Software Skills:

This week I got back into the swing of Final Cut Pro and learnt some new shortcuts, such as Command+B.

Readings:

I agreed with this week’s reading that the definition of i-docs should be purposely left broad, however I’m interested in the fact that authors have put ‘real’ in quotation marks. This begs the question of what is ‘real‘, a whole other philosophical discussion.

The article mentions that “different understandings of interactivity have led to different types of digital artefacts“. The importance of different perceptions and perspectives I’ve never really seen discussed, but it is essential as it comprises our eccentric and endless world-view.

Aston proposes that “the most interesting work in i-docs often arises when genre is transcended and boundaries are blurred“, which based on my previously mentioned obsession with contrast and conflict I agree with this statement wholeheartedly for any creative work.

The 90-9-1 principle is mentioned in the reading, which suggests “there is a participation inequality on the Internet with only 1% of people creating content, 9% editing or modifying that content, and 90% viewing content without actively contributing“. The simplest way I imagine this rule is through YouTube, with 1 per cent of people making videos, 9 per cent of viewers commenting on videos, and 90 per cent watching without interacting at all. Because of this rule, whenever I see a YouTube video with 10 per cent or more of views translated into ‘likes’, it is pretty clear to me that the audience of this video has enjoyed the content.

Reading all these facets regarding i-docs from the symposium I do find myself wondering if this need and want for interactivity is misguided. I’ve never once felt inclined to comment on a YouTube video, tweet a TV show or send a photo to a news broadcaster, and I think the 90-9-1 principle is valid for a reason. When I turn on a Louis Theroux doco, I lean back and watch what has been neatly packaged for me, no input necessary. I think the creation of these different modes is endlessly inspiring for creativity, but I do wonder at the success of these projects in a world where only 9 per cent of us contribute.

Tasks:

This week I did my own exercise in noticing and made a minute long film of everything I noticed in my room.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vqRLpFB7J00

Lectures:

Systems + better flow: The benefits of a network system and how different sections contribute to good ‘flow’ of ideas and action. I want to work on adding more systems to my day-to-day life because I think they contribute to good practice and habits – maybe even just a morning routine?

Autism spectrum: Adrian mentioned this in regards to his own life experiences and what he has learnt about himself, particularly regarding messing with structure (and this link to networks). I’ve read a few articles surrounding the idea that everyone is on the Autism spectrum, including this article from New York Magazine, and it’s an interesting idea. Clearly not everyone who is a bit quiet, or has obsessive interests, or is socially awkward, or is an abrasive jerk, suddenly “has Autism” but these individual’s may be present on some far end of the scale. (Apologies for my incorrect use of commas, I just finished The Catcher in the Rye) I’m still unsure how I feel about this – could it also just be those traits and character flaws and curves and edges that make us human?

Essays: as modes of thought to follow an idea, as we discussed last semester. The fact that this concept still resonates and seems so novel and foreign to me is a testament to how strongly this previous strict practice about what an essay does has been taught and ingrained in us throughout our schooling.

Film as disposable and trivial: Adrian mentioned that what you are going to say and what you are going to do with it are more important than creating something confusing with “bells and whistles”. He made the point that great writers can make great writing using a biro and the back on envelope; they don’t need the best pen or their MacBook. Similarly we don’t need the best filming equipment to brainstorm ideas and try out techniques – our smartphone cameras are more than adequate. What we write with doesn’t affect the quality of what we write. I like this idea, and I think it’s important to realise this in order to let go of any preconceived notions when approaching film. It’s often been off limits in my mind simply because I’m not good at achieving depth of focus and pretty compositions. But it doesn’t have to be perfect – I touched on this in a few posts last year and this is definitely something I want to work on this semester: it doesn’t have to be perfect. Just try.

Creative:

This week I decided to be easy on myself and simply write up a blogpost detailing my intentions for the creative pieces. This semester I’m challenging myself to post one creative fiction or nonfiction blog post a week, in order to keep myself thinking creatively. I think it’s important to impose deadlines simply just to get things out. I have an endless notebook of ideas that I never follow through with simply because I don’t have to, and I’m ready to hold myself accountable and get it out. It’s my goal this semester to let go of the fear of not being perfect and the fear of putting myself out there.

