Nagini's Blog

Assignment four- reflection

Reflection

How does your interactive screen media project respond to the possibilities offered by online spaces? 

When I was reading Siobhan’s article about the aesthetic possibilities, I comprehend online spaces provide the possibilities of interactive screen media projects for aesthetics are diverse. Unlike the content of movies and TV dramas, we need to watch the entire media works as the content goes. Online space supplies us a great platform of freedom to let viewers use imagination, let them be in the work to react with the work. Our project response what an interactive screen media ask for, audiences don’t need to completely understand the meaning behind the project we made. Maybe you just like the work, maybe you think this work makes you feel something. It is a free, fun way of interacting a work. On the contrary, the variability in the works is really attractive. It will allow the audience to independently explore the deeper meaning of the work from a different perspective.

At the same time, it reminds me of the possibility of connecting the work to reality. Just as Judith Aston and Sandra Gaudenzi said in the article, the four modes in the interactive work, each offers the possibility of a realistic interaction between the work, the author, and the audiences. Imagine that when a project is not only about the thought that the author wants to express and present, but the work provides a reflection on the audience in front of the screen, allowing the audience to understand the work by themselves. It involves me to consider the possibilities of the connection between the digital senses and the reality. It is the interaction between the audience and the work. When I was making my own project, I eager for the audience to discover other meaning that I did not find in my perspective of making this project. In other words, what I don’t see is just as important as what I do. The project provides more possibilities for the meaning of the work itself. The work is no longer monolithic. It becomes more multifaceted through the audience. So, I think online spaces offered the possibility of the freedom, aesthetic the people’s connections and the realistic in an interactive online media project. It allows anything can be embodied in any form, and the audience can use different understandings to view this work.

To what extent would you consider your work to be web specific? Why?

First of all, our project is a small budget student production. Each of the group members wants to make something although is a small cost work, but it great to be viewed. Online space gives us an opportunity to invite people to watch our project. Also, audiences don’t need to pay anything for watching our project. Secondly, our project is a non-linear experiential documentary, it offers audiences interact with it, the response for audiences is the most important thing for the work. The integrity of the project is made by sharing the thoughts of audiences will make our work. Only web can allow people sharing the commons even they don’t know each other. Each piece of our work is a small-scale media, we don’t want to make it as a whole to present on the screen. Each movement of the hand presents its own meaning. As we said in our first class, we are making pieces, we are not making a whole. The connection between each piece can be created our project, and maybe our project can also create a connection with other’s project. Let said maybe our project is a small piece in the online spaces. “A key feature of the web documentaries discussed so far is that they are structured to tell a reasonably coherent ‘story’”. However, the story can only be found by audiences, the interesting part of a web interactive project is that the different people will have different experiences of our project. Finally, we are not making whole, we are making parts. I guess web provides a space to allow people creating digital media with any form and content on it. As a media student, I don’t want my project only be a work for school, I want to make something that can be shown to the people, can be confirmed by the people. Web definitely evokes me to making the project. 

What did you learn about online screen production through making your project? 

In the framework structure, I learn the content of online work is very free. It allows the producer to create any kind of tempo that they want to create in any form. It can be linear and non-linear. In content, the project can be narrative or non-narrative. Our project is a non-narrative web small-scale documentary. During the progress of making my our project, I understand how to use the software Korsakow. In fact, I think Korsakow is a very practical software. It is very fluid to making connections between each small-scale media connections. When I was shooting the close-ups of hand, I realized that there are so many beautiful things in our life that we just pass through. The texture of the leaves, the structures of the windows even the movement of hands, but media provides us a way to hold on and watching those things again. Before I was making this project, I don’t have to time observe, to touch, to hear the environment closely. The patterns of the environment are tininess but amazing. On the other hand, through the research I did, I watched a lot of online screen media. There are a lot of meaningful works on the web, like my research project: the most northern place, it is very hard to make those kinds of rare work. I may not be able to produce such high quality works now, but I have found that I am trying to get close to producing high-quality works. Moreover, inside to questioning audiences, we don’t want to dictate what the audience will feel. Curious about what emotions our work could generate in the audiences. However, we understand that its unlikely that every audience member will feel the same emotions in experiencing our work. For now, I think I’m not only doing a school work, but I’m also letting the audience rediscover and explore the world as a media producer. Moreover, art can always be like a channel to allow people connect, understand others without languages and backgrounds. This is the Charm of art. As a media student, maybe you don’t see anything behind my work, maybe you do see something behind my work. More important is you spend the time to enjoy what I’ve done, and I really appreciate with that. Thanks!

