what spring break?....

not that i was able to do much, other than partake in much needed (deserved?) rest. watched quite a few films. had a few drinks. studied quite a bit, which is the reason i couldn't leave town. started my own wiki with some friends, which is going quite well. now to catch up with blogging and working with my project (project and presentation)...

so i'll be writing on this blog and the class wiki (i have a separate page: click here) simultaneously. it will be most of the same material. notes for my project. and some quick thoughts on wikinomics, which i have a strong distaste for thus far, though i think it's an important read. more to come.

project proposal....

Description of Artifact: “Broadcast Yourself” is the catch slogan of the widely popular YouTube website. Initially designed as a forum for amateur video producers, YouTube has become more of a search engine for image-related content (television programs, music videos, academic lectures...). However, its original intention is still being met by those who indeed “broadcast” themselves, their voices augmented by viewer feedback. Of particular interest are those videos where people confront their audiences directly, either discussing a single issue or representing a specific subculture. It has become, for many, an outlet for performing identity, often through cultural stereotypes, but for the most part with clear intentions of being “real.” The urgency by which they express and exhibit their identities, as if through necessity, gives these videos a quality quite similar to the confessional.

Other Attributes: The typical age group represented in these videos is around the late teens to early twenties. Topics vary, though sometimes there are several videos circulating around a single subject. They are primarily an exhibition of subjectivity, though they also seem to be means of attaining peer acceptance through (nearly anonymous) viewer comments. Topics are often suggested through viewer comments. The video is typically shot with a web-cam or a camcorder mounted near the self-subject’s workstation. The setting, therefore, is quite intimate, as it most likely mirrors the viewer’s own atmosphere. The “style” of the video could be informed by the “confession booth” segment typical of reality TV shows.

Potential: Videos which are more sophisticated (in a technical sense), reflexive, interactive, or essayistic. [What would my secondary sources suggest?]

Personal Investment in the Topic: The motive that underlies this inquiry is my profound interest in documentary films. In light of contemporary documentary modes of representation, these videos exemplify its current trends veering towards individual performance of subjectivity. The videos may be able to inform future documentary modes.

Primary Sources: Find at least three examples which exemplify this type of video. Also pay attention to viewer responses. [How does this change or subvert the video’s original intention? If the opinions of the video producer are intended by them to be subversive or controversial, how are institutional norms reestablished through viewer commentary?]

Secondary Sources:

1. Walter Benjamin – “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” What happens when the “masses” take technology into their own hands? The cult vs. the ritual object. Repercussions. [This source may work well to introduce the topic.]
2. Michael Renov – “Video Confessions” (published in The Subject of Documentary) Though Renov refers primarily to avant-garde video making, this source might be helpful in determining certain characteristics of the video confession. Ex: its therapeutic power. How does this relate or differ to video “confessions” on YouTube?
3. Michel Foucault – The History of Sexuality A sample excerpt: “(Confession is) a ritual that unfolds within a power relationship, for one does not confess without the presence (or virtual presence) of a partner who is not simply the interlocutor but the authority who requires the confession…”

[Of course, I’m open to any other suggestions.]

a word on filmed ethnographies....

I'm writing this as a response to bell hooks essay, which raises some important issues that pertain not only to literary discourse but to other media as well, of which i have an invested interest.

At the core of documentary film studies is the debate on how to move past the inherent problems that constitute the filmed ethnography, primarily the opposition between Self (the transference of the filmmaker's vision to the viewer) and Other (the subject). This debate has been informing documentary techniques for the past one hundred years. In response, some filmmakers have adopted a much more personal/reflexive approach. With Cinéma Verité, the director goes beyond mere observation to interact with her/his subject, exposing the limitations of the subjective eye/I. Recent "performative documentaries" (the central subject of Bill Nichols "Blurred Boundaries" or "Introduction to Documentary") have turned the lens inward to the actual performance of the filmmaker's own identity. In auto-ethnographies the subject is given the camera in order to record their own experience, however, the filmmaker still claims authorship through editing and presentation.

I agree with hooks that Cultural Studies is key to moving beyond these issues. Half the work of the text is executed by author and the other by the reader/viewer. The solution is to remove any and all "blindspots" so that the intentions behind the ethnographic text can be questioned less as a point of unfamiliar interest (gawking rather than seeing) and more of a harmonious engagement.

[see Agnés Varda's The Gleaners and I, a film that I believe is on the right path.)