Software Skills:

I learnt how to transfer video files from my phone to my computer using the Android File Transfer which made my life so much easier.

Readings:

This week’s reading Digital video and Alexandre Astruc’s camera-stylo by Bjørn Sørenssen begins with asking whether “expanded access to digital production means and distribution channels of audiovisual media also imply an enhancement of the democratic potential of these media“. These changes in media production and distribution certainly change the way we think about film: as discussed in the first lecture, film isn’t scarce anymore and this has many implications. We can record on our phones to brainstorm and think through ideas, not necessarily making polished pieces as we may once have considered the use of film. Similarly, a writer can brainstorm on the back of an envelope.

Sørenssen makes an compelling point that it is “always interesting to review old utopian visions, as they remind us of our part in fulfilling or failing to fulfill the expectations of earlier generations“. I found this an amusing sidenote to consider how we have stacked up to Plato’s Republic or whether we will measure up to Star Trek.

Sørenssen notes Astruc’s thinking that Descartes’ philosophy “would today be of such a kind that only the cinema could express it satisfactorily“. Are there ideas that can only be expressed through certain mediums? Undoubtedly there are times when I am lost for words trying to explain something, maybe it could be better expressed through film. What about the combination of words and image – does film in that way lend itself to better understanding simply due to the combination of factors?

Sørenssen mentions the personal computer and its importance on how we view content; similarly the mobile phone. What does this mean for content creators and how is it different to imagining creating for a big cinema screen? More personal = more intimacy?

Astruc’s “vision of the future author who writes using a camera instead of a pen” certainly opens up new possibilities for expression through audio-visual mediums, however I have to edit this vision for myself as I can’t see a future without written memoirs: that authors write using a camera and a pen.

Tasks:

This week I created a minute long film using the constraint tasks as a way to illustrate my surroundings. I found that forcing myself to notice squares and circles also forced myself to interpret my bedroom in a certain way, and I wanted to combine them to create this picture.

Lectures:

This week’s lecture centered primarily on the danger in categorising. There is immense danger for the artist/author/creator’s creativity in getting put in a box and not being about to get out or seen in a different way, and for the audience/viewer if we aren’t open to new possibilities. By categorising works into these artificial taxonomies we risk becoming cookiecutter. Jasmine mentioned it is good to create a taxonomy but to be open to change. This idea is reminiscent of scientific paradigms: we once did believe the earth was flat after all. Consensus can change.

Adrian explained that as humans we like the boundaries that taxonomies give us, we like borders for complex issues such as gender. Similarly I think as humans we crave narrative: we look for signs, symbols and patterns to give our days/lives meaning, but things don’t have perfect boundaries. Classification isn’t black and white; we don’t have boxes but very messy, muddy edges. Definitions by definition are problematic. The following video by Hank Green of the Vlogbrothers sums up very well the fact that to put people into gender stereotype boxes we would need infinite boxes.

So do we even need to worry about classification? The more important question seems to be what the documentaries actually do. Adrian suggested we start from the premise of making and then work out where it fits. It’s much more interesting to ask a specific thing what it does rather than create overarching theories. Taxonomies impose a grid: if you don’t fit into the grid we can’t see you. Distinctions become games of power that create false dichotomies.

Creative:

My first attempt at a creative piece was a first draft of a short story entitled ‘Teenage Dream’. I hated putting myself out there, but I’m proud that I did.

Software Skills:

This week I tried using fades between shots instead of jump cuts, and retimed some shots using tutorials found on YouTube. I consulted these tutorials after having some time playing around in FCP and trying to figure it out myself, and I was able to do both of them on my own, but found the tutorials gave a much simpler explanation and easier ways to go about doing these edits. I think it’s very valuable both trial and error-ing and viewing tutorials. When used in combination both methods are very good for learning new skills with software.

Readings:

Sobchack notes the idea of the computer as a “memory box”: it “collects, preserves and allows for the conscious retrieval and re-membering“. This is interesting to consider but a point I agree with. Often when I’m bored and/or procrastinating, I’ll go through old photos stored on my computer, or fiction pieces written years ago and memories will come flooding back.

