Lives in a Korsakow film proffer themselves as a profound proposition in relation to cinema. Cinema and video are technical media, which is to say that they consist of a technological apparatus for the indifferent recording of what falls within view. They are indifferent because they do not care. A camera does not speed or slow in anticipation of what is there, nor complain because the view is too dark or light. This indifference is most deeply marked in its rhythmic consistency — ‘metronomic’ does not come close — established and then enshrined through the standardisation protocols of international convention.
Technical media occupies time the way a twentieth century army invades territory. This is no guerilla activity, minor tactic or smooth flow but industrial, rigid and fixed. Thirty seconds on that video camera is thirty seconds on this one, and every other one. This is why cinema is, in the first instance, a temporal rather than spatial media. And why, barring technological misadventure, a twenty eight minute film will be a twenty eight minute film all the time and everywhere, on every screen. Technical media’s temporal indifference is also preserved after these moments of capture and repeated in the industrial segmentation of our day by the radio and television broadcast, and the constancy of the record, CD, projector, cassette, and DVD player.
Cinema becomes then principally a temporal rather than a spatial medium. Obvious but always forgotten (for instance the edit is an intervention – the only possible – in time, its use to create a spatiality or to maintain continuity of space is secondary and at best parasitical to time) as this temporal writing and rewriting gets reduced to being merely narrative’s handmaiden. As if. Time though, no matter how quickly one cuts, or what to, is inexorable.
Korsakow offers an alternative temporality to this constancy (a constancy that can regarded as a joy or a prison) through an attribute which constrains how often its individual clips can be played. These are simply known as lives. If a clip is selected by a user while a Korsakow film plays this counts as a life, and once the set number of lives has been reached that clip will never appear again. This means Korsakow films shrink as they are viewed, they consume themselves (much like Gibson’s famous collaboration Agrippa) in the very moments and activities of their being watched. A performative combustibility. This inverts cinema’s existing relation with time as in Korsakow a film’s temporality is no longer sovereign.
Here are my talking notes, slides as image gallery below.
My brief presentation today comes from earlier research in interactive video, combined with recent work in affect and interactive documentary. Today I am going to look at a variety of new online services and then use these to speculate about new forms of nonfiction.
In a nutshell I am using Deleuze’s concept of the movement image to provide a theory of interactivity, and this theory of interactivity allows me to think of affect as a particular site and quality of interaction within interactive media.
To be very schematic, Deleuze sees the cinema of the movement image as made up of perception, action, and affect images. Perception images are those shots (and even films) that emphasise noticing, for instance someone watching something. The action image is the shot, sequence or film that emphasises a reaction to what has been seen. The affect image is what falls between perception and action images. It is characterised by Deleuze as an interval between perception and action, and is defined by indeterminacy because the automatic relay between perception and action is interrupted or expanded, allowing the opportunity for decision and so other, non automatic, actions to occur.
This tripartite schema is a material economy of action, decision and reaction, where generally the action that arises as a consequence of the perception image is, more or less, an adequate answer or response to it. Yet importantly affect, and by implication the affect image, falls outside of this economy for affect is understood to be a remainder or excess that is not spent through action.
I think this is the most elegant account of interactivity available. In the simplest model there is an interface that requires and facilitates a user to make a decision. I notice, decide, and do — perception, affect, and action. Furthermore, affect becomes the most important term in interaction because this is where experience design and consideration are located, and if nothing else I’m interested in making and theorising interactive work that allows the consideration of ideas and the world.
Such a model of affect and interactivity, within this sensory motor schema, offers a productive way to think about contemporary media platforms in networked environments as sites and practices that document, record, list, and notice, and in so doing enlarge, slow down and otherwise interrupt the everyday. That is, they are affective systems.
Which brings me to today.
I have a phone in my pocket. In my phone there is a HD camera, GPS, accelerometer, micro computer, bluetooth, wifi, and 4G. My phone makes it trivial to informally make, distribute, view, and curate media through the documentation of my everyday life practices, in situ.
