Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Photo restoration






So, these are the small steps that are long forgotten in the final part of a documentary. These small, time-consuming, yet worthwhile things like restoration of photographs. These shots of Fred Robinson were taken by Jon Rhodes in 1972. Stephen got hold of the negatives from him, we scanned them in and I've been playing with it in Photoshop this morning, trying to bring it back to life.

Each step of the creation of a documentary such as this one is almost like re-animating a time and a space that has long since passed, and in the case of this photograph, long since faded away. A few strokes of the Photoshop brush brings it back to life in no time.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

A-ha?

Just had a wild thought that could be the 'missing link' I've been looking for to tie my argument together.
There's been a gap in my thinking/argument up until this point that I keep stepping over. In the first instance I've been talking about the not so successful digital repurposing of documentary and how it has lost its essence. Good fine but then I've been jumping to 'Flow theory is the answer' to the optimal documentary experience. It was a bit of a leap and everytime I tried to think how to link the two together ... well they didn't logically fit together.

SO, I began to think about other formats that have been re-purposed for the digital realm and then link the qualities that are in common between the traditional and digital formats. Games are the obvious answer. They are equally as engaging and successful in both traditional formats and digital. The two are different in their technical/physical qualities but similar in many other ways.

Then I began to list these common qualities that digital and traditional games have -
  • play
  • win/lose - clear goals and feedback
  • challenges - requires skill and rules to play
  • immersive - loss of self-consciousness when engaging
  • transformation of time when playing
As i listed these qualities I recognised them all as being qualities of Flow and a-ha the missing link, using this case of games can be my bridge to discussing flow and then discussing flow in relation to documentary will assist in identifying the optimal experience in both digital and traditional environments.

A-ha! :oD

Organising the literature: an interview with myself

I'm content with the methodology chapter for now ... so moving on ... back ... to Chapter 2: Contextual Review and attempting to map out the areas that need to be discussed to contextualise this research. I know what needs to go in there but the puzzle is how to structure it to lay the best foundation for my discussion of the optimal experience of documentary.

What does the reader need to know first?
Documentary, how has it been written about over its 80 year history? Who are the main players? What are the main issues that have been addressed?
And then?
Digital documentary, what has been done and written so far? Outline the observed problem of it not being engaging. Why is this so?
Next ...
Digital media is different to traditional media with regard to its engagement of the audience. Traditional media does it this way ... and digital media does it this way ...
Yes, and then?
... shh, I'm thinking ...
And then?
So, we just need to swap the old traditional characteristics of engagement for the new digital characteristics and documentary will successfully move into the new dimension? Give examples of digidocs in action ... no it is not as simple as repurposing the characteristics of engagement.
So what needs to happen?
we need to open doco up and see what the qualities are that make it the optimal experience and then take these qualities and adjust them for the digital dimension.
Good, so there's your structure then!
Thanks.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The history of all things relating to this research

Well ... not quite but this is an attempt to summarise this study so far so as to bring you up to date. So much ground has been covered in the time before this blog began. Emergent methodologies are characteristic of this kind of study so it is kind of nice that the initiation of this blog as a research method was born out of the emerging/evolving methodology. Aha ... PROOF ... that my methodology is emergent!

A brief summary of 2009. This year has been the second year of my PhD. After a rocky start last year (2008 ... I'll get to that in a minute) it took me a while to settle in to what I thought I might be doing and to find some belief that I actually could do it. It has been a year of theory. I began the year by finally having my research project approved and I began work on the most important (at that stage) part of the thesis, Chapter Four. It should be noted that there was no plan to produce an artefact at that stage. Most of this year has been spent playing in the sand pit, searching for different models and frameworks that will help me ground and express my ideas on this theory of 'the optimal documentary'.

I began with Vorderer's (2004) Model of Complex Entertainment Experiences which allowed me to show how 'enjoyment' is central to the entertainment experience. Around the same time I came across the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. (After asking a colleague how to pronounce his name) I realised that his 'Flow theory' could be integral to what I was trying to say about documentary, I was searching for a 'heart' of documentary at that time but realised that Csikszentmihalyi's theory on the 'optimal experience of life' was transferrable to my research. So I began playing with both Vorderer's and Csikszentmihalyi's models to see how they could fit together, see where they fit within the realm of documentary theory and production.

