New Documentary Ecologies Emerging Platforms Pract... - (Introduction New Documentary Ecologies Emerging Platforms Practices An... )

Introduction
New Documentary Ecologies: Emerging

Platforms, Practices and Discourses
Kate Nash, Craig Hight and Catherine Summerhayes
[R]eally great documentary is about remaining open

to what’s actually happening around you … and this
is just a continuation of that kind of approach, just
in different media, and with different possibilities in
terms of how to collaborate with people and open
the process up. But in essence it’s the same practice.
(Katerina Cizek, Director, National Film Board of
Canada’s HIGHRISE: Out my Window)1
A revolution, captured on mobile phones, shared via Facebook, Twitter

and Flickr and collaboratively edited by volunteers.2 On the social net-
work site Facebook, aging hippies gather to reminisce, share memories
and in the process ‘make a documentary’ about their experiences on the
beaches of Goa.3 Inspired by a collection of stories collected in high-rise
buildings, people from around the world send in their own images and
stories to add to an Internet documentary.4 The documentary impulse
Copyright © 2014. Palgrave Macmillan UK. All rights reserved.
has a long history; practitioners are, it seems, still driven to preserve,

show, report, explain, persuade and advocate. But it is also an impulse
that is constantly seeking new avenues, new ways of capturing the
social-historical, or ‘treating’ actuality5 and new ways of connecting
with an audience.
Documentary has always had an experimental dimension with first
filmmakers and now digital documentary makers adopting and adapt-
ing emerging technologies and generating new documentary forms.
One way of looking at documentary’s present, then, is through the
lens of experimentation; as new media technologies and new forms of
communication emerge, contemporary documentary makers are engag-
ing in a continual process of reworking the documentary project. They
1
New Documentary Ecologies : Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses, edited by K. Nash, et al., Palgrave
Macmillan UK, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gatech/detail.action?docID=1645531.
Created from gatech on 2023-02-09 19:10:35.
2 New Documentary Ecologies
(and inevitably we, as audiences) are reimagining what documentary

might become: non-linear, multimedia, interactive, hybrid, cross-
platform, convergent, virtual, immersive, 360-degree, collaborative,
3-D, participatory, transmedia or something else yet to clearly emerge.
Yet, as the quote above from webdocumentary director Katerina Cizek
suggests, there is also much that remains unchanged. Documentary
makers continue to engage with the real and to be conscious of the
social, political and ethical consequences of so doing.
This process of rethinking documentary in a changing media envi-
ronment is the subject of this book; in particular we are inspired by
an environment in which digital technologies, modes, platforms and
infrastructures offer the potential for new ways of conceptualising the
documentary project and new means for ‘audiences’ (as viewers, naviga-
tors, users or collaborators) to engage with these forms. While this is our
focus, it is not our intention to draw definite boundaries between ‘old’
and ‘new’ media. The contemporary moment offers an often confusing
proliferation of mediated realities, with all things ‘digital’ engaging with
‘old’ media in ways that are rich and multilayered.
Our intention, here, is to address the need for a re-examination of
documentary theory itself in the light of an expanded ‘realm of the
real’ and, in the process, to engage critically with the claims made on
behalf of emerging media technologies. How are new tools changing
documentary production? Are audiences engaging in new ways with
documentary content? Does an assumed abundance of new channels
of distribution provide greater access to documentary? Today’s docu-
mentary makers have a range of new tools at their disposal, from data-
base editing tools like Zeega, Klynt, Popcorn and Korsakow to mobile
phones and other geolocational devices and social networking sites like
Facebook and Twitter that allow for collaboration with the ‘audience’.
Such tools potentially make new forms of representation possible, but

