The Power of Free Thought

THOUGHTS MIGHT LOOK SCARY AT FIRST

Unleashing the Mind

Korsakowian thinking—allowing ideas to roam without the shackles of preconceived notions—sparks innovation and reshapes perspectives. It’s the mental equivalent of wild horses galloping freely, unbound by the reins of convention. This untamed approach to thinking fosters connections between real-world observations, leading to insights that challenge and expand our understanding.

Breaking Free from Constraints

Traditional systems like academia often prioritize structure over creativity, urging us to control thoughts to fit established narratives. But controlling thoughts leads to stagnation, like a carriage stuck on a predetermined path. Free thought rejects this, embracing the chaos of unfiltered ideas. By letting go of the need to align with familiar frameworks, we open ourselves to seeing the world anew—whether it’s a tree that suddenly appears magical in the focus of awareness or a societal trend spotted years before it emerges.

The Spark of Innovation

Sparkling ideas, those rare gems that transform humanity—like the wheel or the internet—often and maybe always arise from free thought. No one thought of it before but now it is easy enogh to copy. Sparkling ideas don’t just solve problems; they redefine how we live, impacting millions and enduring through time. However, they’re buried in a sea of noise. Platforms like X amplify both signal and noise, but korsakowian thinkers can filter the chaos, spotting patterns and connections others miss. This ability to see clearly, unclouded by conventional wisdom, accelerates learning and discovery.

Learning from Reality

Books archive what at some point was considered valuable knowledge, but reality offers infinite knowledge, one just has to explore and look. Korsakowian thinking draws from life’s raw data—conversations, observations, fleeting moments—reconnecting these dots in novel ways. Unlike academic study, which I felt like a worm digging through a pile of old data, Korsakowian thinking (that I am now trying to learn) feels like a rocket, propelling toward insights at breakneck speed. Personal journeys, like abandoning academia for real-world exploration, show that true learning happens when we engage directly with life’s messiness.

The Courage to Think Differently

Korsakowian thinking isn’t always welcomed. It can confuse or frustrate those who prefer predictable ideas. Critics may call it erratic or irresponsible, but embracing wild thoughts requires courage. It’s not about pleasing others; it’s about following what excites the mind. This pursuit, though challenging, is deeply rewarding, offering a sense of clarity and purpose that rigid thinking can’t match.

An Invitation to Think Freely

Korsakowian thinking is a call to action. It invites us to question, connect, and explore without fear of judgment. Some, like the author of these reflections, have foreseen trends—digital design, the internet’s potential—years before others, simply by trusting their untamed ideas. You’re invited to join this journey. Let your thoughts run wild, see where they lead, and share what you find. If this feels too chaotic, that’s okay—step back. But if it sparks something in you, dive in. Follow me, contact me, whatever you like.

Interaktiver Dokumentarfilm ist tot. Es lebe der interaktive Dokumentarfilm.

Interaktiver Dokumentarfilm: Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft

Seit 1997 beschäftige ich mich mit dem, was wir heute als interaktiven Dokumentarfilm kennen. Zehn Jahre später erfuhr ich, dass meine Arbeiten in dieses Genre fielen, lange bevor der Begriff selbst existierte.

Interaktive Dokumentarfilme gab es für mich also schon, bevor es den Begriff gab. Und ich bin überzeugt, dass es diese Form weiterhin geben wird, selbst wenn der Begriff eines Tages in Vergessenheit gerät – ähnlich wie der Begriff “Multimedia” inzwischen historisch ist, obwohl das Konzept dahinter weiterlebt.

Die Zukunft des Interaktiven Dokumentarfilms

Wie könnte dieser “interaktive Dokumentarfilm” der Zukunft aussehen? Können wir ihn heute schon erkennen? Ja, das können wir. Ein Blick auf YouTube zeigt die bereits verwirklichte Zukunft des interaktiven Dokumentarfilms. Einzelne Videoclips, sogenannte SNUs (Smallest Narrative Units), werden durch Algorithmen miteinander verknüpft. Diese Methode, die ich seit 25 Jahren anwende, mag heute alltäglich erscheinen, doch für frühere Generationen war sie in einem Massenmedium undenkbar. Diese neue Art, Informationseinheiten zu verbinden, hat das Potenzial, unser Denken zu beeinflussen.

