Category Archives: softvideo

A Poetic Approach to Documentary

Freshly minted PhD Bettina Franham’s thesis is now available from the University of Technology, Sydney’s library. This is a major contribution, read it, and an enormous congratulations to Bettina for some exemplary scholarship.

A Poetic Approach to Documentary: Discomfort of Form, Rhetorical Strategies and Aesthetic Experience

Working in the borderlands between art and document, a poetic approach to documentary disrupts commonsense understandings of what documentary can be. However, it is frequently viewed as marginal to the main body of documentary practice for its foregrounding of aesthetic choices around form and materiality.

Pushing to the extremes of what is recognisable as documentary, a poetic approach to documentary highlights the rhetorical impact of aesthetic choices within the broader field of practice. Experiential ways of knowing are emphasised so that the work is conceived of as an experience in itself rather than a replication of reality.

Moving beyond realist representations of evidence, a poetic approach can make use of techniques of defamiliarisation as a strategy to renew perception and enable a reimagining of preconceived connections. In diverging from established pathways unexpected combinations can occur, allowing complex and changeful conceptions to emerge.

Utilising a methodology of practice based research to produce a 28 minute single channel documentary and the close examination of pertinent creative works, this thesis argues that a critically engaged poetic approach to documentary can work to encourage thoughtful contemplation as part of an ongoing conversation in the process of knowing.

(UTS ePress)

Korsakow and Dense Nodes

In network media I discussed small world networks, dense nodes, and so on. A korsakow film is exactly this sort of structure. Below is something I wrote in 2011, reposting here as it should help people to understand Korsakow films as an architecture and structure that you do things with, and an architecture and structure that is, in its very DNA, the same as the networks we are working on. It’s sort of a mise-en-abyme moment really.

A significant idea that has a lot of relevance for things like the internet, hypertext, and social media (which are all forms of distributed networks) is the idea of a ‘small world network’. This is related to the famous experiment by Stanley Milgram about there being a maximum of ‘six degrees of separation’ between any two people, anywhere in the world. A small world network assumes lots of a small number of connections between individuals (nodes, clips in a k-film, links on the web, people you know), but with a few individuals who have a lot of connections. In relation to social networks these links are not about how close you are to others (whether geographically or personally) just that you know them. The existence of only a small number of people who know a lot of other people (who have a lot of connections) makes it much easier to get from one group to another, from one individual to another. The key features here are that these connections (how many people you know) is not equally distributed – I know 100, you know 200 – and that to get from one individual to another you do not need to know all the connections, all you need to know is somebody that you think will be closer than you are.

So, what does this have to do with k-films? Quite a lot, since keywords create (in k-film land) small world networks. Clusters or clouds of clips that all know about each other since they have common keywords. Now, imagine a work which has several such clouds. This is like a party where there are four, no let’s make it five, distinct groups of people who know each other. Now, to find someone in my group who knows someone in another group (in other words someone who could easily sit in one or more of the groups) is quite easy and this is how the two groups can be connected. The person I know in that group over there can introduce me to everyone else in their group – I just need one point of connection to be able to join them, it doesn’t matter that I only know one person.

Hence in my k-film with my clouds all I need to do is make sure I have one clip (node, SNU, pick your term) that has lots of connections to the other clouds. To keep my now rather dodgy analogy going, the person who knows someone in three, four or even five of the groups at my party. This node might have no limit to lives (it will keep appearing) and also have plenty of keywords so itn is a point of connection to all the other clouds and nodes.

In practice I might have most clips with limited lives. As I view the work I am caught in a cloud, but as I view material and clips ‘die’ this special node (what I’m currently calling a dense node) will appear. If I select this then because it has links to all the other clouds I can now get access to these other clouds. In this way I’m able to make sure that all the parts of my k-film can be connected. That’s one half of the problem. The other half is to figure out how to film or make this content in such a way that it makes sense, visually and contextuallly, so that it works as this dense node or hinge between these other parts. This depends very much on what these other clouds are about.