Reading this article I can’t stop thinking about the idea that everything is a journal, everything is a museum of or lives. My computer, with documents comprising uni work, job applications, photos and videos from events and trips, and pieces of fiction; my desk, home to notebooks, framed photos, sewing machine, weekly schedule and makeup. Everything around us tells us something about ourselves. A living labyrinth of our lives.

Tasks:

I made a short clip as a kind of brainstorming technique for the constraint tasks this week focusing on light. I want to get into the habit of thinking through ideas with film.

Lectures:

Why do we like reality TV so much? Adrian suggested because “we live and die by our constraints“. Reality TV certainly plays on constraints and expectations: the constraints of living in a house with 14 others and the expectation to do dishes or compete in games and tasks for example. These constraints and expectations mirror the modern world, eg the “Nanny state” which constrains us.

Public and private spheres: how have they changed? We now hear half a phone conversation instead of our conversations being held in a private phone booth or within the home.

TV has an insatiable need to see –> the desire to see is much more important than the camera quality. Content is more important that an HD image.

Jasmine mentioned that the individualised nature of our devices has changed the public and private spheres. iPad, iPhone, iPod: these are named for the individual.

Adrian questioned if the internet allows us to build walls further around us or whether it allows us to open our minds. The internet is capable of doing both, it depends on what the individual wants to use it for.

It was asked whether new technology/phones ruin TV/film making, and I immediately thought of the recent iPhone 5 film starring Scarlett Johansson

Creative:

This week I extended my first draft from three paragraphs to ten. I’m really happy with how this piece has turned out so far, and I’m really happy I have been pushing myself. The fact that something I’ve written is out there, whether or not someone actually reads it, is terrifying and I’m still proud I’ve done it.

Software Skills:

This week I foolishly did some filming in portrait, so I wanted to find out how to rotate footage. I played around in FCP for a while before googling, and it’s incredibly simple!

Readings:

Bordwell and Thompson‘s reading this week focused on narrative and relations. A quote in the beginning on the reading explained narrative as a way of organising knowledge which I found quite adequate. I think all we try to do through art and creation is organise our knowledge. We explore, interrogate and critique the world and our ideas through what we express, whether it be through writing, film or painting.

We can also express and organise our knowledge through non-narrative and multi-linearity. As humans I think we crave narrative: we look for signs, symbols, patterns; we believe in fate and destiny, and that everything happens for a reason. But does that necessarily mean it’s the ‘best’ or most appropriate for our lives?

Tasks:

I made another longer film this week to brainstorm speed, and also to work on my FCP skills.

Lectures:

• Documentary wants to engage with the world and change our understanding of something. It is never just art for art’s sake. Documentary changes how we notice and experience our place in the world.

• Art can be for itself: eg, ballet for ballet, music for music: not every song has to be a political commentary, etc.

• Designs change. We used to think we’d always need journalists, but do we? Based on the bot, maybe not.

• Learn by doing –> By trying things out, as Anna said, we learn what we like: we learn what kind of filmmakers we want to be by making films.

• Media specific criticism matters. TV has been defined by advertising = four ad breaks = a very specific structure.

• Experience design –> eg the wedding example from last year.

Creative:

This week I wrote another short snippet about candles. Funnily enough this talk about noticing has been getting to me and this short piece centered on noticing the life of my candles in relation to a relationship.

Software Skills:

This week I learnt I can edit images in a blog post, which made my life a lot easier as I don’t have to use image editing software to do something simple like rotate a photo or crop a screen shot.

Readings:

I like to think about narrative and story because I enjoy reading and writing both fiction and non-fiction, so this reading is interesting to compare these two genres, but I’m unsure of the importance of this reading in regards to what we’ve studied so far in the course. Previously we have discussed in lectures that definitions by definition are inherently wrong and there are always exceptions to the rule, and that we shouldn’t waste time thinking about which box our work fits in to. On the other hand, I have felt strangely liberated by the constraints of the constraint tasks, so perhaps this reading can fit in to the course this way, but I’m still unsure. Ryan mentions the ‘do-it-yourself’ toolkit for definitions based on her eight conditions, so maybe we are able to satisfy ourselves with only a couple of these factors and ultimately define things individually.

Tasks:

I made another brainstorming film this week, this week considering relations.

