In subsequent posts, including this one, I will start to talk about less technical aspects of film preservation and digitization, though some of that will be strewn in. Feel free to leave comments if you want a subject touched on, or if you have further questions about any of the information. It is my experience that when you become so immersed in things, they become second nature to you, but not everyone is getting the same experience as me and I’d like to try to simulate and elaborate on this experience as much as possible for full clarification and understanding.
This week, the primary goal was to get an understanding of the scope of the project as a whole to see what could be accomplished within a semester’s time. Not that you are necessarily going to be working as closely with a film archive in your research as I have been, but I think it’s important to see what considerations occur when one does so that you can gain a better understanding of the process as a whole. That being said, one of the things I’d like to touch on today is my unusual role at the Brown Media Archives. As Margie Compton so aptly put it, I’m working in a role as both “researcher and technician,” which is not something archivists normally do. However, this is not because they are not interested in performing both of these roles; I’m sure if you asked many archivists, they would say that they would love to become more familiar with the information they work with, whether it be films, audio, books, or other forms of media. There is a question of time, however; especially in film archives where so much comes into the archive, and often has a limited time to be preserved (for if they don’t try, it will decay into nothingness). Archivists often must dedicate all their time to preservation and access so that researchers have the ability to work with this information and interpret it for themselves. Not all archivists are not active historians necessarily (though I’m sure you could find some who argue otherwise), they are providers for that history so people can have access to this information before it disappears. This is why my role is so unusual; I have been able to spend the last week looking through documents put together by the archive and Andrew Avery himself (as well as some other notes by others who had contact with him) so that I can understand further what role these films had in presenting life in South Georgia. I also expect to do a bit more of my own research to add anything I can to this information available at the archives.
I would also like to touch on the media archivist’s difficulty in what information to provide for researchers. There are so many aspects of home movies, what do researchers need in order to interpret this information they way they want to? Do they require just the historical content of the films, or do they need to understand what kind of camera or film the filmmaker used? Some of this information can be discovered, but it takes time, and does the archive just wait until someone asks for this information, or do they do the time-consuming research initially so that they have the ability to provide this information right away? It all seems to come down to time; they don’t have an infinite supply of it, so what do they dedicate their time to? What is the required amount of information that an archivist must provide to be deemed sufficient for research? This is why moving image archivists keep the original film or tape documents whenever possible, since the carrier itself can provide information.
In my own research and readings, I’ve discovered an important aspect to film research. While reading films is vital to historical thought, it is crucial to use supplemental information, such as documents that can relate to the film directly, if they are available. It can be especially difficult to find information of this sort for home movies, however; I was especially lucky with the Andrew Avery Collection because he realized these films’ historical importance. That being said, he couldn’t be sure of what information people of the future would be looking for, so there is some vital information missing in the descriptions he provided. This is, of course, at no fault of his, he did a spectacular job of documenting his films; he just may not have realized this would end up in a film archive that utilize detailed shot lists and other documentation of films. Many home movie collections are lacking the plethora of information he provided, for they created these films for personal reasons; why would they feel the need to write down family members’ names and places in their towns when they have their own memories? They don’t necessarily know that people in the future would use that information to do research. So where ever possible, get as much information as you can and use it to your advantage when considering home movies as sources. If you’re interested in this topic further, I would suggested searching for an article from the journal Moving Image through your library database called “Dealing with Domestic Films: Methodological Strategies and Pitfalls in Studies of Home Movies from the Predigital Age” by Cecilia Mörner.
This week, the primary goal was to get an understanding of the scope of the project as a whole to see what could be accomplished within a semester’s time. Not that you are necessarily going to be working as closely with a film archive in your research as I have been, but I think it’s important to see what considerations occur when one does so that you can gain a better understanding of the process as a whole. That being said, one of the things I’d like to touch on today is my unusual role at the Brown Media Archives. As Margie Compton so aptly put it, I’m working in a role as both “researcher and technician,” which is not something archivists normally do. However, this is not because they are not interested in performing both of these roles; I’m sure if you asked many archivists, they would say that they would love to become more familiar with the information they work with, whether it be films, audio, books, or other forms of media. There is a question of time, however; especially in film archives where so much comes into the archive, and often has a limited time to be preserved (for if they don’t try, it will decay into nothingness). Archivists often must dedicate all their time to preservation and access so that researchers have the ability to work with this information and interpret it for themselves. Not all archivists are not active historians necessarily (though I’m sure you could find some who argue otherwise), they are providers for that history so people can have access to this information before it disappears. This is why my role is so unusual; I have been able to spend the last week looking through documents put together by the archive and Andrew Avery himself (as well as some other notes by others who had contact with him) so that I can understand further what role these films had in presenting life in South Georgia. I also expect to do a bit more of my own research to add anything I can to this information available at the archives.
I would also like to touch on the media archivist’s difficulty in what information to provide for researchers. There are so many aspects of home movies, what do researchers need in order to interpret this information they way they want to? Do they require just the historical content of the films, or do they need to understand what kind of camera or film the filmmaker used? Some of this information can be discovered, but it takes time, and does the archive just wait until someone asks for this information, or do they do the time-consuming research initially so that they have the ability to provide this information right away? It all seems to come down to time; they don’t have an infinite supply of it, so what do they dedicate their time to? What is the required amount of information that an archivist must provide to be deemed sufficient for research? This is why moving image archivists keep the original film or tape documents whenever possible, since the carrier itself can provide information.
In my own research and readings, I’ve discovered an important aspect to film research. While reading films is vital to historical thought, it is crucial to use supplemental information, such as documents that can relate to the film directly, if they are available. It can be especially difficult to find information of this sort for home movies, however; I was especially lucky with the Andrew Avery Collection because he realized these films’ historical importance. That being said, he couldn’t be sure of what information people of the future would be looking for, so there is some vital information missing in the descriptions he provided. This is, of course, at no fault of his, he did a spectacular job of documenting his films; he just may not have realized this would end up in a film archive that utilize detailed shot lists and other documentation of films. Many home movie collections are lacking the plethora of information he provided, for they created these films for personal reasons; why would they feel the need to write down family members’ names and places in their towns when they have their own memories? They don’t necessarily know that people in the future would use that information to do research. So where ever possible, get as much information as you can and use it to your advantage when considering home movies as sources. If you’re interested in this topic further, I would suggested searching for an article from the journal Moving Image through your library database called “Dealing with Domestic Films: Methodological Strategies and Pitfalls in Studies of Home Movies from the Predigital Age” by Cecilia Mörner.