Need an example? I might have material that I have grouped (made as clouds) around night and day. I might then have to fllm something at dusk or sunset and use that as something that connects night and day and make this clip my connector. I might have inside and outside, light and dark, blue and red, and so on. In each case once I recognise what the terms of my structure are I can identify something that falls between them, and this is the one that I can use to join these two clusters or clouds together.

A 2010 K-Film Explaining How to Make your K-Films

I’ve made a k-film that is very linear. Well, not linear, you can listen and view the clips in any order you like, but it is not so much a k-film as using Korsakow to collect some screen casts together where I go over some things to think about in relation to making your k-film projects. This was made using Korsakow 5.0.4, and I’ve included a playhead in the interface which shows you where in the clip you are. The advantage of this is that it immediately tells you how long a clip is, since if the playhead progresses very slowly then you know it is a long clip (and vice versa).

So, the k-film. It is commentary on some of the things to think about in your final projects. I made it as a k-film because it was just much faster to talk about this stuff and record it than trying to write it all out. YMMV. Click the pic go there.


Korsakow and Hypertext

Found this from a static site from 2010 or 2011. This is about Korsakow as hypertext, not the linear singular link node notion of hypertext that everyone who writes about interactive documentary thinks hypertext is, but the sort of hypertext that hypertext theorists and writers use everyday (for example with tools such as Storyspace or Tinderbox).

Korsakow is software. It lets you make and publish multilinear video (and sound) works online. That is pretty much all you use it for and all it does.

Some questions: why do we use it? What might be learnt from using it? What can we make or do with it?

How to Think Korsakow

The Korsakow System is software that lets you make hypertexts. Unlike traditional hypertext the content nodes here are now video or audio, but all the principles, rules of making and reading are pretty much the same as for hypertext (or I guess more accurately hypermedia).

The simplest way I think of understanding the Korsakow System is that it is a system for making what I think of as hypertext movies. It lets you make links between nodes like you do in HTML, except the links are not written out as HREFs but use keywords. Each clip in your project These keywords can also be attached to time.

This means that you should think of a keyword as being the same as a link, so a video clip while you are making a movie can have links out to other video clips in your k-film. This means any clip can have as many links to other clips as you like (there is even a random option where it will insert any clip for you, think of this as a random link to all the other nodes/clips in your project). Similarly there are links in to each clip from other clips, and you define these as well.

Figure One: Standard Links Using HTTP and HTML (HREF attribute).

For example, as Figure One illustrates, the sorts of links commonly understood to constitute hypertext are those written in HTML, and so are anchored on a source page (for instance in text or an image) and when selected have a single destination which is to a legitimate URL. Hypertext however, has always had much more sophisticated notions of linking than this, including the assumption that you could link from the entire object (in the case of Figure One, this would be the entire page), and that any link may have a single anchor, or source, but multiple destinations.

In such a system (see Figure Two) a link may come from an entire node, or from any part within that node (and a node may contain text, image, video, and so on) and may have multiple destinations. In many traditional hypertext systems this is realised through a link with some sort of dialog or directory window opening when a multiheaded links is selected to let the reader choose which of the destinations they would like to arrive at. Alternatively, such systems may also institute rules so that the system, rather than the user, determines the destination from those available (Storyspace is an example of such a system). Such rules usually rely on state information (that is the system records what you have been doing, and so knows what nodes you have in your history, which word you just selected to follow a link, and the like) and so make links available on the basis of reading history (what you have, or have not visited) and text strings (what bit of text you have selected.