Mustererkennung und Multiperspektivität

Auf YouTube sehe ich, wie viele Menschen beginnen, bestimmte Zusammenhänge zu erkennen – Zusammenhänge, die ich durch meine Arbeit im interaktiven Dokumentarfilm ebenfalls entdeckt habe. Es geht darum, Muster zu erkennen, in denen mehrere, oft widersprüchliche Geschichten gleichzeitig existieren. Wo viele nur eine einzige Wahrheit sehen, erkennen andere den Wert aller widersprüchlichen Geschichten, die zusammen ein vollständiges Bild ergeben. Dieses Bild ist komplex, aber nicht unverständlich; manche Muster sind sogar ziemlich eindeutig.

Meine These

Das was ich “Korsakowianische Praxis” nenne, hat einen verstärkenden Einfluss auf das multiperspektivische Denken einer Gesellschaft. Indem wir lernen, verschiedene narrative Stränge zu erkennen und zu verknüpfen, entwickeln wir ein tieferes Verständnis für die Komplexität der Welt und die Vielzahl der Geschichten, die sie formen.

In diesem Sinne lebt der interaktive Dokumentarfilm weiter – in neuen Formen, auf neuen Plattformen und mit ähnlichen Methoden. Und er wird den Blick auf unsere Welt erweitern und vertiefen.

Interactive documentary is dead. Long live the interactive documentary.

Interactive Documentary: Past, Present, and Future

Since 1997, I have been engaged with what we now call interactive documentary. Ten years later, I learned that my work had always fallen into this genre, long before the term itself existed.

Interactive documentaries, for me, existed even before the term was coined. And I am convinced that this form will continue to exist, even if the term eventually fades into obscurity—much like the term “multimedia” is now historical, though the concept it describes persists.

The Future of Interactive Documentary

What could the “interactive documentary” of the future look like? Can we already see it today? Yes, we can. A glance at YouTube reveals the realized future of the interactive documentary. Individual video clips, known as SNUs (Smallest Narrative Units), are linked together by algorithms. This method, which I have been using for 25 years, may seem commonplace today, but for previous generations, it was unthinkable in a mass medium. This new way of connecting information units has the potential to influence our thinking.

Pattern Recognition and Multiperspectivity

On YouTube, I see many people beginning to recognize certain connections—connections that I have also discovered through my work in interactive documentary. It’s about identifying patterns in which multiple, often contradictory, stories coexist. Where many see only a single truth, others recognize the value of all the conflicting stories that together form a complete picture. This picture is complex but not incomprehensible; some patterns are even quite clear.

My Thesis

What I call “Korsakowian practice” has an amplifying effect on the multiperspective thinking of a society. By learning to recognize and connect various narrative threads, we develop a deeper understanding of the world’s complexity and the multitude of stories that shape it.

In this sense, the interactive documentary lives on—in new forms, on new platforms, and with similar methods. And it will continue to broaden and deepen our view of the world.

The Korsakowian Approach – A Metamodern Method That Shapes The Thinking Patterns Of Those Who Apply It?

And why this title is wrong

This is the paper I submitted alongside a video that can be viewed on YouTube.

Abstract

The thesis with which I started my PhD, and which is also reflected in the title of this talk, is that my particular way of working with korsakow – which I call korsakowian – has shaped my thinking in a way for which I have been using the term “multi-perspectival” since 2012. My auto-ethnographic explorations now point to that it is the other way around. Media that affords a korsakowian approach attracts people with a certain kind of mindset, that I would like to call multi-perspectival.

Keywords

multiperspectivity, media-literacy, Korsakow, korsakowian

1. Introduction

Six months ago I submitted an abstract to IFM with the title “The korsakowian approach –  a metamodern method that shapes the thinking patterns of those who apply it?”. Meanwhile I changed my thinking and as a consequence this talk is about why the title is wrong. 

To keep this paper brief I will not talk about metamodernism, a concept Judith Aston linked to i-docs (Aston 2022). For more details on how I think Metamodernism is related to korsakowian practice please check out the talk I gave at the Mobile Studies Congress in December 2023.

Today I will talk about multiperspectivity and its counterpart monoperspectivity and thereby I hope to illuminate the understanding of what korsakowian practice is and what it is good for.

