From documentary networks to documentary worknets: Strategies of participation and co-creation in emerging practices of factual storytelling | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film
  4. Volume 17, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 17 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1474-2756
  • E-ISSN: 2040-0578

Abstract

Starting from the premises that documentary assemblages are networks in the sense that they are not given but need to be established and are in constant flux leads us to the assessment that any interactive documentary environment is a collaboratory but also precarious endeavour. In this context, bringing into dialogue network theories, namely ANT ‘and after’, the concept of ‘assemblage’ and discourses around participation and co-creation can lead to fresh perspectives on different strategies and tactics of participation in collaborative factual storytelling. Still, two aspects need to be revisited: the symmetric approach to networks and the notion of distributed agency. These concepts will be discussed in terms of their value to derive strategies and tactics of (shared) authorship, the striving for a documentary argument and documentary authority on the one hand and participation, interaction and plurivocality on the other hand. In this regard, ANT makes certainly inspiring points but also has its shortcomings. One solution can consist in relating the axiom of ANT as an analytic tool to actual documentary long-term strategies as well as to stand-up tactics as, e.g. interventionist media-making, open space documentary and context-provision. Thinking of emerging documentary configurations not only in terms of hybrid transdisciplinary, transprofessional networks but pragmatic worknets can lead to a better understanding of how to balance different agents within these networks|worknets – always keeping in mind that we are dealing with an approach that calls for constant self-reflection as it presents a case of what Law describes as ‘uncertain method’. All theoretical reflections are accompanied by an analysis of a paradigmatic documentary networks|worknet, (2015).

© 2020 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/ncin_00001_1
2020-03-01
2024-05-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adorno, Theodor. ( 1984;), ‘ The essay as form. ’, New German Critique, 32, pp. 151–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bogost, Ian. ( 2012), Alien Phenomenology, Or, What It’s Like to be a Thing, Minneapolis, MN:: University of Minnesota Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Cizek, Katerina. ( 2010;), ‘ Manifesto for interventionist media. ’, https://www.nfb.ca/playlists/katerina_cizek/manifesto-interventionist-media-bec. Accessed 2 February 2019.
  4. Court, Maria,, Lerner, Rosemarie, and Melo, Sebastián. ( 2015;), ‘ The Quipu Project. ’, https://interactive.quipu-project.com/#/en/quipu/takeaction. Accessed 10 February 2019.
  5. Daniel, Sharon. ( 2008;), ‘ Hybrid practices. ’, Cinema Journal, 48:2, pp. 154–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Frisch, Michael. ( 1990), A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History, New York:: State University of New York Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Gaudenzi, Sandra. ( 2013;), ‘ The living documentary: From representing reality to co-creating reality in digital interactive documentary. ’, Ph.D. thesis, London:: Goldsmith University;.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Jenkins, Henry. ( 2006), Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York:: New York University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Latour, Bruno. ( 1996;), ‘ On actor-network-theory. A few clarifications and more than some complications. ’, Soziale Welt, 47, pp. 369–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Latour, Bruno. ( 1999;), ‘ On recalling ANT. ’, in J. Law. (ed.), Actor Network Theory and After, Oxford:: Blackwell;, pp. 15–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Law, John. ( 1992;), ‘ Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. ’, Systems Practice, 5:4, pp. 379–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Law, John. ( 2004), After Methodology, London:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Lovink, Geert. ( 2008), Zero Comments. Blogging and Critical Internet Culture, New York:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Manovich, Lev. ( 2013), Software Takes Command: Extending the Language of New Media, London and New York:: Bloomsbury Academic;.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Miles, Adrian. ( 2017;), ‘ Matters of concern and interactive documentary: Notes for a computational nonfiction. ’, Studies in Documentary Film, 11, pp. 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Miller, Liz, and Allor, Martin. ( 2016;), ‘ Choreographies of collaboration: Social engagement in interactive documentaries. ’, Studies in Documentary Film, 10:1, pp. 53–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mitchell, Mary. ( 2015;), ‘ Where voice and listening meet. Participation in and through interactive documentary in Peru. ’, Glocal Times, 22&23, pp. 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Nichols, Bill. ( 2001), Introduction to Documentary, Bloomington, IN:: Indiana University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Rodríguez, Clementia. ( 2001), Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizens’ Media, Cresskill, NJ:: Hampton Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Rose, Mandy. ( 2017;), ‘ “Not media about, but media with”: Co-creation for activism. ’, in J. Aston,, M. Rose, and S. Gaudenzi. (eds), I-Docs – The Evolving Practices of Interactive Documentary, New York:: Wallflower;, pp. 49–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Teurlings, Jan. ( 2013;), ‘ Unblackboxing production: What media studies can learn from actor-network-theory. ’, in M. de Valck. and J. Teuerlings. (eds), After the Break. Television Theory Today, Amsterdam:: Amsterdam University Press;, pp. 101–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Tucker, Karen, and Brown, Matthew. ( 2014;), ‘ The Quipu Project. ’, http://interactive.quipu-project.com/#/en/quipu/intro. Accessed 21 November 2015.
  23. Wiehl, Anna. ( 2019), The New Documentary Nexus. Networked|Networking in Interactive Assemblages, Cambridge:: Cambridge Scholars’ Publishing;.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Wiehl, Anna,, Rose, Mandy, and Cizek, Katerina. ( 2017;), ‘ Documentary as co-creative practice. ’, in J. Aston,, M. Rose, and S. Gaudenzi. (eds), I-Docs: The Evolving Practices of Interactive Documentary, New York:: Wallflower;, pp. 38–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Zimmermann, Patricia, and Michiel, Helen de. ( 2013;), ‘ Documentary as open space. ’, in B. Winston. (ed.), The Documentary Film Book, Basingstoke:: Palgrave Macmillan;, pp. 355–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Zimmermann, Patricia, and Michiel, Helen de. ( 2018), Open Space New Media Documentary: A Toolkit for Theory and Practice, New York:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Wiehl, Anna. ( 2020 [2019];), ‘ From documentary networks to documentary worknets: Strategies of participation and co-creation in emerging practices of factual storytelling. ’, New Cinemas, 17:1, pp. 3–19, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/ncin_00001_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/ncin_00001_1
Loading
From documentary networks to documentary worknets: Strategies of participation and co-creation in emerging practices of factual storytelling
New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film 17, 3 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1386/ncin_00001_1
/content/journals/10.1386/ncin_00001_1
/content/journals/10.1386/ncin_00001_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): agency; ANT; interactive documentary; intervention; network; open space documentary

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error