: An exploration in film communication and anthropology. Sol Worth & John Adair (1997). (with a new forward, afterword, and illustrations by Richard Chalfen). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. (Originally published 1972)
Forward to the revised edition (ix-xxi)
Chalfen describes the late 1960s and early 1970s as active times in the development of visual anthropology when the Navajo Project was carried out in 1966 (both CFC and the Fogo Island Project embarked in 1967). He noted that the change in the field of visual anthropology was accelerating in 1990s (as of writing this forward) and described one significant change: Visual products are seen as part of a process of communication and demands critical attention. Thus, more correct is anthropology of visual communication rather than visual anthropology. Chalfen ascribes the Navajo Project as a cornerstone of this reformulation. This is clear in the purpose of this project described in Chapter 15:
As we have said, one of the aims of our research was to develop a method for collecting, analyzing, and comparing how various groups and cultures structured their world when making a film about it. (p. 228)
This research was focused on a methodological development to interpret ways in which people in different cultures structure their world in particular by using film production techniques. This context constituted the particular condition of collaborative filmmaking in this project. Chalfen stated:
At this time paradigms of collaborative ethnographic film research were simply not well developed. In this sense the communication scholar Worth and the cultural anthropologist Adair were breaking new ground by suggesting an "action research" collaboration along two dimensions--first, across discipline, and second across the politically loaded divide of scholar/outsider and "native"/insider. (p. xiii)
(In this regard, Chalfen noted some philosophical and ethical issues around the idea of "handing the camera over to others": first, it is not familiar practice (at least back then--me) and it is still Western-oriented thing to force people to do.)
Chalfen categorizes several patterns of participation. The Navajo Project is in the 6th: researchers ask local people to make a movie on anything they choose. This practice, and yet, preserves objectivist attitudes: little emphasis on researchers involvement, and lack of attention to problematizing issues under investigation. On the other hand, a project that immediately followed the Navajo Project draw my attention. In 1971, Adair, approached by a psychiatrist, developed a project on Navajo alcoholism. Two films were produced and one of them was immediately lost. This approach was an advance and actual application of the method to address real problems.
Chapter 16. Some concluding thoughts (252-262)
Afterword to the revised edition (276-341)
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Familial Pursuits, Editorial Acts
: Documentaries after the Age of Home Video. Orgeron, Marsha,& Orgeron, Devin. (2007). The Velvet Light Trap, 60, 47-62.
The authors observed that a significant number of documentaries created since the 1990s took a form of autobiography, relying upon primary footage taken from home videos. Home movies in the post World War II were promoted primarily by equipment makers for documenting family life and children targeting the baby boom generation (Zimmerman). Reading Zimmerman and Chalfen, the authors summarized that those movies were focused on family togetherness and unity. Yet, with the advent of video, its affordability and simplicity, now home movies become home videography and its influence on a documentary production stream, observed the authors. They stated:
"By the 1980s and 1990s the skills—indeed, even the resources—needed to film and edit no longer appeared the exclusive province of adults, the former gatekeepers of the family iconography. Even kids could use a video camera, and a new generation of videographers was able to move outside of the parentally controlled patterns that dominated the home movie age" (p. 48).
This technology change changed ways in which a new generation of videographers describe their family portraits, the authors argued. They stated:
"homevvvideography lends itself to capturing the family in ways that are not consonant with earlier conventions of home filmmaking, earlier conventions, in fact, that occasionally appear, often by way of contrast, in these recent documentary films." (pp. 48-49)
the allure of these films partly hinges on their promise of a glimpse (p. 50) beyond the surface, an invitation to see the unlovely elements typically concealed by the curtain drawn on private lives, and that these elements are made visible especially through the documentary director’s use of primary home video footage.(p. 51)
The authors observed that a significant number of documentaries created since the 1990s took a form of autobiography, relying upon primary footage taken from home videos. Home movies in the post World War II were promoted primarily by equipment makers for documenting family life and children targeting the baby boom generation (Zimmerman). Reading Zimmerman and Chalfen, the authors summarized that those movies were focused on family togetherness and unity. Yet, with the advent of video, its affordability and simplicity, now home movies become home videography and its influence on a documentary production stream, observed the authors. They stated:
"By the 1980s and 1990s the skills—indeed, even the resources—needed to film and edit no longer appeared the exclusive province of adults, the former gatekeepers of the family iconography. Even kids could use a video camera, and a new generation of videographers was able to move outside of the parentally controlled patterns that dominated the home movie age" (p. 48).
