Analogue Time
As part of the ACKnowledge Artists’ Community Knowledge project, I am Lead Researcher on the subproject called CRAFTED. It investigates the “intangible and craft knowledge of analogue audiovisual production” in order to explore the potential of forging more collaborations between artists and cultural heritage organizations.
It’s a lot of words. I’m not sure I know what it means either. Is it the manual skills of splicing film? The rhythm of interviewing? Is it the socio-political practices created making so-called ‘amateur’ productions speaking to societal disenfranchisement? And generally, what specifically analogue characteristics should be prioritized, in content and an archival structure?
One way of tackling this is to enlist the help of analogue audiovisual makers. Through what we (me, supervisor Alec Badenoch and co-researcher Katía Truijen, with guidance from Johan Oomen and Phuocie Le) call ‘co-creation workshops’ with analogue-using artists and producers, we try to identify this knowledge, and imagine how it may be relevantly transmitted.
As part of the ACKnowledge Artists’ Community Knowledge project, I am Lead Researcher on the subproject called CRAFTED. It investigates the “intangible and craft knowledge of analogue audiovisual production” in order to explore the potential of forging more collaborations between artists and cultural heritage organizations.
It’s a lot of words. I’m not sure I know what it means either. Is it the manual skills of splicing film? The rhythm of interviewing? Is it the socio-political practices created making so-called ‘amateur’ productions speaking to societal disenfranchisement? And generally, what specifically analogue characteristics should be prioritized, in content and an archival structure?
One way of tackling this is to enlist the help of analogue audiovisual makers. Through what we (me, supervisor Alec Badenoch and co-researcher Katía Truijen, with guidance from Johan Oomen and Phuocie Le) call ‘co-creation workshops’ with analogue-using artists and producers, we try to identify this knowledge, and imagine how it may be relevantly transmitted.
SHIFTING PRACTICES
Given the limited time available to carry out the work, we knew we’d only begin to understand the possibilities. Our approach was nonlinear, reaching out to people while doing desk research, figuring out questions while structuring methodology.
We wanted to access interdisciplinary knowledge that may not emerge in standard interviews or focus groups. Integral to this was adapting to what makers express as important in real time, allowing it to shift the project methodologically and open space for probing connections. For instance, in initial talks with makers, several expressed they didn’t want to center the material media or physical making practices, since these weren’t separate from their reasons or the conditions in which they make. We changed a workshop plan, de-centering object- or technically-focused approaches, and ensuring flexibility. Each workshop uses a tailored combination of exercises, artistic research interventions, general discussion and experimental media archeology with makers’ input in mind.
For feasibility, we organized the workshops in three groups: (i) Media students not familiar with analogue audiovisual tools and practices (ii) Analogue producers and artists making pieces with social justice goals, who critically intervene in archival ethics and (ii) Analogue film artists who push the technical medium, and are interested in archiving.
WORKSHOPS
Alec led the first workshop. The media students had barely used analogue audiovisual devices, if any. After informative presentations, they recorded Super 8 films in groups. We wanted to know what surprised these new-to-analogue users. By learning this, we identified characteristics unique to analogue, and some of the inherent knowledge needed for its operation. The students remarked on the weight of the equipment, the tactility of buttons and the aesthetics of the cameras’ leather cases.
Especially interesting was what they didn’t think to ask: How long can you record on a Super 8 reel?
Of course they wouldn’t think to ask that! In digital making, the camera runs as long as a memory card holds or the battery lasts. But on a 50 foot Super 8 reel, you get four minutes.
That last (non)question stuck: Time. It keeps coming back, when thinking about analogue, archiving, when hosting our second workshop.
In Workshop two, many aspects dealing with time arose. There is the length of the tape or reel you record on, which as the makers pointed out, cannot be separated from having tape or film, which has to do with funding, access to education, etc. The amount of time you prepare for recording, since post-production wasn’t always so possible. The real-time (reel-time?) of linear editing, not being able to scrub through media quickly. And deemed most important, there is the time you are in, the sociopolitical situation that has parameters, possibilities and restrictions: whether the technology available and popular, what can be made safely or how social taboos inform how you articulate your message and its eventual reach.
As these makers noted, these are inextricable from how you make media, what strategies or crafts you implement, how you interview or what scenes you show. And they are important for how you archive projects and pass on knowledge through time.
We are still in the thick of research, processing the outcomes of the workshops, and imagining with makers what an archive of this knowledge can and should be.
NONLINEAR ANNOTATIONS
At the end of the second workshop, we created an audio piece to annotate the day. I learned about this practice from artist Jota Mombaça, who called it “a fragmented archive of impressions”, and remixed it. First, everyone wrote down ideas, thoughts and words that stuck with them from the workshop. We recorded on a Nagra recorder from Beeld & Geluid’s depot.
Spontaneously, people spoke their ideas, responding to each other with their own. It went on until we felt done. Please enjoy this annotation. A poetic cacophony.