakow. It has not always been easy, but I have enjoyed the learning process of mastering (or trying to master) foreign software.

As we knew it would, the content of our project (what people spoke of in our collected interviews) informed what tags/keywords we used in our project. Initially, we thought of lots of keywords, giving videos as many keywords as we wanted. We crafted this table:

Many SNU’s had three or more keywords. After doing this, we quickly put all our media in and allocated in and out keywords (with no specific calculation/planning) and exported it to see what it would look like. On the first run, we found we kept running into dead ends- clicking on a preview just to find that when it opened, it had no further previews (even though that SNU had OUT keywords that should lead to IN keywords). I agreed to finish the project/Korsakow assembly (which ended up being a larger task than I had envisioned) so I continued working on it after class.

I soon found that we were running into dead ends because the lives of our clips was set to 1, so after they had been viewed once, they wouldn’t appear again. After fixing this, I played through the project and found that the themes/keywords were not clear- rather, it was just a free-for-all through the SNUs. While this “free-for-all” would still be interactive and non-linear, we still want there to be an organisation of the clips, as this will help the user enjoy the project more. Consequently, I narrowed down the keywords, simplifying it so each SNU only had 2 keywords, and there were only 6 or so keywords overall. Heres a taste of what the simplified version looked like:

After the simplification of keywords, I found the themes to be more obvious (but not too obvious), allowing the user a more defined experience of the ideas explored.

My whole Korsaow experience was filled with these moments of realisation- about keywords, lives, previews, aspect ratios, backgrounds, grids, so on and so forth. While ultimately I feel relatively confident using Korsakow (relative to the fact that it was brand new software a few days ago, and now I know how to use it and take advantage to all of its features), I would disagree with the sentiment that it is a totally user-friendly and intuitive software.

Regardless of my experiences of frustration with Korsakow, it definitely achieves what it sets out to achieve:

KORSAKOW IS NOT A TOOL TO CREATE A STORY, IT IS A TOOL TO WEAVE A WEB OF STORIES.

(Taken from the Korsakow website). If the internet is a void or abyss of information and data (as I have mentioned previously), Korsakow is an effective tool in crafting a web of paths and connections through this seemingly infinite sea of information. As explored in Matt Soar’s Making (with) The Korsakow System, there is no finite path through a web. Each connection and interaction between bits of information (or SNUs in the case of Korsakow) helps form a unique assemblage, a unique understanding and picture of the topic at hand.

I think the idea of a “web of stories” perfectly encapsulates and helps inform our project. Especially as I chose, in the end, to have each clip have infinite lives, the user really can explore this web of stories as much or as little as they like. Even at the “end” (if there is such a thing), the user has the option to return to the middle of the web, as I have created a string within the web (a keyword connection) between the final clip and earlier clips. No connection is fundamental and each experience is totally individual and variable- the user could arrive at the “end” (the closing SNU) after watching four clips or thirteen clips. It is up to them as to how they want to navigate the web.

As I really struggled with in and out keywords at the beginning, I was constantly writing them down and linking them (physically, on paper) to make more sense of them. While I’m sure this is breaking some Korsakow rule, I tried to draw out a simplified map of the keywords and SNUs in our final project.

It shows that while there are tail ends to the project, the middle is a complex series of possible links and connections.

Overall, I’m happy I was the one to assemble the Korsakow project, as it not only diversified my interactive-media-making experience, but it helped me understand the modularity and variability of such media.

“It is self-evident that any non-linear or multi-linear narrative, regardless of the medium, must be built from smaller, discrete components and that these will be viewed collectively in sequences partly described by the maker, and partly chosen by the viewer.”

This quote, taken from Soar’s article Making (with) the Korsakow System, epitomises Manovich’s qualities of Modularity and Variability. This quote, and these characteristics, also apply to our project. Obviously, making a project through Kosakow implies an inherent desire and search for these qualities, but it is possible to make a linear Korsakow film where the user has no agency. A similar “interactive” but actually non-interactive project is described by Mateas and Wardrip-Fruin as a “form of guided progress through a predetermined story” where the project is not at all user-driven.

