My group and I created Spaces, a experiential non fiction work that explores how people interact with spaces. We focussed on actions within numerous spaces that make sense and make no sense. We explored body movement and shape, human interaction and what can be perceived as normal and not normal. In terms of technical constraints for the work, we decided to include five landscape shots and then six close up shots within that. Our temporal constraint was that each landscape consisted of twenty seconds and each close up was ten seconds. The overall work consists of two interfaces, one that portrays a landscape shot of a space as well as six close up shots of actions within that space. Three of the close up shots portray actions that make sense and three which do not. In order for the audience to move through the work we created a second interface. The audience may click on a close up action that intrigues them, this could then bring up a related close up shot from a different location. If the audience were to click on this screen it would bring them to the second interface when consists of two screens, one portraying the action and the second portraying the landscape shot of the next location.

Our initial concept for this project was derived through understanding of the affordances of Korsakow, the software we were expected to utilise to create the final work. Our final work achieves modularity as it consists of thirty-five separate media fragments the function both as a whole work but can also be consumed separately. We wanted to create a final project that could be viewed as a whole piece, but additionally for each individual SNU or fragment to make sense on its own simply through aesthetics. We wanted the project to be a visual sensory experience, in that each individual media fragment is shot in a way that made it interesting for the audience as an individual part. However, the visual component of Spaces was also significant in the work’s ability to be viewed as a whole. We wanted audiences to make visual connections as well as human associations. By this I mean that the audience can see the similarity between two clips in terms of the way it is shot and the action being portrayed through the camera. We wanted to portray actions in separate places in a similar manner, an example being smelling a flower in a park and then that same action being replicated in a supermarket through smelling butter. While the action of smelling butter in a super market does not make sense, it is through visual associations and connections that audience understanding may be generated.

Throughout the process of creating the work I thought a lot about audience interactivity and therefore variability. In my second blog post I explored the notion of spatial montage and how this can afford audiences the ability to make connections and associations between media fragments. Our work is variable in that each audience member will have a unique experience of the work. Korsakow affords users the ability to create work that does not follow a linear path, rather I would describe our Korsakow work as a looping meshwork of connections and fragments. Throughout the process of creating the work I learnt that I have no control over what the audience may conceive the work to be. In my third blog post I pondered the notion of media work having a point or intended meaning. The reality is that the audience may not derive the same meaning from the work as the filmmaker intended. As we were filming the close up shots of actions that made sense I realised that even those actions looked weird due to the extreme close up shot. While it may be normal to stroke grass in a park, shot extremely close up it just looks weird. I needed to let go of thinking it needed to mean something or make sense. When I complete work I think a lot about audience perception, perhaps too much so. In theory I can understand that media work does not inherently need to have a point however through creating this project I realised that it can be difficult to apply what I have learned to actual making. However, I have also developed a further appreciation of the visual side of media production and what that may mean for audiences. In this way, our work is variable in that each audience member may experience it completely differently and may derive completely different meaning from it or no meaning at all.

I gained a lot from the process of creating this work. I was able to further develop my understanding of media production for online screen. The aspect of the work that I found the most challenging yet also the most intriguing was the visual aspect, in particular visual connections and derived meaning. Is it possible to create a fictitious project through extreme close ups of body movement and actions? How can we utilise camera to explore the human body as almost an object? Furthermore, how would this translate in terms of audience interaction and understanding?

 

 

 

This week we commenced the production process of our project. I am not going to pretend that it has not been challenging as we encountered a few roadblocks along the way. However, moving from the conceptual stage of this project to actually creating has allowed me to further develop my understanding of what we are trying to achieve. I can often find myself stuck in the conceptual stage of projects in the sense that I struggle to realise my creative concepts for online media. For the last project I wasn’t able to construct the project in the way in which I wanted to, which consequently caused me to feel a disconnect between myself and the final actualised project. However, we approached developing this project through an understanding of the software we would use and the interface we intend to create for the numerous media fragments.