Lectures:

I didn’t make it to this week’s lecture due to a Radio 1 assignment, so I included some thinking about learning instead:

Learning by doing: making, reflecting, making again. We can only learn how to write essays by writing essays.

1. Learning is individual

2. Learning is contextual

3. Learning is relational

4. Learning is developmental

Reflection helps to:

• Understanding what we already know

• Identify what we need to know in order to advance understanding of the subject

• Make sense of new information and feedback in the context of our own experience

• Guide our choices for further learning

• Reveal and make explicit tacit knowledge

Taking stock: what do I know  –> Reflection: what do I need to know –> Feedback and Evaluation: how much and how well do I now understand –> Planning: how can I take my learning further –> Repeat

The learning process is incremental.

Creative:

None this week

Software skills:

The week prior to submitting our Korsakow films was a very steep learning curve for me. I kept reading everyone’s posts seemingly so blase with everyone saying: just get in there and start mixing things up and trying things out. I was terrified and had no idea where to begin! After multiple near breakdowns I found two how-to-Korsakow blog posts which saved my life, and I’m making my own version here for any other wayward souls that might need a quick lesson in the future. In saying all that though, once I spent ten minutes reading the how tos, it really does become quite second nature and about trial and error.

Readings:

Reading the Rascaroli reading this week, I found myself asking again if it is really that imperative to define terms such as ‘film essay’. The more we look at this type of writing, the more I think it’s completely useless and we should instead just make what we want to make and try to put the meaning we want into it – how it is received and judged and defined… I don’t really care for.

I think its essential for filmmakers to study film history in order to learn and be inspired and aspire to be, etc, but I’m getting more and more inclined to ignore labels altogether. If someone makes a great work that straddles fiction and non-fiction, I’m not going to sit here and write five pages about the “in-betweenness”. I really think it is more important what the work does than what the work quote unquote is.

Besides, didn’t we spend a whole semester unlearning what an essay or lecture is? This reading seems to argue the definition of a film essay and then gives a litany of others’ interpretations –> I’m confused what the relevance is, stating that there is a typology and then giving a number of definitions insinuating we can make our own definition? I don’t understand the exercise and I don’t understand the relevance of labels!

Tasks:

This week’s brainstorming and thinking film was considering distant relations.

Lectures:

I think I’m beginning to understand what Adrian has been getting at for the last few weeks: that we need to shake this kind of romantic notion that everything is a story or narrative, but I still can’t seem to get over it! Jennifer Egan’s novel A Visit From The Goon Squad I would argue is a list of fragments, but I would also argue as a total these fragments come together to present a narrative. I feel is we did list all of these fragments from Twitter it would present some kind of narrative: the progression of news stories coupled with people’s reactions, etc. Would this add up to some kind of narrative? Or just a collection of the current zeitgeist? Is there a difference?

Representation as tyranny? –> This idea fits in with Plato’s theory of representations in art which we studied earlier this semester in Philosophy/literature

YouTube is old media

I found this comment from Adrian amusing because only the morning of the lecture I was listening to an interview between Jenna Marbles and Rhett and Link, both popular YouTube personalities. They were discussing TV not understanding YouTube, as exemplified with Jenna’s interview on GMA and her being described as “The Most Famous Person You’ve Never Heard Of”.

Also in the interview with Rhett and Link they discuss he being recognised over traditional TV actors. So for Adrian to say that YouTube is old when ‘traditional’ media isn’t even recognising YouTube is being ‘here’… I hate to say that it shocked me a bit! But ultimately I have to agree: afterall YouTube doesn’t rethink what video is or how we consume it.

What do we do with the fragments? One example is Korsakow.

I’m glad Adrian brought this up as I have been questioning lately why the majority of our grade this semester revolves around a single program, and this idea that it’s simply an example of what we do with the fragments has answered this to a degree.

Creative:

This week I tried my hand at song lyric writing and terrified myself beyond belief again. With very personal lyrics this was extremely hard to publish, but again, I’m so proud that I did.

Software skills:

This week I decided to make a tutorial on using MPEG Streamclip so I would have a reference to fall back on because things like this which require very specific steps just don’t seem to be sticking in my brain. It’s very simple once you know what you’re doing, but getting to that stage (for me at least) requires a fair amount of repetition.