we should take care not to take these promises at face value.
In calling this a study of New Documentary Ecologies we are advocat-
ing one possible contextual frame for new documentary study. The
concept of ecology has been widely referenced by media scholars and
has become in many respects part of the ‘jargon effluvia’ of our time,
often deployed within a discourse of uncomplicated technological
determinism (Fuller 2005, p. 4). In using the term here, however, our
goal is to look at emerging documentary platforms as situated within
a complex media environment. Fuller (2005) argues that to look at the
media through the frame of ecology is to look at a dynamic system in
which the parts are multiply connected and interdependent. From this
Introduction 3
perspective the media object can be thought of as a pattern of interac-

tion as much as an apparently tangible object. While documentary
scholarship has frequently considered the contexts in which documen-
tary is produced (and, to a much lesser extent, consumed), an ecological
framework calls for an extension of this to foreground the interdepend-
ent relationships between media.
One way in which to achieve this is to focus on the diverse practices
and discourses that continue to frame emerging documentary forms.
To focus on practice is to look at what people are doing in relation to
media and the discourses that surround such activities (Couldry, 2004).
While film and television documentaries invite audiences to engage in
a process of viewing, interpreting and potentially discussing afterwards,
what are the implications of emerging forms of documentary that are
potentially more ‘participatory’, ‘interactive’ or ‘collaborative’? A focus
on practice asks us to consider the nature of people’s engagement with
documentary and how it relates to what they are doing with other
media. Contributing an image to a web-documentary, for instance, takes
place within a media culture in which photo sharing is commonplace.
A documentary ‘game’ (or docugame) might trade on the concept of doc-
umentary as signifying specific cultural expectations and values while at
the same time relying on an understanding (and valuing) of video game-
play. As our media environment becomes increasingly ‘participatory’,
to use a much debated and celebrated term (Jenkins, 2006), how is the
production and reception of documentary affected? Discourse, in turn,
draws attention not least to what is said about documentary. It engages
with the ways in which producers and audiences promote, explain or
perhaps critique emerging documentary forms. What claims are docu-
mentary makers making on behalf of new documentary modalities?
What ideals are evident? How are practitioners, commentators and audi-
ences themselves reshaping notions of ‘documentary’?

The aim of this collection is to bring together diverse perspectives
on emerging documentary discourses and practices. Our goal is not to
present a totalising vision of new documentary forms, the sheer diver-
sity and rapid rate of change suggests the impossibility of such a task.
Rather, this collection brings together diverse contemporary thinking
about post-film and television documentary. To focus on emerging
documentary formats and modes is not to suggest the end of film and
television documentary, it is simply that these are not the primary focus
of this volume. These are uncertain times for film and television pro-
ducers, with challenges to economic models that have sustained mass
media throughout the twentieth century (although many documentary
makers see Video on Demand (VoD) and Crowdfunding, for example,

as two developments that potentially open up new income streams to
support independent production). Our intention, however, is not to
speculate on the future of film and television documentary but rather
to look at the emergence of forms of documentary that cannot predomi-
nantly be described as either.
Although largely theoretical in its approach, the contributions gath-
ered here reflect both the breadth of contemporary documentary prac-
tice and scholarship within the academy and industry. Documentary
‘theory’ has arguably always been generated in cutting rooms and
behind the camera as much as it has within the academy. In the digital
age the boundaries between theory and practice are becoming increas-
ingly permeable as documentary makers contribute their thoughts,
ideas and reflections in addition to their works. This volume presents a
complex and partial picture of documentary practice in transition. It is
a collection that aims to take the next step in theorising documentary,
moving beyond rhetoric about the no-longer ‘new’ digital media to
engage with emerging practices of documentary production and con-
sumption. Situating documentary both historically and within a broad
contemporary media space, it considers what the documentary project
has been and what it might become. It challenges assumptions about
documentary as an object of study and raises questions about the tools
with which it is studied.
The first part of New Documentary Ecologies, titled ‘Expanding Docu-
mentary’ takes up the challenge of critically engaging with the theo-
retical challenges of emerging documentary practices. Jon Dovey argues
that in the online ecology documentary has become relational; docu-
mentary now consists of networks made up of various agents including
humans, software and hardware. This relationality calls for a retheorisa-
tion of documentary production and reception that takes into account