Back to thinking the purpose of this semester, I think what we do all stress to the joy of making media work. I improve the ability to make a web documentary. Through the development of digital media industry, there are more possibilities can be created by us. We all made something that we are interested in, and also sharing with people the work you made is the most happiness thing in life. Comparing with traditional media and online media project, there is no better or worth between them. All matter is what I truly want to make and how I can explore the idea through different types of media. Finally, as Carl Plantinga (2014) discussed “An appreciation of the acting, writing, and filmmaking—the art of the film—depends on our reflexive understanding of it.”

Assignment four – Project

Assignment four – Process

Biggest – Idea:

After finishing the presentation in class on Thursday, our group wants to continually concentrate on the question of How do people interact with spaces? Thanks for the feedback from our guests Steph Milsom and other two to listening to our presentation. In order to think of our assignment four, we consider still use the software Korsakow to create a non-linear online project. Comparing with assignment three, we want to be more specific in the fourth assignment which is only using the action of hands to explore the project itself. We are going to focus on three concepts in our project: Pattern, Movement, Landscapes. A preliminary plan for landscape is the four different gardens in Botanical Garden. In this way, the exploration of the space is more like an intergrade project. We are trying to be more specific at this time. 

Big – the structure of the project

There will be three sections in our project. The landscapes, the movement of the hand in each landscape and the movement of the hand on a white background. It will be 4 still images landscapes with audio for the background, so we can only hear what is happening in one landscape, but there is nothing happen in visual because it is a still image. In order to let audiences interact with those four landscapes, we arguing to emphasize two keywords – hand and landscapes. We are deciding how many hand movement should we films in one landscape.  But the four gardens will be Nymphaea Lily Lake, Tropical Glasshouse, Guilfoyle’s Volcano and the water garden. The project will use pattern and shapes to stresses the movement in the landscape. All close-ups and images will be in black and white. It allows audiences more concentrate with each media piece. And I think it will also be interesting if all media is in black and white. The project will look like a traditional documentary but it actually an interactive web documentary with multi-small scale media.

Research – Related to work

TITLE:

Place; Pattern & Flow

CHARACTERISTICS:

Interactivity, Variability, Modularity, Non-Linearity/Multilinearity

Note: As our project is an online project, it requires audiences to interact with the project itself. In order to observe the spaces that around people’s life. Again, each close-up can be seen as an individual media piece. However, it still makes sense when audiences see them as a whole.  The project will be a nonlinear small-scale explore documentary. The project involving a lack of linearity between two related small-scale media(input and output) Audiences will need to find the meaning behind the project. This also reminds me of a series a did last semester called non-narrative exercise.

ACADEMIC ARTICLES:

Taras:

Miles, A 2014, ‘Materialism and interactive documentary: sketch notes’, Studies in Documentary Film, pp. 205-220

Nagini:

Siobhan, O’F 2012, ‘Documentary’s metamorphic form: Webdoc, interactive, transmedia, participatory and beyond’ , Studies in Documentary Film, 6:2, pp.141-157

Rico:

Insook, C 2009, ‘Interactive Documentary: A Production Model for Nonfiction Multimedia Narratives’, in A Nijholt, D, Reitsma and H, Hondorp (eds.), Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment, pp.44-55

Mia:

Kellein, T 1995, ‘Fluxus’, Thames and Hudson, London U.K

ONLINE SCREEN PRODUCTION WORKS:

Taras:

Hands – David Cooper (2012)

Note: I think this project exactly matches about what we are going to do in one part of the project, but it leads us to think about the speed of our hand actions.

