Nagini's Blog

Reflection

How does your interactive screen media project respond to modularity and variability?

As our project is focused on How do people interact with spaces, we consider that people don’t have many experiences of finding the connection between spaces. The structure of our project is five landscapes and each of the landscape has six close-ups. The project allows those close-ups function together efficiently yet separate as well. Every ten seconds close up has it own narrative arch, it works well to fit into the landscape(although some of the close-ups maybe very strange). Also, the landscape gives a connection between the six close-ups. One of the close up of it landscape will directly connect with another close-up and then turn to other landscape. In order, the project can allow audiences to think what the next direction they want to go. The project stretches the possibility that what audiences make, it responds to the modularity and variability of our project idea. In the reading “The language of New Media”, Manovich also said variability in the new media isn’t related as a whole but it more about the scalability. I think it means that different people will have a different vision, our project allows audiences to find their own connection between each landscape (play with the actions), therefore the interactions of spaces will be found by their own visions. And this is what our project can return to the audiences rather than what we are going to tell them by our work.

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

With the development of technologies media era, screen media is no longer about telling the narrative to the audiences. It is more about the interaction between the producer (the project, work) and audiences. Online Screen media becomes a good example of the new media pattern. Through watching and making online screen project, in concepts, I understand a project can be explored in many different ways; it allows audiences return the information to the work itself. As Maria Popova says in reviewing the We Feel Fine book in 2009: ‘With its unique software-driven model, We Feel Fine is a revelation of emotion through a prism of rational data that only makes the emotional crux deeper and more compelling’ (2009). I think the rational data becomes meaningful, it makes audiences emotions deeper and more compelling when they are watching an online screen media project. If we are watching a linear film, a filmmaker will make the direction of the film, rather online media is more about giving the time to let audiences into the work and choose where they want to go next.Technically, I learn how to use the software “Kosakow” to make an online screen project. Korsakow as a program, it offers up a field of views through the small-scale work that you make, it is contemplative,  interpretive and exploratory. Korsakow films require attention and a reasonable investment in time without distractions.Comparing with my last project, I think I have a big improvement in making an interactive project. By making our project, I analyze my perspective of interact spaces. Sometimes, I just ignore the relationship between spaces, but when I was making my own project, I consider action is a unique way of experiencing spaces. The hardest part of making our project is thinking what can we do for the transition page. As we want to explore our idea from one landscape to others, we need to think how we are going to do it, it also requires the thumbnails, multiple perceptions, different sequences, experimental approach, keywords, and databases. The keywords struggle me a lot.When I was creating the flow of transitions, I draw a sketch of each close-up and see the possibilities of each close-ups’ connections. Simply, I think In-keyword is like the name of a piece media and Out-keyword is more likely about if you click this media what are going to show next. Even our project is not a big work, but the multi close-ups’ connections in our work is still a hard issue.I think the process is not only about making the project, it also helps us creating a new way of understanding the work of we make.

How does this making expand upon what you learned through your development posts?

Through the process of making my project, I understand how can I build multi-small scale works together. The idea of we are not making a whole, we are making parts. Nowadays, “storytelling” is no longer represents what the author wants audiences to know, it is the connection between the author and audiences. Audiences can also be editors.From other people’s work, I really want to learn how to use Korsakow, and finally, I try my best to get used to it. Teamwork is also a big part of our project, we came up with new ideas from different perspectives through group discussions and researchers. For our next project, maybe only focusing on hand action will be a good way to explore it. For now, maybe we just have too many different actions. If we only do hand actions and still explore the idea of interactive with spaces, it will be a deeper project idea.

What questions remain for you in terms of thinking about and making online screen works?

In the reading, it said “documentary film in the twentieth century was as much about changing the world as it was observing it. “

I am wondering what can I improve my project in order to change the world as it was observing it.

Project

Development post – individual research

Through our week 5 to week 8 class, I learn how to use digital platforms and software distribute the linear stories of traditional documentary. Our project is in the production of content created specifically of nonlinear, it offers up a field of views through the small-scale work that we make, those pieces fragments in our project is contemplative, interpretive and exploratory.

According to Gaudenzi (who teaches art MA Interactive Media of the London College of Media), there are three different levels of interactivity that determine the type of documentary. There are semi-close (the user can browse but not change the content), semi-open (the user can participate but not change the structure of the interactive documentary), or completely open (the user and the interactive documentary constantly change and adapt to each other). I think our project is between the semi-close and semi-open because audiences can defiantly interact with the project we made, but they can not change the structure of the documentary. I think it because we are only using Korsakow to create the work rather than directly post it to the internet and let the audiences common. The semi-close documentary as what we looked in Class, “Are you Happy?”.  An example of semi-open project  Journey to the End of Coal ( 2008) from French production company Honkeytonk uses interactivity in a more integrated way. Same as our project, it allows audiences to think what do you want to watch next. Our project just lets the audiences have fun and really play into it. Rather Journey to the End of Coal allows me as an audience to choose the different structure of the whole project and the project helps me to observe the case Coal differently.  And this makes me remember when Sarah Burke talks about the future of TV, what Steven Soderbergh wants to make is exactly match semi-open documentary, although he wants to make a television series app. But the ideas are similar.As what Gaudenzi mentions, we don’t have any completely open interactive documentary been realized. However, I think we should all think about what is a completely open interactive documentary and how can we make it.

