Tag Archives: context

Sketch notes

For the workshop today that involved working with “The More-Than Research Game” the following notes came up:

Project groups are being encouraged to think and work from radical perspectives in relation to the interpretations of the ‘Carrying Home’ project.

What is important through the brainstorming process is that groups do not lose sight of the broader gallery project – in relation to providing a re-appropriation of the linear documentary rushes and the larger ANZAC Carrying Home gallery project.

The context to remember is a follows – The gallery have an obligation to provide an art and cultural perspective on ANZAC that has connections with the Maroondah area. The result of this has been the Carrying Home performance with local youth, then the first re-appropriation of that is the proposed linear documentary which aims to provide insights into the process and preparation of that performance. The next re-appropriation is the documentary design studios’ response to the documentary material.

So, keep in mind that radical approaches/ideas are encouraged…however, the panel will be asking for them to be connected to the Carrying Home project and the broader ANZAC theme. In other words through the brainstorming process investigate ideas that move away from the context of the project (to use Rosenberg’s poetic research – into “open water”), but be prepared to anchor them back to how they are are re-appropriation of the Carrying Home project – and most importantly add to the aims of the exhibition – to make connections with ANZAC themes and youth within the Maroondah area.

Nonnarrative

Leave a reply

Excerpts on narrative/nonnarrative:

These authors define ‘narrative’ and ‘nonnarrative’ in regards to the form of a documentary and how relations are organised between shots. It is important to point out that in connection with the broad and diverse field of narratology I focus on Bordwell and Thompson’s (2010) distinction between ‘narrative’ and ‘nonnarrative’ as it provides a useful demarcation between two different approaches towards organising relations between shots in a documentary.

Bordwell and Thompson (2010) contextualise definitions of ‘narrative’ and ‘nonnarrative’ by outlining the concept of ‘form’ in film. Form works in unison with content as part of a system that is integrated into an organisational whole (Bordwell & Thompson 2010). They state:

…a film is not simply a random bunch of elements. Like all artworks, a film has form. By film form in its broadest sense we mean the overall system of relations that we can perceive among the elements in the whole film. (2010, p.57)

Bordwell and Thompson describe most documentaries as ‘being organised as narratives, just as fiction films are’ (2010, p.353). However, the authors claim that some documentary forms can be described as ‘nonnarrative’ (2010).

In an evaluation of what constitutes a ‘narrative’ Bordwell and Thompson state:

Typically, a narrative begins with one situation; a series of changes occur according to a pattern of cause and effect; finally, a new situation arises that brings about the end of the narrative. (2010, p.79)

Bordwell and Thompson (2010) propose that cause and effect, along with time, are integral elements that help the audience connect events together into a narrative. They suggest that in most cases in fiction characters, through their actions, play a pivotal role in producing cause and effect in a narrative. Bordwell and Thompson explain that ‘characters create causes and register effects’ (2010, p.82). In regards to the notion of time in Bordwell and Thompson’s analysis, cause and effect occur within temporal constraints. Even when events are presented in an order that is not chronological the audience uses a temporal framework to place events into chronological order. Similarly, in Just to Back a Winner (1991), I followed a punter as a key character and edited his actions together in chronological order as part of demonstrating the cause and effect changes that occurred for that character.

Other motivations are utilised to connect events together into a whole in a nonnarrative (Bordwell & Thompson 2010). The authors identify different types of nonnarrative: ‘categorical’, ‘rhetorical’, ‘abstract’ and ‘associational‘ (Bordwell & Thompson 2010, pp.353–81). In their analysis the ‘categorical form’ is determined by arranging material into a taxonomy that is formulated around a structured process of classification. The ‘rhetorical form’ is motivated by the aim to communicate an argument and is used to direct an audience towards a particular point of view. The ‘abstract’ and ‘associational’ forms are categorised as types of ‘experimental film’ (2010, p.368). In the ‘abstract form’ the documentary maker focuses on using visual attributes to convey a perspective on a topic. Bordwell and Thompson state that the ‘abstract form’ is created around ‘colours, shapes, sizes and movements in the images’ (2010, p.368). The final ‘associational form’, in contrast with the categorical form, connects material together by looking for illogical relationships. A key aspect of this associational form is the juxtapositions that are created through unrelated associations (Bordwell & Thompson 2010).

