While the idea for our project has been relatively set in stone since our early planning stages, one thing that we left to be decided on was our ‘Your First Impressions’ final project. The idea of ‘Your First Impressions’ was to take all of the comments we received on Facebook about our chosen album cover, and recreate the audiences first impressions in video form. While we have known this from the beginning, up until now, we have not had to think about exactly what we hope to create through doing this.
One thing we liked the idea of was combining everyones first impressions into one long video. Through doing this, the audience would be able to see their first impressions weaved in with everyone else’s, therefore seeing how other people interpreted the cover and what similarities and differences came through. The issue with this idea, however, is that we do have a large number of different opinions that we have to include that don’t necessarily fit together. This means that we will potentially be creating something that flows poorly or simply doesn’t make sense. Another issue is in relation to time. It is no secret that people are not overly willing to watch long videos, whether they helped with the idea or not, so creating a longer-form video may restrict our audience.
Our other idea was to create shorter videos, with each video capturing a different comment. The videos would be much shorter and easier to watch, and the audience would be able to compare their own ideas with other people’s by watching as many as they choose. While we could have an issue with people simply deciding to watch their own film, we could eliminate this by not letting the audience know which video was based off of which specific comment.
In their journal article ‘The problem of peer review in screen production: exploring issues and proposing solutions’, Smiljana Glisovic, Leo Berkeley & Craig Batty (2016, abstract) highlight that the process of peer review with traditional academic work is quite simple, as ‘work is refereed as a way of gatekeeping ideas and research contributions, to ensure it is not publicly available until it has passed a test of rigour, originality, clarity and significance to the field’, with the work assessed by those with a large knowledge in the field. However, this process becomes much more complicated when it comes to screen production, as unlike with traditional academic work, ‘a key value in this kind of work is the ability to communicate implicitly and differently from what can be articulated within the parameters of written, academic language’, (abstract, 2015) therefore making it harder to assess.
While this article was difficult, and spoke more about screen production pieces made for research purposes, the notion of peer review and the difference of it with regards to online screen production has been interesting to think about with regards to our production process. Throughout the entire semester, we have owed a lot to the feedback we have received along the way from our peers. With online screen production, media is relatively unregulated, and is not something that I ever typically thought about asking for professional advice on before publishing it. This course has shown me the importance of treating online screen production as no different to other traditional forms with regards to gaining feedback, as it can have a big impact on the project.
With pros and cons of both shorter and longer videos in mind, we decided to ask the class during our final feedback session what their opinion was, and which piece they as audience members would be more likely to engage with. This session gave us a lot of clarity, with almost every group saying immediately that they like the idea of shorter videos, as they are much easier to engage with. The group also offered some clarity with regards to how we should organise our videos, with one group in particular suggesting we use Korsakow to make a project similar to our last.
Upon gaining this insight, we were initially concerned that we were biting off more than we can chew. However, while a new Korsakow project would be a lot of work in a short amount of time, I do think that Korsakow will be the best way to organise our thoughts. While our Korsakow project may not be as large as our last one, due to the fact that this project has involved a Facebook page and a quiz, I do believe that it can be effective.
The next thing for us to think about is how we wish to organise our Korsakow project. For our first assignment, our interface was simple, and while it worked well for the project we were creating, it would be interesting to explore different things we can do using Korsakow.
During our feedback session, it was suggested we group our videos into categories, depending on themes. This definitely does have the potential to work, as we have noticed common themes of power, gold and being rich throughout the comments, and this idea would allow us to test out the different ways Korsakow can work. The Whole Picture by Tony Telson begins with an interface with four squares that, when clicked on, takes the audience through a number of different linked videos. While the project takes on a different idea to ours, it does show off the effectiveness of grouping ideas and allowing videos to roll on from one-another.
However, I do also have some concerns with using this idea. For one thing, we have only received seven comments, with a couple of these seeming difficult to create in a short period of time. This will mean that, if we do only have six or seven videos, organising them into a few categories will mean only one or two videos will be in each category and the effect will not be clear. One of the characteristics of our project is to create something that is non-linear, that allows our audience to choose their own path and interact with the project the way they want to. If we create categories and structure our piece, we are guiding our audience, and leaving them with less decisions and more linearity.
At this very final stage of our project, it is important that we spend some time filming the first impressions our audience has given us in short video form, and playing around further with Korsakow so we can place this last element of our piece on our website and publish our final Thinking in Fragments piece.
Research (as listed above)
Academic: Glisovic, S, Berkeley, L & Batty, C 2016, The problem of peer review in screen production: exploring issues and proposing solutions’, Studies in Australasian Cinema, 10:1, 5-19, DOI: 10.1080/17503175.2015.1133262