This technology change changed ways in which a new generation of videographers describe their family portraits, the authors argued. They stated:
"homevvvideography lends itself to capturing the family in ways that are not consonant with earlier conventions of home filmmaking, earlier conventions, in fact, that occasionally appear, often by way of contrast, in these recent documentary films." (pp. 48-49)
the allure of these films partly hinges on their promise of a glimpse (p. 50) beyond the surface, an invitation to see the unlovely elements typically concealed by the curtain drawn on private lives, and that these elements are made visible especially through the documentary director’s use of primary home video footage.(p. 51)
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Video in development: FILMING FOR RURAL CHANGE
Rico Lie and Andreas Mandler (2009). CTA and FAO
NGO group who used video for development projects throughout the world. Worthwhile noting.
NGO group who used video for development projects throughout the world. Worthwhile noting.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
‘The Life That We Don’t Want’: Using Participatory Video in Researching Violence
Wheeler, Joanna. (2009). IDS Bulletin, 40(3), 10-18
Abstract -------
This article reports on the use of participatory video as a research tool for working in violent contexts. The research asked how people living in poor areas of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil can build a bridge between violence and citizenship through participatory social action. Working in violent favelas and housing estates, the process involved creating participatory discussion groups drawn from different segments of the community. Participatory video was one of several tools used in the research process. The main contribution of participatory video was not in generating empirical findings, but in challenging patterns of power and control--------
Wheeler more precisely repeated the last sentence: "It concludes that, while the methodological challenges are certainly more numerous and complex, participatory video was important in terms of the research process and the social action surrounding it, rather than in terms of the research findings it generated" (p. 10).
Wheeler found the root of participatory video in participatory approaches to development work in the 1970s, pioneered by Snowden in 1967. She also noted a recent trend of PV as a participatory action research tool.
Wheeler stated the advantage of using PV as strengthening the research and communication process, more specifically:
-"give participants a greater degree of control over the research process and communication of
findings, and helped build their confidence and their trust in the research process." (p. 12)
-"It also helped create an opportunity for interaction between a diverse group of people who might not otherwise have listened to each other’s perspectives on the violence which affects them all" (pp. 12-13)--catalyzing interaction.
-"A significant dimension to the role of video was the validation of people’s perspectives and views through public screenings" (p. 13)
-"It also served as a feedback mechanism for research participants. Because of their easy replicability and visual nature, the videos facilitated communication of the research beyond the group immediately involved, including dialogues with policymakers." (p. 13)
-"people were more willing to listen to what others were saying when they watched it on video than they would have in face to face encounters." (p. 13)
-"the films caught the attention of policymakers. . . . The films framed the debate in a way which would have been difficult to achieve through more conventional presentations or dialogue. As a result of the debate, the city councillor launched a programme using participatory video in over 40 communities across the city" (p. 13).
As limitation of using PV, Wheeler noted, "In a context of fear and mistrust caused by violence, the public nature of video limits what people are able to say." [THIS IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO OP RESEARCH CONTEXT] By the public nature of video, she meant ethics. Besides, Wheeler pointed out the "interviewer effect" that distorts what an interviewee say--they often say what interviewers might want to hear. More critically, video brings up another level of ethics issues. Wheeler noted:
Once the videos are made and copies distributed within the community, the video can be seen by anyone anywhere. This is very different from an interview or a questionnaire, where anonymity is more plausible. This heightens some of the risks arising from using video as a research tool on violence. (p. 14)
Wheeler called interviewee's selective topic/content a "deliberate silence" (p. 14)
Abstract -------
This article reports on the use of participatory video as a research tool for working in violent contexts. The research asked how people living in poor areas of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil can build a bridge between violence and citizenship through participatory social action. Working in violent favelas and housing estates, the process involved creating participatory discussion groups drawn from different segments of the community. Participatory video was one of several tools used in the research process. The main contribution of participatory video was not in generating empirical findings, but in challenging patterns of power and control--------
Wheeler more precisely repeated the last sentence: "It concludes that, while the methodological challenges are certainly more numerous and complex, participatory video was important in terms of the research process and the social action surrounding it, rather than in terms of the research findings it generated" (p. 10).