I really enjoyed the process of filming the media fragments for our project. While we had pre-planned the possible fragments of media or SNUs we could shoot, we found ourselves inspired by the actual location. Also some of what we had pre planned simply was not easily possible to film, such as scanning items in the supermarket – no one wanted to buy anything and we would have to get the shot in one take which is incredibly difficult. We did not have one person filming, rather we shared the filming. Choosing to share filming was an interesting decision considering the need for accuracy in shots, particularly those of the same action in different locations. However, sharing the filming actually helped us as other group members would remember if a shot was taken from a certain angle or distance and this helped us to recreate the shots of actions in the various spaces.

In terms of the post production side of creating the project, following discussion with Hannah on Thursday we decided to have two interfaces. One being the initial interface we developed early on, with one landscape shot and the six close ups surrounding it. The audience could then click on one of the close ups, and the relevant close up from another location would come up. From here the audience could either click through the close ups from the current location or click on the close up from another location to bring up the second interface. This interface has two screens, one being the close up and the other being the landscape shot from the related location. The audience could then click on the landscape to be brought back to the first interface with the relevant landscape and continue this process.

However, creating this using the Korsakow software was actually relatively difficult. Nagini did majority of the editing using the software, however we all tried to help her in this process. We knew from the start that what we wanted to create on Korsakow was possible, as both Mia and Nagini had previous experience with Korsakow. I think the most difficult thing was troubleshooting the issues in Korsakow. While on the one hand Korsakow is relatively user friendly as it does not require coding, if you run into an issue it can become difficult to figure out how to fix it. Moreover, we had a large number of SNUs which also made the process a bit more complex.

In the words of Adrian Miles cited in Database aesthetics, modular storytelling, and the intimate small worlds of Korsakow documentaries “[Korsakow] proposes a reading and making of the world that is not pre-determined nor fully controllable, for maker, reader, narrator, or the work” (Wiehl 2016).

While it has been testing utilising the software at times, I can acknowledge the value of what Korsawkow affords to our project. Korsakow seems to be so innately a product of new media through its generation of a user based experience and audience interaction. It has allowed us to realise a project that I would never have otherwise thought I could create.

Weihl, A 2016, “Database aesthetics, modular storytelling, and the intimate small worlds of Korsakow documentaries”, NECSUS Journal

 

 

In response to the feedback we received last week we have begun to refine our ideas more and develop a stronger concept that we can create with the Korsakow software. The major conceptual aspect we had yet to completely figure out was the interactive aspect of the project. How could we create connections between the close up shots in a landscape? How could the audience interact with the project so that they move from one space to the next.

To address this we brainstormed as a group and have refined our concept further. We have decided that we will have three close up shots of actions that make sense within the space and three that do not make sense, but could make sense in another space. So for example, the action of swimming at the beach makes sense within the space, but this could connect to a close up of the same action occurring at a park where it does not make sense. In this way, we can visually connect actions between the places in terms of what makes sense and what doesn’t make sense.

Something I find quite difficult to grapple with is the notion of media products having or lacking a point. The experimental aspect of the concept we are developing makes it difficult for me to understand how audiences will interact with it. New media has allowed for internet spaces to become awash with seemingly pointless content. However, this weeks reading Making (with) the Korsakow System: Database Documentaries as Articulation and Assembly (Soar 2014) has provided some context or ‘point’ to the ‘small scale’ (Soar 2014) online documentary projects  that appear to be pointless. For the case of some small scale documentary projects it is not about informing the audience about a specific thing or making a specific argument, rather it is about the work being experiential and personal (Soar 2014). The process of conceiving the interactivity of our work has forced me to take the work out of context. Our initial intent for the project was to create an visual sensory experience for the audience utilising cinematography. As our work will focus predominantly on the human experience of places the audience will likely create its own meaning from the work. Korsakow is software that affords this experience through tagging IN and OUT keywords. An article I found argues that ‘ultimately a Korsakow piece is built around the choices of a user, who has to perform the project to be able to see it’ (Raetzsch). Each audience member will have a different experience of the work through their own associations with actions and places but also simply through visual associations and aesthetic subjectivity.

