Documentary Ecosystems

22 Pages·2015·0.12 MB·English

s
e
s
ur
o
c
s
Di 1
d
n
a
s
e
c
cti Documentary Ecosystems:
a
Pr
s, Collaboration and Exploitation
m
or
atf
Pl Jon Dovey
g
n
gi
er
m
E
s :
e
gi
o
ol
c
E
y Introduction
ar
nt
me In this chapter I take the book’s title at face value and examine emer-
u
oc gent documentary practices within the ecosystems of the digital media
D
w landscape. Thinking ecologically suggests we look at big pictures, at the
e
N whole assemblage of agents that constitute documentary ecosystems.
14, This attempt immediately becomes a daunting task. The sheer profusion
0
1, 2 of what we might identify as documentary materials is overwhelming.
atherine, Feb 21137310491 DdTarahoenec steu evm ferfruerynaitwgt amhttheieoarnentt , ssa benouedfdt sart ehcactenuoydra d ldiistonuyngs ’t atao nifmnd os a ugktrlehi meemv peIusnrceythsde r ainsynee tntloi:sv eeio tsit nhiiss e arto hhvpeeae rposwupphpelenee’rlssma tbaliinunvnceges-.
s, C978 browser flow determined by invisible search logics. While we might
yeN: derive a powerful sense of affective attachment from our own friends
haB
mmerke, IS amnudc hfo lolof wa enrsa,r rfaetwiv oef, tmhue cpho sletss sw aen e narcgouumnteenrt o, np oas idtiaoilny obra sains aaldydsi su.p Y teot
uo
g; Sngst the content of the blogosphere, of Facebook, Twitter or Flickr is factual,
ht, Crain, Basi jmouatrenraialilsst iacn, de xrepsreeasrscivhe. ,T ehveesrey dshaayr d– st ohfe dpermecoistiec gcrhoautntedr aosf pduobcluicm menetdairay-
Kate; HigMacmilla toainfo dntw maernuet tipaetetirhnm gca einnnettnuot rlfyyo mrrmeecsdo ionaff i‘egDxuNpriArne’ gscs uioorunlr tmthhreaomtu hgoharyv t eho fet h msey esmdteieamm f oocrormyn .jo oWfi nfiiislnpmgs
h, ve or music or news or a novel but in reality demand very new forms of
sa
© NaPalgr practice in public address, in political economy and in ethics. In this
chapter I set out to investigate one such instance of emergent form, the
‘Living documentary’. The ideas here draw heavily on my collaborators
in the iDocs conference network, the work of Sandra Gaudenzi and in
particular on the work of Mandy Rose, Director of the Digital Cultures
11
s
e
s 12 New Documentary Ecologies
ur
o
c
s
Di Research Centre at the University of the West of England, Bristol.
d
an Mandy’s work has introduced me to a number of key examples cited
s
ce here and her thinking in our two previously co- authored papers under-
acti pins much of what follows.
Pr
s,
m
or Contexts
atf
Pl
g In attempting a specific, detailed analysis of the relationships between
n
gi documentary and the new ecologies of digital media I want to focus on
er
m the twin dynamics of collaboration and exploitation as they are at work
E
s : in emerging practices. To understand the rhythm and impact of these
e
gi forces I call on three dominant critical frameworks: the culturalist per-
o
col spective that offers generally enthusiastic analysis of the human potential
E
y enacted in online spaces; p ost- Marxist attempts to understand the ‘politi-
ar
nt cal economy’ of digital culture; and the media ecologists’ frameworks
e
m that point towards understanding media as living systems.