How I got to where I am

I am the guy who invented Korsakow, a software system that is commonly thought of as a tool to create interactive documentary. Korsakow came into being in 2000 and since then it became the center of my life and my thinking. 

For the first 15 years my energy mostly went into producing Korsakow projects (Korsakow films, Korsakow Installations, Korsakow Shows). After that I moved my focus more towards reflecting and trying to understand what I vaguely described as “the magic of Korsakow”. My turn towards research was inspired by people like Matt Soar, Judith Aston, Adrian Miles and others who I had the privilege to get to know personally, not so much through their writing as I did not have the necessary academic language skills. For many years I did my private research, in a style that Michael Hohl, who is now one of my PhD supervisors, calls *cowboy research*.

Two and a half  years ago I was granted the opportunity to quit my day-job and fully focus on my research. I am currently doing a practice based PhD, and in this presentation I want to report where I am currently at.

My autoethnographic research

After spending quite a bit of time, wrestling with the system and trying to learn academic languaging, I turned towards auto-ethnography with a focus on my first works, which includes the reconstruction of my very first computer based narrative work called Small World which I made in 1997, the piece with which the whole story started and that later led to Korsakow. Small World could be described as a nonlinear, interactive slideshow and is in many ways the predecessor of Korsakow, the software tool that still is being used today. Small World, puts flashlights on 54 data points of what it is like to grow up in a small town or and more concretely what I experienced growing up in a small town in Bavaria. Back then, I built a small world in Macromedia Director, a software that later became Adobe Director and which later went the way of all earthly things and largely disappeared into obsolescence. 

I am currently in the process of reconstructing Small World in Korsakow.

The thesis with which I started my PhD, and which is also reflected in the title of this talk, is that my particular way of working with korsakow – which I call korsakowian – has shaped my thinking in a way for which I have been using the term “multi-perspectival” since 2012 (explained here).

What do I mean by multi-perspectival?

Being multi-perspectival is the habit, one could also say the pleasure or compulsion, of looking at, considering and understanding things from as many perspectives as possible. It is a particular pleasure for someone who is multi-perspectival to hold contradictory or even mutually exclusive perspectives in the head at the same time. It’s like juggling and the more balls you can keep in the air, the greater the pleasure. On the other hand, there is the mono-perspective, which assumes that there is one best perspective from which to understand the world and strives to find this perspective. People with a multi-perspectival disposition are characterized by the fact that they are always delighted when someone comes along with a clever thought that renders their own system of thought obsolete or at least reveals a perspective that makes them say, “Oh, I never thought of it that way”. There can never be such a thing as truth for someone who is multi-perspectival, as all perspectives can never be considered. Mono-perspectival people strive to find the *best* perspective and once this perspective has been identified, they tend to propagate and defend it. Mono-perspectival people generally feel little pleasure when their ideas are criticized and viewed from a different perspective that contradicts their own. Multi-perspectival people, on the other hand, are often extremely skeptical when one perspective is presented to them as an unquestionable truth. 

This is, of course, a very and possibly overly simplistic depiction. Of course, no binary distinction can be made and it would be a little ridiculous to divide humanity into mono-perspectival and multi-perspectival people, so one should rather imagine a scale with mono-perspectival on one side and multi-perspectival on the other. Individuals then tend to lean in one direction or the other. People are often topic-dependent, mono- or multi-perspectival. Experts tend to develop a more multi-perspectival view in the field of their expertise, which means they see things in a differentiated way and usually don’t  take a single viewpoint. However, the multi-perspectival view in one subject area does not prevent mono-perspectival experts from not transferring the realization that things are complex and ambiguous to other areas.

There is no value judgment associated with mono- or multi-perspective. Both have advantages and disadvantages, I went into this in my talk at the I-docs Symposium, Crisis and Multi-perspective Thinking in May 2022. The talk is documented on my blog.

Tool affects thinking vs. tool attracts thinking

Korsakowian practice affects thinking and sense making (Aston 2022; Wiehl and Lebow 2016; Soar 2014; Gaudenzi 2013), in the sense that it questions linear causal thinking, calls categories into question, and directs attention instead to circularly acting relations within complex systems.

So far I have assumed that my style of working with Korsakow – the korsakowian approach, which I would describe as an extremely open approach to any topic – that this korsakowian exercise was formative for my multi-perspectival thinking. 