Thinking about these small scale documentaries from an audience’s perspective, I have been considering the fact of engagement. How do these small scale documentaries engage audiences if they seemingly have no point or direct message? Perhaps it is through the fact that they have no inherent point that attracts audiences. For example, when I first viewed The Whole Picture, my immediate reaction was to question the point of the work. However, this intrigued me to try to figure out the point of the work and derive personal meaning from it. I suppose this is the kind of effect our upcoming project work could have, although I do think that the overall intent of our work will be obvious through visual repetition of actions. However, audience understanding derived from thing can be unique, personal and subjective.

Soar, M 2014, ‘Making (with) the Korsakow System: Database Documentaries as Articulation and Assembly” New Documentary Ecologies: Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses’, Palgrave Macmillan

Raetzsch, C, ‘The Korsakow System?! What the Korsakow System can do for your film’, mediamatic, available at: [https://www.mediamatic.net/en/page/13757/the-korsakow-system]

 

This week in class we were asked to choose a quote from ‘We’re happy and we know it: Documentary, data, montage’ (Dovey & Rose 2012) that is related to our developing concept for the project. My group and I actually found this task relatively difficult, as while we have developed a concept, it is not yet refined. For the project we want to explore how people interact with spaces, and present this in a way that creates a sensory experience for audiences.

We looked into a few of the possible quotes that could relate to our developing concept, however I believe that the most relevant is that related to ‘spatial montage'(Dovey & Rose 2012), which is the ‘juxtaposition of images within multiple computer windows’ (Dovey & Rose 2012). Dovey & Rose (2012) discuss spatial montage in the modern technological world and what that affords in terms of documentary making. They consider the potential of spatial montage relevant to the Kuleshov Effect, wherein meaning is derived from the juxtaposition of images through the editing process. However, in the case of spatial montage the meaning can be derived through the audience making associations of disassociations between the numerous on screen media. The actual quote I believe to be the most relevant to our project is ‘spatial montage lends itself to the presentation of connections‘ (Dovey & Rose 2012). The Whole Picture by Tony Telson (2017), is an example of utilising spatial montage to generate associations. The quote at the beginning of the project ‘I think it is important to let associations form between apparently disparate ideas’ (Andrew Motion, cited in Telson 2017), accentuates the notion of the audience making connections between the various media fragments even if they are seemingly unrelated. This makes me question whether audiences will always try to make associations between unrelated fragments? Is it innate for the audience to try to create a story from nothing?

Connecting this learning and understanding of spatial montage back to the upcoming project, we will inherently incorporate spatial montage. As our initial vision for the format of our project was conceived with the Korsakow software in mind, we intend for the interface to include multiple fragments of media on the one screen. At the moment our idea for the interface is to have one landscape shot surrounded by multiple close up shots. However, dissimilar to ‘The Whole Picture’, it is our intention that the associations and connections between the various close up shots are obvious to the audience. We want the  audience to make visual connections as well as other associations between the various media fragments. We want to create a sensory experience for the audience through the aesthetic and movement within the shots, portraying how we interact with spaces and what this may mean to the audience.

We presented our idea in class to other groups and received feedback in terms of what they liked but also what we could improve on. Generally, our concept for the assignment was well received by other groups. Albeit we did struggle to articulate our idea for the project to the other groups, once it was understood we were met with largely positive responses. However, in terms of improvement we did receive feedback that we need to refine the interaction aspect of the project. In terms of how each interface will link to the next through audience interaction and connections between landscapes. This aspect of our idea definitely needs to be developed more, however we are still struggling to develop a way in which to achieve this.

Dover, Jon and Mandy Rose. “We’re Happy and We Know It: Documentary, Data, Montage.” Studies in Documentary Film, vol. 6, no. 2, Jan 2012

 

We have commenced brainstorming for the upcoming project. This project has a few more parameters in relation to the previous project. We have been looking into the potential concepts, themes, constraints and construction of the project. An aspect that has driven our concept thinking is the platform we have to utilise to portray the project, Korsakow. The way in which content can be manipulated and arranged on the screen, as well as the ability to link between videos has aided us in formulating a general prompt for our project.