u
c
o As a video activist and writer formed through the politics of the 1970s
D
w I begin with a sympathy for those culturalists that emphasise the explo-
e
N
4, sion of human creativity and self- realisation made possible through the
01 digital. More recently a body of scholarship has developed arguments
2
1, that the explosion of ‘vernacular creativity’ (Burgess and Green 2009,
2
atherine, Feb 1137310491 pfawof.ef ro2 ccer5da.) n aJmn eoncabekdssie en ropsv foe es tcst oihablelll.a e eb (mb2oy0rea 0rdt6gii)oeg nniatc raegla unhoedaf sta hs ahan aste irwgwinn hg‘ipfe iancbra utnciicoltti mp aanibntdiotn orney do oc vnwuellliit tnudhere e mt’sh yotehsc traneatmet iwicss
C8
s, 97 characterised by: ‘Affiliation’, elective group formation in online com-
hayeBN: munity around enthusiasms, issues or common cultures; ‘Expression’,
mmerke, IS mbeufosirce, avnidde ob,e ainngd udseesdig fno rt oeovlesr iyn ktihned h oafn hdus mofa fna rm moodree oufs ecrosm thmaunn eivcear-
uo
g; Sngst tion; ‘Collaborative P roblem- solving’ mobilising collective intelligence,
CraiBasi crowdfunding, online petition making, alternate reality gaming, wiki-
ht, n, based shared knowledge practices; and ‘Circulations’ playing an active
h, Kate; Higve Macmilla rdorliTevh eiinns badnyir aeTlcywtsiiintst get arm,k Feeasd cipeaob dpoyuonlkaa ram nfoidcr smY to huwrTohuuebgreeh . atrhgeu mneewn tfsl oawres mofa vdier atlh mate tdhiae
sa new affordances of digital media and social networking are creating: new
Nagr
© Pal modes of capitalism (Tapscott and Williams 2006); transformative modes
of ‘cognitive surplus’ (Shirkey 2010); and new modes of collaborative
innovation (Leadbetter 2008). These emergent modes of participation, it
is argued, develop new kinds of mediated citizenship characterised by ‘the
pursuit of self- o rganising, reflexive, common purpose among voluntary
s
e
s Documentary Ecosystems 13
ur
o
c
s
Di co- subjects, who learn about each other and about the state of play of
d
an their interests though the media’ (Hartley 2010, p. 17). Documentary
s
ce has of course always claimed a particular place for itself in the process of
acti media citizenship, in Nichols’ well known phrase as a ‘discourse of sobri-
Pr
s, ety’ (1991, pp. 3 – 4 ) with a privileged address to the state and the citizen.
m
or In an essay published in 2008 documentary theorist Patricia Zimmerman
atf argued that documentary’s understanding of its public role needed to
Pl
g adapt in order to find a place for itself in participatory culture:
n
gi
er
m As a consequence we must move from the abstraction of public
E
s : sphere towards a concept of provisional materializations of t ransitory
e
gi public spaces. We must consider how to mobilize a new concep-
o
col tion of documentary interfaces to materialize and produce public
E
y domains (p. 285).
ar
nt
e
m This idea is particularly powerful for our context; the development of
u
c
o interactive documentaries driven by the dynamics of social media may
D
w have the precise effect of ‘producing’ a temporary ‘public domain’ around
e
N
4, a particular topic or issue. We can share our participation and interaction
01 from commenting, sharing, liking through to re- editing, uploading con-
2
1, tent and remixing for sharing in the public convened by the topic.
2
atherine, Feb 1137310491 nstaoekcItneiwan loa srm hkpeeaaddpr ieaam la lheerolda uvidaneit sdibco eoTnceu orhrrmsaaesne aode vempvao’ebslw eoidnepdfrelfeudude.l niIp ntt oi haeslavt w-se M rgoyrardokraxw ayinds tla iifpcnetr. ii pntTieghqr usiNsue eac gsroriiftvi ’iseqs nioudeceesi aash l oaalyssf
C8
s, 97 the social factory (2003). This analysis of participatory culture sees the
hayeBN: kinds of creative expression afforded by digital as a form of free labour
mmerke, IS ebxrapnlodist eadn dan add vaeprptrisoipnrgi.a tTehdi sf ocrr ictiaqpuitea lc aancc ubme iudleantitoinfi ebdy mcoorrpe orreacteionntlsy,
uo
g; Sngst in the work of Andrejevic (2008, 2009), Bruns (2008), Fuchs (2010) and
CraiBasi Hesmondhalgh (2010). This framing of the field is a powerful influence
ht, n, in shaping the debate around the Attention Economy (Goldhaber 1997),
h, Kate; Higve Macmilla weinchgoi nceohyme ubyna ldolesf r ttsohta ean dIdnvste etrhrtniaseet tro,s u nirno a ti tnotecnnrleytai osininn tgihsl yet hsoeol dpc hofaimssthmicioaotndeeidtdy a wtnhaday tf iodnfre idlvyee lsmi vteehrte--
sa ricised ways (Dovey 2011), but also and, more powerfully, by harnessing
Nagr
© Pal the affective pleasures and attachments of online life to create massive
capital for a small number of Internet- based businesses (see Arvidsson
and Colleoni 2012).
