Category Archives: project briefs

Doc Design Wrap Up

Leave a reply

OF KORSAKOW YO CAN DO IT!

update all links on personal assessment checklist to each item

i.e. sally smith example https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k-WJ1ovgV_DMiPT16ofbcpi3hL_tRIto5ILOR7YbCg8/edit

PB4
Presentation

and add the following to this “Student submissions>PB4>grp” folder.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B7fjYdo7IBfOTG90V0w4dy1fdm8

i. Add presentation ppt/text to folder (- ppt, text presentation notes)

ii. PB4 Report

11. Add to same group folder ‘readme’ file (contacts, text description, gallery install notes all in one doc)

PB4 K-film

Improve based on feedback from yesterday for assessment and gallery – run past changes with me over next 2 weeks – Submit to me USB/DVD with k-film export files only. (NB – Back up your Korsakow project for next year in case you have to update or make changes)

PB5

PB5 Media presentation
Studio video – aiming for sharp 5 mins to use for media presentation and gallery promotion (double dip)

Shared script (with timings)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s6E4xs8q3zwDdZfzj33tAKQAiJKEB_yKyJBhhy-bmRs/edit

(6 groups 40 secs min/max on each project…)

Structure – work from your text description if it helps – you are making a short video that will profile your work – feel free to show process and dip into the studio update pics/videos if helpful – https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B7fjYdo7IBfOZjFKN3JrRm1HYUk

Put your video section in gallery group folder (below) – let me know by email when it is there…

Text descriptors onto MF blog – finalise in g-doc and I will transfer to the project page – email me when it is complete…

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BHLWQc2RvVGfvsmLDY7c9g8JfYk9f9Wu4P6_ifyTJFE

Media contribution 1-2 paragraphs – add to your personal diary last entry – add bookmark link to assessment checklist

PB5 Personal summary
this goes into your personal diary and you put a bookmark link in your assessment checklist

Gallery folder

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B7fjYdo7IBfOXzVoZ0R0V1dBbjA

duplicate into your group folder (readme file, one image to promote your work as in text descriptor)

OF KORSAKOW YO CAN DO IT!

Critical reflection on practice

Leave a reply

This video is useful for thinking about the critical reflection in regards to writing and structuring the PB4 report and aspects of your PB5 personal reflection summary. Key quote from the video:

“New interpretations of experience to inform practice…”

Notes from the video that can be used to structure a response to the prompt in the PB4 report:

Introduction
Context – local and global (the parts of the prompt ‘social media’, interactive documentary’, theory and practice examples)
Rationale framing the reflection on practice/the report (this refers to the prompt in some way).
Deconstruct the prompt and provide your perspective on where you think it coming from – within the context of this course and the media program, the research of the studio lead. Make connections back to the group research you did for project brief 1.

Evidence
How was the evidence collected? – through a process of engaging in practice and documenting the processes – the event and protoytpe aspects of the project (details of what? and how?)
Journey – timeline/narrative

Evaluation
Critical reflection
Analysis of main features of what took place
Strengths, successes, limitations
Outcomes – probable/possible

Conclusion
“Draw out implications for practice – how is it significant for you and others…?” i.e in this case media practice.
“reflect on the reflection…” “do the implications for practice arrived at make sense?”

Tips
Still provide evidence for your claims like a formal essay – i.e references
Do not speculate wildly without some evidence to back up your claims

Sketch notes

Leave a reply

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.

PB2 submission notes

Leave a reply

Check out the Sally Smith example assessment folder and checklist to see how PB2 is submitted into Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7fjYdo7IBfObE9ncTdqTWdScGc

Please make yours submission work like this example. I will be downloading your PB2 named folder (e.g PB2 Sally Smith 123456″) to view the k-film via the index.html file and data folder inside the “Export” folder.

Project Brief 3

Leave a reply

The Project Brief 3 phase of the studio focuses on the creation of ideas for potential development into an exhibition prototype.