Wheeler found the root of participatory video in participatory approaches to development work in the 1970s, pioneered by Snowden in 1967. She also noted a recent trend of PV as a participatory action research tool.
Wheeler stated the advantage of using PV as strengthening the research and communication process, more specifically:
-"give participants a greater degree of control over the research process and communication of
findings, and helped build their confidence and their trust in the research process." (p. 12)
-"It also helped create an opportunity for interaction between a diverse group of people who might not otherwise have listened to each other’s perspectives on the violence which affects them all" (pp. 12-13)--catalyzing interaction.
-"A significant dimension to the role of video was the validation of people’s perspectives and views through public screenings" (p. 13)
-"It also served as a feedback mechanism for research participants. Because of their easy replicability and visual nature, the videos facilitated communication of the research beyond the group immediately involved, including dialogues with policymakers." (p. 13)
-"people were more willing to listen to what others were saying when they watched it on video than they would have in face to face encounters." (p. 13)
-"the films caught the attention of policymakers. . . . The films framed the debate in a way which would have been difficult to achieve through more conventional presentations or dialogue. As a result of the debate, the city councillor launched a programme using participatory video in over 40 communities across the city" (p. 13).
As limitation of using PV, Wheeler noted, "In a context of fear and mistrust caused by violence, the public nature of video limits what people are able to say." [THIS IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO OP RESEARCH CONTEXT] By the public nature of video, she meant ethics. Besides, Wheeler pointed out the "interviewer effect" that distorts what an interviewee say--they often say what interviewers might want to hear. More critically, video brings up another level of ethics issues. Wheeler noted:
Once the videos are made and copies distributed within the community, the video can be seen by anyone anywhere. This is very different from an interview or a questionnaire, where anonymity is more plausible. This heightens some of the risks arising from using video as a research tool on violence. (p. 14)
Wheeler called interviewee's selective topic/content a "deliberate silence" (p. 14)
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Looking at and looking back: visualization in mobile research
Murray, Lesley. (2009). Qualitative research, 9(4), 469–488.
Murray defined contemporary social world is mobile (not only in the corporeal sense, but also in the increasing speed and flow of information) and the movement of images is central to the mobility; thus social world is becoming more visual through visual media such as video, the Internet, and mobile phones. Within this context, Murray seeks mobile, visual methodologies responding to mobile social world.
The mobility of the video camera is on her focus. She argued that its capability of contextualizing in time and space makes video a key tool of exploration within a mobile and visual methodology. Secondly, the possibility of repetitiveness in watching a sequence of action broadens a range of viewers, encompassing the researcher, participants, and beyond. Third, its capability to allow an exploration of non-verbal communication and a way of distinct knowledge creation.
A particular use of video is video diary, or self-filming. (This ‘self-filming’, which Pink (Doing visual ethnography) traces back to Sol Worth and John Adam’s ‘Navajo Film themselves’ made in 1966, gives participants the opportunity to represent themselves in time and space--Murray wrote)
As to video as a mobility methodology, Murray argued:
"The use of video methods in particular allows the moment to moment contextualization both
socio-culturally and spatially. Video is itself mobile, facilitating reflections on a sequence of events that can be negotiated into a narrative as part of a collaborative process between the researcher and participant." (p. 484)
Murray defined contemporary social world is mobile (not only in the corporeal sense, but also in the increasing speed and flow of information) and the movement of images is central to the mobility; thus social world is becoming more visual through visual media such as video, the Internet, and mobile phones. Within this context, Murray seeks mobile, visual methodologies responding to mobile social world.
The mobility of the video camera is on her focus. She argued that its capability of contextualizing in time and space makes video a key tool of exploration within a mobile and visual methodology. Secondly, the possibility of repetitiveness in watching a sequence of action broadens a range of viewers, encompassing the researcher, participants, and beyond. Third, its capability to allow an exploration of non-verbal communication and a way of distinct knowledge creation.