…following Bordwell and Thompson…I focus on differentiating examples of nonfiction into the categories of: ‘linear narrative’, ‘linear nonnarrative’, ‘mulitlinear narrative’ and ‘mulitlinear nonnarrative’. Although it is possible to use a multilinear structure to create a narrative, or a nonnarrative that has a start and end point, in this inquiry I am specifically interested in exploring a ‘multilinear nonnarrative’ form of documentary that has no beginning, middle or end.

Reference:

Keen, Seth. “Netvideo Nonvideo Newvideo Designing a Multilinear Nonnarrative Form for Interactive Documentary.” Doctorate. RMIT University Print. p. 11-14

Interactive documentary context

Leave a reply

Excerpts on interactive documentary definition:

In a broad historical examination of the definition of ‘digital interactive documentary’, Gaudenzi (2013) draws attention to the evolving nature of this form of documentary within a field that is also continually changing. Gaudenzi states:

If documentary is a fuzzy concept, digital interactive documentary is a concept yet to be clearly defined. What is implicit in its terminology is that an interactive documentary needs to use a digital support, and be interactive. A linear documentary that has been shot with digital technology, and that is distributed on the Web, is a digital documentary but not an interactive one.(2013, p.26)

According to Gaudenzi (2013) the lack of clarity around what defines an interactive documentary is due to many of the early works being made by new media artists who created theoretical perspectives that often did not make connections with the documentary field. In addition to this some theorists initially saw interactive documentary as an extension of linear documentary, therefore developing an expectation that they would be similar in terms of how they were analysed. Looking for a different viewpoint on interactive documentaries Gaudenzi claims that they ‘…do speak about, and with a language of, our new digital networked world’ (2013, p.27). This is certainly a view that I follow…which focuses on online interactive documentaries. Despite interactive documentary being undefined, what is made clear in Gaudenzi’s evaluation is that the audience must be able to tangibly make something happen to an interactive documentary. In my research, the aim from the beginning was to move beyond the publication of a linear documentary online to a form of interactive digital media, which involved the audience in ‘lean forward’ participation.

In connection with the hypertext genre, Gaudenzi (2013), like Ryan (2004), draws attention to the ‘hypertext mode’. Gaudenzi (2013, p.38–49) uses a ‘modes of interaction’ framework to demonstrate how technology and interactivity are utilised by the producer in different forms of interactive documentary. Gaudenzi (2013), traces the first interactive documentaries to the late 1970s, and locates them in the ‘conversational mode’. For example, Gaudenzi cites the Aspen Movie Map (MIT Lab, 1980), which worked with videodiscs. The conversational mode is differentiated from the hypertext mode by the aim to create a fluid, responsive type of interaction between the user and the apparatus being used. This form of interaction is referred to as a type of ‘conversation’ in terms of the spontaneity and feedback that is achieved between the user and the apparatus. In contrast, according to Gaudenzi (2013), the ‘hypertext mode’, which emerged on personal computers in the Apple Multimedia Lab in the late 1980s, interaction was modelled around the algorithmic potential of computers. Even though the computational potential of computers is used in both these modes, in the hypertext mode the affordances of a computer are used to establish beforehand a number of set connections between granules using links. Gaudenzi‘s example of Moss Landings (1989) is represented as a precursor of the hypertext mode, in which a database is used to store a set number of videos, and links are used to move from one to another. A direct correlation can be made here with the type of interactive documentaries produced in this inquiry.