Before I knew it it was October and I was still running around in circles, seeing how those pieces fit together ... getting increasingly frustrated with my lack of progress ... when a small doco project came up with our Learning & Teaching Unit for me to get involved with for a couple of weeks. So I packed the books away and got into the practical side of things. It was very refreshing to pick up a camera again and craft together a small doco. It got me refocussed on the aesthetics of documentary: composing shots, meeting people and thinking about how best to portray their perspective on the given subject. This is such a different world to that of documentary theory where people like Bill Nichols et al argue for the truth-claims of the genre. When you're doing it, when you're making a fact-based film all that stuff is basic, implicit, not even considered. It is really about crafting the perspectives of the people you're filming and presenting them in the most beautiful way possible. You're thinking about your target audience, giving the people who've commissioned this what they want and meeting the deadlines.

Oh and did I mention that around this same time I completed another circle and decided to implement an artefact into my research. Why? For the above reasons, that an examination of the documentary genre is more than the theory. Documentary is a practical thing, it needs to be practiced in order to find anything new out about it. That of course meant another trip back to the ethics committee ... stay tuned for more on that one in another posting!

Travelling back in time to 2008 ... the first year of this study was difficult. It started well ... I knew exactly what I was doing and got right into writing up the proposal for it. 6 months in I was side-tracked by an enormous community documentary project that sucked up 3 months of my time. Of course, if I had have known back in those beginning times that I was a practitioner-researcher I could have used the community documentary project, learnt from it, grown from it, helped me to shape the early development of my research rather than it being the 'hinderance to my time' that I saw it as.

So 2008 disappeared from under my feet and when my research proposal was rejected I jumped ship and decided to start planning a new project. Now I see that all this was part of the process, I was reading book after book, searching and finding my context, my place to begin my journey. I re-wrote the research proposal late 2008 and finally got started in early 2009 which is where our story began.

Looking and reflecting on my study to date is very interesting. Now that I have a clear understanding of just how circular this kind of research can be it feels like it was all meant to be this way, I wouldn't have got to the point I am right now without the last 2 years of adventure. So, this is why PhDs take so long. It's the journey that has to unfold over time. If you've travelled nowhere during the course of your study then I guess you've really travelled nowhere in the solving of a problem, creation of new knowledge and/or learning how to be a researcher.


Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Parallel worlds

Still working on that methodology chapter ...

It's nice the way the world of 'naturalistic inquiry' fits perfectly with a style of contemporary documentary production, namely that 'first-person investigation' style of doco (Michael Moore-style). He puts himself at the centre of his research and then presents what he found. His resultant works are very subjective, context specific inquiries filtered through his perspective of the world. That's exactly what naturalistic inquiry is and so is absolutely the perfect methodology to guide my research.

I love when things fall together like this.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Enlightenment

Today I've spent working on my methodology chapter. It feels so good to get out of the constraints of writing objectively!! It is amazing. As soon as I began to use 'I' and to talk about who I am as a documentary user-researcher-practitioner I felt so much more passionate about what i was doing and less tentative about making mistakes/ getting it wrong. And, the best bit, it takes much less time to write!

It's quite enlightening really. I've been so conditioned to write objectively that I hadn't noticed how difficult it was.

I'm FREE! :o)

Friday, November 13, 2009

What am I as a researcher?

Just wrote this on the discussion forum for the 'Practice-led ...' course I'm doing. It was quite enlightening to unpack who I am and why I know what I know -

Two things come to mind immediately when I ask myself this question which highlight my interpretivist approach. Firstly, living in a university world I am creating documentaries in a research context as opposed to a commercial context. This has a huge impact on the kind of work I produce. The focus in industry is on audience and sales. My focus is on exploration and innovation. A commercial doco maker has probably never heard of the leading critical thinkers of doco theory: Nichols, Corner etc whereas they are a cornerstone of my knowledge and therefore influence my productions.

Secondly, my social/cultural construct influences my view of what documentary is and what its purpose is. Being a teenager in the 1990s meant that popular documentary to me was a mix of fact and fiction (docudramas, reality TV) so I'm quite accepting of these types of doco whereas older generations aren't. Growing up in a middle class, Australian context means that to me, the purpose of documentary is to tell stories whereas for someone growing up in perhaps, lower classes of anywhere, Middle East, Africa or any other setting where it was a struggle to live then the importance of documentary as a tool for social issue commentary might be more important.