Monthly Archives: March 2014

Week 03: Reflections

In this week’s symposium we had a big chat about taxonomies and definitions, which inspired me to write this post about the politics of definitions.  Adrian pointed out the danger of categorising things too much and thinking everything fits perfectly, when the reality is that we live in a fluid environment. As such, definitions can turn out to be counter productive, and instead we should embrace the possibilities of new technologies and what this means for different art forms. Apparently students and academics tend to like taxonomies because they have boundaries (and I can definitely agree with this – so can my borderline perfectionism…).

Adrian really encouraged us to think more about what our work can do, then worry about how it’s classified or defined later. I still find this a little problematic because I see this as giving away your agency as a filmmaker. What about authorial intention? Do others just suddenly get to decide instead of you? Although I’m starting to learn that perhaps this is something I’m definitely going to have to let go of during the IM1 course (and maybe in life as well). From a young age we are taught to search for meaning first and foremost, which has led us to forget to think about what something can do. However, Adrian, Seth, and the IM1 course are trying to get us to step back and look at content from a different perspective.

We then moved on to talk about participatory documentaries, and how filmmakers approach things like attribution, copyright and intellectual property. Adrian explained that a lot of us think as if this is a radically new thing, when in reality this has been happening for many years – think about all of the data mining and analytics on sites like Google, YouTube, and Facebook. As online users, most of us give away our rights with the click of an agree button on the terms and conditions.

As media students, we are learning to use technologies to represent and construct reality in new and meaningful ways. There are no formulas/recipes/rules that we can follow to achieve success, but we must look at each project (and each platform) individually and specifically. They are always different.

The last question of the symposium was about a concept raised in the week 02 readings: the 90-9-1 principle as cited by Jacob Neilsen in 2006. This suggests that there is a participation inequality on the internet with only 1% of people creating content. 9% editing, modifying and remixing this content, and 90% who view this content without actively contributing. I wonder how those figures have changed since 2006 and what they would look like in 2014.

(Image via flickr)

Week 02: Troubleshooting

This week I set up my mediafactory blog and began learning how to navigate WordPress (having only used it a handful of times before). I also set up a vimeo account in order to start filming my constraints. I faced a number of challenges learning about codecs for the first time (as Korsakow requires clips to be h264 in order to run). I also had to learn a bit more about compressions, as my files were very large owing to the fact I filmed them on my DSLR camera. I did this by performing some google searches and speaking to a friend of mine who studies filmmaking.

I began thinking about the relationship between iPhoto, iMovie, Vimeo, and Media Factory, as my clips went through the processes of being shot, uploaded, sometimes edited, published online, then embedded into a blog post. Additionally, I joined the Korsakow Facebook group and began reading more widely about the software and what it can be used for.

I also sought out my first interactive documentary to watch and review. I found that many were easy to find through simple google searches, and through some links I found on previous IM1 blogs. I am now building up a list of these films to watch and review.

Week 02: What is a sketch?

This week I spoke to my friend who studies Arts at Melbourne University. One of her hobbies, and a great talent of hers, is painting, drawing and illustrative arts. I asked her what the word sketch meant to her, as an artist. This is what she said:

Sketching is getting rough ideas down on paper in order to develop them further, so they reach their full potential.

During class, Seth spoke to us about the fact that these sketch tasks we are currently doing are exactly that – sketch tasks. Seth mentioned a resource by Bill Buxton called ‘Sketching user experience’. I found his book in the library and read about how he attempts to explain what sketches are to him. For Buxton, sketches:
– are quick
– are timely
– are inexpensive
– are disposable
– are plentiful
– use a clear vocabulary
– use a distinct gesture
– have minimal detail
– have an appropriate degree of refinement
– suggest and explore rather than confirm
– are ambiguous.
I personally identify most strongly with Buxton’s penultimate point that sketches suggest and explore rather than confirm. I think this is a powerful way to think about what we are being asked to do in this IM1 course, and I will try and embrace this over the coming weeks.
I told my friend about Buxton’s attributes of what a sketch is, and she seemed interested to hear what he had to say. I wonder if our conversation has made her think about the act of sketching in a different light.

Week 02: Gaza Sderot – Life in Spite of Everything

Gaza Sderot is one of my first personal encounters with an interactive non-linear documentary. The user experience is very exciting for me. I like the interface of the film because it denotes the physical divide between the cities of Gaza and Sderot, and helps place me in an appropriate mind-frame to consume and process the content which is to come.

The clips are quite visually pleasing tome, as they give an insight into two cultures through the personal lens of the residents. The film shows footage of their daily livelihood, intercut with interviews and music. I find that this makes the Palestinian-Israeli conflict very personal and emotive.

One of the first things I noticed was that when one city’s clip finishes playing, the remaining city’s clip autoplays. I still am unsure how to think about this function, as Seth pointed out in our labs that autoplay can be very counterproductive in an interactive piece as it reduces the audience’s physical participation. However, in this instance, it also helps give the artefact a sense of flow and rhythm (which, in my opinion, ends up being one of the positives of the piece).

The short two-minute clips hold your attention for just the right amount of time. Viewers are given the opportunity to continue the story by character, date or city. There is also an option to browse clips by ‘topic’ which is like a thematic tag cloud of various keywords.

I read on SBS that the producers of Gaza Sderot created a television documentary from the videos afterwards, but it was not as well received as a linear version didn’t have the same impact. They quote, “it’s great to see online work that really uses the uniqueness of the medium to tell what can feel like an old story in new ways.”

I think it is great that this type of documentary is archived online and remains here into the future. As the world evolves around us, perhaps one day this will be looked back upon as a very sensitive look into the tenuous times in Israel and Palestine. Because it is immortalised online, we are able to continue interacting with, commenting on, and sharing the footage. For me, this harks back to the point mentioned in the first week of IM1, that interactive documentaries are designed to be grazed on. I think I will enjoy revisiting this work in the future and gaining a different experience from it each time.