As part of contextualising interactive documentary it is useful to summarise Gaudenzi’ s other two modes of interactive documentary. Firstly, I summarise the ‘participatory mode’ that extends the concept of the hypertext mode, by making a database extendable (Gaudenzi 2013). A connection can be made with Ryan’s (2004) ‘ontological’ type of interactive participation as was mentioned in the discussion on interactivity. Gaudenzi (2013) refers to research in the mid 1990s, again at the MIT lab, as an example of this participatory mode. Gaudenzi cites Davenport and Murtaugh’s (1995) design and development of the ConText browser as an early example of research into a tool that could be used to author and publish the participatory mode of interactive documentary. According to Gaudenzi, Davenport and Murtaugh aimed to design an open system that enabled users to both explore the content in the database and add to it. In this mode of interactive documentary:

The author decides on the tools and rules and lays down the first layer of bricks, but there is room for collaboration and expansion. The function of the user is both explorative and configurative. She first browses and then can choose to add content. The author becomes a database designer (Gaudenzi 2013, p.56).

Gaudenzi (2013) outlines the potential for this participatory mode to be expanded in relation to later developments occurring around social media in the Web 2.0 phase of the Internet.

The ‘experiential mode’ is the fourth and final type of interaction that is examined by Gaudenzi (2013) in the development of interactive documentaries. This mode refers to developments occurring in ‘locative media’ through the use of mobile technologies. In this mode the user experience is affected by the physicality of the location, which due to the organic nature of these environment is seen as having a fluid, changeable orientation compared to the fixed, algorithmic hypertext mode that is worked out within defined and set conditions.

Excerpts taken from:

Keen, Seth. “Netvideo Nonvideo Newvideo Designing a Multilinear Nonnarrative Form for Interactive Documentary.” Doctorate. RMIT University Print. p. 11-14

Other references (in Harvard style):

Davenport, G & Murtaugh, M 1995, ‘ConText: towards the evolving documentary’,
ACM Multimedia 95, Electronic Proceedings, no. November, viewed August 2011.

Davenport, G & Murtaugh, M 1995, ‘ConText: towards the evolving documentary’ Proceedings of third ACM conference, ACM Press, pp.381–389, viewed 13 August 2011, .

Davenport, G, Smith, TA & Pincever, N 1991, ‘Cinematic primitives for multimedia’, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 11, no. 4, pp.67–74, viewed 13 August 2011, .

Ryan, M–L 2002, ‘Beyond myth and metaphor: narrative in digital media’, Poetics
Today, vol. 23, no. 4, pp.581–609.

Ryan, M–L 2004, ‘Will new media produce new narratives?’, in M–L Ryan ed.,
Narrative across media: the languages of storytelling, University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln, pp.337–59.

‘Carrying Home’ theatre production

Leave a reply

Our second guest speaker in the studio Shaz Mullens will be taking straight after Shanti on (Tuesday 19 July, 12.30-1.30). Shaz is the Executive Director of Fresh Theatre for Social Change. Shaz directed the theatre production ‘Carrying Home’. We will be working with the video documentation of the performance along with some interviews. In this presentation we will get a chance to learn more about the topic, the play, the production and what was recorded.

ANZAC context

Leave a reply

Our first guest speaker on (Tuesday 19 July 11.30-12.30) in the studio is Dr Shanti Sumartojo a Research Fellow in the School of Media and Communication.

Shanti is going to provide some context on the ANZAC topic we are working with this semester. Please read this article ‘On atmosphere and darkness at Australia’s Anzac Day Dawn Service’ by Shanti before the presentation.

An overiew of Shanti’s research interests:

Dr Shanti Sumartojo investigates the relationship between place and identity – specifically how the designed, discursive and experiential aspects of our surroundings affect us.

She researches in three main areas: public memorials and war commemoration, particularly the First World War; art in public space, including collaborations on public installations in Canberra and Melbourne; and the spatial experience of design, primarily understood through the frame of ‘atmosphere’. In addition to her ongoing work on global First World War commemoration and memorials, her current projects include a suite of ethnographic investigations into how people experience the ‘feel’ of designed environments, including their digital and automated aspects; creative practice projects as a means to research urban public space and collectivity; and how spatial aspects of creativity influence innovation.