A particular use of video is video diary, or self-filming. (This ‘self-filming’, which Pink (Doing visual ethnography) traces back to Sol Worth and John Adam’s ‘Navajo Film themselves’ made in 1966, gives participants the opportunity to represent themselves in time and space--Murray wrote)
As to video as a mobility methodology, Murray argued:
"The use of video methods in particular allows the moment to moment contextualization both
socio-culturally and spatially. Video is itself mobile, facilitating reflections on a sequence of events that can be negotiated into a narrative as part of a collaborative process between the researcher and participant." (p. 484)
Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century
Jenkins, Henry. (2009). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Executive summary (xi-xv)
Observing a growing tendency of the youth's engagement in media production and sharing their created products over the web, Jenkins defined a participatory culture: "A participatory culture is a a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby experienced participants pass along knowledge to novices" (xi) Further, he described that members of a participatory culture believe the importance of their contribution to the culture and fee certain social connection with one another. Despite the potential benefits from such participatory cultures, Jenkins argued for policy and pedagogical interventions for three concerns: participation gap, transparency problem, and ethics challenge. For that matter, Jenkins stated:
"Educators must work together to ensure that all young Americans have access to the skills and experiences needed to become full participants, can articulate their understanding of how media shapes perceptions, and are socialized into the emerging ethical standards that should shape their practices as media makers and participants in online communities." (xiii)
He wrote, "Inter-activity is a property of the technology, while participation is a property of culture." (p. 8). Thus, interactivity does not necessarily increase participation. Yet, he shows technology-deterministic approach, by writing subsequently, "Participatory culture is emerging as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content in powerful new ways." (p. 8)
Executive summary (xi-xv)
Observing a growing tendency of the youth's engagement in media production and sharing their created products over the web, Jenkins defined a participatory culture: "A participatory culture is a a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby experienced participants pass along knowledge to novices" (xi) Further, he described that members of a participatory culture believe the importance of their contribution to the culture and fee certain social connection with one another. Despite the potential benefits from such participatory cultures, Jenkins argued for policy and pedagogical interventions for three concerns: participation gap, transparency problem, and ethics challenge. For that matter, Jenkins stated:
"Educators must work together to ensure that all young Americans have access to the skills and experiences needed to become full participants, can articulate their understanding of how media shapes perceptions, and are socialized into the emerging ethical standards that should shape their practices as media makers and participants in online communities." (xiii)
He wrote, "Inter-activity is a property of the technology, while participation is a property of culture." (p. 8). Thus, interactivity does not necessarily increase participation. Yet, he shows technology-deterministic approach, by writing subsequently, "Participatory culture is emerging as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content in powerful new ways." (p. 8)
Video Cultures Media Technology and Everyday Creativity
Buckingham, David & Willette, Rebekah. (2009). Basingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan
Web introduction---
Over the past decade, the video camcorder has become a commonplace household object. The rise of YouTube and other video sharing sites has made it significantly easier to distribute amateur video productions, and national broadcasters are increasingly interested in 'user-generated content' and the work of so-called 'citizen journalists'. For some, this growth in access to video production is part of a wider democratisation of media, and the emergence of a much more participatory media culture. However, others argue that such practices amount to little more than a trivial family pastime, that does little if anything to challenge the power of the established mass media. This book explores the diversity of 'video cultures' in contemporary Britain through a series of case studies ranging from citizen journalists to amateur pornographers, and from teenage pranksters to elderly members of video-making clubs. Through its discussion of specific video-making practices, the book raises broader issues about key themes in contemporary cultural studies, including creativity, social capital, identity and technology.
A Commonplace Art? Understanding Amateur Media Production (Buckingham, David, 23-50)
Buckingham rightly pointed out that the growing popularity of amateur video-making has been generally neglected by academic researchers. More recent research trend is focused on the 'domestication' of technology (p. 23), which is inclusion of technology in the fabric of domestic life, yet the focus is placed on equipment, but not what people do with video cameras in the home, Buckingham argued.
In his review, studies around amateur-filmmaking took the form of home mode production, yet Buckingham pointed out that home mode video has not been explored in it own rights.
Buckingham looked at Charles Leadbeater and Paul Miller's The Pro-Am Revolution (2004), discussing a productive blurring of boundaries and a new breed of amateurs nowadays. On the other hand, Andrew Keen (2007) attributed the proliferation of participatory media (such as blogs, wikis) to the 'death of culture', in which nothing can be trusted and everything is left in the 'digital forest of mediocrity' influenced by the internet.