the twin logics of collaboration and exploitation. Charting a course
through Marxist critiques of networked mediation, Media Ecology,
Software Studies and work on participatory cultures, Dovey argues for
attention to the ways in which the invitation to participate is ‘framed’
for audiences and the balance that is struck between exploitation and
collaboration.
In her piece ‘Ceding the activist digital documentary’ Alexandra
Juhasz explores the options for activist documentary practices in an
online ecology increasingly driven by the interests of the corporations
that own the platforms. While the multiple fragments generated by
our participatory activities might not seem to be documentary, Juhasz
Introduction 5
argues that in thinking about them as such we are able to focus on

the processes by which truth claims are made and established. For the
corporations that own the platforms truth claims frequently depend
on the participation of users: ‘They seed – we water, grow, harvest and
market’. Ultimately, Juhasz argues, the online ecology can go only so far
toward sustaining an activist documentary tradition; at some point we
must cede the digital and engage in processes of active meaning-making.
The next two chapters shift attention specifically to the concept
of interactivity and the ways in which this challenges conventional
documentary scholarship. Kate Nash interrogates interactivity as it has
been conceptualised in emerging work on interactive documentary.
She identifies three dimensions of interactivity: technology, relation-
ships and audience experience. In addition to these three dimensions
Nash argues that a consequence of documentary’s social orientation is
a need to take into account the relationship between interactivity and
documentary argument. A case study of the web-documentary Bear 71
provides a context for exploring these four dimensions as an analytic
framework. Adrian Miles explores the connections between interactive
documentary and cinema through Deleuze’s concept of the movement
image. Rather than approaching interactivity and fragmentation as
markers of a rupture in documentary practice, Miles highlights continu-
ity, arguing that the fragment is central to both cinema and interactive
media. What are trim bins if not databases? While we are accustomed to
interpreting interactivity in terms of increased choice, and complexity,
Miles suggests that it may constitute a reduction.
In the final chapter in this section ‘Web-Weaving: The Affective
Movement of Documentary Imaging’ Catherine Summerhayes explores
the effect of online images by situating them within multiple contexts.
Drawing on the theatrical concepts of ecos and gest, Summerhayes draws
attention to the importance of the contexts in which images are cre-

ated, circulated and viewed. Close analysis of two images (one still and
one moving) and the experience of viewing provide powerful evidence
of the ability of images to move us, and the importance of taking into
account the contexts in which images are encountered in order to
understand their affective impact.
In the second part of the book ‘Production Practices’ we focus on the
changing practices and contexts of documentary production. Elizabeth
Coffman uses actor-network theory (ANT) to think through the com-
plex relationships between filmmakers, producers, audiences and insti-
tutions in the production of documentary. Her two case studies, The
Interrupters (Kartemquin Films 2011) and Mary Kay Cosmetics’ Inspiring
Stories (2011), demonstrate the very different production environments

that are part of the new documentary ecology.
Interviews with documentary practitioners Ingrid Kopp, Director of
Digital Initiatives at the Tribeca Film Institute, Jigar Mehta, digital entre-
preneur, documentary maker and journalist, and Florian Thalhofer,
creator of the web-documentary platform Korsakow, provide additional
insight into the changing production environment.
Collaboration with audiences is increasingly part of the documentary
production process. Sandra Gaudenzi explores the different ways in
which documentary makers have sought to relate to audiences who
want to play a more active role in content production. She identifies
at least four distinct collaborative strategies. Documentaries like RiP:
A Remix Manifesto and Life in a Day are constructed (by a documen-
tary maker) from content submitted by the audience, while online
documentaries such as Prison Valley display another strategy, elicit-
ing audience comments in order to encourage debate. Then there are
documentaries such as Out my Window that involve collaboration with
specific communities but are essentially closed to the online audience,
and others like 6 Billion Others and Mapping Main Street that depend on
user generated content. In ‘Making (with) the Korsakow System: Database
Documentaries as Articulation and Assemblage’ scholar and documentary
maker Matt Soar reflects on his experience of documentary production
using the Korsakow platform. Not only has Soar made documentaries
using Korsakow, he was also a co-developer of the system. In this chap-
ter he reflects on the nature of Korsakow as a production tool and the
relationship between the tool and the kinds of films it creates.
Prior to Kate Nash’s interview with Florian Thalhoffer Bella Honess
Roe considers animated documentary as a particular form of docu-
mentary that is affected in a range of ways by the changing ecology
of production and distribution. Through the theoretical lens of media