However, technicalities aside, what is of importance here is the difference this sort of hypertext has to plain vanilla HTML with HREFs. In the latter links are singluar with a nominated and visible source (the link anchor) and a single destination (a URL). This means links can be thought of (and mapped) as complex, recursive tree structures, but the connections are all fixed and visible, whether they are followed or not – this web page has n links with n1 destinations. In Figure Two though we don’t have such tree like structures (I should stress that ‘tree’ really is a misleading analogy, since a web link can link to any other URL and there is no necessary hierarchy required, which the tree analogy suggests, but I do want to provide a strong sense of the way in which these sorts of links are ‘flat’ compared to more complex hypertext structures, are easily discoverable (ie you can just see them) and so describe and create a fixed topography whether they are followed by a reader or not. This is, after all, how a spider like Google can index webpages as it follows links, it is premised on them being explicitly declared, described and able to be followed). I like to think of them as clouds, or as fuzzy links.

Figure Two: Multiheaded Links in a Hypertext.

Clouds and Fuzzy Links

These are quite informal terms, but that’s OK. They are fuzzy because in Figure Two the link that has four possible destinations does not need to be made up of four different links (as would be the case in HTML) but can be a single link which has a condition or rule attached to it where that rule is satisfied (in this example) by four destinations. This lack of specificity, where a link does not absolutely go from here to there, is what makes it fuzzy. It might go to N1, but it might also go to any of N2, N3, and N4. As a consequence of this the structure is not fixed as in HTML but is cloudy, there is a soft constellation of potential destinations, and they are potential not because it is a web page with ten links and the reader may decide on any of the ten (or none) but because the destination is actuated by the system in response to the user as a feedback system.

Now, let’s return this to Korsakow. Korsakow uses the model described in Figure Two. The link is not a link in the technical hypertext sense (though it is, after all a hypertext system such as Storyspace is, like Korsakow, a database application with a particular sort of presentation layer for authoring and reading) but a keyword which enables a search. This search will, in the simplest scenario, match all other nodes that contain this keyword and so make them available for selection – in the first instance by the system and in the second by the user. In a k-film the set of possible destinations to a key word is constrained by a) the number of nodes containing that key word, b) the number of lives each node has (which limits the number of times it can be played, which in turn limits how often it can appear as a result of a search), and c) how many thumbnails have been allocated to present the outcome of the search.

For example, in Figure Two we have four nodes that have links, so as a k-film that would be four nodes that contain the same key word that we are searching for (keeping in mind that this could include the same node that is the source of the search). However, in defining the parameters for the first node in this series it is possible to limit how many results to return for this search, so while there may be four that meet the condition only two (for example) may be displayed. Similarly the designer of the k-film is able to determine how many thumbnail panes to present in the project, and this can also affect how many nodes within this ‘cloud’ may actually appear to the user. For instance, a k-film may only have three thumbnail panes, so if there are four nodes that match the search criteria, one will not be displayed. Finally, it should be obvious that as more material is added to a k-film project the set of nodes that matches a search may change as more nodes with the same key word are included.

So, we have links that are fuzzy because they are rule defined, and what meets the conditions of these rules varies due to a variety of author defined constraints. A problem remains though, as an artefact of our visualisation, which suggests a linear passage through the material (from left to right, and implicitly from beginning to an end). This is, in fact, not the case.

Figure Three: A Sketch of the Structure of A Completed K-Film

Figure Three provides a concpetual link structure for a simple k-film. The coloured lines are different key word links between each of the nodes. The point of this third figure is to begin to suggest the complexity that can be built through only a few nodes (SNUs, lexias) and keywords, and that the structures (the sequences) are recursive, circular, and ‘ill formed’ in that they are not explicit like in HTML but lie there, as a virtual set of possibilities.

Korsakow, Field Notes

These are notes from my teaching in 2011, and are the various strategies and things I’ve learned through using Korsakow that make using the program simpler, or at least easier. They are a mix of tech and conceptual things. Am dusting them off for the new subject and realised worth reprising here.