K-FILM SKETCHES

In relation to assessment I will be looking for three k-film sketches that explore the ANZAC topic and use of Korsakow from different perspectives. The emphasis here is on difference – in other words each sketch should take a completely different approach towards content and form.

These k-films will be placed in a shared (e.g. PB3 Group 1 K-film Sketches) folder.

WRITTEN REFLECTIONS

The ideas for these sketches will be taken from research on Korsakow in relation to practice, along with differing approaches towards the ANZAC topic as provided by the presentation given by Dr Shanti Sumartojo.

The three written reflections provided with each sketch (500-750 words each) will need to demonstrate the ideas guiding each k-film sketch in relation to content and form, the ANZAC topic and how Korsakow is being used. The Korsakow research by Franziska Weidle can be utilised to bring together ideas in relation to form, and the notes taken from Hannah Braiser‘s presentation. Florian Thalhofer interviews (videos and text)

These reflections in one G-doc titled (e.g. PB3 Group 1 K-film reflections’) will be placed in the shared (e.g. PB3 Group 1 K-film Sketches) folder.

PRESENTATION

The presentations will be 10 minutes long with 10 minutes feedback from the panel. The aim will be to present all three sketches with emphasis (in regards to time) placed on the sketch the group think they would like to develop into a prototype.

Please note the presentations will need to run to time in regards to the bookings with panel guests.

The format for the presentations is open in regards to the use of slides and presentation tools, along with demonstrating k-film works.

As part of assessment a draft presentation will need to be ready by the Monday studio in week 7. (Monday Wk 7, September 5, 11.30am)

Groups will be expected to note feedback from the studio and use that inform the refinement of the final presentations to the panel.

The final presentation and uploaded written presenter notes are to be submitted by Wk 8, Sunday 11 September, Midnight . These notes will be placed in a shared (e.g. PB3 Group 1 K-film Sketches) folder.

Personal assessment checklists will need to be updated by all group members to all parts of the PB-3 submission.

Project Brief 2 – details

Leave a reply

The PB-2 brief is up online to review.

You will need to individually do a case study of a k-film, log some of the Carrying Home rushes and make a small working k-film.

i. Case Study

Chose a k-film from the Korsakow showcase web page.

In your G-doc diary create and entry titled ‘PB2 K-film Case Study – ‘[name of k-film]’ and create a bookmark link that you can add to your assessment doc.

Cut and paste these questions into your case study entry and provide responses up to a minimum of 1000 words.

a. Who made this k-film and when? Provide a full Harvard reference of the work with a link to it in the reference.

b. What is this k-film about? How much context has been provided by the producer? What additional web pages or sites have been used to provide this context?

c. How has the opening web page/interface been designed? In relation to the concept of ‘spatial montage’ how has the producer worked with preview windows and the main viewing window within the space of the browser window? Do you think it works successfully form the POV of the user?

d. The separate video granules in this work – how have they been designed? What duration are they (on average)? What is the content of these granules (is it interview material, live action shots, animation…single shots, edited sequences etc)? What is your understanding of the concept of ‘granularity’?

e. How have the video granules been recorded (static shots, tracking, hand-held etc? What type of camera was used?

f. What type of post-production has been used to make each video granule? Are they simply or elaborately post-produced?

g. Are the video granules similar in terms of consistency? How do they work/function as a ‘collection’?

h. What type of multilinear narrative/nonarrative do you think this work is presenting? (i.e. categorical, rhetorical, associative…)

i. In relation to the idea of an “open structure” in a narrative/non-narrative how difficult is it to understand the narrative/non-narrative that is being presented to the viewer? Does the viewer have to do a lot of work to make connections between shots/sequences? Are the multiple connections to random and you lose interest?

j. Can you identify the themes that the producer has embedded into the work through the multiple connections made between shots/sequences? Idf you had to work out the keywords used to make the k-film – what do you think they would be?

k. What other techniques have been used to help you understand the multilinear structure (or the multiple connections between shots/sequences? Have they used text descriptions? How have they been used?

ii. Logging the rushes. You will be given a designated section of rushes to log and pointed to a collective studio logging (g-doc). Following the instructions in this logging (g-doc) you will have to complete the log of rushes and submit as part of the assessment of this project brief.

iii. Make a k-film. Working with the shots in the section of rushes you have logged. Select and create around 10 clips of video to use to make a small working k-film. (A tip is to organise yourself extremely well and document and take note of the workflow you use to do this from Premiere through to working in Korsakow – this will be come useful later and can be added to your diary reflections).

