Mia's blog

Frankham considers how list-like structures can be used to create artistic materials and can aid in creating new connections and new levels of complexity. She states that, “certain documentary projects use non-narrative form as a way to prompt dialogue between the spectator and the work.” (Frankham 2013, p.137).

Frankham explores how lists alienate the elements of a project and how the connections between these elements (i.e. in and out keywords in Korsakow) can create something with more complexity and meaning than may have been originally intended. She proposes that these list-based artworks lend themselves towards online exhibition, as they move beyond linear narratives and allow for interactivity between the user and the creator.

Specifically, in relation to Korsakow, Frankham considers how these interactive web-docs can be considered a montage, or a “complex system of linking discrete objects” (Frankham 2013, p.142). She discusses the how the multiple connections that can be created allow for different interpretations and a more poetic approach to documentary.

The two things that stuck out most for me in Frankham’s reading were:
• Frankham’s discussion for how “potential for a more keenly felt and critical engagement may be enabled by relinquishing absolute control over the way the work is read” (Frankham 2013, p.144). In my personal experience with Korsakow, I’ve felt that the little amount of control I’ve had over how the audience perceives my work is frustrating. As an author or creator, you often struggle to predict how the audience will react to your work, and with Korsakow you have even less of a guessing ability.
• Frankham proposes that interactive web-docs can be seen as a more active and present form of creating media, as more of a thinking process than one which has been previously thought out. The sentence which caught my attention was when Frankham discusses the benefits of lists, exploring how lists “follows the structure of memory, impulse and flashes of association”. This inspired me to come up with an idea for the final Korsakow project we are undertaking this semester.

Frankham’s discussion of interactive web-docs, such as those created through the Korsakow program, and how they reward both the creator and the reader with deeper levels of complexity, was particularly interesting to me as it allowed me to further understand how the Korsakow program can be used.

Two of this weeks readings, Bogost (2012) and Ryan (2006) are closely connected, and as such I will be discussing them together and in relation to the Korsakow program.

Bogost (2012) discusses how “lists remind us that no matter how fluidly a system may operate its members nevertheless remain utterly isolated” (p.40) and how they differ from other literary forms to create disjuncture and a lack of flow. Lists are a convenient way to store and view information, however there is not a lot of art in writing or preparing a list.

Ryan (2006) discusses how the rise in the term narrative has “diluted the meaning” of the term. She examines how narrative can now be used in fields other than film studies, including culture and technology, thus changing the meaning of narrative in its truest form. She uses the example of Abbott’s definition of narrative as the relation between story, narrative and narrative discourse, defining the terms as such;
• Story – event or sequence of events
• Narrative discourse – the textual association of story
• Narrative – A combination of story and narrative discourse
These terms allow us to understand how narrative is created and the ‘true’ definition of narrative.

The Bogost and Ryan readings create the outline for how to use Korsakow effectively. Bogost’s detailed discussion of lists ties in closely with the Korsakow program and it forces users to use lists to create the final product. It is different to other programs as it challenges the user to create something with a sense of flow and rhythm through the creation on compilation of lists. Ryan’s discussion of true narrative allows readers to fully understand what the true meaning of narrative, not its more commonly used form today.

Both of these relate closely to the Korsakow program and how we are using it this semester as they tie in closely with the ideas and challenges presented by it.

The Bordwell and Thompson (2013) reading for this week was incredibly long, and covered a wide range of topics. However, the idea that stood out most to me was the idea of Associated Form, which is commonly used in experimental films.

They state that “associational formal systems suggest that ideas and expressive qualities by grouping images that may not have any immediate logical connection…an association binds them together” (Bordwell and Thompson, 2013, p.363). Associated form creates associations between clips, images and ideas that may not necessarily have clear connections. They go on to discuss and demonstrate many different examples of how this has been used in experimental films such as Reggio’s Koyaanisqatsi, which binds together clips with have no narrative or pictorial connections. However, upon reflection, these clips all suggest and have similar ideas behind routine, mass production and impersonal production.

The idea of associational form can be closely related to Korsakow films, as Korsakow pushes users to look beyond narrative and linear ideas to create a film. It challenges users to not use in and out key words as a way of creating a linear narrative or use and obvious cause and effect structure. This is vastly different to the mainstream way of understanding narrative and film in general as it is incredibly challenging to create a fluid linear narrative within the Korsakow program.

Associational form, as discussed by Bordwell and Thompson (2013) challenges filmmakers to look beyond traditional ways of creating narratives and creating associations. Associational form and Korsakow are closely linked as they both creators to create links between imagery and poetry that would not have been traditionally used.

At the start of this subject, in the first ‘unlecture’, Adrian said this subject wasn’t about digital media – that it was a “subject about relations”. I was initially intrigued by this idea, as of course this was a digital media subject – we are producing content that is going to be published on the Internet! I decided to do a little bit of research into “relational media” as I wanted to find out a little bit more about it.

When I googled the term “relational media”, it initially came up with a whole bunch of advice for people running social media accounts for businesses, not exactly what I was looking for. I eventually stumbled upon Bob Simpson’s post on the Australian Media Engagement Project’s website, published late last year.

Simpson discusses how approaching different problems in the same way every time will never work for you, how lateral thinking (or a more creative approach) will invariably be the most effective way to approach new problems. He reflects upon how if we approach new problems in the same way every time, “we will end up with a wrong solution or confusion” (Simpson, 2013).

I thought this was a really interesting way to view this subject, as approaching this subject in the same way I approach all of my other subjects it probably won’t end up very well. When working with a program such as Korsakow, which is vastly different to any other editing program I’ve used before, it is important to keep in mind the differences and harness them to make an engaging and interesting final product.

Reasons why we shoot to edit include;

1. Gives us greater control over the actors performances – rather than having to reshoot a whole scene, when shooting to edit you only have to reshoot a single shot
2. It is easier to design and dress the set – each shot gets considers seperately rather than a whole shot

Constrained Task 2 (Week 5) from Mia Campion-Curtis on Vimeo.