Readings:

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Matt Soar’s article this week, particularly his first hand experience. The reading really emphasized the vast and constantly changing nature of technologies – as Adrian said in a previous lecture, our language can’t even keep up with the change. Afterall, it’s not ‘film’ or ‘video’ that we now use.

Tasks:

This week I did some mood board brainstorming for the tutorial, focusing on The Burning House.

“If your house was burning, what would you take with you? It’s a conflict between what’s practical, valuable and sentimental. What you would take reflects your interests, background and priorities. Think of it as an interview condensed into one question.”

Not a documentary film, but I think it is documentary photography if that is such a genre, and I think it really encapsulates the intimacy which I’d like to see in our finished K film. The images tells stories and are full of sentimentality and memory – qualities I hope our film can capture.

Lectures:

• How lists offer alternative ways of making to narrative.

• Noticing practices in documentary – lists and how we look at that

• Relations – our clips mean things not in themselves but by virtue of the relationships that emerge from Korsakow

• What the filmmaker does rather than what they mean – essay films can mean pretty much anything, but by looking at what it does we can work out if it is indeed an essay film.

• What makes a genre and what makes a style? Do these definitions matter? As Hannah mentioned, it’s more about thoughts being expressed through film rather than what the film is about.

• Intent doesn’t matter. The author’s intention cannot preserve context or meaning. Context can never be preserved: that is why we can look at films, TV and artwork differently than audiences at the time.

• There is going to be stuff in our works that we can’t see – goes back to the unconscious.

• Completely associative experiences of the world: eg, we don’t remember things linearly, such as birthdays. These are complex webs of association.

• There is no such thing as industry-standard. Change is too fast.

Creative:

This week I posted a poem I wrote based on one of the readings. I’m not as proud as some of the other pieces, but I did find the process extremely useful simply as a thinking and brainstorming tool.

Software skills:

Similar to last week, this week I created my own reference guide to using Cyberduck. Again, it’s very simple, but I liked having the back up knowing exactly what I needed to do and the password for the server.

Readings:

The organisation of complexity – Frankham reading

poetic work as an experience in itself –> this links back to the wedding photographer ‘experience’ example from last semester

Frankham quotes Kate Nash regarding webdocs: the temporal ordering of elements is less important than the comparisons and associations the user is invited to make between the documentaries elements –> this idea links back to my old favourite adage that books belong to their readers

Mosaic structure – a configuration that indicates the limits of representation –> the tyranny of representation, as discussed in our previous lecture: representation can only say a little bit and in doing that represents the whole, and as such is a tyranny.

Fragmentary nature = incompleteness. They are glimpses rather than ideal chronicles. –> But we create regardless? Do we have to find our peace with that?

Yet we have an infinite set of elements, so perhaps this wealth of incompleteness is/can be appealing? –> can we embrace fragmentation, provisionality and complexity?

Different outcomes: material can be organised for the sake of clarity, to obfuscate, to emphasise, to challenge etc –> we’ve all seen data manipulated to back up a particular argument

For Philip Rosen, it is in the synthesizing and sequencing of documents that acts of documentary can occur –> I think this is especially relevant in our K films, as it was only upon putting all of my films together that the highly autobiographical nature of the task became apparent to me. I clearly do have a filming style and different patterns emerged that spoke more about me than about the subjects.

How the pared back form of the list can be poetic –> reading this line I was reminded of a clip from Skins in which Cassie lists her likes and dislikes

Tasks:

I took my brainstorming and thinking films to the next level this week. I made three short films on primary colours in my room, and then made them into a Korsakow film to practice both my FCP editing and using the Korsakow program. I ran into some problems, as only two films are tending to show up in the film, but otherwise I am happy with my efforts and practice and experimenting.

http://www.themediastudents.net/im1/2014/zoe.winther/experimenting/

Lectures:

• A graphic, symbol based method of story telling being born of video and related media?

• We don’t need to teach people how to read an image – we need to stop privileging the written word above all else – it’s not happening: image making is as old as time.

• Language has a brief history of ascendency, but has never ruled over the ‘stuff’

• There are lots of modes of storytelling independent of language.

• No one has to teach kids how to use phones and tablets –> in fact I found having to actually read the Korsakow manual and FAQs before understanding how to use the program so foreign because it’s not something I’m used to doing with new software. It usually is a matter of looking at the icons and working things out, looking up shortcuts and other things from time to time, not a case of having to read the whole manual before beginning.