Nagini:

The Most North Place –  Anrick Bregman (2014)

Mia:

Collisions – Lynette Wallworth & Nyarri Morgan 2015

Rico:

ASMR Hand Movements – ASMRSurge (2017)

One part of our project will be only hand moment with ASMR. This project gives us an idea of ASMR.

Note: We will be expanding on our last project to focus on movement and patterns created by landscapes and the human body. We are responding to the characteristics; Interactivity, Variability, Modularity, Non-Linearity/Multilinearity. We are researching academic articles and examples of artistic practices and works such as Fluxus, interactive documentary and the production of non-fiction multimedia narratives. We have also looked into examples of online screen production works such as The Most North Place by Anrick Bregman which also explores landscapes and is therefore relevant to our work. We will be using Korsakow to arrange our media fragments. The project will consist of three major clusters and two tags; hands and landscapes. The first cluster will be still images of four landscapes (Nymphaea Lily Lake, Tropical Glasshouse, Guilfoyle’s Volcano and Water Conservation Garden) with ambient sound. The second cluster is videos of hands moving and existing within the landscape, the fragments from this cluster will have no sound. The final cluster consists of videos of only hands recreating movements from the landscapes with ASMR inspired sound from the landscape, we  inspired by Michael Renov. Each fragment will be in black and white to accentuate the shape, textures, and movements. For this project, the contents are more complex however the interface will be simpler than our last.

Small –  detail, equipment

This time we are still using Canon 5D Mark II as our shooting equipment. We are going to consider the speed of the movement of the hand because different speed will evoke different motions of audiences. 

Also, I think this times we are not only allowing audiences to interact with spaces but also we are trying to creating an emotional feeling that allows audiences to connect with the spaces and the movements. The most interesting part of our work is the only action of the move with ASMR. The process is really funny, we all get a lot of enjoyful in making it.

Smallest – editing

All media should in black and white, so the audiences will only focus on the movement, patterns and flow in our project. Korsakow is a good software that can create new aesthetic possibilities. The connections between each piece of media can be related in multi-ways. In related, we are still going to use Korsakow as our tool to explore our project. The feedback we got in class, we are thinking to have some questions to audiences after they interact with the project. The questions will be:

We going to showing those questions by a preview that write END in the corner of our interface. So if the audience wants to quit our project, they can only press the ENd and one of the questions will show up randomly. In the third class, one of my classmates argues that interactive documentary sometimes may confuse people. And that really what I want to me do for the project. If all audiences think the same meaning for my project as I do, then it will not make sense for me to create this interactive project. I really want to hear different opinions from people.

Assignment 4 – research project

The Most North Place is an HTML5 STIES, it can create a truly immersive experience on both desktop and mobile platforms. The web documentary follows the true story of an event in 1953 Northern Greenland that saw an entire Inuit community uprooted by the U.S Army and relocated 67 miles North in just 4 days. The site of the project is a short web documentary chronicling the memories of those four days, of the people, the places, and the atmosphere. Collaborating with Anrick Bregman– who documented and wrote the story with Nicole Paglia and Ruben Feurer – a designer of unparalleled talent and UNIT9.

The scenery and meaning of this work made me think of our work. Although there is a linear story in Andrick’s work, however, this does not affect the interaction between the audience and the work itself. In this web documentary, the site leads visitors through a multi-sensory experience that utilizes a composed soundtrack and ambient sounds for each chapter of the story. The dreamlike transitions and ethereal typography help to further the immersive nature of the site. It made me immersed in the work and saw the scene that I couldn’t really observe in my daily life.

Our work is also to discover and explore the pattern and flow through a natural environment. In Andrick’s project, the name of his work has clearly explained what his project is about, and when I continue watched it, each small-scale video has a short explanation of the work. When I was experiencing the project, there has one video that has winds going through a surface with the audio. It works for me to actually feel the place that he is shooting. The quality of this whole project inspired me to think about our project. Comparing with last assignment, I try to more focus on the quality of each small-scale media piece. Moreover, we decided to name our project : Place: Pattern & Flow. The differences between our project and his work is that our work uses the hand movements and the patterns in the landscapes to allow the audience to interact with the natural scenery. When we are showing people the still images landscapes with audios, which makes people deepen the interaction with the environment itself. The multi types media in our work allow the audience guess what happened behind the static pictures in a certain environment. We are not telling people what we want to tell them, we involve them to tell something(feeling, meaning..) to us. And  I think in this way, we achieve our project as an interactive web documentary.