This is how I have perceived it so far – that the korsakowian approach has reinforced my multiperspectivity. My auto ethnographic research now suggests something else, which my mother would simply describe as: I have always been like that. This in turn would suggest that it is not so much the medium and the way of using that particular medium that makes the thinking, but rather that a medium allows, or makes possible, a certain way of thinking that is already inherent in the individual. In general terms: certain forms of media attract certain kinds of thinkers,  in specific terms media that affords a korsakowian approach attracts multi-perspectival thinkers.

This is also suggested by a series of intensive conversations I have had with other practitioners in the field of interactive documentary. In this context, the dust has fallen from my eyes: I have never succeeded in convincing anyone of the korsakowian approach who has not already practiced multi-perspectival thinking. 

Conversely, it can also be said that no one has ever succeeded in teaching me a mono-perspectival way of thinking. 

5. Conclusion

Korsakow is a tool that affords a multiperspectival (korsakowian) approach but it can also be used in a more mono-perspectival way. This is because the mono-perspective is always part of the multi-perspective (it is just one of many perspectives). So Korsakow is not multi-perspectival per se, but it does afford a more multi-perspectival approach than more linear legacy media can. The same applies to other potentially korsakowian media, such as YouTube, Twitter or podcasts. This is confusing in that at least podcasts are neither interactive nor non-linear. The commonality is the digital and I would like to speculate at this point that it might be especially the abundance of resources that allows us to not have to know in advance the outcome of a media production, and that makes the korsakowian approach possible on a large scale. Interactivity might be overrated, one could say.

On the basis of this speculation, I would like to continue my research.

So the title for this talk should have been:“The Korsakowian Approach – A  Metamodern Method That ShapesHelps The Thinking Patterns Of Those Who Apply It?”

Artivist and Exloratist Approach

Two approaches to making interactive documentary could be distinguished: Artivist and Explorartist Approach (and the space in between). I think these terms might be helpful for understanding generative systems and especially Korsakow. An artivist approach can also be realised with linear formats, but for an explorartist approach, both non-linear and generative formats are particularly suitable, generating a variety of perspectives on an equal footing. Korsakow, for example, is such a format. Korsakow is not only a format, it is also a tool, and so one must learn not only how to use it, but also how to “read” it. Only then can the potential of Korsakow to understand any object of study in a more multi-perspective way unfold.

This text comes from an introductory talk I gave in spring 2023 as part of a course at HSLU in which students make interactive documentaries using the Korsakow software.

We watched GELD.GR for 30 minutes last week at our first meeting (on May 2, 2023). 30 minutes was enough time to get to the pain point of GELD.GR. This was clearly and beautifully expressed in the discussion by a student who described how he could not have watched GELD.GR “just leaning back with a coffee”, with GELD.GR he had to “be there”, “be at the screen”, and use his own brain “actively” and thus differently than, for example, when watching “normal films”. With “normal films”, the main thing is to understand what the author wants to communicate through the work.

With GELD.GR, you have to use your brain “differently”, first to make decisions about which links to choose, but then especially to make sense of what you see. To bring the seemingly infinite perspectives together, as one student put it, to be able to see together and grasp together.

It was described as “new” and ” needing some getting used to”, not ” to consume” media in the usual way. One student remarked, “It’s cool, it challenges me”.

Adrian Miles calls this ‘taking getting used to’ thing “problem of ‘uncertainty'” (2014) and uncertainty is exhausting and demanding, often frustrating because you don’t know what to do with what you’ve been told, “because you’re not told what to think”, as an audience member at a Korsakow film show in Munich once put it.

In GELD.GR you are told much less about how to evaluate and classify what you see than you are used to in film media. One feels left alone (by the author?), left to one’s own devices. The multitude of perspectives presented in GELD.GR was also described by one student as “confusing”, similar to seeing different perspectives at the same time in a hall of mirrors at a fair.

One student said that you first have to settle into an unfamiliar role, an active role, a role where you are not someone who “just listens”, as he said, you have to be “active” and “explore”. And this raises the exciting question of what it does to thinking when the brain is more in a mode of exploring rather than listening? Is it easier to get into a mode of questioning given narratives? And how does one deal with this?

One student said that dealing with GELD.GR was a “completely different way of interacting with a film”, that it was just “a different way” and that it was “exciting” and “something new” in this different way.

