Hello, all--this is Kate, the TA. As you know, Joy will not be teaching class this week, and I will be facilitating in her absence. As such, we have a busy schedule on Saturday and may not have time to discuss this week's readings, so I would like to get a discussion going on here about them. Please view this not as an essay assignment, but a conversation amongst you as class members.
Having said that, I would like the people who were assigned the readings for this week to kick off the discussion. There are four readings, so four of you minimally should post. However, let's aim to have 10 people contribute to the conversation.
See you all on Saturday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Greetings from Bard College in Annandale-On-Hudson, NY. I'm leading the discussion of the very concise article on Ethics. Despite its brevity I found it raised many questions. I think that we can all agree on the axiom to treat our subjects with respect. We can probably also agree on just what constitutes respect; but, what about fairness. Yes, we should be fair, but notions of what is fair can differ greatly.
What about the author's assertion that "Collaboration is key. Through collaboration the power of decision making and representation is shared." Do you really want to share such "power" with your subjects. Don't they already have the power to participate or not, to answer a question or not? Is such "sharing" of "power" really necessary to be "fair"?
More to come. Rich
Is there a bottom line minimum of things that we have to do to be considered fair?
On the idea of inclusion: It seems to me that how many people we include and how they are included depends on the nature of your project. Are there projects where you might want to exclude some or certain people? Is that ethical?
Income generated by a project is something that can be subject of negotiation depending on the project. But what if an individual subject requests payment for an interview or other information? What if an obviously poor and hungry subject asks for food or money for food?
RE: Boundaries and Limitations:
Doesn't the nature of documenting often require us to cross boundaries that aren't usually crossed?
Re: Risks and Benefits:
That we should always consider the risk of harm to our subjects or others involved or not involved in our project is also axiomatic. But are there situations where some harm may be an acceptable price to pay (e.g. a crooked politician being uncovered)?
After just reading "Words From The Heart; The power of oral testimony", I am curious about how "the process of listening reverses the roles of expert and pupil" (p. 10). This makes sense and has great appeal. I'm wondering how this process occurs or if it is diminished when using a blog to collect stories. Is the interviewer essentially missing in a blog setting? As a novice about blogs I'm wondering if the process can still be directed by the interviewer. Can anyone suggest a good source about using blogs for collecting stories?
Oops! Forgot to say that dimoza is one of my email accounts. Diana Monroe
From Lisa:
I've been assigned the Roland Freeman photography piece, but have been unable to post anything to the blog (unsure why I'm running into difficulties). Quick question: what did everyone think of the final portrait of Jews that emerged from the marathon collaborative session with Freeman? Did it work on several levels, or not, and why? I tend to be drawn to documentary photography that imparts a strong singular artistic vision. Dorothea Lange's Depression-era black and white portraits, as well as Robert Frank's images from "The Americans" come to mind. While I appreciate the shared process Freeman talks about, I felt the final image suffered from excessive staging. What do you think?
In response to Diana's question about using a blog to capture an interview/information, I was not able to find anything out there on the topic already. However, as a blogger myself (granted, only for family and friends), I find it very difficult to carry on a two-way conversation. Like this blog, there is the option to post a comment, but never does that spark a discussion. Most people just email me directly in response to something I've written.
However, despite my experience, I am not against the idea of trying to capture stories through a blog, at least initially. As I said about my personal blog, I have found that it is not really the appropriate medium for a two-way discussion. It might be a good way to solicit stories that are later followed-up on in person or over email or the phone (although those last two options have their own limitations.)
Anyone else a blogger and have an experience to share?
“Words From The Heart”
Here are two questions on the role of documentary work in facilitating the use of oral testimony in development work and/or activism.
Question 1:
The approach described in this article can offer communities such as women and the poor a chance to speak and be heard. How can this type of documentary work contribute to planning and implementation of projects, so as to achieve a balance between:
-those projects that show successful short-term behavior change and
-those projects that are harder to measure but allow for long-term social change and empowerment?
Question 2:
“People are not consulted enough because the main debates take place in documents which they do not write, or in meetings which they do not attend.” (page 4)
Here in the US, there is a debate around undocumented Latino immigrants. In NC, this community has been silenced by the social and political response to their presence here, the dangers of exposure, language barriers, illiteracy, low economic status, trauma, etc. Based on what you’ve read in the article, what might be the role or responsibility of people in documentary work in regards to this issue?
The points about roles and discussion in blogging are interesting, and remind me of the pieces I listened to this week on Radio Diaries (posted in the resources section).
You give somebody a tape recorder and they keep a diary for a year. They become the expert, even interviewing others in their life. But at some point the project is in your hands once again because you are responsible for editing their year’s work into a tidy 25 minutes.
Even if they are involved at some level in the editing process, what effect does this have on them? In the case of one diarist, a South African teenager (“Thembi’s AIDS Diary”) the diary brought about further dialogue and allowed her to continue her role as “expert” through conversations and lectures with students, lawmakers, doctors, celebrities in South Africa and the US.