Assignment four – set reading

Interactive documentary: setting the field

This article is written by Judith Aston & Sandra Gaudenzi. When I am producing an interactive documentary, I considered why I want to make an interactive documentary rather than a traditional documentary? Also, the differences between those types of documentary works. In the reading, it said “ interactivity is seen as a means through which the viewer is positioned within the artifact itself, demanding him, or her, to play an active role in the negotiation of the ‘reality’ being conveyed through the i-doc. ” When I create an online documentary, I defiantly want to know the audiences’ reaction base on my project. And integrative online project requires physical action to take place between the use and the digital artifact. It involves a human-computer interface, going beyond the act of interpretation to create feedback loops with the digital system itself. I want my media project with the feedback of people, it not just a work than I need to get my grade on. I guess with interactive online production, it also shows that someone cares about your work, someone is interested in your work. Judith Aston and Sandra Gaudenzi argue that there is four modes in an integrative i-doc, the conversational mode, the hypertext mode, the participative mode and the experiential made.
Our project asks for where the distinction between the virtual and the physical becomes blurred. We use the movement of the hand to create flows between landscapes, which can be explored we use movements connect with spaces. The project will challenge users sender and their enacted perception of the world.
“each one mode can be seen as affording a different construction of ‘reality’.” Indeed, interactive i-doc gives the user an exploratory role, it makes a two-way relationship between the digital project and the users. The i-docs should be seen as an open and interdisciplinary process within a field of endeavor that is necessarily fluid, dynamic and in constant flux. It creates a more authored and cohesive approach, out of which documentary meaning can be generated. Our project definitely wants to create a sense that can let audiences experiencing the work and the connection between real world.
The meaning of this research project moves beyond than just an assignment, it asks me to consider why I want to do an interactive project and the meaning of the project for myself. Moreover, I understand the development of documentary and media industry. Technologies allow media producer to create something rather than digital media, it requires the connection between producers and users, in the other word, digital media can be seen more “reality”.

 

Assignment four – Research Academic article

Documentary’s metamorphic form: Webdoc, interactive, transmedia, participatory and beyond

Siobhan in the reading talks about the software Korsakow is one answer to what Lev Manovich defined as the challenge for ‘new media’ when he stated that we ‘ expect computer narratives to showcase new aesthetic possibilities which did not exist before digital computers.  In short, we want them to be new media specific’ (Manovich 1999). Korsakow defiantly achieves that a documentary can be designed for modularity and variability. Our project will have multi close-ups and each piece of the close up should make sense in itself as is. On the other hand, each close up can be viewed in relation to multiple other pieces of media. As Siobhan mentions interactive online films (documentary or drama) designed in this forum are more often reified experiences that rarely create an emotional resonance with the interactant and this is a consequence of two factors – archetype structure and the focus of interaction is only on what content to view next. In our project, we don’t have a fixed editorial structure, in order, the project will not in the absence of a sense of a narrowing horizon of choices leading to a conclusion. Audiences can choose their own direction to consider what they want to see next rather is a movement of the hand, a pattern of landscape or the still images of a landscape. On the other hand, the interface of our project is designed to be pleasurable and exploratory in their own right, in other word audiences will expand the narrative itself. Online documentaries discussed that they are structured to tell a reasonably coherent “story”. It is not necessary to be a story, it also can be an idea or a theme of the project. Our project mainly focuses on interact with spaces in a deep way. In the project, we are trying to “push” the media to the audiences by using videos, images, at the same time, audiences will “pull” the commons, hyperlink, reactions to us in order to make an interactive online project. It is like a “Give and Take” process. So the design of our project relates to the aesthetic possibilities of online spaces.