  1. Dense nodes. One way to make connections between clouds in your k-film is to use dense (dense in the sense of thickly linked with keywords) nodes that work like ‘hubs’ that join or connect different clouds together. I’ve written about this in more detail nearby.
  2. Export as you go (the quick way). Korsakow now lets you do a low res export, or the usual export to web. A tip. Ignore low res export because if you choose to do this it exports everything, every time. You are much better off setting your compressing settings to the lowest quality, doing an export for the web, and then as you add more media do the web export. That way you get the dialog box that asks you if you want to redo everything or any the new additions. Choose new stuff and things export much much faster. This is also how you can easily test interface changes, and make minor changes to keywords and so on. These changes don’t require video to be added or recompressed, so are exported very very quickly and you can then look at the work to see what differences your changes have made.
  3. NAME YOUR PROJECT. Yes, that is yelling. Why have no title for your project? Why publish it as ‘untitled’. It is your work, give it a name. Also the title of a work can do.
  4. Transcoding. Transcoding is what Korsakow does when you export a project. It takes the media you have added to the project and recodes (recompresses and changes the file format) to FLV using what you have selected under File – Project Settings – Export. This takes ages, literally if you have a lot of video it can take hours. So be prepared for this.
  5. Export a project but nothing appears. If you load up a project with video, but have not added any keywords in or out (‘snuified’) the clips, then when you export your project to the web and go to play it there will be nothing visible. Your video will be transcoded, but nothing appears because it needs clips with rules (keywords) attached to build anything.
  6. Compression settings for export (File – Project Settings – Export). H.264 medium currently provides the best compression options (file size versus quality). If you want to be low rez (compression artefacts, etc) then use the low resolution H.264 project settings.
  7. Thumbnail videos. Don’t use the video you add to provide thumbnails. They are large files and it is very (very) inefficient to use these as thumbnails – people will be downloading something the size of an elephant when it should be a mouse. This matters because we all pay for bandwidth, so please don’t expect people to have to pay for elephants to buy a mouse. If you want video thumbnails then compress your video a second time to the size of your thumbnails.
  8. Start simple. Complex structure is created by the repeated application of simple rules. Use this when thinking about keywords. Don’t use 20, use 4, build, export, test. Then think about what changes you might need.
  9. Korsakow is only for authoring. This means you make content – video, still images, audio, outside of Korsakow using whatever software takes your fancy. What you bring into Korsakow is your media already to go. You don’t make video edits in Korsakow (well, in my terms you make edits possible via the keyword link structure, but that’s a different kettle of fish entirely to editing a movie in the usual sense of the word). So all the media your bring into your project should already be the right size for your project, the right compression, and in the format and data rate that you want. You NEVER bring in something bigger and then make it smaller within Korsakow (for instance a video that is 1280 x 720 that you then present as 640 x 360). This slows things down since heaps more is being downloaded to be played than necessary, and is, well, the digital equivalent of picking your nose at the dinner table (seriously, that is how uncool it is).
  10. Use this as part of an iterative process. This means do not think you can plan your Korsakow project on paper, or somewhere else, and then you will just import your media and link according to your plan. You can try to work like this, but that is a bit like thinking you can write music by writing each instrument and not listening to them all together, and not actually playing music while you’re writing music. Or it is like writing something in Word, then exporting it as HTML, and then telling yourself that you are writing hypertext. No. You need to work within the medium to be working in that medium. And you need to work in that medium to learn how to work in that medium. You don’t learn how to play a piano by reading about it, watching others, watching a DVD, or writing out instructions on paper. You have to play. So it is with