(Refer to the Korsakow tips on the technical blog page sources for help)

Project Brief 1 – sources

Leave a reply

The details for Project Brief 1 – by Tuesday 26 July 11.30am studio in week 2, produce as a group in a shared single google doc, research that responds to one of themes and accompanying questions below. In this document provide your sources (with links where appropriate) and a written response to the questions – 1000-1500 words. You will be asked (as a group) to talk to this summary and references in the form of a 10-minute present in the Tuesday studio and then be prepared for questions, and discussion from the studio.

Here are the areas I have asked each group to research. (refer to the shared google doc for your group team and theme):

Interactive documentary…What is it…?

Interactive documentary tools…What are they…? What do they do…?

Multilinear narrative/non-narrative…What does multilinear mean in this context? How does it apply to k-films made in Korsakow?

Documentary design…Why has documentary practice been integrated with design practices (methods/methodologies)?

Interactive documentary practices...What institutions are supporting the production of Interactive Documentary? Where do you find and view interactive documentary works online? How have these works been categorised in terms of varying types of practices or forms of interactive documentary?

Here is some sources to get things started under each theme. Many of these sources are accessible via the readings page on this blog or via RMIT Google Scholar or using a web search.

Interactive Documentary

http://comeindoc.com/educational/startoff/ – view in playlist interactive documentary definition

http://i-docs.org/2016/03/27/interactive-documentary-what-does-it-mean-and-why-does-it-matter/

Aston, Judith, and Sandra Gaudenzi. “Interactive Documentary: Setting the Field.” Studies in Documentary Film 6.2 (2012): 125–139.

Nash, Kate. “Modes of Interactivity: Analysing a Webdoc.” Media, Culture and Society 34 (2012): 195–210. Print.

http://i-docs.org/about-idocs/

Interactive Documentary tools

Soar, Matt. “Making (with) the Korsakow System: Database Documentaries as Articulation and Assemblage.” New Documentary Ecologies Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses. Ed. Kate Nash, Craig Hight, and Catherine Summerhayes. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. 154–73. Print.

tools – i-doc weblog

Multilinear narrative/non-narrative

http://vogmae.net.au/vlog/2016/02/multilinearity-notes-on-terms/

Non-narrative – Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art : An Introduction. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print.

Bassett, Caroline. “Anti-Narrative: Games, Blogs & Other Non-Linear Forms.” Critical Workshops. United Kingdom: Sussex University, 2005. Print.

Luers, Will. “Plotting the Database.” Database | Narrative | Archive: Seven Interactive Essays on Digital Nonlinear Storytelling. Ed. Matt Soar and Monika Gagnon. N. p., 2013. Web.

Adrian Miles, What is it for if not story? conference presentation https://www.academia.edu/15099940/What_is_it_for_if_not_story

Documentary Design

O’Flynn, Siobhan. “Documentary’s Metamorphic Form: Webdoc, Interactive, Transmedia, Participatory and Beyond.” Studies in Documentary Film 6.2 (2012): 141–157. Print.

Dovey, Jonathan, and Mandy Rose. “We’re Happy and We Know It : Documentary: Data: Montage,” July 16, 2012.

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

Interactive documentary practices

http://opendoclab.mit.edu/

http://momentsofinnovation.mit.edu/
http://korsakow.org/showcase/

http://docubase.mit.edu/playlist/the-living-documentary/

https://www.nfb.ca/interactive/

http://www.arte.tv/sites/webdocs/

http://i-docs.org/