Are what we are creating, these short videos, documentaries?

In my “True Lies” course, it was suggested in a reading that every piece of media is documentary, as it is a product of the society in which is was created. I would say our short clips are documentary of sorts. They give insight into our own thoughts, perspectives and visions, though i’m struggling to decide where i draw the line. Is something ever not a documentary?

Is a photo of the ground taken by mistake documentary? It is documenting a mistake, a memory and the ground itself. So what makes something a documentary? I guess it depends on interpretation and intent.  In regard to my own vines, i thought of them more in terms of art; trying to capture something from a  unique perspective in a unique way, anything taken from them is mostly due to the viewers interpretation. Documentaries should have some take away idea or point of  view that they present. They should present their own perspective of something for the viewer to consider or experience, and i don’t believe my own vines do this effectively.

In the class it was interesting to hear what people felt and though about other peoples clips. Though i feel many of the opinions were just that, opinions, rather than people finding the true intent of the creator. I thought of this because many of the interpretations contradicted, so it sounded more like people interpreting a piece of art rather than finding the explicit point of view from a documentary.

So, i made the effort to incorporate concepts from the course into my everyday conversation today, and though my friend probably thinks i’m a little stranger than they remember, we ended up having an interesting discussion about the concepts in the week 2 reading. Particularly in the notion of: “Now that anybody can create and share media, how does that affect ‘serious’ media makers? What about amateur media makers who have a harder time finding a viewership than a cat playing a keyboard?” 

We came to the conclusion that some videos on YouTube can be simple, ‘funniest home video’ style recordings, but that is a necessary part of online video sharing. These are the  videos that generally get shared around and draw in viewers, which boosts the sites overall audience. Their short, comedic  style makes them good for a cheap laugh, and can be enjoyed by a wide range of people. Furthermore, we cant condemn those who make these videos, as although they aren’t particularly polished or ‘high brow,’ they have a right to be there. This is the price we pay for creative freedom, and its a pretty fair price. People shouldn’t have to meet a standard to share their media, and this is the exciting thing for amateur media makers, this is what widely accessible media sharing is all about.

I also read a few posts about interactive documentary that were quite interesting. Gina emphasises that “you have to consider the best possible manner in which your story could be told. ” The same story can be extremely engaging in film, but extremely boring in radio, regardless of how you try to embellish it. Interactive documentary is an example of how new media opens up even more options to media makers about how best to display their work.

This reading outlines how technology has evolved over time to allow anyone to make media, as video cameras and editing software became more available to the public. Furthermore, people are able to distribute this media more effectively with use of the internet. Equipment has become so readily available, to the point where it is all condensed on the regular smartphone. One can shoot, edit and even upload and distribute from their pockets.

I was particularly interested with the line on page 54:

” Vacillating between democratic potentiality and superficial vulgarity.”

It really sums up the online community well, and sheds some light on the reason why although a world where we all create our own media and distribute it freely sounds great, to many it can also seem a bit superficial and low brow, simply because its on the internet. Many traditionalists have this idea that media online is not real media, and believe it is mostly made up of vulgar people who only post home movies of their cats and insult others. Yes, this area of the internet exists, but the internet also gives media makers the potential to publish their work freely.  It is both superficial vulgarity, and democratic potentiality.

The reading goes on to specify how YouTube, for example, has more of less succumbed to the superficiality, the serious and dedicated media makers are mostly drowned out by the enormous amount of babies, dogs, cats and marketing that is uploaded to the site. It’s not all bad though, like in the case of ‘geriatric1927’, many content creators still experience the community of YouTube strongly. While YouTube is still a great video sharing site due to its amount of users, i now understand why Adrian suggested we don’t use it to publish our work, particularly for this course, so i created a Vine instead. With a limit of 6 seconds to each video, i doubt advertisers and casual home-movie creators would give it the time of day.

Regardless of what platform he uses, ‘geriatric1927’ illustrates how media makers can emerge from anywhere, and how the online community has become a free distribution network and audience for these media makers.

At first i wasn’t entirely interested in the idea of ‘Interactive documentary,’ though i have come to the conclusion that that was because i hadn’t really thought about it enough. IIn my mind, i was just picturing a documentary on DVD, and just navigating it via ‘scene selection’ as being like ‘interactive documentary.’ But through this reading, i have realised it can involve the viewer more than that, it is really about the viewers choices. It reminds me of in primary school when i was able to walk around ancient Greece and learn about it through a (really primitive by today’s standards) computer program, and was thus able to become involved in what i was learning.

This also opens opportunities to create more meaning to the documentary. Rather than just a means of ordering or presenting something, the interactive aspects of it can create a whole new experience. For example, the difference between someone showing me a picture of ancient Greece with some text, and me walking around the streets experiencing it for myself. If more media creators venture into this, i look forward to the time when virtual reality is a thing.