Korsakow. But there is more to it than just having to use it to learn it. There is a logic to the tool which you can only use if you work in the tool. So the way to make a project is to add some media, add keywords, export, and play the work. How’s it going? What happens? Does it do things you didn’t expect? Good things or bad things? This is really much easier to do when the project is small, when you can try things out easily, and then as you develop an understanding of the shape,patterns, and behaviour of your project you can add more media, and keywords, and then export and evaluate the work. This is what I mean by an iterative process. You add some stuff, you evaluate, you make changes. It is built up through small steps, small increments. This might be unusual for mamy of you. In TV you are taught to script, storyboard, and then use that as your plan. In essay writing you prepare an essay plan and use that to build from. Here it is much much more organic. Personally I’d describe it as more like writing a song. Add a line, sing it, fiddle with it a bit more, back to the music. You sort of have an idea of what it is about, or where it comes from, but there is no strict plan or map.
  11. Do low res exports. Part of this iterative process is to add, keyword, add SNU ratings and so on, and then export to test and see what is going on. (Again, think of this exporting and viewing as what you would do in radio or TV, you do an edit, then you look at the shots, or listen to your piece, with your new edit. You don’t just keep editing to the end then check that the edits are OK, same process for making a k-film.) So, exporting can be slow since the Korsakow engine will take your video and audio, and then transcode and recompress it. This is slow work. So for work in progress when you export go into File – Project Settings – Export and choose FLV Low. This will export much more quickly, and yes it will be low quality but this is drafting. The final export or for publication of work in progress you will change the Export settings to a higher quality and re-export. But remember, if you have a lot of material this will take a lot of time. (And this is also why you must always have your original media, if you have moved it, deleted it, renamed it, then there is no way for Korsakow to export and render a better quality version because it can’t find the source media.)
  12. Complexity comes from the iteration of a simple structure (or rule). You build complex structures (patterns) in a k-film not by using a lot of keywords but by defining and applying a simple set of rules, consistently.
  13. What happens if the source videos are different dimensions? A mess. In a word, well two. The software is designed to support video that, more or less, is at the same dimensions. Being smaller might not be a problem, it might just be presented larger, or you can put a background behind it to make it fill the frame. I suspect (but haven’t tested) that the default behaviour will be to fill the video screen you have defined. So if it is a different aspect ratio (which is a much bigger problem than a different resolution) then it will be stretched, or squashed to fix. Work arounds would probably be to use Compressor to crop the video to get it to the right aspect ratio and/or dimensions.
  14. Read the error messages. Yes, Korsakow is low budget software so you can’t export the sort of design, support and so on you get for either very large open source projects (WordPress for example) or commercial software. However, pay attention to error messages you get, while cryptic they usually point to what is going on. For example if you get an error message about a file type being not supported or corrupt it will tell you which file. Remove the file from your project. If the export now completes there is something wrong with the file. There are a lot of examples like, this, so read the error as it does give good clues as to what might be going on.
  15. Thumbnails can be video or jpegs. Video thumbnails are very cool, because when you mouse into them they play. But this seriously increases the bandwidth demands of your project. If you are going to use video thumbnails then it is essential that they are recompressed to a suitable size and data rate. This means they get recompressed to the size of the thumbnail. You NEVER compress video to, say, 320 x 240 if it is going to be displayed at 160 x 120. Why? Because the larger video requires four times as data as the smaller. It is about bandwidth which becomes about how much data has to arrive at your viewer’s computer before they can do anything. The more you can minimise this (the less data that has to arrive) the better off you are.