To do this, the maker of the project would plan keywords so each SNU must be viewed in a certain order. Soar describes this as “absolute linearity”, with the opposite being “complete randomness”. Our project falls somewhere in the middle, as some clips must be viewed in a certain order (for no narrative purpose, but just because of keyword categorisation), and no matter which path the user takes they will always end up at the same “end” SNU. Between the beginning and end, most clips are connected through a complex web of keywords that allow the user to explore and re-explore the project.

Something else interesting that Soar writes is “the SNUs in a Korsakow film are not connected together with a fixed path.” He later expands, saying that story elements aren’t connected through a “master-sequence” but through a hidden keyword search. While this is definitely true in our project, it reminded me that with projects with much more SNUs, there is actually no guarantee that any connection (that you set-up through keywords) will actually be taken by the user. Of course, this relates heavily to the final parts of the chapter in which Soar speaks of the unique assemblage each user makes when navigating projects (and how there is no set path through a web).

However when a project is as small as ours (with only 12 or so SNUs), it is actually quite likely that each connection will be made at some point, and each SNU viewed (if the user wishes to continue engaging with the project). But in a larger project, with hundreds of SNUs, there is no guarantee that all SNUs will be previewed (chosen by the algorithm to be previewed), let alone chosen- consequently, while there are many options for paths, many of them may never be explored.

We also got work-in-progress feedback this week. The idea of a traumatic or unlucky story being told over a happy photo (representing the reality of bad experiences vs what we tell people about/put on social media) was well-liked. We were given some ideas about including ‘breaker’ SNUs, such as symbolic videos to put between keyword clusters, or at the beginning and end, to diversify the media and take a break from just image/audio.

We are now up to finalising the construction of the Korsakow project in preparation for the presentation on Thursday.

Week 6 has thankfully seen us take a solid step forward in the development of our project. On Monday, our group got San as a fourth member, as he wasn’t yet in a group. The timing of this was a gift because neither Antonia nor Jackson could make it to this class. So while initially, I was facing the prospect of not finding a solid idea to later in the week (when our group would be all together again), I instead got another group member to discuss ideas with, who importantly had a fresh perspective.

I spoke to San about our last class, and how Hannah had described the project as making something for the internet from something that is already fragmented (e.g. a diary). More so, it will be a project that deepens and diversifies the perspective on a theme, emotion or sentiment- not a project with a linear narrative.

San and I quickly came up with a vox-pop based idea, with small interview fragments that focus on one question. This is the pitch we wrote to get feedback from other groups:

Our team intends to explore relationships between multiple standalone answers of a simple yet open question; what does travel mean to you? It is a question that is open enough to offer unique and engaging answers, even to those who have not necessarily traveled overseas. Through listening to our participants’ answers we will transcribe, tag and categorise them based on common themes and shared experiences. Using this small sample we can begin to visualise how these stories parallel or contrast, and with more data, we could explore the frequency of certain experiences, for example. To our viewers we intend to present each fragment as an audio interview paired with any pieces of media they captured while on their travels (photos, videos, social media posts etc.). As a common theme comes up in their answer viewers will have the option to view another fragment that shares that theme. Allowing them the agency to explore the themes or elements that they find most intriguing — this both introduces interactivity and non-linearity in a meaningful way in the piece.

On Thursday, when our whole group was together for the first time, our idea evolved to what it is now. Using the same aforementioned form of an audio interview paired with a still image, tagging the interviews with themes, and allowing the user to explore themes in a non-linear, interactive way, we changed the question to “What was the worst thing that has happened to you while travelling” (or along those lines). We felt that this would provide a broader range of responses.

Our project came into shape the most after Hannah spoke to us about Korsakow. It was difficult for me to imagine much beyond the content of our project before this (i.e. I had no idea what it would look like). It seems like Korsakow is a step in the right direction in terms of the interdisciplinary approach (of Engineering and Art- spoke about in this article), in which we must “merge art and science, storytelling and software” to create engaging, technologically-enabled experiences that invoke human culture.