** Keen, A. (2007) The Cult of the Amateur. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Concerning the development of participatory media, Buckingham finds the notion of vernacular creativity central to the development, arguing for the connections of creativity and everyday life.
Buckingham discussed multiple video cultures; home mode is one of them. In some cases, quality matters, while others prioritize contents; to some, public exhibition and dialogue is important, others , irrelevant. [Buckingham does not limit home mode strictly to the home movies.
Buckingham pointed out the potential for empowerment of ordinary people as a recurring feature of popular discourse about amateur filmmaking. But sharply wrote, "Yet, until fairly recently, there has been little evidence that any such democratisation has transpired" (p. 41). In this light, Laurie Ouellette (1995) stated that ‘the people’ are anything but free to create their own programming.
*Ouellette, L. (1995) ‘Camcorder dos and don’ts: popular discourses on amateur
video and participatory television’. The Velvet Light Trap. 36: 33–44.
Reading Jenkins (2006), who argued DIY vernacular culture is pushing mainstream media in new directions and through the network, people create new forms of collective intelligence and access greater collective power to media producers, Buckingham astutely argued:
"[C]ontemporary media often depend upon ‘activity’ on the part of consumers, but that does not necessarily mean that consumers are more powerful: activity should not be confused with agency. . . . Furthermore, since such activities are commercially driven, there are likely to be significant inequalities in the extent to which people are able to participate in them – inequalities which, as Jenkins acknowledges, are not simply to do with access to equipment, but also to do with cultural capital and expertise." (p. 43) (see also Jenkins 2007)
Also, Buckingham asserted that Jenkins focused on highly dedicated groups of people, leaving behind the more banal, every day use of media.
*Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York:
New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J. and Weigel, M. (2007) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. MacArthur Foundation.
Buckingham argued:
"Even so, the political implications of these developments remain to be seen. On one level, it is undoubtedly the case that ‘Web 2.0’ technologies have offered significant new opportunities for communication among already-established radical groups (Clark, 2007) – although one would have to acknowledge that they have also served this function for extreme right-wing groups, and indeed conspiracy theorists and lunatics of all kinds. The case that remains to be made here is whether such technologies are genuinely ‘empowering’, and in what ways. . . . It is likely that
those who make the most use of such facilities are also well provided with other such opportunities in other areas of their lives; and so these technologies might in fact serve to widen the gaps between participants and non-participants rather than to reduce them. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the apparent enthusiasm for ‘user-generated content’ in the contemporary media industries is little more than tokenistic and superficial." (p. 44)
[THIS IS IMPORTANT. PV delves into the area in which 'ordinary' people lack such facilities, not responding to the participatory culture that emerge among certain group of people. 'Participation divide' ]
*Clark, J. (2007) Big Dreams, Small Screens: Online Video for Public Knowledge and
Action. Washington, D.C.: Center for Social Media, American University.
Power to the People? The Past and Future of Amateur Video (D. Buckingham, 230-238)
"Indeed, one inevitable consequence of the growing accessibility of video technology (as described in our first chapter) is that video is rapidly becoming a mundane, even banal medium. As video camera phones become as ubiquitous as snapshot cameras, and as video is routinely distributed online, the sense of video-making and appearing on video as special experiences – even as in some way glamorous or empowering – is bound to disappear." (p. 237)
In short, for Buckingham, amateur video-making is a form of popular representation and he called for sustained attention to its complex and sometimes paradoxical practice.
Web introduction---
Over the past decade, the video camcorder has become a commonplace household object. The rise of YouTube and other video sharing sites has made it significantly easier to distribute amateur video productions, and national broadcasters are increasingly interested in 'user-generated content' and the work of so-called 'citizen journalists'. For some, this growth in access to video production is part of a wider democratisation of media, and the emergence of a much more participatory media culture. However, others argue that such practices amount to little more than a trivial family pastime, that does little if anything to challenge the power of the established mass media. This book explores the diversity of 'video cultures' in contemporary Britain through a series of case studies ranging from citizen journalists to amateur pornographers, and from teenage pranksters to elderly members of video-making clubs. Through its discussion of specific video-making practices, the book raises broader issues about key themes in contemporary cultural studies, including creativity, social capital, identity and technology.