I think Kat's discussion about "Radio Diaries" and what happens when a year of someone's moments ends up back in your hands to edit is thought-provoking. I think this would be an excellent example of when collaboration is needed, such as described in the Freeman piece. I would want to sit down with the person, listen to the entire taping and then discuss what they see as the pivotal moments that define the year versus what I thought were. I wouldn't want to make that decision alone because it is the subject's life, not mine.
What do other people think?
Following up on Kat's questions. I came away from the readings this week especially the one from Graves, "Rules of Engagement:..." the importance of relationship building. That the relationship between documentarian and their subjects/colloborators forms the strongest foundation for both long term and short term projects. The relationship will give you the rules, the boundaries, and trust to proceed.
In terms of the immigration issue in North Carolina, which i believe is extremely interesting and personally engaging. I believe an important role of the documentarian could be giving individuals oppressed by these law-enforcement agencies a voice to express their personal experiences in the United States beyond the silent invisibility they live a majority of their days here.
I think all projects need to start somehow.Im learning the importance of taking steps to begin and engage with the people/material. See how me and the project are called to expand or deepen. Be fearless and kind with the process and myself.
I find the process of colloboration pretty exhilirating and unique form of relating with people.
Comment from Diana:
Thinking about Kat's Question #1 about projects that measure long term social change and empowerment, I'm trying to also think about how health educators could use oral testimony over time to point out personal behavior changes of a few to motivate many others. It seems that oral testimony must often stimulate people to look at people and the world around them through new lenses and that it must also encourage changes in actions. What a challenge to find funding for projects that might revisit people over time - for years! Now I wonder how often the Robert Wood Johnson funded projects and others use multimedia to document programs. Will we talk about funding sources in this class?
Words from the Heart ...
Two things struck me from the beginning with this article. The first - and most significant - was the authors' choice of the word "testimony" rather than "oral history" or "interview". The word "testimony" can be a loaded term in some settings. It calls to mind legal procedures (one is required to "testify" and the statements that you make are subject to questioning that typically puts you on the defensive and then your testimony is "judged" along with that of any one else involved by the jury) and religious testimony, often referred to as "witnessing" in which someone uses a personal account of some life-changing experience in hopes of convincing non-believers.
The other thing that bothered me, and I'll admit this is a real nit, was the use of the word "development", as in, for example, "development establishment" on page 2, without any sort of context. I finally googled the authors and found that the full name of the book was "Listening for a Change: Oral History and Community Development". But I think this is a good reminder to us to not assume that our audience is always on the same page with us when we refer to things that can have a number of meanings depending on the context.
That said, the article poses some interesting challenges. How does one develop the skills to "respect views and values you may not share" (p.4) given that our public discourse typically looks to find fault or else we're so close-minded that we can't even begin to hear where the other person is coming from? And given that many of us plan to do projects on topics we're already familiar with or have an opinion of, how can we avoid "the myopia of the specialist"?
The folkstreams readings ...
I found these selections helpful in the sense that they were a practical look at a real project and the challenges the producers faced when the original idea didn't pan out and the more interesting focus (to them) negated the arguments made to the original subjects of the film - this was a real case study of ethics in action. It was also reassuring to know that experienced documentary film makers have their share of bad days just like the rest of us.
Rules of Engagement ...
I found this article particularly helpful, probably because I attended last Saturday's forum on building a community media organization to serve the needs of the Durham area. The constituencies that were identified as having a vested interest in such a project were youth media (including Tennessee's Youth Noise Network), the arts, non-profits and neighborhoods, the faith community, those interested in media access, diversity and justice, and citizen journalists.
We broke into small groups for brainstorming and now, having read this article, I am impressed with how well the 'rules of engagement' mapped onto that real-life experience.
The article also highlights for me the challenges of trying to produce a documentary (regardless of media) that will have audience appeal outside of the narrow community whose story I'm telling. In other word how do we avoid the "darkened theater with all the chairs bolted to the floor facing forward" mentality?
One more thing ...
In Words from the Heart, one of the recommendations is that for the one speaking to retain the power, the testimony should be given in his native language. But if that's not your language or that of most of your audience, haven't you then transferred the power to the translator and how can you be sure that the translation accurately reflects what the person giving the testimony actually said?
Good morning! It's been a heavy work week, so I haven't had a chance to post before, but I am impressed with the many interesting points all of you have made about the readings.
I most enjoyed the folkstreaming excerpts. I felt the filmmakers were quite conscientious in their approach to the members of the Golden Echoes, in honoring their aspirations for the film. Yet, as a reader, I could also feel the filmmakers' deep disappointment when the original vision of the film did not become realized.
I accept that when they looked at the footage and interviews they had, the filmmakers realized the more artistic and more far-reaching vision of the film moved it out of the musical group and into the Landis family.
The cautionary message here to me is what Ruth Behar and Joy have said: do not over promise! I can see myself getting thrilled about the potential of a film with my subject, then painting a picture of "This could happen" and "People will have this reaction," which is a kind of emotional promise. A little caution mixed with the excitement is something I want to remind myself of sternly.
From Diana
Thank you all in the class Saturday for your comments on my elevator pitch. New direction, ideas popping! Enjoyed hearing other project ideas as well! Good session! I'll be out of town next Saturday and am sad to miss the upcoming class. See you all in two weeks.
Post a Comment