Practical Philosophy, Practical Documentary

The materialist philosophies that I am looking at with honours students to describe themselves as ‘practical philosophy’. Happy to admit I always wondered what that meant, partly because I couldn’t quite get what a practical philosophy would be (after all it all seemed to be about ideas), and also it seemed if it was ‘practical’ in the sense of ‘doing something’ then was it no longer philosophy.

Our three weeks and my current third reading of Alien Phenomenology combined with other things (see the list below) has helped me clarify this a lot. Practical philosophy in this context is a philosophy that is about doing things, not just thinking about them. Sort of obvious. It might involve primarily ideas, but they are ideas as instruments or tools that are valued for how they can be applied in ways outside of just thinking within or about themselves to other things. So, without this sounding fey or naive, a lot of critical theory expends a lot of energy demonstrating what it is, and then proving that it works. Along they way they sometimes provide a (constrained and often overwhelmingly narrow) account for the way of the world. This account arises from, returns to, revolves around the ideational. The world here risks (and often becomes), little more than abstract proof of the legitimacy of the theory, and so the world is returned to the theory, unchanged, and of course there is then little ability, or recourse, to affect the world. Such work may change my understanding, which is of profound importance (after all what else is education?) but everything remains situated within my use of a theory to account for my understanding of the world, now differently. Here world is subject to thought, thought is primary and it is thought that confers all sorts of things upon the world (sense, meaning, structure).

Much like the way some people consider children, and certainly how we once thought of indigenous Australians, animals, ‘nature’, and in ancient Greece those non citizens called slaves. In these cases we are a centre that grants ourselves the autonomy and authority to confer whatever significance we deem matters to these other things. It is regal, solar, and, as we now see, anthropomorphic. The world = what we as humans make of it, and that is what the world is. That’s just an idealised form of cognitive, perceptual and intellectual colonialism.

This is also a way to think about how the ‘new materialism’ and the ‘post humanities’ approach the linguistic turn. The linguistic turn is based on the rise of semiotics, and then structuralism and subsequently post structuralism, as a dominant theoretical model (narratology, Lacanian psychoanalysis, and so a lot of feminist theory, post colonial studies, queer theory, and so on). Meaning trumps materiality, and meaning is treated as a) human, so b) constructed by us, and c) since constructed subjected to external other ‘meanings’ (forces, powers, which have been given various titles such as hegemony, ideology, patriarchy, colonialism and so on). The new materialism is not wishing to discount these, though it does seem to suggest that most have reached an impasse as they can’t account for the material (and today the material has come to matter, if for no other reason than our physical environment is now understood to matter in fundamentally different ways than before), but it does very forcefully want to return to the things that language and meaning can’t do, as well as recognise and explore the nature of things as things quite a part from the point of view provided by linguistic meaning.

Hence, in Bogost, this interest in theories and ideas that do, and the fascination with things as actants (to use Latour’s term), where things are any thing (ideas, objects, forces, of whatever scale and order) and they do stuff, quite independently of what we think they’re for, and what we think they might mean.

Now, the nub of this for our research is quite simple. Most humanities research looks at what things mean, and leaves it at that. This means it struggles to look at anything that falls outside of this quite small sense of ‘meaning’, and more significantly it means we tend to produce work that reports on what things mean, but we are not well versed or skilled in making things that do. If I want people to rethink what video is and could be, I can write about it theoretically (as I do), and I can make things that do things in and with video (as I have done). If I start from theory and then make I run the risk of domesticating what things do within the umbrella of already given meanings. So the task, and it seems rather large, is to make things that do in a way that embraces their ability to do. And to then see what happens. Or what it is.

Perhaps, and this remains a very open question, if I want to make work that changes how people think about something then the way to do this is not to show what things mean, and suggest they should mean something else, or if we change the thing then it might mean something different, but to begin from what things do rather than what they mean. If I’m a cinematographer and I decide that what a camera does is draw with light (Astruc perhaps) then that offers a very different set of practises and possibilities than if I decide that what a camera does is re-present what I can see, or if I decide it is a machine looking (Vertov) which is special because it sees what I cannot, then that too offers and creates quite a different practice.

Here lies one of the things I’m finally working through in relation to digital practice and theory, particularly in the context of interactive documentary. When we make digitally we are engaged with what things can do, in this post humanities sense (anyone who makes stuff gets the very real and deep materiality of what we work with, even digital code, and it’s a significant critique of the academy that a sentence like that even needs to be written). When the academy comes along we try to see what it means. So we corral, define, shove and poke, fitting it largely into already existing linguistically policed boundary objects. But the first step, the properly critical moment, is to first learn what it can do, and from there, whatever it might be, worry about meaning. And to be clear, ‘interactivity’ (a term wheeled out with all appropriate reverence and tautological completeness, though rarely if ever, in itself engaged with – just what sort of thing is interactivity in itself?) is not what these things can do.

