The first question of this week’s symposium was “how can we emphasise moments of contemplation through making our Korsakow films?” Adrian said we should encourage the viewer to discover the poetics of our K-films. Their relationship with the content will change as they navigate through the film, so create relations that aren’t literal. Remember that the design of your interface can reflect your intentions of contemplation too. He made the point that repetition is a tool that is often used to inspire contemplation (such as meditation and religious practices). Think about how you build something with your camera and your software, and open up a conversation with these.
Adrian spoke briefly about the idea of ‘gaps’ which need to be filled in by the audience. He said that the more gaps a work has, the more it regards itself as poetically higher. The less gaps, the more popularist it is. I personally have troubles with this – what about people who go against the grain and love both? For example, I have a borderline unhealthy love of binge-watching British and American television dramas – but it’s healthily balanced with academic engagement, exploration and experiment. What’s to say that something popularist can’t be sophisticated? Or vise versa?
In a discussion about Korsakow keywords, it was agreed upon that due to the fine line between showing and telling, and the respect that this deserves, it is better to make your keywords mood or meaning based, as opposed to visual based (which merely skims the surface of what relations and power a work can have). A title or a short statement at the beginning of your film can be a useful tool for giving a frame to contextualise and understand the work within.
Finally, we had a look at the Kuleshov effect, which is fundamental to our understanding of cinema. The juxtaposition demonstrates that meaning is not internet to the shot – it’s established by the relations between the shots. Therefore, meaning lives outside the shots.