• Experience economies – eg, “reality ‘TV’”, we can vote, go online for more content, etc etc

• What we are selling is our knowledge and expertise. Soft skills earn our career, not the box of spanners (eg Korsakow)

• Popcorn – docos with participatory elements

• There is no permanence on the web – links will disappear and work that relies on external media will break

• The infinity of lists – Umburto Eco book

• Lists have no end, that is why it is offered as an alternative to narrative. Any end is given only because it’s pragmatic

• In our K films the audience will build their own mosaics

Creative:

Again this week I used my creative piece as a thinking tool and based it on the idea that everything has already been made so we borrow and steal. I made a mosaic out of famous literary works, and it was interesting to see how something new can be made out of parts of old things.

Software skills:

This week I had a lot of fun playing in FCP again after a couple of hectic weeks learning to Korsakow. I played around with colour correction and grading, and made a little tutorial to cement the knowledge in my brain and to reference at a later time.

Readings:

Bright splinters – Shields reading

How to deal with parts in the absence of wholes – fragments by definition are incomplete. How do we get over the fact nothing can be finished but create anyway? Maybe this knowledge is liberating? All we can do is simply create until we can’t anymore. Are we bound or freed by this idea?

Found objects, chance creations, ready-mades (mass-produced items promoted into art objects, such as Duchamp’s “Fountain” – urinal as sculpture) abolish the separation between art and life. The commonplaces is miraculous if rightly seen. Literary popart?

I can’t find anything regarding literary popart, so I thought I would just make it up myself. If a urinal can be exhibited in a gallery why can’t a shopping list of words be published in a literary journal or book of poetry?

Take a source, extract what appeals to you, discard the rest – this is how I tend to do my readings when I’m being lazy… Can I take this as proof that that’s okay?

The gaps between paragraphs the gaps between people – the spaces between all things

Tasks:

This week I looked further at mood boards for our K film.

Seth suggested in one of the tutes to look at narratingplace.info

I found this resource inspiring and informative: I found the pieces that were most simple and let the place speak for itself most compelling, and I want to incorporate this idea into  my own clips of place.

Lectures:

• Emphasizing moments of contemplation:

• – poetic approach, openness of form

• – the amount of glue sticking the parts together

• – looseness

• – viewer working out and contemplating the relation between the parts

• – not going through the work in a cause and effect way

• Timed keywords – slow down the work internally

• Think about how we build within camera and in the work: eg, 30 different views of a teacup in a different light and at different times of day

• Repetition

• What about the user’s media literacy? How do we know how much glue to use?

• The more gaps the more high art, whereas popular literature try to remove the gaps

• We can make our work as banal or sophisticated as we want: online means that if it is any good it will find an audience

• Associative relations = more abstract, eg shape, colour, movement, mood

• Don’t portray an emotion – build a way for your audience to experience an emotion

• The more literal, the more banal

• Know the difference between showing and telling

• As humans we like to find patterns: without them we interpret things as chaotic and messy

• Infer rather than portray – subtlety

• Risk of losing cohesion – sketch, show, make changes. Start with the shell and keep building

• When you look at an artwork you’re not necessarily looking for a narrative or a conclusion, you’re looking for meaning

• In traditional media things have a definitive ending: a book has a last page

• The rules of engagement with online media have changed. The user dictates when they’ve seen enough of the K film – they takes their meaning away and can come back and take something different away if they choose, etc

• Kuleshov experiment – it demonstrates that meaning is not internal to the shot, it’s established through the relations between the clips. By changing the sequence of shots, the shot’s meaning changes

• Things are made up of parts, and the relations between them matters. With media such as Korsakow we can now have multiple relations between things

• Correlations can be as open or as strict as we like

Creative:

None this week

Software skills:

This week I worked out an easier way to create thumbnails then taking a screenshot while playing the clip in QuickTime. I found a new and easier way of creating thumbnails for my Korsakow film in MPEG Streamclip and thought I would share it. Using this method we can create the thumbnail and resize at once.

Readings:

I did the reading this week, however I have been a bit slack this week with assessments due and focusing on assignments instead of blogging.