Hypothetical Readings for an Interactive Video Subject

A subject that I have run for a few years, Integrated Media One, is where I’ve been able to ‘put’ interactive video. Once upon a time we used eZedia QTi (now vapourware), and more recently Korsakow. The aim of the subject is to forcefully acculturate aspiring media professionals to the deep affordances and ecologies of multilinearity. That’s it. It is not about narrative, it is not about transmedia, it is not cross platform production. My own view is if you grok multilinearity (let’s call it ‘deep multilinearity’) then the rest is easy. And it is hard to get it, deep down. (Hence a lot of vanguardist rubbish in making and theory that really is clueless about deep multilinearity but really likes the nice new shiny full-screen-all-of-my-attention-amazingness over there, because, well, it is multilinear and participatory and INTERACTIVE, though we won’t stop and seriously consider, think about, or heck, even define, any of these terms along the way.)

Yes, he mumbled. It’s a grumpy day.

A problem with this subject is that we really do want to combine theory and practice, but we only really get students for two hours a class, and that simply isn’t long enough. The model I’d like to use is to read first, then use the reading with the students, in each class, as a prompt or provocation to then make some things that are a response come interpretation of the reading. Instead we predefine these, they do lots of making, and then there’s a raggle tangle bag of readings that help, support, and often times run a parallel trajectory to the making. Parallel, rather than intersecting, because we don’t really have the time to let the ideas lead first. This will change, but for now this is what we’ve got.

So. Readings. While it is about multilinearity within that I nest things about network literacies, noticing, documentary, everyday media practice as a legitimate (and ethical) mode of acknowledging self and world. Therefore:

Aston, Judith, and sandra Gaudenzi. “Interactive Documentary: Setting the Field.” Studies in Documentary Film 6.2 (2012): 125–139.
An introduction to how interactive documentaries are being thought about, and also a way to legitimate what we are going to do in the eyes of the students as there is ‘real’ academic work being done about them. Also useful as it provides a crude classificatory scheme, which I’m not that interested in, but students (like humanities academics who, unknowingly, mirror the phylogenic classificatory and Linnaean ambitions of our scientist peers) are desperate for boundaries and rules.

A supplementary reading is this journal introduction:
Hight, Craig. “The Field of Digital Documentary: A Challenge to Documentary Theorists.” Studies in Documentary Film 2.1 (2008): 3–7.

Sørenssen, Bjørn. “Digital Video and Alexandre Astruc’s Caméra-Stylo: The New Avant-Garde in Documentary Realized?” Studies in Documentary Film 2.1 (2008): 47–59.
At this point students are making sketch videos using smart phones. This essay helps legitimate this practice by picking up the historical relation between new technologies, documentary (and we might add the New Wave) and an alternative conception of film making as practice that is outside of narrative, studios, storyboards and the like.

A supplementary reading is Sobchack, Vivian. “Nostalgia for a Digital Object: Regrets on the Quickening of QuickTime.” Millenium Film Journal 34.Fall (1999), largely because it validates the fragility, smallness, and transience of video online. This is useful in relation to my ‘anti’ monument mode where students all want to make media monuments with big casts, lots of equipment, big footprints. They confuse quantity with quality, and loudness with having something to share (we are well past the time when something to say was a key induce of import).

Now it is a soup, as for me things are just entangled and so thinking there is a single trajectory, even a better trajectory, through the rest of the material is a struggle. That’s as much about how I make sense of things as anything else, but given my commitment to multilinearity (and entanglement) I really do want to resist the idea that there is a pedagogical narrative arc to this. There isn’t, and any attempt to impose one is just a moment of either teacherly insecurity, or its obverse, pedagogical force.