Each have a very similar affordance of being small chunks existing within a web of services that have public APIs so that they can be addressed and reused by other services and people. Each is then very porous to the network and each in their own way has made their technological constraints an aesthetic plus.
These services allow for personal profiles to be created, however the most notable profile that each enables are the informally curated series of artefacts that each app lets us create — our Twitter, Instagram and Vine streams. These self declared ‘indirect’ descriptions are the media trails we leave as a consequence of our everyday practice, and unlike professional media their specificity as particular types of media is secondary to this primary role of documenting the everyday, as it happens. I am not a photographer who then Instagrams, but a person who happens to take a photograph.
However, these apps still revolve around media as a single artefact. By this I mean that Twitter is principally for individual tweets, Instagram photographs, and Vine single brief video clips. While these are easily woven into other places using the services available they remain single media objects. These objects may be a mix of highlights and the mundane, but they are an everyday media vernacular that is marked, absolutely, by our intent. I first choose to write, photograph, video, and to this extent these (and all similar services) have an affinity to previous media where they are deliberate artefacts (our moral panic about their apparent triviality notwithstanding).
However, there is now the rise of new services that are best thought of as ambient media machines. They are an always on media making that creates a new type of everyday media trail that, like previous apps, makes itself available for its own sorts of reweaving.
One example is Moves. The screenshots here are a record of a recent Saturday of mine. They show an approximate guess of how many steps I’ve taken, plot my movements, including types of transport and location, and even allow for the editing of these. Moves defines itself as an “Activity Diary”, and it is this diary aspect that I am, at the moment, intrigued by.
Now I do not here have time to go into the diary as an observational, confessional, personal narrative form. However, as life writing diaries are a variety of nonfiction and a significant contributor to the essay form in writing,sound, and cinema.
Moves, by itself, doesn’t do much. However, when combined with journaling apps, such as the one here, Momento, things change. Momento automatically talks to a variety of services and auto curates these all by itself. In my case Momento automatically collects my Moves, Instagram, blog, and Flickr content. This is a burgeoning area for apps that leverages the affordances of the device while also making explicit the extent to which our media trails are secondary effects of lived experience. Momento is a mix of life journaling and diary and partly falls within the lifestyle practice of what is known as the ‘quantified self’. My curiosity here is not in the Californian mobile fitness–lifestyle as self actualisation aesthetic but in Momento’s automaticity of affect. This translation of what I do, casually, almost indifferently, and its capture for reuse.
[Slide 11-12-13 ]
We also now have things such as Jawbone UP, FitBit, and the extraordinarily named and described Mother.
Each of these have dedicated hardware and an app that collects ambient information that is aggregated and visualised. While some of these are personal (e.g. Jawbone UP) things such as Mother loosen this by extending the orbit of the individual to other people and things.
Finally, we find Narrative Clip, a wearable camera that continually photographs your day as you go about doing it. It describes itself as a “photographic memory” with two days of battery life and storage for up to 4000 images.
Aside from all the problems this raises about privacy and the social what I’m wanting to think about further is the role these sorts of emerging services and devices can, and will, play in emerging forms of audiovisual nonfiction, and more specifically thinking past this current generation to what they may inaugurate or foretell of what is to come.
These are speculative ideas to think about this intersection of gadgetry with audiovisual nonfiction. What could happen if Narrative Clip has an API that lets other apps and services talk to it? So its pictures get tied to my self reporting via Instagram, Flickr, Vine, Twitter and FaceBook? What sort of personal documentary making would this allow? And then what if this ’thing’ could also then exchange content and information with other’s stories, things, objects, and events?
I’ll conclude with some informal propositions.
My first is that these might be theorised, following Donna Haraway, as cyborg documentaries.
The second is that with the example of autoethnography and ethnographic film these are clearly ‘auto documentaries’.
Third, all of these services are aggregators of affect, and fourth, I hope for the development of new, different, platforms and services that find a middle path between a digital narcissism and the critical project of documentary more broadly.