A prototypical instance of this affective economy is the social media
site Lockerz targeted at 13– 30 year olds; a perfectly honed machine for
s
e
s 14 New Documentary Ecologies
ur
o
c
s
Di exploiting young people’s identity experiments. Lockerz bills itself as a
d
an ‘social expression reward system’, users are rewarded with points (PTZ)
s
ce for any actions in the system, watching a video, liking, sharing, tagging,
acti commenting, uploading content and so on. PTZ can then be used for
Pr
s, discount in the Lockerz online store or for other discount and group cou-
m
or pon schemes. Lockerz is also a media platform, carrying user contribu-
atf tions as well as its own web series The Homes. Lockerz rise has been one
Pl
g of the commercial hits of the social media economy, having received
n
gi $43.5 Million of investment (Lunden 2013) with millions of users all
er
m over the world. Here ‘expression’, ‘affiliation’ and ‘circulation’ – Jenkins
E
s : et al.’s characteristics of participatory culture – are aggregated to pro-
e
gi mote pure consumption; the collaborative force of the user community
o
col creates discount markets and shifts product through voluntary and
E
y pleasurable teen participation.1
ar
nt What I want to attempt in this chapter is to bring to bear the two
e
m approaches outlined above in a more detailed engagement with media
u
c
o ecologies. Matt Fuller’s 2005 book is frequently understood as the epi-
D
w centre of the current wave of interest in Media Ecology:
e
N
4,
01 Ecologists focus more on dynamic systems in which any one part is
2
1, always multiply connected, acting by virtue of those connections,
2
atherine, Feb 1137310491 It isath ncadlen aa rsl iwtmhapaytlsy tv haaenr i daobibgljieet,ac slt u d(cpoh.c u4th)m.aetn itta crayn, i nb ei trse oganrldineed faosr ma ,p eaxttiesrtsn wraitthhienr
C8
s, 97 a pattern of connectivity, interactivity and relationality. Documentary
hayeBN: materials constitute dynamic, mobile, generative experiences as much
mmerke, IS apsr othmeoyt ebde,c opmoset edde;f itnhietiyv ec atenx tbse. T rhe-e cyu ct aann bde rleinmkaedde ;t ot,h leikye dca, nfo rbwe amrdaedde,
uo
g; Sngst from many contributions from all around the world; they can be inter-
CraiBasi acted with in a variety of ways; they can be spatialised and localised,
ht, n, tagged, searched and navigated. The online documentary is contingent,
h, Kate; Higve Macmilla mamcuatictoahnbinsl eiw,c idetyhnn viaitrm obniucm:t eiatnlsst o m( Ebelyasa neiitsnss geosr w2gne0 n0a9elr,g aoptre.i dt1h 8tmh3)irc.o uEingchhteo rtianhcgeti otuhnsese r’w‘sv iittinhalt ieistrts-’
sa language at the overlap of media ecology and software studies2 docu-
Nagr
© Pal mentary is alleged to be ‘alive’ in a particular way, Brett Gaylor of the
Mozilla Foundation defines their Living Docs project.
‘Living Docs’ are the descendants of classic moving images, but closely
resemble software in their structure and approach. Like software,
s
e
s Documentary Ecosystems 15
ur
o
c
s
Di these new documentaries put the user at the center of the experience.