Development post – Group discussion and work-in-progress feedback

We will be exploring how people interact with spaces. We intend to focus on actions, movement, sensory experiences. In terms of technological constraints, we want to use five landscape shots, and within each landscape shot, we will take ten close up shots each portraying a different action from within the space. Each shot will be ten to fifteen seconds each. For example, we could include a landscape shot of a library. One of the close-ups could be showing someone reaching up to take a book from a shelf. This shot could then link to a close-up shot of someone reaching up to pick a flower from a tree in a park. We want to visually link actions within places to other places to portray how people interact with spaces.

The structure of our project

Feedback from class

Likes:

Idea

Explore the idea in many different ways

Gives us lots of options

Similar shots leading into each other

Different idea

Emotional

Sensory experience

Composing a version

Improvements:

Think more about how color could work into the assignment

How the audience will interact with the different spaces and how we plan to portray that interaction

Confused about how we will create it

What we can do for improvements:

Through our group discussion, we will not let color be one of our elements in the project. We are going to use action to explore the whole project. We are not going to plan how will audiences interact the space, like my reading post, said, the producer should think less and let the audiences think more about our project idea. We want audiences to relate to the project through how they interact with spaces, this will guide them in moving through the project. In terms of modularity, each video will function separately yet through visually linking videos of actions the project will also function as a whole. The project also responds to variability as the project will differ depending on the audience’s interests, as they will click on the video that interests them. I think it our project is multiple small-scale works and let the viewer play a role in our project, so the audiences will choose which direction of the work they will go, in another way, they are part of the work multiple screens show multi pieces work at the same time, so it still no linear. Articulation theory said each time the project has interacted with a different assemblage forms, each sum having multiple connections is necessary. Korsakow can make our work more effective. ( if we are watching linear, a filmmaker will make the direction of the work, the role of the use it, audiences will need to through the work, giving the time to let me into the work and chose the where they want to go next)

Development post – pre-existing projects

Walking in Barcelona

Walking in Barcelona is a project made by Plácido Muñoz Morán in 2015. The idea of this project is how does the public space of Barcelona change by the visual material through interactions, collaborations, and incursions. Multiple small-scale videos were on this project, some of the videos are about one piece of art. For example, from many people’s perspectives and different shapes film the action: painting a hot air balloon on a public building’s wall. However, each video is individual, and it works individually. I can see this project is modular, same as our project. We want to film multiple videos and see how do actions and movement help people interact with space. I think our project will move the same way as Morán did. The project shelf always shaped by a combination of expectation, uncertainty, and adventure. Although each little video is working separately, each of these pieces of media can be viewed in relation to multiple other pieces of media, this project represents the art pieces in Barcelona public spaces. In relates, our project idea is about people’s actions and movement in one landscape and there are also many close shots that audiences can click on in order to move to the next landscape. 

Untitled

The other project named “Untitled” which made by Samuel Schalch in 2005. As we can see the project name is very interactive. From my perceptive, it’s about a man working in the street. And it is continuous which really surprise me. Because I need to choose which road or building or step I want to see the man walk through. This project helps me to realize as an audience I play a role in his project rather than he put me in the center of the project. So it allows me to follow the direction of the work. I think our project will so let the audience to think and let them have time to get into our project.

Our plan is to do four main opening landscapes and each of them has six close shots. For instance, if audience see the first opening landscape and he can choose which close shots he wants to see, but I think there should be only one close shot that connects to the next opening landscape. We still make the structure of our project, but the audiences will find their own perspective to see the whole project and interact the relationship between each small-scale videos.

Development post – reading

The idea of our project: We are going to collect small-scale video fragments in response to the idea of how do people interact with spaces?

“The affordances of networked connectivity offer the potential to recontextualize documentary material through mobilizing the enormous  co-creative  potential  of  human  discourse  captured  in  the  Web.” (Jon Dovey, Mandy Rose,2012) . I think this sentence means that audiences’ understanding of the work can re-create the work itself, give a work with multiple perceptions. So documentary is no longer about what the producer wants to tell the audiences, but also what audiences return to the work.  Our group wants to use this hint, we want to let audiences find the meaning of our work and discover the connection between them and work itself. As what Mateas, Michael and Noah Waedrip talks about the future is in interactive storytelling, I think a good work can create new forms of interactive storytelling, strongly shaped by the choices of the audiences. What we want to do in the third project is let the audiences explore how do they interact with spaces. It not about what I want them to see, it about they are going to choose their own perspective of space in our project. Audiences can start from a  space to interact with others, but the relationship between each one will be found by themselves.

By working on this idea, Korsakow will help us to modular storytelling, “Really, the data is just part of the story. The human stuff is the main stuff, and the data should enrich it ”– Jonathan Harris, a documentary of Data are either making expanded documentary nor letting audiences paralyzed, it is using digital technologies to let the audiences interactive with work itself. In Wihl and Anna’s NECSUS journal, I realized that one information can be taken into a smallest narrative unit and then after audiences going through it, the information will be taken for as the Out- POC and then it will become as the In- POC, therefore huge information data will be linked together. I am really interested in one sentences in the journal “the author just has to stop thinking”, the networking processes enable an intimate making of a story together with both audiences and authors. The author is not the only person to control the whole media work.