Aston, Judith, and Sandra Gaudenzi. “Interactive Documentary: Setting the Field.” Studies in Documentary Film 6.2 (2012): 125–139.

Having never really heard/read about Interactive documentary before. This reading was crucial in me reaching some sort of understanding about what I-docs actually are. Aston and Gaudenzi couldn’t have made a simpler description than ‘any project that starts with an intention to document the ‘real’ and that uses digital interactive technology to realize this intention’.

In this article, Aston and Gaudenzi seem to be referring to the whole I-doc trend as a new innovation that hasn’t been around for long. Which is true. In comparison to other forms of documentary, I-docs are relatively new ways of documenting.

In summary, this article was great to read as it captivated and simplified the unfamiliar idea of I-docs to me.

Hight, Craig. “The Field of Digital Documentary: A Challenge to Documentary Theorists.” Studies in Documentary Film 2.1 (2008): 3–7.

From the beginning, this article strikes me as a reflection on the history of documentary, but at the same time – a prediction about where documentary will end up in the future. Hight mentions how documentaries are known to ‘respond’ to the new technologies that are constantly emerge and then use that technology to approach ‘documentary’ in different ways. One of the most obvious examples that is currently having a large impact on documentary and filmmaking as a whole is the emergence of the ‘GoPro’ action camera. Allowing for footage that has been previously impossible to capture, now easier than ever for even the most amateurish filmmakers, the GoPro is a favourite bit of tech amongst action filmmakers.

It was interesting to read that Hight also thought that documentary culture, as evidenced byBill Nichol’s three-part definition, had been changed by the modern technological developments that were becoming available and being used by documentary filmmakers.