d
an Like the best documentaries, they are grounded in real human stories
s
ce and experiences. … The web offers a shared commons of images and
acti sounds, conversations, and data about our politics, our histories, our-
Pr
s, selves. It transforms audiences into active participants. It opens the
m
or door for documentaries to become living, changing, and constantly
atf evolving works. (Gaylor 2012)
Pl
g
n
gi Sandra Gaudenzi has also considerably developed the idea of the Living
er
m Documentary in her PhD research and writes elsewhere of the impor-
E
s : tance of the active dynamic of relationality in this process:
e
gi
o
col What actually really matters to me is to see an i- doc as a relational
E
y object. What I mean by that is that it is an artefact that demands
ar
nt agency and active participation of some sort from more than one
e
m actant and therefore it does not exist as an independent entity – as it
u
c
o is always putting several entities in relation with each other. One of
D
w the consequences is that we cannot analyse i- docs using normal film
e
N
4, and documentary theory. Speaking of framing, shots, rhythm, edit-
01 ing and intentionality of the author is not enough for this form …
2
1, as it is ‘something else’. (Gaudenzi 2011)
2
atherine, Feb 1137310491 Tliesh n‘edgseeess cstfeoantrde methde’e n fthrsoi sm–t oa rncilcda stdshiocec umwmoorevkni nttaghr eyiym srateugpedrsie esbse unptt r oi–s j epmcotso.e r Tep hrlioiskf eon usenowdf t wwchaorarelk-;
C8
s, 97 ‘Normal film and documentary theory’ will no longer suffice. There are
hayeBN: many more detailed interrogations we could enter into here – especially
mmerke, IS aorfo duoncdu mtheen tcaornyt cinounitnegn tr–o hleosw oefv feirl,m I wgraanmt mtoa pr uirns uteh ea n maliycsrios- ftrhaagtm taeknetss
uo
g; Sngst account of the software that is the infrastructure for the new docu-
CraiBasi mentary ecology. As Gaylor observes above, documentarists increas-
ht, n, ingly need to be software designers too, as the examples of Zeega and
h, Kate; Higve Macmilla Gsccoranopusept iSthturatesea dma ll b dyke inmlivdoisnn ogsft rafagoterecn. etT.s ,hI the sueemceomalnos sgt,io ca anelx dfp rn laaominni -nt lighv eion wfg a tahygi ste hnmattse , dnsieoatf wtlwaonarkdres-
sa and machines, work together. Additionally, it is a frame that has the
Nagr
© Pal advantage of highlighting the digital media domain as a system driven
by particular kinds of energy flows, exchanges and mutual dependen-
cies just like a forest or a desert, a savannah or a city.
However, there is an issue for documentary in this framing; ‘Systems
thinking’ is very good at explaining networks and their effects; it is less
s
e
s 16 New Documentary Ecologies
ur
o
c
s
Di useful to the arts or social sciences when it comes to explaining human
d
an experience or dealing with power. What is the ideology of an e co-
s
ce system? In biological terms it is a meaningless question; an ecosystem
acti seeks its own sustainability. As Zylinska and Kember have recognised in
Pr
s, their critique of Fuller:
m
or
atf What we get … is an incessant reiteration of this ‘connectivity’ and
Pl
g ‘relationality’, which through the rhetorical force of his argument is
n
gi positioned as fact. There is no closer look at what he calls the ‘minor
er
m processes of power’ at work … (2012, p. 183).
E
s :
e
gi The closely related field of Software Studies incorporates Media Ecologies
o
col understanding of connectivity but attempts to keep power in the analy-
E
y sis, partly by reading code as language. In a powerful early essay from
ar
nt 2001 Alex Galloway explains the twin political dynamics of the con-
e
m centration of control with the decentralisation of power by reading the
u
c
o Internet as an expression of Hardt and Negri’s Empire (2000) in which
D
w power structures are implemented through the hierarchical protocols
e
N
4, that determine web domain names (and by extension all Application
01 Programming Interfaces (APIs) that afford ecosystem connectivity):
2
1,
2
atherine, Feb 1137310491 Aminsenmet rwa, wneotaerckla.y p)is soai snsp osrt ehfo ccefio sLnemeelyfwpt iuw stttohes ora( tclps eg rlooievftb eoErscam ottihlposei nrp Ie ron o…ftv ede riFnsfo feterhtr eeiPsxnr oafcomtero, pciatolt etrl,a e icaatks sd s eoiegfncfnee escns tttsihrveanielt ityfzio aearlds--
C8
s, 97 a dominant protocol. Or to take another example, the flimsy, c ross-
hayeBN: platform nature of HTML is precisely what gives it its power as a pro-
mmerke, IS tdoacroedlo tgoic hali esrtaarnchdaizred,. oLri kdea rEemd ptoir ee,s sief nptrioaltiozceo, li td waroeudl dt of aciel.n (tGraallilzoew, aoyr
uo
g; Sngst 2001, p. 86)
CraiBasi
ht, n, There is a seductive set of homologies in this account where the twin
h, Kate; Higve Macmilla dtchoyenn tagrmeonli.ec Trsa hol efa encxednh ltaoruicfsautlig vianel waonuodrr k sc ooecnfi taHrlia ptreedcttha aln nfoodlro cNgeieseg sar rio e(f 2 sc0eoe0mn0 )mt oaun bnaeti coaamtt iwiosnoesr aktn hadet
sa simultaneous intensification and decentralisation of power which is
Nagr
© Pal here paralleled in the contrast between ‘flimsy, cross platform’ connec-
tivity and rigid hierarchical Linnaean taxonomies of control for domain
classification. This identification of engineering solutions as the techno-
logical correlative of cultural theory might remind New Media histori-
ans of previous analyses of what were then called hypertext systems as
s
e
s Documentary Ecosystems 17
ur
o
c
s
Di a kind of technological correlative of poststructuralist literary theory.3
d
an They both feel to me like readings that veil the material processes they
s
ce are describing as much as they illuminate them. They are too conveni-
acti ent; they elide the embodied experience of using web domains or read-
Pr
s, ing a hypertext. An emphasis on the systemic nature of documentary
m
or in the digital media ecosystem risks losing sight of the documentary
atf experienced by audiences and the meanings that they make from it.4
Pl
g However, in so far as protocols are also language forms that set the
n
gi terms of engagement, I will return to the idea below in thinking about
er
m how the apparently contradictory processes of fragmentation and aggre-
E
s : gation are one and the same dynamic of collaboration and exploitation.
