Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
W12 (Documentary on Youtube (Aside from the obvious uploading of existing…
W12
Documentary on Youtube
Aside from the obvious uploading of existing documentaries, there are documentaries created specfically for Youtube.
I think vlogs are one example of this, and many people's Youtube channels are essentially a multi-piece ongoing documentary
As mentioned in Making Sense, YouTube can be seen as a community of, and has communities and sub-communities of, documentary makers (I think, even if they wouldn't all call themselves documentary-makers)
Even a specific playlist of videos created by different people could be seen as a documentary, due to the arrangement of different videos giving an overarching meaning or narrative to the collection of videos
Youtube is ranked as the #2 website globally, and is therefore (currently) an important platform for people working with video.
As such, creators have to work within the restrictions of the platform and therefore the medium shapes the world in some ways – but at the same time Youtube adapts to the world in order to stay relevant
Do digital and networked technologies take documentary further away from the real world or further into it?
Both?
In some cases, digital and networked technologies can give us access to real worlds that we previously couldn't explore and/or these technologies change the way in which we can document the world (see Bear 71 – the same documentary as a straight film would be so different)
However, distribution using platforms like Youtube & Facebook can change the way documentary makers create and share their work
-
-
Defining the 'real world' is difficult, even if referring to the material world
Whilst documentary is often factual, it is still recorded via cameras that have some level of distortion (especially when we're dealing with 2D filming), microphones that have a limited range and post-processing that edits clips together to create the documentary
Art vs Documentary
How do we define this? Documentary is usually seen as a factual report, but many documentaries contain bias or things that aren't necessarily true. Art is, often, at least one person's truth.
Podcast Science VS did an episode last month on facts, where an example given was that of the lemming and the idea that lemmings commit mass suicide.
This 'fact' of suicide was put forward by scientists in the late 19th century based on what they knew about lemmings and their rapid population growths/declines
This was due to optimal breeding conditions followed by overpopulation and some disease outbreaks, causing a fairly regular 'boom and bust' of lemmings
The Disney documentary White Wilderness featured 'documentary footage' of lemmings jumping off a cliff, but this footage wasn't representative of natural lemming behaviours as the crew paid children to collect lemmings & then chased them up and off a cliff.
This footage wasn't doctored, the lemmings did really fall off the cliff... but the true context was very different to the way the footage was put into the documentary
White Wilderness was released in 1958, where video doctoring wasn't as common as it is today
If this was 'art' and not 'documentary', then it could be seen as a metaphor for society or how human desires are causing environmental damage (killing animals to make a successful documentary – successful in profits, not in fact-telling). The label of art would shift the meaning a lot (though it would obviously be very cruel art, and would be better done in CGI).
-
The knowledge that the crew chased the lemmings off a cliff drastically impacts the way the documentary creates feelings; previously it could have invoked feelings of sadness for the lemmings or perhaps shock at 'nature', now (for me at least) I feel anger at the crew for killing animals for footage.
I think the two are really intertwined, in that good documentaries are a form of art
Bear 71 was a really good example of this for me – it didn't feel like a documentary to me, it felt like an interactive art piece or even a game of sorts
Never Alone (the game from Week 6) also straddles this border between documentary, art and game – whilst the game is "fictional" it's based on cultural truths and features footage of Iñupiaq people the same way a documentary would.
I feel like most games are art, but there's a high/low culture distinction made between them which I disagree with; I feel that art that engages and influences more people, even if "low culture", is just as important as Da Vinci or Van Gogh.
The categorisation of media in the first place – art or documentary, high or low culture – is arbitrary and whilst it can be useful it can also be incredibly limiting.
Terms like documentary legitimise a piece of media, whilst the term video game can delegitimise it
This was something other people felt as well: the Huffington Post originally called Bear 71 a "film" and called the co-creators "directors".
It's not "true" documentary, especially with the voice over of the bear – but other 'traditional' documentaries have narrators and editing and other ways of manipulating their narrative as well.
Intention of creator is important here, but how an audience perceives something is also important.