| Previous | Contents References |
Next |
| |
The Clarity Of A MessageWorth and Adair asserted in 1972 that anyone can learn to create films. Both film and videotape are viewed as easier than most art forms because, unlike drawing and painting, a nearly exact reproduction of what is seen is the normal result—whether a person is skilled or not (p. 24). Technological differences and advances make video significantly easier than film: One’s work can be reviewed in the camera immediately and re-shot if necessary—it does need to be sent to the developer or even removed from the camera—and most video cameras can be set to focus and adjust for changing light levels automatically. But creating a meaningful and identifiable message involves more than pointing and shooting. To some extent, however, there is not general agreement about whether a message is necessary in “good” video. Chalfen (1992) found that “home movie-makers” rarely follow the advice of manuals and instead focus on recording, documenting, and reproducing: “Here it is interesting to note that the ‘naive’ home movie-maker embraces the view of film-making often promulgated by social scientists of certain schools, namely that editing is ‘bad’, planning the subjects’ activity is taboo, objectivity is destroyed by heavy-handed editing, and so on” (p. 232). Such an approach seems to avoid intentional communication and can be found in many video activities, but generally, video production courses can be expected to stress at least the potential of the camera operator (and editor) to “promote a narrative structure that emphasize[s] the manipulation of real-life everyday reality [author’s emphasis]” (Chalfen, p. 232). A conflict, however, arises in doing projects that in some way or another are supposed to present “reality.” In these cases, there is an expectation of selectively showing reality, while commercials and fictional projects manipulate reality. The genre in which a production is placed alters at least the perception of the production team’s function. This difference or more generally the influence of the camera on “reality” were not specifically addressed during any observed activities. The question about how objective video is should ideally be raised in a quest for literacy, but none of the observed programs overtly pursued such an objective. Therefore, the lack of attention to it is not surprising. The problem then is how to address the necessity of a message when video is so frequently viewed as an objective medium. A message can be understood in numerous ways and the key to defining the message of an “objectively” documented activity is in the purpose of the recording, defined in terms of the genre it represents. A news story selectively shows reality so that it can make a point; the message is like the thesis statement in an essay. It is not hard to find a message in a good news story or a documentary, though clearly it asserts a distortion of reality. A recording of a football game, on the other hand, is not as distinct: If it is made for the team to review, then it should document key events for evaluation; it highlights successes and failures and is selectively played for coaches and team members. The clarity of the message is thus defined by how well the video serves its purpose. The clarity of a message is sought as one aspect of development that becomes visible in video projects because the message is so fundamental to a project. Such a criterion was explicit in the evaluations only at Suburban High where it was a very small part. On the form, “Project Critique Sheet,” which was for students to complete during the class screenings and which represented the rubric used by the instructor, the explicit criterion was written as “What was the basic idea?” and was one of eighteen criteria to be rated. Despite the small part the idea had in the overall evaluation, the lack of explicit concern with overt communication is not taken as a reflection of its triviality but rather as a reflection of its embeddedness. The message being communicated was at the center of many discussions both in planning and during viewings at all schools, but it was rarely discussed in terms of “communication” or “message” because these are so implicit to the activity. As in the form described above, the message was more frequently discussed in terms of the “idea” or even in terms of a specific example of a genre, particularly when working on commercials and public service announcements for which students frequently started with an actual advertisement. The clarity of a message is such a basic criterion that when the basic message is not obvious, nothing else is discussed until an explanation is given. These explanations were necessary to further discussion. This was most striking at Urban and Suburban Highs when they reviewed unedited footage: The teachers began by asking for students to explain their videos, and questions were asked before there was any other discussion. The significance of the message is most clear when it is weak. In “The Good, the Bad, and the Techies,” the project was clearly a documentary about the student news program, and an effort to insert humor was evident, but the lack of a more specific message was its greatest weakness. Rather than narrating the video, an opening clip was selected in which Luke described to a student that “This is our final for third period.” In practical terms, the statement did describe what the project was, but it failed to communicate anything that the audience members of his class did not already know. And no explanation is offered of who is being shown. The following clip is of a student describing what he was doing for the show, but again key elements are missing—such as what role he played in the show or even an explanation that the show was the focus of the documentary. The intended audience was never evident in the work, despite Luke describing the project as being something fun for his classmates. Furthermore, it was rarely clear what a clip contributed to the project as a whole, and though there was a clear subject—the show—little could be learned about the show from this project. Unlike most of the other projects produced at Suburban High, the technical problems, which were numerous, dominated in “The Good, the Bad, the Techies.” The biggest problem in considering the clarity of a message, however, comes in trying to evaluate the art videos completed (or not) at Boarding High. As already discussed, the unedited work frequently was entirely explorative, but in the edited work, there was also some mystery about the existence of messages. The video called “aim” (not obtained for detailed analysis) stood out as a problem: The word A.I.M., which I only recently learned stands for American Indian Movement, an image of a U.S. flag, and an image of red paint dripped like blood, suggested a critique of American patriotism, but the girl who worked on it and spoke about it during the viewing did not confirm or deny this meaning when asked; she was unwilling or unable to respond to the graduate-student intern’s question about it. This problem of interpretation seems inherent to art. One non-focal project clearly had no consistent message: It had a series of disconnected events, including the art teacher barking like a dog, which seemed to reflect two boys playing rather than trying to say something because no connection with other images or sounds was apparent. Most of the edited projects at the school were much tighter and at least consistent, and the existence of a sound track on many of them greatly helped create a mood, though they might have been dismissed by some as nothing more than music videos (specifically devalued by the Media 3 teacher at Urban High). In fact, the videos produced in the last observed course were so well put together and the student interns so heavily involved in production (particularly when compared with the previous courses) that I had some doubts about whose ideas were most represented. The one set of unedited tapes from this course (“Perspectives,” Project 16) indicates that the intern did make suggestions, but also that students explored the uses of the camera and thus were truly participating. This question of whose voice is represented will be further addressed under the topic of agency, but the clarity of a message can be addressed even in the art videos. |
|
| Previous Contents |
Next References |