e
gi I want to draw from the positions above to suggest an analytic model
o
col that allows us to examine some of specificities of the documentary eco-
E
y system – to develop some tools that give us analytic and critical purchase;
ar
nt that achieve more than the satisfaction to be derived from the descrip-
e
m tion of the shining system in all its interconnected and networked
u
c
o promiscuity. I am aiming to show how collaboration and exploitation
D
w are inseparable dynamics of both biological and cultural ecosystems.
e
N
4,
1
0 Collaboration and exploitation
2
1,
2
atherine, Feb 1137310491 Feeoccothoor ssetyyrh.ss ettCee pmmoum irrspme poliuosenewss i eocoraneft dismv ubeyn y el mcingothomedtr mpealrn uiIsdn ew sipc aaahntroietot otndosr ay iavnnsedtsnhu a emtbstiyeesn ;t tthhoionaentier tjphtuaresect st saiuocspcs t pihafooel sr mge slsoe etdbehkiaae-l
C8
s, 97 ing attention; however, communicative acts appear to far outweigh
hayeBN: the attention that can be delivered to them. In the Long Tail no one
mmerke, IS cmaunc hhe ianrf oyromu astciorena mch.a Tsihnegr efa irs ,t oaos lGitotlled hatatbeenrt ioobns.e Trvheisd isin a 1fu9n9d7,a mfaer nttoaol
uo
g; Sngst feature of the social media ecosystem that is the habitat of the living
CraiBasi doc. It has consequences that are creating new forms. For instance,
ht, n, ‘crowdsourcing’ content or finance, or deploying ‘ user- generated con-
h, Kate; Higve Macmilla tpae rmnotca’e raskrsee bt n uiont t a tnrheee ca eocstvsueaarrclillryyo wedxrdicveedelln ec nobtny wdainatiyyos dn tesos oibrfeu tithlode o aapntet naeun odtuiioetn nth ceeec oapnnrodod mtuoyc .tf5ii noInnd
sa this reading, having lots of people participate in your project might be
Nagr
© Pal driven less by the desire to democratise the process than the necessity
of finding a critical mass of attention to sustain the project.
Next I want to think about the helix dynamic of collaboration and
extraction that is at work in our ecosystem. These relations of exchange
are easy enough to grasp in ecosystems generally. Although ecosystem
s
e
s 18 New Documentary Ecologies
ur
o
c
s
Di narratives have tended (like Galloway’s protocological control) to
d
an emphasise hierarchical predation as the organising principle of the
s
ce human centred pyramid of species, we can just as easily find plenty
acti of examples where mutual collaboration is at work. The virus is sym-
Pr
s, bolically an organic agent that can be simultaneously damaging and
m
or co- productive. The toxic waste product of one species is the essential
atf nutrient of another. Ecosystems do not have one measure of value but
Pl
g many ways of enacting value in a complex web of significance. The
n
gi functions of mutuality and exploitation, of co- dependence and c o-
er
m constitution are understood as inseparable in biology. Species c o- evolve,
E
s : the form and function of organisms are mutually dependent and appear
e
gi to have evolved together; bees have evolved so that their pollen seeking
o
col activities help to propagate plant life all over the planet (Rose 2005).
