Tag Archives: lists

return to norm – week 9 lecture

by

things are finally getting back into the swing of things. that break kinda threw everybody but it’s starting to seem back to normal. at least for now anyways. who knows what it’ll be like in a week.

this weeks lecture was all about the k-films as people start preparing themselves for the major project. to start with, adrian had a lot to say about cinema being visual, not language based. which makes sense. you think about the first films, they were silent. these could be viewed, understood and enjoyed worldwide because images can be received by everyone. yes, we have sound now, but language was never our first port of call for communication. long before there were ever words and language, their were drawings. even in our k-films, we use the still thumbnails as a port of communication to tell what is coming next. people look and see before they read and hear. another example adrian gave was the idea of grammar. in language, a sentence cannot be out of order. the wrong grammar means it won’t make sense. but you can take any series of film clips and put them in any order and they will still make sense. maybe not the same sense that the creator intended but they can still be understood. again this is where korsakow thrives, because it can exist beyond the realm of linear storytelling.

one topic that has been of a lot of discussion has been lists. and an interesting point in the lecture was whether lists can create infinite possibilities. there were some different answers to this question, about it depending on what kind of list or who is listing. but when you think about it, i guess any list can be infinite. it’s like being given a constraint, like what was discussed last week, the constraint allows you to think not just of what you would normally think of but of what else there is out there. and what else can be infinite. there was also the idea that when a list only presents a sample of what is available, then whatever is left can have infinite possibilities. but the part i thought was most important wasn’t about what is or isn’t on the list being infinite or finite but the relationships between things on or off the list being important. because anyone can write a list. but the relationships take thought and time and can have infinite possibilities depending on the individual who is making it. similar to films and especially with k-films, it’s the relationships between clips that’s important, not the clips themselves.

how many lists can you list in a list? – week 8

by

this weeks reading introduces the idea of “lists”. we learn about connections and montages and even Adrian himself gets a mention.

now, when i think of lists, i think of a shopping list. or a list of school books. or a list of names of all the 194 episodes of supernatural. but this is different. this is lists in regards to documentaries. and narratives. and montages. it was a little confusing. below i’ve got some points taken from the reading so i can try and understand it a little better.

“the use of structures that effectively de-form familiar story shapes can provide the means for a poetic approach to documentary to respond to conditions of complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity and ambivalence”

“the list is an approach that permits a sense of cohesion at the same time as it increases the gap between project elements.”

so from these i’m gathering that the list is a kind of anti-narrative. it goes against the formal conventions, stripping a narrative down to it’s components, then using those components by themselves to tell a story by allowing the viewer to form the links that would normally just be presented in a given narrative.

“the list as a structuring device in creative screen based documentary is a formal approach that also speaks of the infinite possibilities in combining and making connections across a networked field of elements. Components are gathered and assembled according to a logic that may be thematic, topical, place based or conceptual (to name just a few possibilities) but the relationship between parts is kept loose.”

“idea of the etcetera of the list whereby the elements included refer outwards to other possible inclusions. It is the incapacity of the list to be definitive that allows it to reference the range of potential elements.”

“Here we see indication that in the spaces between and around list elements there is room (perhaps even a requirement) for the audience to augment what is given.”

hmmmm, these three points seem to remind me of something. something very familiar. something we may or may not have spent 8 weeks discussing. ah yes, that’s it, korsakow! korsakow and the k-films we made are in the process of making again are all about the space in the gaps between the content. we don’t want anything to be set in stone, the audience creates the meanings and connections for themselves. k-films are limitless in this sense, they can never be specifically defined because every person views them differently, both from each other and between different viewings. and so, like k-films, Frankham is discussing the infinite possibilities of lists to portray anything, they are left to the viewer’s imagination, both in creating relationships and meaning between items which are on the list and in forming connections and associations to those which aren’t on the list. pretty nifty.

“There are thematic and structural relations generally established amongst the parts of the list but narrative links tend not to be strongly formed. Nonetheless, the potential may exist for narrative links to be activated or imagined.”

“Often structured around unifying themes or existing categories and classifications, the list can also inspire thought that follows the structure of memory, impulse and flashes of association.”

are we talking about korsakow or lists here? is korsakow just a tool for making awesome, interactive lists? are our k-films lists? reading this i’m beginning to think so. even when a k-film has no distinct theme or pattern (even though most of them tend to), the viewer will still create some form of connections between the content. it’s human nature to do so. we understand by association. with no narrative present, our brains strive to see one. to form connections using the content given. k-films, like lists, generally don’t have a strong narrative presence, and yet links between them still exist.

“connecting together material from disparate places through our use of the internet and in our fragmented daily life.”

why this is all possible (or even discussed at all), the internet. where would we be without it? probably reading some book and learning. but the internet is fragmented. it is made up of infinite links leading in and out of everywhere. just like a, you guessed it, k-film!! so, is the internet a list? i guess you could consider it that. it contains pretty much everything there is, a list of all the information we know. and yet it is infinite, like a list, because it is constantly expanding, not just by gaining new information and items to add to the list, but as each individual contributes their interpretations and connections and associations, it grows, forms more links. perhaps we are all just one big, never-ending list.

lists and lectures – week 7 lecture

by

almost break time and you can feel it in the classroom. everyone is ready for a week off. not there just yet though. still got this lecture notes to get through.

it’s all about lists this week as adrian discussed what the literary value was of lists compared to narrative. lists are quick ways of getting points across. they can reveal thought patterns more tellingly than a narrative. written stories have been thought over for ages, lists are the quick work of the immediate brain. but lists also move us away from the restrictions of narrative. they don’t conform and can allow the brain to go in many different directions which don’t necessarily have to relate to one another. perhaps lists don’t tell stories, but they are told by people can reveal just as much. they can provide a method for answering a problem, the true question is what to do with the content. a list has a far greater means of interpretation. lists allow for the creating of relations.

woo. go lists! i love writing lists. ok, maybe not so much