This is the abstract for a paper I’m giving next week as part of an interactive documentary panel at ASPERA:
In my pocket I have a phone. In my phone I have a camera, GPS, and a micro computer. While we have witnessed a rise in mobile media platforms and services — in the realm of video most notably Vine, for text Twitter, and photography Instagram — each of these services still creates media as single artefacts via a mode of intentional making. However, we now have a generation of applications and services that reconceptualise the smart phone as a media instrument, producing an always on ambient environment of indifferent indirect capture and recording. These apps and network aware applications (Mother), represent a post–digital movement away from the screen as the site of a particular mode of making and consumption, towards what I’m wanting to characterise as ambient autodocumentary. They work by aggregating and curating our individual media trails, in real time, shifting the role of media documentation from one that privileges a media practice (I photograph, write, film) to one that facilitates the production of media artefacts in the wake of my lived, post digital, experience. This is media as a particular type of distributed event where the specificity of practice is secondary to the programmatic curation of my media trail.
In this paper I intend to explore the implications of these apps and services in relation to new concepts of agency and materialist digital practice. In their use the individual increasingly becomes a relay or signal within networks of other materials, things, and flows and, while their mode of address is to the self, the self becomes, in turn, a moment of affective indetermination.
These services and apps (for example the iOS apps Reporter, Heyday, Momento and 1SE, and the ‘web art’ project We Feel Fine) have implications for nonfiction practice, in particular interactive documentary, including the emergence of new documentary forms that are a making ‘smart’ of the everyday. They also pose interesting and problematic questions for professional media practice in the context of tertiary media education and what ‘screen production’ might become.
NonfictionLab is an interdisciplinary research centre for creative and critical practice that investigates approaches to nonfiction, its forms and its frames.
nonfictionLab engages creative fieldwork, critical perspectives and imaginative inquiry to produce knowledge in the politics, poetics and practices of nonfiction, focused in five intersecting zones of research: Documentary, Essay, Literary Journalism, Nonfiction Poetry, and Publishing, Curation, Archives.
nonfictionLab embraces the contestable and ambiguous nature of the concept of nonfiction as a positive point of intersection for developing and extending disciplinary frameworks and new interdisciplinary enquiries.
Based in the School of Media and Communication at RMIT University, nonfictionLab brings together critical practitioners in creative arts, design and humanities, and provides support for emerging researchers and a growing community of research students. The Lab fosters collaborative research projects in partnership with fellow scholars and artists, and with industries and communities, local and international.
Visible Evidence 21
December 11–14, 2014
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS:
Visible Evidence, the annual scholarly conference on documentary film, media, culture and politics–interdisciplinary, international and indispensable–is now 21!
Inaugurated at Duke University in 1994, Visible Evidence has met annually ever since–in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil, Australia, and most recently in Sweden, as well as in the US (eleven times).
This year the conference will be held in New Delhi, India from December 11 to 14 2014. Co-hosted by Jawaharlal Nehru University and Jamia Millia Islamia, the conference will be held at the India International Centre, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi. In 2014 we are meeting in Asia for the first time, and for the second time only in the global south!
Visible Evidence 21, as is traditional, will feature a range of panels, workshops, plenary sessions, screenings and special events around documentary, its practices, histories and theories.
Proposals for panels, workshops, presentations, screenings and individual papers are solicited according to the following guidelines and themes.
Please check out www.visibleevidence21.org for information about travel arrangements, the conference site, and registration, etc.
2014 ASPERA conference website now happening. Program is a PDF. There’s a database doco panel on Wednesday (Elvira Calatayud, Dean Keep, and JT Velikovsky), and our panel (me, Bettina Frankham, Hannah Brasier, and Seth Keen) on Thursday, with a Korsakow workshop Thursday afternoon.
I’m running a Korsakow workshop as part of the Australian Screen Production and Education Research Association annual conference. It’s in Newcastle this year. If you’re at all interested in seeing the software, and you’re attending, please come along. There’s a bunch of us also presenting papers at an interactive documentary panel during the conference too.