E
y However, the post- Marxist analysis of the ecosystem places emphasis
ar
nt not on collaboration but on exploitation as a model. Value is systemi-
e
m cally abstracted from users’ activities. Indeed the dominant metaphori-
u
c
o cal landscape of Big Data is entirely extractive, subjects are ‘data mined’,
D
w our data is ‘scraped’ (more like an open cast mining process).6
e
N
4, A political economy of media ecology has two overlapping vectors –
01 the first is the conventional Dallas Smythe (1981) derived description
2
1, of the media as mechanisms for delivering eyeballs to advertisers;
2
atherine, Feb 1137310491 AMaonvdoedsrre e fnaion svpeee arar g ngterhd?a eitWn amrehgdeae tmttr eiicdess a oFsoauufcr rue e cbsmleoicreo knak-tt t t ahoedrnfso tu urisoegetnhru ramrntata tevedna?elt uHipoeoan tvs.ose Hi bGwoloeew o o‘ gslnohlelnai nargene dd da’o fFo fwaorc re‘edl ihb kfooienvodeek’?rr.
C8
s, 97 Each one of our interactions can be recorded and given a tiny financial
hayeBN: value to be sold to advertisers.
mmerke, IS CoHlloewoneiv e(r2,0 a1s2 I) hhaavvee asrhgouwedn ,e ltsheew nheetr er e(Dtuorvne yth 2r0o1u1g)h aanddv eArrtvisiidnsgso inn atnhde
uo
g; Sngst methods above bears no relation to the valuation of online giants like
CraiBasi Facebook or Google. They quote figures suggesting that Facebook returned
ht, n, just 70 cents in ad revenue from each of its users in 2010 (2012, p. 138).
h, Kate; Higve Macmilla Fethxoetrr yam chtoaesvdte v uaascleucreess tsIh tawot ofcruoelsedt s s aotrhcgieua ule snetehrt inwse oixrstk ttinho gen poaltcahcteifnpogtram abnsl eda nfpodrri c pweo hwoicfe hrff ruienle  sree–ta utrhcrhne
sa engines. Free social media clearly affords new dynamics, speeds and net-
Nagr
© Pal worked force to collaboration and cooperation.
Instead of the traditional political economy of media value proposi-
tion, Arvidsson and Colleoni (2012) develop a different mode of value
creation that they argue is another form of ‘affective labour’. In this
analysis, users’ affective attachments, pleasures, sense of belonging,
s
e
s Documentary Ecosystems 19
ur
o
c
s
Di shared humour, taste culture, histories and memories, all constitute
d
an affective engagements with sites and with brands. The force of these
s
ce affective attachments is measured in the stock market valuation
acti of companies. The affective investments we make in ‘affiliating’,
Pr
s, ‘ expressing’ and ‘circulating’ information and media create attachments
m
or to a ttention- rich digital brands that actually become capital investment
atf despite the enormous discrepancies between earned income and market
Pl
g value.
n
gi The new documentary ecology is taking form in a landscape char-
er
m acterised by the particular dynamics of the attention economy, and
E
s : by the need to create engagement with the media products that this
e
gi economy creates. Participation is driven by the necessity of attention
o
col aggregation as much as by any desire or need to open up or democratise
E
y production processes. This landscape shapes the necessarily intertwined
ar
nt processes of collaboration and extraction in social media, fragmentation
e
m and aggregation of media content and decentralisation and control of
u
c
o power.