Tasks:

Again I looked at mood boards this week, this time focusing on generative art and how this could fit into a K film.

• Generative art refers to art that has been created with the use of an autonomous system (a system that is non-human and can independently determine features of an artwork that would otherwise require decisions directly from the artist)

• Examples of generative art include computer generated artwork that is algorithmically determined, systems of chemistry, biology, mechanics and robotics, manual randomization, maths, symmetry, etc

Lectures:

• Interface as mise-en-scene

• Absence and presence – invite the user to explore

• Interfaces work two ways: inwards and outwards

• How the videos connect to each other, the ‘looseness‘

• How the interface reflects what we are trying to do with the work

• Which clips to include

• Process of expanding and then narrowing down

• Layers and threads and forming connections between them

• How do we curate the idea we have in our head?

• Approach multilinear work more as a designer than a producer

• Patterns that emerge from the taxonomy we create

• An architecture or shape that emerges through the making

• Skis talk to the snow and the snow talks back

• Let the medium speak to you

• Emergence

• A moment of risk in the making and the viewing, because we don’t know what’s going to happen next

• Small steps that build bigger things

• Temporality

• The relations between parts is how meaning is created

• Art does not have to mirror the world

• There are other ways of representing that are not related to linguistics

• Microview: whalehunt

• Macroview: timeline, overarching work

• The work reveals itself to you once you discover it

• It doesn’t follow that because something has a conclusion that things are all tied up

• Most of the forms that we participate in repeat – conclusion is not the norm

• TV is about flow and occupying time – a repetitive medium

Creative:

I made a different mosaic this week, using memories of growing up. I’ve been thinking a lot about narrating place, so thought this would be an interesting idea in thinking this through.

Software skills:

None this week

Readings:

Like last week, I did the reading this week, however I have been slack with blogging because of looming assessments and focusing on assignments.

Tasks:

None this week

Lecture:

Unfortunately I did miss the last lecture due to being on air on 3RRR for a Radio 1 assignment, so I included my reflection from the experience:

I really enjoyed the demo experience, I think mainly because I wasn’t on air so didn’t need to worry about nerves! Kim and I were given shared roles of online producers and contributing producers for the demo, so there wasn’t a lot we needed to do for this demo. I enjoyed having last semester’s package piece played because I really loved the finished product at the time, so listening with fresh ears was an interesting experience: certain things I didn’t pick up on back then I noticed this time, and cute memz of making the piece all came flooding back

Constance and Michelle both sounded somewhat nervous in this demo, which showed just how important doing the demo was in order to get over nerves and work up confidence for the live to air program.

I loved the music on the demo, and big props go to Maddy for organising this. Of all of the feedback we have had, the 3RRR appropriateness of the music has been a strong point, and that comes down to Maddy’s research (and her own groovin’ music collection). Alois did an amazing job on the panel, with only minor issues that again come down to practice and experience. One concern of the demo however was that the music doesn’t fade between tracks and/or has no linking or sting, so at times felt a bit disjointed and jarring, which we will definitely work on for the live show. I think the show would also benefit from playing out the tracks when back-announcing (as in saying what the song is as the song fades down in the last 10 seconds). The ‘stop-start’ nature of the show seems a bit awkward and slightly disjointed.

The throws to songs and pre-recorded packages had a bit of an air of wrapping up, which again I think came down to presenter nerves and lack of experience, so they can only get better and more natural sounding. At this stage in their careers, our presenters don’t have a very strong presence on air, which is hard to learn and portray well – I guess this is the downside to having a show mainly music driven as opposed to personality driven in commercial radio.

We included some conversation and presenter opinions, and I’ll admit I did suggest a couple of notes to discuss, mainly just to fill in the time. We learnt that this may not be the best use of time and wasn’t 3RRR appropriate, but I think the interviews will fill in the time more adequately and appropriately.

Creative:

I didn’t write this week, but I did find a TEDTalk about creativity that I posted on instead. I’m not a huge Elizabeth Gilbert fan, but I did find her latest TEDTalk interesting since I’ve been having strange feelings of WHAT DOES IT MEAN and HOW DO WE CONTINUE regarding creativity and fragments and how to keep inspired and keep going in the face of non-completion.