SMU Video Art Spring 2020

In this reading, what I found most interesting was this idea of found footage vs archival footage. 

The idea of reevaluating the archive that arised in the 1980's is very interesting. This method of searching for evidence of something different than what other historians had previously seen, presented by the New Historians, was a very interesting perspective. I think I lean more towards the perspective of generating a new narrative/counter-narrative of the past, as a way of treating found footage. These two ideas of archival media exist in their own territory, but I think it is important to draw the line between the two, as "something not previously seen" could easily be turned into a false narrative rather quickly. The whole idea of the archive seems very muddled to me, as their doesn't seem to be a consensus on what it is. There is no universal definition on how to treat it or what sources are truly "archival" which could be it's flaw or its strength. On one hand, it limits the ability to turn it into a particular subset of art, with key dictation

I think the last paragraph of this reading sums up the entire argument perfectly, and left me wondering why I just read numerous pages of long winded sentences just to get to this conclusion. It felt kind of unnecessary to get that simple point across. That being said I find the majority of her points to be very well thought out in the discussion of a kind of simple concept.  While many people have thought of archives as a place to store accurate historical evidence / documents it is also seen as a place to look for newly developed ideas through old media. Conveying new thoughts through the use of manipulation of old media both physical and digital. The one main point that actually stuck with me was the idea from Vivian Sobchack, that says that a documentary is more of a mode of reception rather than a filmic object within itself. "Documentary is less a thing than an experience."

I like how Baron challenges how we view documentary footage. He talks about how historical narratives are often viewed as objective truth, but it still being put into a film. The person creating the documentary can still tell whatever story they want using this historical footage. I thought this was interesting in connection with the saying "history is written by the winners". I always thought of this in connection to my history textbooks throughout high school, but it obviously can be connected to historical film as well. I also thought that his thoughts on the archive and the power that comes into play when you are using this footage in your piece because you have the power to create a whole new narrative from already existing footage. This power makes me a little nervous in this next project!

Because, like literally everyone else in the world right now, I’ve watched Tiger King, one part of the reading that was interesting to me was on page 3 (of the scan) in which the author elaborates on the importance of “interpretive framework” when viewing archival/documentary footage.   In many ways Tiger King reminded me of The Thin Blue Line, which ultimately built sympathy for the man who was framed for murder, resulting in his release from prison.   Although The Thin Blue Line doesn’t use as much actual archival footage, the “interpretive framework” of the film intentionally creates sympathy for the man and casts doubt on his guilt.   Tiger King was a very interesting series because I think it did a good job of making almost every person look equally innocent and guilty.   Although I also think that the sympathy tends to lean more heavily in Joe’s favor, it also points out a variety of his problems too.   Viewer’s sympathy for him would be much more rare if it weren’t for the “int

I though it was refreshing how honest Connor was about why he started making found footage films, and how he doesn't let that discredit the art. I also thought is was interesting that his work was made mostly for the sake of making it. I think one thing that really surprised me was when he was talking about how people would refuse to consume media, movies or music especially, because it was old. I think that stands in stark contrast to the huge push towards the vintage and nostalgic that we see in media and culture today.