So my soup contains:

  • Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 2013. Print. For a simple outline of what narrative is, and then a reasonably useful segue into non narrative.
  • Chatman, Seymour. Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990, and his Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988, as supplements for those that want a narratological taster, and some formalism around what a narrative is (and is not).
  • There’s a chapter in here (chapter 7 I think) that is about the list, and so Ernst, Wolfgang. Digital Memory and the Archive (Electronic Mediations). Ed. Jussi Parikka. Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2012. Print.
  • As well as bits of the second and possibly parts of the third chapter of Bogost, Ian. Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like to Be a Thing. Minneapolis: University Press of Minnesota, 2012. Print. This is also about the list


  • Sherman, Tom. “Vernacular Video.” Noema: Tecnologie And Società. But substitute video art for TV (heritage media), likewise for the commentary about museum art/culture, and vernacular for everyday.
  • Amerika, Mark, and Adrian Miles. “Postcinematic Writing.” Meta/Data. Boston: MIT Press, 2007. 227–30. Print. About a digitally specific approach to video that is writerly and looks for other ways to define itself apart from TV and cinema.
  • Bill Seaman’s Recombinant Poetics and Database Aesthetic for a way of thinking about remix and combination as a deep structure to digital practice, with Bizzocchi, Jim. “The Fragmented Frame: The Poetics of the Split-Screen.” and Eleftheriotis, Dimitris. “Video Poetics: Technology, Aesthetics and Politics.” Screen 36.2 (1995): 100–112. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.
  • On a different note passages from Bachelard’s Poetics of Reverie and The Poetics of Space (Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Reverie: Childhood, Language, and the Cosmos. Trans. Daniel Russell. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971. Print, The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press, 1969. Print.), as they situate a poetics within art and the phenomenology of the lived world and so each offers ways to realise how to notice and see what is already there as the basis from which to create varieties of patterns that are, in themselves (the patterns) forms of understanding. In particular that might fall out of the teleological forms of knowledge that fiction and the university privilege.

multilinearity (though most of these students have done a prior semester where we look at introductory hypertext and network theory – Watts and Barabási in particular.

  • Extracts from Landow, George. Hypertext 3.0: Critical Theory and New Media in an Era of Globalization. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Print. with extracts from Douglas, J. Yellowlees. The End of Books — Or Books Without End?: Reading Interactive Narratives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000. Print. These are about the implications and consequences of multilinearity for narrative and reading (and by implication viewing).
  • Supplemented by Miles, Adrian. “Hypertext Teaching.” Reading Hypertext. Ed. Mark Bernstein and Diane Greco. Watertown: Eastgate, 2009. 223–238. Which discusses the role of multilinearity, teaching it, and how reading multilinear works is dramatically different to how we usually think of reading or viewing a work.

And so a stronger way to approach this is via affect and indeterminacy:



  • Miles, Adrian. “Click, Think, Link: Interval and Affective Narrative.” Database | Narrative | Archive: Seven Interactive Essays on Digital Nonlinear Storytelling. Ed. Matt Soar and Monika Gagnon. N. p., 2013. Web. 19 May 2013.
  • And a book chapter I’ve written which I make available to them Miles, Adrian. “Interactive Documentary and Affective Ecologies.” New Documentary Ecologies Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses. Ed. Kate Nash, Craig Hight, and Catherine Summerhayes. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Print.
  • Supplementary readings would be from Deleuze’s Cinema One, but that’s too ambitious for second years… (Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema One: The Movement–Image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986. Print.)
  • Finally some additional stuff on interactive documentary to finish up with:

    • Nash, K. “Modes of Interactivity: Analysing the Webdoc.” Media, Culture & Society 34.2 (2012): 195–210. and Dovey, Jon, and Mandy Rose. “We’re Happy and We Know It: Documentary, Data, Montage.” Studies in Documentary Film 6.2 (2012): 159–173. Nash for the return to the definitional. Dovey because it begins a crucial discussion about relational media.

    What’s still missing is stuff on the everyday. But, you know, that’ll have to wait for another time.