Author Archives: Adrian Miles

Symposium 09 Questions

by

In the spirit of game shows the world over, our carry over questions:

  • Will Luers states that in K-Films “the narration of the database is through the interface; its design, entry points, absences, spatial complexity and simultaneity”. Is technology leading us towards a purely graphical/symbol based method of storytelling that is independent from language?
  • Is Korsakow purely a place for artistic expression, or is there any potential for it to be used commercially?
  • Is it a possibility that Korsakow will allow an ‘embed’ function that links to other media? What might this mean for K-Films?
  • Do lists actually create infinite possibilities?
  • If a Korsakow film is structured like a mosaic, do all clips need to be linked in some way to allow for understanding?
  • How can we emphasise moments of contemplation through making our korsakow films?
  • How as filmmakers do we decide on the right amount of “glue” (cohesion) if we are unsure of our user’s media literacy?
  • In her discussion of associational form, Frankham states that these films cause relationships between emotional elements rather than logical elements. If we were to implement this in our K-Films, would it require more planning, focussing on content or keywords to portray a specific emotion?

Reading 08

by

This is an extract from:
Shields, David. Reality Hunger: A Manifesto. New York: Vintage, 2011. Print. (Extract, PDF.)

Shields is a creative nonfiction writer, and this is a fantastic book. Why are we reading this? Because it is all about what in film is called editing, and in Korsakow might be thought of as linking via keywords. What Shields thinks of as collage. Could have been written for this subject.

Readings Update

by

In that glow of refreshed vigour that is post chocolate-holiday-mid-semester-break-easter-pagan-festivals-of-renewal I thought it would be good to remind us all of where we are up to with readings. The readings are listed in simple numerical order, and we are now entering week 8 (of 12, so the semester is 75% done) and so there are 7 readings to date. Why 7? Because there was no reading set for week 1. All the readings are listed under the readings category (clever, eh?) and so by now you should have finished the Matt Soar and be ready for Bettina this week Frankham’s recent thesis. The next reading will be available later today, which is for next week.

Sketch Film Assessments: Adrian

by

UPDATE: These assessment sessions with Adrian (you attend all of the session) will be held in 9.2.09, that is the glass walled meeting room in the student area of level 2 in building 9.

These are the assessment times and people’s for the sketch film assessment for Adrian Miles’ students (tuesday 2:30).

Monday April 28
10am
Arthur Cortez
Jackie Matthews
Ai Vee Goh
Mardy Bridges

Wednesday April 30
2pm
Aria K.
Nadya Kwee
Tony Mai
David Spencer

3pm
Weng Yan Yap
Linh Luu
Nadine Keegan

Friday May 2
1pm
Alois Wittwer
Prani Harrison
Bryan Loh Tze Yan

Sympoisum 8 Questions

by

Carry over questions:

Rascaroli, Laura. “The Essay Film: Problems, Definitions, Textual Commitments.”

  1. How would you distinguish between an essay and documentary film when both can have exploratory and creative elements?
  2. How can you say a film essay is not a genre when it is categorised by the author as something else?
  3. Films are about interpretation and personal knowledge – does this type of interpretation and personal knowledge transfer readily onto a k-film when making it into a type of essay?
  4. With the emphasis placed on the viewer’s interpretation and the role it plays in defining meaning – is it possible for a piece of work based on classification being free from interpretation, opinion and speculation?

new Questions:

1. Soar argues that makers should choose keywords based on meaning rather than visual appearance. Does this contradict the way we’ve been using Korsakow (things that are round, things that are light, things that are fast)?

2. Why would we choose Korsakow as a filmmaking system if it can only be viewed via limited technology?

3. What is the point of having a technology that might soon become obsolete? Is there any way that authors of Korsakow films can preserve their work without fear they may not function (if, for example, Adobe ceases to exist)?

4. Will Luers states that in K-Films “the narration of the database is through the interface; its design, entry points, absences, spatial complexity and simultaneity”. Is technology leading us towards a purely graphical/symbol based method of storytelling that is independent from language?

5. Is Korsakow purely a place for artistic expression, or is there any potential for it to be used commercially?

6. Is it a possibility that Korsakow will allow an ’embed’ function that links to other media? What might this mean for K-Films?

Reading 07

by

This is an extract from a PhD that was completed in 2013 at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), basically it’s RMIT’s sister university. The PhD is by Bettina Frankham, and is about poetic approaches to documentary. Seth and I heard Bettina present at the Visible Evidence conference (its one of the major international conferences dedicated to documentary) in December 2012 in Canberra where she gave a great talk about lists and interactive documentary.

The citation is:
Frankham, Bettina Louise. “Complexity, Flux and Webs of Connection.” A Poetic Approach to Documentary : Discomfort of Form, Rhetorical Strategies and Aesthetic Experience. (2013): PhD Dissertation, University of Technology Sydney. (Extract, PDF.)

You can also get the whole PhD.

Soar Chapter

by

Zoe on Matt Soar’s chapter, and software as a service. Shannen on how the small and everyday can now be examined, and that not only documentary but all the services we have (twitter, instagram, and so on) make this possible. I agree. We are on the cusp of an extraordinary age of media making and sharing.