I must admit, I didn’t love the few Korsakow projects I experienced. Talk With Your Hands Like an Ellis Island Mutt contained interesting insights about migration and national identity, but the lack of context confused me and I wasn’t drawn into the experience. While The Whole Picture was more enjoyable, I still felt a lack of connection with the project.

Of course, our project is quite similar to Are You Happy and Cowbird. Different in the fact that in Cowbird you are explicitly searching for a theme (rather than navigating through themes without knowing) and in that there are no tags or themes in Are You Happy. However, like in Are You Happy there is a pre-determined, uniform prompt that people will respond to, ultimately “revealing particularity… but also [gathering] certain universal response”, as discussed in “We’re Happy and We Know it”.

I am interested to see how we will go using Korsakow. I am still somewhat confused with how it all works, but looking forward to learning more and ultimately getting a grasp of new software.

Thursday the 5th of April- back at uni after the mid-sem break and getting ready to dive into the next assignment. I couldn’t make it to the last class and so part of today’s class was focused on getting the group-less people (me) into groups. While I’m sure my group will function really well together, I do find it a pity that I didn’t get to form a group through brainstorming like the rest of the class (my fault for not being in class though). Anyway, Hannah divvied us up by what stage of project work we enjoyed or disliked the most. I said I’d be happy to do anything- partially because I am indecisive and partially because I do enjoy almost every part of project work.

I was put into a group with Antonia & Jackson. Antonia likes production, Jackson likes post-production- and I like planning and reflection, and so on. Our time together on this day reminded me there is a stage of production that I don’t like- the initial search for an idea. I’ve always found open-ended assignments with no topic restrictions/guidelines to be very tricky initially, as there is a vague, uncertain search for an idea. So often, all ideas become slippery in your hands- impossible to hold down, explain, pinpoint and develop. Or, you realise they’re just not what you need. Anyway, we cycled through a few ideas.

One was initially a loose idea of making a documentary about an underground group in Melbourne. Unfortunately, this was about as far as this one went. Jackson mentioned the street artist (not group) Sunfigo, While I liked the idea, underground groups/artists are underground for a reason. I don’t think it would be very achievable to find and contact any group, let alone be allowed to interview them and craft a documentary, in a few short weeks. I do like the concept though.

We talked about a few other content ideas, including shedding the light of the effect of a recent Melbourne hail storm that wrote off people’s cars and damaged car dealership stock. Again, an interesting idea but I was worried about the point of it. Hannah has spoken about not worrying about having a ‘point’ or meaning of your work, but I think I need to have some understanding of why we have chosen any specific topic, in order to dedicate myself to it.

We’ve decided to dedicate the weekend to brainstorming a topic, and hopefully, we will feel more confident by Monday. Then hopefully the content will inform the deisgn/form.

Steph Milsom came in for the rest of the class, showing us her diary film and her books of personal data. The books to me were mindblowing! Just the idea of your internet presence and your whole digital identity (or “digital footprints“), represented in all of these novel-sized books. I don’t know if its the contradiction between internet and book, or the fact that you forget how many crumbs we leave behind us on our path through the internet, but the books were really fascinating.

It reminded me of an article I read recently, in which the author speaks of a friend who was embarrassed about an interview she has completed (with the author) that was published online a year earlier. She found it hard to identify with this “version” of herself, represented on the ‘net,  but ultimately recognised that it’s a flagpole in a time of her life that would have otherwise passed her by unnoticed. I empathised with this sentiment, as when we looked at some of our Facebook information that we had entered into our profiles years ago, I thought, “this isn’t me!” To be fair, I think a lot of it wasn’t even ‘me’ back then. I know this is a digression from the data side of things, but it’s just an interesting note on how our trail of internet data (both explicit- photos, likes, posts, and hidden- the searches, numbers, history) tells us a story of an evolved self.