ecology Honess Roe explores the history of documentary and animated
documentary before considering in more detail how changes in produc-
tion, such as the increasing availability of animation software, and dis-
tribution, including the potential for online distribution can be viewed
both as opportunities and, also potentially, as threats.
The final part of the book ‘Inter/Action: Rethinking Documentary
Engagement’ draws attention to audiences and the multiple ways in
which they are engaging with documentary. Bjørn Sørrensen provides
a fascinating case study of conspiracy documentaries, drawing atten-
tion to the ways in which the Internet circulates content, growing
audiences for conspiracy content. Significantly, he points to the value
Introduction 7
of community in reinforcing the truth claims of conspiracy films and

helping them to spread through communities. Craig Hight, in contrast,
looks at the everyday practices of videography, the culture of ‘shoot,
edit, share’, encouraged by increasingly ubiquitous software packages
designed for non-professionals. Working from a Software Studies per-
spective, Hight suggests that we are experiencing a paradigm shift in
video production, as everyday media practices and professional produc-
tion processes change in response to these new tools.
Finally, Patricia Aufderheide reflects on the implications of emerging
technologies for ethics. She points to several challenges of interactiv-
ity, such as the inability of documentary makers to control the context
in which images are viewed and potentially re-used. She also explores
what is needed for documentary makers to generate relationships of
trust and good faith with audiences and sponsors. Aufderhiede points
to online journalism as a space in which principles that guide ethical
conduct have been more fully developed, in particular exploring trans-
parency as a principle to guide documentary makers in their changing
relationships with audiences.
Notes
1. Interview on the Collabdocs blog available at: http://collabdocs.wordpress.
com/ http://highrise.nfb.ca
2. 18 Days In Egypt, available at: http://beta.18daysinegypt.com/
3. Available at: www.facebook.com/goahippytribe
4. Available at: http://highrise.nfb.ca/
5. John Grierson famously, but elusively, defined documentary as ‘the creative
treatment of actuality’ in the 1930s.
References
Couldry, N. (2004) ‘Theorising Media as Practice’, Social Semiotics 14(2), 115–132.

Fuller, M. (2005) Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Architecture.
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: When Old and New Media Collide. (New York:
New York University Press).

New Documentary Ecologies Emerging Platforms Pract... - (Introduction New Documentary Ecologies Emerging Platforms Practices An... )

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Documentary Ecologies Emerging Platforms Pract... - (Introduction New Documentary Ecologies Emerging Platforms Practices An... )

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

New Documentary Ecologies: Emerging

Kate Nash, Craig Hight and Catherine Summerhayes

[R]eally great documentary is about remaining open

A revolution, captured on mobile phones, shared via Facebook, Twitter

has a long history; practitioners are, it seems, still driven to preserve,

(and inevitably we, as audiences) are reimagining what documentary

Such tools potentially make new forms of representation possible, but

perspective the media object can be thought of as a pattern of interac-

ences themselves reshaping notions of ‘documentary’?

makers see Video on Demand (VoD) and Crowdfunding, for example,

tion of documentary production and reception that takes into account

argues that in thinking about them as such we are able to focus on

attention to the importance of the contexts in which images are cre-

Stories (2011), demonstrate the very different production environments

of production and distribution. Through the theoretical lens of media

of community in reinforcing the truth claims of conspiracy films and

Couldry, N. (2004) ‘Theorising Media as Practice’, Social Semiotics 14(2), 115–132.

You might also like