The student said “I watched it for half an hour and then I had to get up and walk for a bit”, he realised “ok, that was work for me now and I am not used to that from film”. Film he would normally “just analyse” that’s how he put it.

This description reminds me of what Adrien Miles said when he was interviewed by Franziska Weidle for her doctoral thesis about how he watches Korsakov films. He described how he takes in these kinds of open-ended Korsakow films in bits and pieces. Ideally, a few minutes every day, and then turn back to other activities. Some might describe this phenomenon as a lack of attention, an “attention deficit” on the part of the viewer, or a fault of the film being so boring that it cannot hold the viewer’s attention. However, I see it differently.

As far as the viewer is concerned: it takes an enormous amount of attention on the part of the viewer to look at complex themes piece by piece with a time span long enough to allow the subconscious to get involved in the thought process, to reflect, to think. There are scientists who assume that conscious thinking is largely shaped by the unconscious, according to psychologist Paul Bloom (cf. Sam Harris #317 – What do we know about our minds, Conversation with Paul Bloom).

Unconscious is the largest part of the nervous system, the system with which living beings grasp and process the world. Conscious thought, according to Bloom, is only the smallest part of it.

As for the film: it seems to me to be a feature and not a bug that Korsakow does not create an engaging and addictive potential that keeps the viewer engaged and instead allows them to divert attention with other things to give the subconscious time to engage.

One of the students calls a Korsakov film “a metaphor of reality as it really is”, in which you can never know everything, you always need pauses to reflect.

We talked about GELD.GR, which is a way of making Korsakov films. It is my way of making Korsakov films and there is another way.

This other way can be described as an “artivist approach”, a term used by interactive documentary filmmaker Marta Fiolić to describe her approach to making her work.

“Artivist” is a combination of “artist” and “activist” and describes the process of making as motivated by a concrete agenda, starting from a problem to be pointed out and for which one wants to offer solutions. The film or project has an agenda that can be more or less named at the beginning of the process.

In line with Marta Fiolić’s “Artivist Approach”, I would describe the approach of GELD.GR and almost all my projects with the term “Explorartist Approach”, composed of the words “explorer” and “artist”. As a true explorer, you don’t know what you’re going to find – and so you can’t pursue an agenda.

Summary:
There are two approaches to making Interactive Documentaries with Korsakow. These approaches can be named “artivist” and “explorartist approach”.

Interactive documentaries generally tend to be arduous because they require a different way of thinking. Interactive documentaries that take an exploratrist approach are particularly disappointing for users who approach the Interactive Documentary with an expectation of not only being shown something, but also being told how to classify it.

The strength of an Interactive Documentary is generally the openness with which one can approach a topic, this openness is greater with the Explorartist approach than with the Artivist approach, the price to be paid for this at present is that one thereby unsettles an audience that has been shaped by cinematic narration.

Therefore, I recommend the Explorartist approach to those who are interested in changing their minds, both to those who make such a project and to those who watch it.

For those who want to pass on an opinion (usually their own) to others, I recommend the Artivist Approach, but I am not sure if it makes sense to go interactive at all, since the interactive, on the one hand, as described, makes the consumption of the finished project exhausting and, on the other hand, puts the viewer into a mode of questioning which can also be directed against the agenda or the message of the film.

I would like to put it this way:
Although it is possible to construct artivist projects (i.e. those with a clear stance) with the Korsakow tool, such projects are in a sense not Korsakowian in the sense in which Korsakow was originally conceived. From the beginning, the development of Korsakow was an attempt to create an instrument that suggests, instead of using the tool to tell the world, to understand the world more multiperspectively through the tool.

Korsakow is not a tool to tell the world, but to let the world speak (at least more) for itself. However, in order to understand what the world is telling you through this tool, you must first learn to “read” how the world is communicating through the tool.

Someone who has not learned to read through an instrument cannot do anything with the instrument. Just as someone who has not learned to read a clock cannot really do anything with a clock (except perhaps finding it pretty, like a piece of jewellery).

The very first step in learning how an instrument works is first of all to look and recognise the tool as such in the first place. Then, to use the tool yourself and learn how to use it. And only then can one learn how to grasp the world differently and possibly better through the tool, just as I recently observed a craftsman using a hammer to determine through the tool what kind of stones a wall was made of.

Next page