If you are looking for additional material to help you with your group report – then these notes compiled by Adrian Miles may be useful.
Documentary Interactivity
Leave a reply
Tag Archives: theory
Critical reflection on practice
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
Expanding documentary – bibliography
A public ‘expanding documentary’ bibliography with references that may be useful for getting ideas that inform the three k-film sketches in project brief 3.
Hannah’s presentation notes
Some brief notes from Hannah Brasier’s presentation in the studio.
Firstly, I really saw her approach as being design driven in relation to the iterative use of Korsakow to develop what was recorded.
I think we have spent to much time discussing structure rather than using Korsakow to determine the structure.
Also, the recording is an ongoing process rather than something that is totally planned in advance.
Hannah’s “video content, relational pattern, interface” approach is useful in relation to thinking about a design process, and off course this is cyclic and repeated with each iteration affecting the next.
The idea of setting up a constraint as a type of sampling approach came up, which has been discussed in the studio previously. i.e. Hannah’s example was 5 videos a day for two weeks.
Staying with the notion of ‘constraints’ – limitations could be placed on the approach towards recording, as part of focusing the stylistic approach and developing a aesthetic quality across the collection of clips.
The interface design was motivated by what the the producer “wants the work to do” – in Hannah’s case the idea of ‘lists’ affected the spatial decisions with previews/thumbnails and the viewing window.
Two very distinct approaches towards structuring in Korsakow emerged in the presentation. One worked with clusters/clouds of thematically connected shots with bridging granules/clips allowing the user to transfer across clouds. (By the way ‘clouds’ is Adrian Miles’ term for groups of clips). The other was based on rhythm.
The number of keywords was kept to a minimum – often in Hannah’s works to five. Interestingly, the rhythm could be based on mood rather than referring to the topic themes as keywords. This points to the concept of what you want the work to do.
What I learnt from this presentation in regards to recording is to start with a type of probe/proposition and use this a an open type of guide to start recording. Within this probe/proposition there may be some devised constraints in relation to how you will record material. The process from then on is iterative in regards to using Korsakow to learn about what you are recording and how it will fit together as a collection. I think Hannah mentioned something like learning from, or letting the material “talkback” (to use Schon’s term). The take home is that the recording may not necessarily happen all in one hit it is an iterative process informed by working concurrently in Korsakow.
In reference to Hannah’s use of Vine to produce granules – the other thing we have not explored is the use of micro online video services like Vine as means to set constraints for the approach towards recording. In fact there has been little experimentation with a micro video or very short durations.
The “what you want the work to do” can be driven to use Hannah’s description by “how you want the user to navigate the work.”
We have also been caught up on the notion of ‘narrative’. What happens to the work when you look outside, beyond narrative? Hannah works with ‘lists’ and the notion of ‘description’ or ‘noticing’ as alternatives.
Hannah’s links:
Honours – http://hannahbrasier.com/
PhD – http://hannahbrasier.tumblr.com/
Publications – https://rmit.academia.edu/hannahbrasier
Other Reference:
In regards to the notion of what Korsakow can do…
‘Materialism and Interactive Documentary: Sketch Notes’ by Adrian Miles
Spatial Montage
Manovich (2001) argues that spatial montage, in contrast to temporal montage in cinema, shifts the focus from sequentially connecting one shot to another to spatially arranging shots within the dimensions of the screen.
In Manovich’s (2001) evaluation of spatial montage, the argument for working with moving imagery both temporally and spatially on a computer is based on the affordances of the Graphic User Interface (GUI). A computer enables manipulation of the surface of the screen as a fluid, non-static form of interface. The multiple window configuration of the GUI provides a model to design the display of moving images both temporally and spatially. The design of the rhizome templates, as a diptych composition, responds to the affordances of the GUI. In this doctoral research, this time within the architecture of the network, I continue to explore the concept of spatial montage in the rhizome sketches and other digital artefacts produced in the practice inquiry.
Keen, Seth. “Netvideo Nonvideo Newvideo Designing a Multilinear Nonnarrative Form for Interactive Documentary.” Doctorate. RMIT University Print. p. 64
From a draft of an article that puts forward propositions for documentary designers (Seth Keen, 2016)
12. The documentary designer knows that spatiality is as important as temporality, and that spatial montage as an affordance provides opportunities to collage shots together in space and time.
Manovich (2001) proposes that spatial montage is the manipulation of the screen as a fluid, multi-windowed interface. The spatial composition of multiple windows in the screen is due to what Murray describes as “virtual space” (2012, 70). On a computer and in the network independent shots held in a directory or database can be called into windows within the screen using programming and action scripts. The composition of multiple windows can also change. In Korsakow, for example, each video clip can be assigned to a different interface and multiple window compositions designed. Virtual space provides the producer with different ways to collage shots, both temporally and spatially, compared to fixed split-screen compositions in cinema and television. Dovey and Rose, using Mozilla’s Popcorn Maker to demonstrate their case, argue that this tool gives a “foretaste of how spatial montage that includes types of web data can become a vernacular, a ‘camera stylo’ for web documentary” (2012, 14). This vernacular is yet to be developed.
References:
Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
Murray, Janet Horowitz. Inventing the Medium: Principles of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2012.
Dovey, Jon, and Rose Mandy. “We’re Happy and We Know It: Documentary: Data: Montage.” Studies in Documentary Film 6, no. 2 (2012): 159–173.
Open structure
Plantinga proposes that:
In general, open structures are more episodic, meandering, and idiosyncratic than their formal counterparts, although no film can avoid formal structure all together. Formal structures are motivated by the requirements of conventions of composition. Open structure may be motivated in various ways, by the filmmaker’s associations while filming, by an anthropological experiment or a journey, or by pure chance.(1997 pp.145–6)
…
An open structure, as Plantinga (1997) points out, still requires some type of coherent order. Plantinga states that a ‘pure open structure would render the projected world formless, as though observation had occurred without the direction of the filmmakers’ (1997, p.135). The observational documentaries of Frederick Wiseman are used by Plantinga (1997) as examples of works that successfully explore an open structure for cinema and television viewing. Plantinga cites the example of Wiseman’s Law and Order (1969) as a demonstration of some of the characteristics of an open structure. In Law and Order Wiseman documents and edits together the activities of an urban police unit, following his own perceptions of the activities that take place. Plantinga (1997) proposes that Wiseman’s portrayal contradicts a formal approach taken towards this topic, which would potentially provide context and details of activities that occur in a systematic and clearly defined order. Open structures typically do not rely on narrative causality or establishing a logical ordering of events. The beginning and ending of the work are not necessarily used to provide context for the viewer as they are in formal structures. Plantinga (1997) argues that each sequence of shots in Law and Order is equally important, in contrast to formal structures that use techniques such as voice–over to make some parts more important than others. These characteristics of an open structure draw attention to filmmakers like Wiseman using editing to experiment with the form of documentary and how a topic is communicated to the audience within a linear structure.
Selected excerpts from:
Keen, Seth. “Netvideo Nonvideo Newvideo Designing a Multilinear Nonnarrative Form for Interactive Documentary.” Doctorate. RMIT University Print. p. 6-7
Nonnarrative
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
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.
Project Brief 1 – sources
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://momentsofinnovation.mit.edu/
http://korsakow.org/showcase/
http://docubase.mit.edu/playlist/the-living-documentary/
https://www.nfb.ca/interactive/
ANZAC context
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.