OH MY GOD I can’t believe that it’s week eleven already!!
I’m slightly stressed and freaked out.. But I’ll be fine.
Alright! Todays lecture:
Korsakow: duration and viewing.
When does it end? When have I viewed it long enough to get it?
Imagine all the different possibilities with these images! They have absolutely nothing to do with each other, but our brain works in a way that we will try to make a pattern no matter how random the images are.
The less a fragment narrates, the more possibilities of connection it has (think of Lego bricks). This is the model of the blog. We are applying the same logic to film making in a Korsakow film.
This is important to think about for our project. The different videos shouldn’t contain separate stories; they should constitute a whole.
Our videos shouldn’t have a predetermined shape. If you get a new lego brick, which resemble a face, you’re going to use it as a face. A old lego brick can become anything if you use your imagination.
A shot has always been a lego brick. You can join it to anything.
Oh my god I loved that metaphor! GO ADRIAN!
Grammar defines what logically should come next. This does not apply in sound and film.
In Korsakow users have more agency. To decide what to do, what it means, what particular connections and patterns might mean – even what patterns exist.
Users define how long your film is. Not you. (think about this when you make every individual clip! Make them entertaining or pleasing to watch so they don’t grow tired! Not too long. )
Hard media is when you use a computer to make something solid. Dvd, book etc. FIXED.
In the software, it is soft, unfixed.
Affordances that computers make available.
We have control in word: everything is possible, paper is unlimited, corrections, etc. We take it for granted. Also in editing; imagine editing using a Steinbeck. Actually cutting the film. You cant do dissolves, layer tracks, you can’t visualise what you’ve done. We have no idea of how easy we have it.
Digital affordances, so we want to preserve the soft after we publish them? Korsakow can’t be turned into a movie to show on tv. It isn’t a Korsakow film if it is linear.
Wikipedia is another example of soft media. Everything is open to re-editing.
Quick time. Soft video environment. Instead of showing a jpeg 25 frames per second, it is just one whole frame. Small size. Frame rate.
Important thing: each one is an object, always stays an object.
This is soft video – video is made up of tracks that stay separate
Bergen clouds: video that can only work on a computer. Ambient. Not telling a story. No beginning, middle or end. What type of movie is it when the user can change the frame rate and load other things? (Really liked this one. Got a bit homesick from seeing the snow)
Objects stay objects after publication.
Separate movies to the film? Like a webpage. The files live somewhere else, and they are loaded into the project.
Danish snow! Yay!
Propositions. Work makes claims. Video without frame rate. Still a video.
It is a collage between the relations of how you put things together. Is Danish Snow a text? It allows the user to play.
What proposition (one is ample) do you think your own korsakow film project is making? How do you describe this?
Hm. Is this a trick question? I guess we’re trying to propose a city made up of light. However, this might not be what the reader interprets it as.. Perhaps they just see it as a bunch of different lights, missing the fact that we are trying to describe the city..
The two biggest things to take from IM1 are:
To have a sense and some understanding about what it means and feels like to make and be inside of multilinear media.
You need to be in the environment to understand the work. You need to have an answer. Those who work successfully in these environments have immersed themselves in it.
Threshold meanings/concept. You deeply and fundamentally understand something better. When students get that, they’re a filmmaker. Important concepts, you’re lucky if you have one in each subject.
Understand that when you make something, how you make it, the body is a proposition. Not what you think it is about; its about what the work says about itself.