D
w
e
N
4, Co- creative ecosystems
1
0
2
1, I now want to turn to examples of documentary practices to make some
2
atherine, Feb 1137310491 odnjoboeuwscreunlrymva alaeitvsnitoatiiacnl raspyb r alaepbc rotcaioucclettl siac tbaheorsee r aaawtdrivaea yep mtptinohutgeteas ntetoi tn idtaghyl .ne tC ahpmoornotiecuvnseg nthaita rileots hn oaeatfil r p fpiadllrametyip .c mliopTayrakamtdiioneintngi otaa nnnoaddfl
C8
s, 97 changing, though not destroying, the forms and the address to the audi-
hayeBN: ence of documentary. We can observe the speed and connectivity of dig-
mmerke, IS ictraolw codlsloaubrocreadti forno mat, wfoorr ikn isnta anlcl et,h Ien sdtiaegGeos Gofo p orro dKuiccktsiotanr.t eFru. nRdesineagr cchan c abne
uo
g; Sngst be conducted collaboratively in an online global network. Distribution
CraiBasi can mobilise user communities in new ways. The documentarist Robert
ht, n, Greenwald (Outfoxed (2004); W al- Mart: the High Cost of Low Price (2005))
h, Kate; Higve Macmilla hascraroseu,e nfnodirn pignassr ottiafcn itphceae,t forierlmyfa dssh yfoinoran mfreediec shp;i rase upcdirsoieedlnyuc cientsi ooanrred c eeorn mtcoop ucaornanygv eBedrn atevo ea s Nteetem uwpp F oliorlamcraysl
sa or contingent public space for debate and c o- creation. The company’s
Nagr
© Pal online social networks are also used to fundraise for future productions,
to distribute work in short form instalments and to encourage remix-
ing (Jenkins, Ford and Green 2013, p. 169). In the United Kingdom
the British Film Institute have used Jeanie Finlay’s 2001 Film Sound it
Out as an example of the impact of collaboration and co- creation on
s
e
s 20 New Documentary Ecologies
ur
o
c
s
Di documentary production (Hodgson 2012).7 Ten thousand dollars of
d
an initial funding for the film was raised via IndieGoGo. However, and this
s
ce a crucial feature of my understanding of these new dynamics of collabo-
acti ration, this crowdsourcing process produced more value than just the
Pr
s, initial $10,000; like the people in the Brave New Films community, the
m
or Sound it Out network produced a public, a network with a stake in the
atf film. Of course, at the same time as these benefits were being built in the
Pl
g network, film screenings were returning income through the usual box
n
gi office means to the producers.
er
m In the examples above the film content itself is conventional, linear
E
s : documentary production, however, the dynamics of collaboration and
e
gi exploitation are at work in the process of producing publics, commu-
o
col nities of interest and action. At the same time attention and money
E
y is returning to the producers. Here the dynamics of collaboration and
ar
nt exploitation begin to shape new kinds of public space; micro- networks
e
m of solidarity, education and intervention that are unconcerned with
u
c
o large scale mass media methods and that prefer to mobilise publics at
D
w a local level and build audiences in a gradual and painstaking process.
e
N
4, In the mainstream we have seen similar dynamics in operation. The
01 BBC’s series Virtual Revolution (2010), for instance, ‘crowdsourced’ the
2
1, research phase of the project; themes, ideas and contacts were shared by
2
atherine, Feb 1137310491 aephxnraot seo dnbpuseecicnevode mo noaennl idolni nned eeci roopemfcr ettmeshdeuen nicbnieit .gy tgh Tweehs iettu hgss ulhDoaobilwr aewlsc atotoynh.r le iIAmnnlee s jexonl vuKeewrrsno sat wolpiessrkrmoeiv, itvTdhiheaere ns t hGtwehu rarBiortBdtueiCganh’ns,
C8
s, 97 embracing the dynamics of collaboration. One of its chief spokesper-
hayeBN: sons is the journalist Paul Lewis who led The Guardian / London School
mmerke, IS obrf oEkceo onuotm ailcl so pvreor jtehcte ‘URneaitdeidn gK itnhged Romiot isn’, tahne asnuamlymsiesr ooff t2h0e1 0ri.o Ltse wthisa’st
uo
g; Sngst account of the project begins with him heading up to Tottenham High
CraiBasi Road in North London in pursuit of the rumour of riots – en route
ht, n, he sent a Tweet asking for any information from people at the scene,
h, Kate; Higve Macmilla whaneh deb ruceii tlwtiz aae snn tejhtoweu orrnriokat lo?is ftW sc,o halallalt b ocofor auwtlhodr ostm,h oe bcyo sesuerlved?e rcsFo,r nocnmoer rcetths pqisou niscidmkelynp lteas ,n osdup beenajesicniltygs
sa with Lewis and The Guardian. The usual dynamics of collaboration
Nagr
© Pal (eyewitness statements, interviews, information and opinion gather-
ing) became a collective expressive process curated and orchestrated by
the journalist. The explosive events were very fast moving and ubiqui-
tous; the state was unable to respond as police and surveillance were
constantly behind the curve of social media. The press and television