A Commonplace Art? Understanding Amateur Media Production (Buckingham, David, 23-50)
Buckingham rightly pointed out that the growing popularity of amateur video-making has been generally neglected by academic researchers. More recent research trend is focused on the 'domestication' of technology (p. 23), which is inclusion of technology in the fabric of domestic life, yet the focus is placed on equipment, but not what people do with video cameras in the home, Buckingham argued.
In his review, studies around amateur-filmmaking took the form of home mode production, yet Buckingham pointed out that home mode video has not been explored in it own rights.
Buckingham looked at Charles Leadbeater and Paul Miller's The Pro-Am Revolution (2004), discussing a productive blurring of boundaries and a new breed of amateurs nowadays. On the other hand, Andrew Keen (2007) attributed the proliferation of participatory media (such as blogs, wikis) to the 'death of culture', in which nothing can be trusted and everything is left in the 'digital forest of mediocrity' influenced by the internet.
** Keen, A. (2007) The Cult of the Amateur. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Concerning the development of participatory media, Buckingham finds the notion of vernacular creativity central to the development, arguing for the connections of creativity and everyday life.
Buckingham discussed multiple video cultures; home mode is one of them. In some cases, quality matters, while others prioritize contents; to some, public exhibition and dialogue is important, others , irrelevant. [Buckingham does not limit home mode strictly to the home movies.
Buckingham pointed out the potential for empowerment of ordinary people as a recurring feature of popular discourse about amateur filmmaking. But sharply wrote, "Yet, until fairly recently, there has been little evidence that any such democratisation has transpired" (p. 41). In this light, Laurie Ouellette (1995) stated that ‘the people’ are anything but free to create their own programming.
*Ouellette, L. (1995) ‘Camcorder dos and don’ts: popular discourses on amateur
video and participatory television’. The Velvet Light Trap. 36: 33–44.
Reading Jenkins (2006), who argued DIY vernacular culture is pushing mainstream media in new directions and through the network, people create new forms of collective intelligence and access greater collective power to media producers, Buckingham astutely argued:
"[C]ontemporary media often depend upon ‘activity’ on the part of consumers, but that does not necessarily mean that consumers are more powerful: activity should not be confused with agency. . . . Furthermore, since such activities are commercially driven, there are likely to be significant inequalities in the extent to which people are able to participate in them – inequalities which, as Jenkins acknowledges, are not simply to do with access to equipment, but also to do with cultural capital and expertise." (p. 43) (see also Jenkins 2007)
Also, Buckingham asserted that Jenkins focused on highly dedicated groups of people, leaving behind the more banal, every day use of media.
*Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York:
New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J. and Weigel, M. (2007) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. MacArthur Foundation.
Buckingham argued:
"Even so, the political implications of these developments remain to be seen. On one level, it is undoubtedly the case that ‘Web 2.0’ technologies have offered significant new opportunities for communication among already-established radical groups (Clark, 2007) – although one would have to acknowledge that they have also served this function for extreme right-wing groups, and indeed conspiracy theorists and lunatics of all kinds. The case that remains to be made here is whether such technologies are genuinely ‘empowering’, and in what ways. . . . It is likely that
those who make the most use of such facilities are also well provided with other such opportunities in other areas of their lives; and so these technologies might in fact serve to widen the gaps between participants and non-participants rather than to reduce them. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the apparent enthusiasm for ‘user-generated content’ in the contemporary media industries is little more than tokenistic and superficial." (p. 44)
[THIS IS IMPORTANT. PV delves into the area in which 'ordinary' people lack such facilities, not responding to the participatory culture that emerge among certain group of people. 'Participation divide' ]
*Clark, J. (2007) Big Dreams, Small Screens: Online Video for Public Knowledge and
Action. Washington, D.C.: Center for Social Media, American University.
Power to the People? The Past and Future of Amateur Video (D. Buckingham, 230-238)
"Indeed, one inevitable consequence of the growing accessibility of video technology (as described in our first chapter) is that video is rapidly becoming a mundane, even banal medium. As video camera phones become as ubiquitous as snapshot cameras, and as video is routinely distributed online, the sense of video-making and appearing on video as special experiences – even as in some way glamorous or empowering – is bound to disappear." (p. 237)
In short, for Buckingham, amateur video-making is a form of popular representation and he called for sustained attention to its complex and sometimes paradoxical practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