Through focussing on the constraints first, we decided that we would like to construct the project through landscape and extreme close up shots that come from within the landscape. We still have not worked out the specifics in terms of the overriding question or prompt that will inherently guide the themes of the project, but we are considering colour, shapes, textures and sensory experiences.

This week I looked into the work of Jonathan Harris, specifically his project The Whale Hunt. This project is interesting to experience particularly in relation to constrained work as well as modularity. Through this project Harris wanted ‘to experiment with a new interface for storytelling’ (Harris, 2007). So he documented his experience of hunting a whale but with specific parameters involved. The major constraint to the project was the timing of taking a photograph. He took one every five minutes, but at times of excitement up to thirty seven within five minutes in relation to his heart beat. In terms of modularity, the photographs are presented in a way in which each audience can cater the project to their interests, whether this be in a linear manner or otherwise. Each fragment of the project functions on an individual level, but as a whole it tells a narrative.

In terms of constraints, our initial ideas for the constraints are not so restrictive or unique as those in Harris’ ‘The Whale Hunt’, rather we would just like to have consistent lengths of 10-15 seconds for each landscape and close up. Another constraint is that we intend to have five landscape shots and ten respective close up shots for each landscape. We would like to link from each landscape to another landscape shot, however we have yet to figure out exactly we will connect between spaces.

With the small scale project completed I am now able to look back and reflect. My partner and I have created The Case of Maria, an interactive non fiction platform that explores the unsolved abduction and murder of Maria Ridulph. While The Case of Maria is not what we initially thought we would create, I still believe that we have created a project relevant to our initial intent regardless.

The Case of Maria was produced with the intent of focusing on two major characteristics of many online screen productions- hyperlink driven and cross platform. These qualities guided the process of creating the project. The Case of Maria is a centralised platform that incorporates various media pieces including video, photographs, news articles and hyperlinks to Instagram, Facebook and YouTube.

The main challenge we encountered was creating an interactive cross platform project that engaged with audiences enough to motivate them to click the hyperlinks and essentially cross platforms. When faced with the issue of modularity, we realised that having separate media products on separate platforms with hyperlinks between them would be disengaging. Therefore, we decided to centralise all fragments of the project onto one centralised platform. The major aspect of the project is the videos, broken into two chapters, which chronologically outline the case of Maria Ridulph. The videos are uploaded onto YouTube, and provide hyperlinks back to the major platform. Moreover, we also provided hyperlinks to a Maria Ridulph Facebook group and the #mariaridulph feed on Instagram.

Creating the project allowed me to focus on the overriding characteristic of interactivity, as both the qualities of cross platform and hyperlink driven are innately interactive. Relative to the difficulties of incorporating the cross platform characteristic, we also struggled to generate audience interaction. Creating this project has allowed me to understand content creation with the intention of generating audience interaction. As I reflected on in my third development post, I have never thought about audience interaction from the perspective of the producer. While it is relatively simple to create numerous media artefacts on various platforms, generating audience interaction is actually relatively difficult. In the end we decided to utilise not only structure but content to attempt to generate audience interaction. At the end of the second video we asked the question ‘Who do you believe is the perpetrator?’ and also included a poll on the website with the same question. The intent behind this was to urge the audience to click on the hyperlinks and obtain a better understanding of the case so as to generate an opinion on the case and answer the question.

Throughout the process of developing the idea for The Case of Maria and also producing it I found myself grappling with the concept of linearity, as I explored in my fourth development post. While my partner and I were sure that the overall project would be non-linear due to its interactive components, I was more focussed on how we would portray the case in video form. The intention for the videos was to give an outline of the overall case. The videos were intended to be supplemented with the other forms of media and hyperlinks. Initially, I wasn’t sure if I wanted the videos to be linear and I explored ways in which to present the narrative in a non-linear manner. However, for the purpose of audience comprehension I believed it would be more effective in linear form. I would, however, like to further explore creating non linear work in an interactive situation.

