Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Through combinatory systems, generative creation and structured constraints, code-driven cinema challenges enduring narrative structures, altering both creative processes and viewer expectations. The methods introduce unpredictability and ambiguity, engaging audiences in meaning-making processes while also helping to illuminate complex relationships between humans and machines. Intertwining past, present, and future, code-driven films pose questions of time, memory, place and story. In combinatory cinema, also known as database film, algorithms select elements from pre-recorded fragments from a database of clips and sounds, and in generative cinema, original media is created by code. Unlike interactive cinema, which privileges user choice, these forms often emphasize chance, generating ambiguous and fluid meanings through montage, compositing and other forms of aleatory juxtapositioning. Drawing from avant-garde traditions such as Dada and Surrealism, as well as constraint-based artistic practices like those of the Oulipo literary group, combinatory and generative cinema leverages randomness and hidden parameters, exposing latent narrative structures. The tension between fragmentation and coherence in these systems challenges linear expectations in novel ways. The paper offers five examples that demonstrate diverse approaches to code-driven filmmaking, particularly through combinatory and generative methods. Three Rails Live (Coover, Rettberg and Montfort 2013) employs randomized sequences and poetic combinatory structures which create an ever-evolving cinematic experience. Toxicity: A Climate-Change Narrative (Coover and Rettberg, 2016) intertwines fictional and nonfictional elements using a combinatory system that offer possibilities of hope and survival in the face of climate catastrophes. Penelope (Coover and Rettberg 2019) generates algorithmically structured poetry from a database of textual, visual, and auditory fragments, evoking themes of memory, loss and migration. It will happen here (Coover, Vidiksis and Montfort 2021) and its live performance variant, The Floods, integrate documentary footage with generated text and sound, creating immersive, site-specific experiences that immerse viewers in experiences of environmental change and collective memory. Lastly, Water on the Pier (Coover, Vidiksis and Montfort 2021) employs live environmental data and interactive elements to situate and personalize climate urgencies. These works highlight the possibilities of combinatory and generative filmmaking to expand the interpretative capacities of audiences and creators alike. Further, the approaches enrich collaboration between filmmakers, writers, and composers by offering nonhierarchical, iterative, and responsive processes of production and re-imaginings of narrative structures. The paper argues that combinatory and generative cinema and related code-based methods not only reveal the mechanics of technological storytelling but also interrogate how industrial and post-industrial paradigms shape cultural narratives. By disrupting linearity, these systems offer new approaches to time, memory, and meaning, fostering a deeper understanding of the conditions that govern contemporary media environments. They expand understanding of an evolving relationship between storytelling, computation, and human perception. The approach challenges the fixity of meaning, presenting a dynamic and ever-shifting expressions that reflect the instabilities of memory, time and experience.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».