While I believe that what we have created is an example of an interactive media project, I would like to create something much more immersive and consequentially more interactive. The question I have about the changing landscape of new media is, is this just the start of audience interaction or can it be taken to another level? How far will the ever evolving technology take interaction? Is it possible for lines between content producer and audience to be blurred even further?

 

 

 

The Case of Maria

 

The concept of linearity is something that I need to clarify my understanding of. I have always believed that a linear media piece is something that starts at the beginning of a story and finishes at the end. Linear narrative can be defined as ‘a story which may contain stylistic or temporal discontinuities such as flashbacks, but which is nevertheless conventionally read or told from the beginning to the end, in contrast to an interactive or hypertext narrative’ (Chandler & Munday 2011) .

So what makes something non linear? Is linearity only appropriate if there is a story? Is linearity based on chronological order? If linear narrative is conceived as being sequential then doesn’t that inherently make any interactive form of media non-linear? Seeliger et al (2010) describe non-linear video ‘as an approach, which makes video content at interactive experience’.

Linearity is highly relevant to the project we are creating and it also links back to audience interaction. Our intent is to take different fragments of Maria Ridulph’s case and upload  them onto a central platform, including photographs and newspaper articles. However, we also want to include the narrative of the case in the form of a video. I believe that the video’s will best portray the narrative in linear form. In this way, the project is both linear and non linear, however in its entirety I believe that it is non-linear.

In terms of audience interaction, content is another aspect we could incorporate in order to generate audience engagement. As the case we are presenting is an unsolved murder mystery, the project could be utilised to provoke the audience to consider who they believe the suspect to be. This could be achieved through asking this very question at the end of the video or by including a poll on the website, separate to the video. Another option is to create a separate poll and provide a hyperlink to this poll on the website.

Seeliger, R, Rack C & Arbanowski, S 2010, ‘Non-Linear Video: A Cross-Platform Interactive Video System’, SMPTE Annual Tech Conference & Expo, Hollywood, CA, pp.1-9

Chandler, D & Munday, R 2011, ‘Dictionary of Media and Communication’, Oxford University Press

Daniel Chandler and Rod Munday

This week in class we discussed Manovich’s (2001) work ‘The Language of New Media’, in particular the principles of new media he outlined in his work. An aspect of this discussion that struck me as relevant to the project we’re developing is the principle ‘modularity’ (Manovich 2001). This principle refers to how online media can be broken down into separate modules.  The question this principle begs about new media, however, is how each piece of separate media can function both separately and as a whole? This question has major implications on not only the way in which we think about media as a whole but also specifically to our project as well.

One of the major formal qualities we intended to incorporate into our project was cross platform which involves an inherent modularity. The potential for people to come across one singular piece of media from a platform is high and therefore it is important for context to be given, or for that piece of media to be able to function singularly. This understanding has changed the way in which I now think about how we are going to produce this project. Given the context of the project, a better outcome might be achieved if we eliminate the cross platform quality and incorporate another one. Our idea at the moment is to create a non fiction interactive piece focusing on a non fiction narrative based on the murder case of Maria Ridulph. Therefore, keeping each piece of media centralised to a singular platform might create more coherence and audience comprehension.

The interesting thing completing this project has allowed me to do is to understand new media theory from a producer’s perspective. As an audience I can easily acknowledge that cross platform modular media projects can function, for example a magazine company may produce a short video/article on snapchat with a link to ‘view the full article’ on their web page. If I am intrigued by the video then I may click on the link to the webpage. This kind of cross platform media functions both separately and as a whole. However, as a content creator I need to be able to create a media project that works cohesively whilst being modular. There are a number of options we could explore to achieve this including creating context through captions that urge the viewer to watch it chronologically. Or we could use other pieces of media such as photographs on other platforms and portray the narrative in a non linear manner.

Manovich, L 2001, ‘The Language of New Media’, The MIT Press, pp. 18-31