Communication Technologies of Empowerment

A Postgraduate Conference for the presentation of PhD research on the intersection of power and communication technologies organised by the Institute of Communications Studies (ICS) at the University of Leeds

“Andy Warhol said that everyone will have their 15 minutes of fame. The web means that anyone can have their 15 minutes of power.”Abstracts and Bios

Adnan Hadzi (University of London, UK)
Adnan Hadzi is currently working on a practice-based PhD titled ‘The author vs. the collective’ at Goldsmiths, focusing on the influence of digitisation and the new forms of distribution on documentary film production, as well as the author’s rights in relation to collective authorship. This interdisciplinary research project will combine sources and expertise from the fields of media and communication, computer studies and architecture. Adnan is co-founder of Liquid Culture, Deptford TV and http://www.copyleft.cc

Deptford.TV – strategies of sharing
What is Deptford.TV
Deptford.TV is a research project on collaborative film – initiated by Adnan Hadzi in collaboration with the Deckspace media lab, Bitnik media collective, Boundless project, Liquid Culture initiative, and Goldsmiths College. It is an online media database documenting the regeneration process of Deptford, in Sout East London. Deptford TV functions as an open, collaborative platform that allows artists, filmmakers and people living and working around Deptford to store, share, re-edit and redistribute the documentation of the regeneration process. The open and collaborative aspect of the project is of particular importance as it manifests in two ways: a) audiences can become producers by submitting their own footage, b) the interface that is being used enables the contributors to discuss and interact with each other through the database. Deptford TV is a form of “television”, since audiences are able to choose edited “time lines” they would like to watch; at the same time they have the option to comment on or change the actual content. Deptford TV makes us of licenses such as the creative commons sa-by and gnu general public license to allow and enhance this politics of sharing.

minding the gap 

Conference Report by Cathy Baldwin

This training day was set up to bring together the small but growing minority of media practitioners entering higher education to conduct media research through postgraduate study or as part of ‘practitioner’ appointments at academic institutions. It seemed to be a common experience that many found themselves caught out by a series of ‘gaps’ between the intellectual models taken up in analytic studies of media institutions and practices and the practical experiences they brought with them into the academic environment. Furthermore there are evident gaps between the intellectual status of text-based social scientific analyses of the media and practice-based approaches to research through media such as film, photography, audio-documentation and multi-media as legitimate forms of knowledge. Finally, a clear tension is experienced in the separation of the ‘intellectual’ and ‘practical’ in the internal organisation of media faculties in higher education. Prior to this event, there had not been a dedicated symposium where ‘double practitioners’ from across the
industry and disciplinary spectrums were able to voice their concerns and set out a vocational and intellectual agenda towards reconciling these gaps. The aims of the day were therefore just this. The organisers felt that it was vital that the event should target postgraduate students and early career researchers in the first five years of an academic career as
the current generation confronting these problems at the ‘up and coming’ end of media research. The event set out to profile their work and to gauge an overview of how far we have come towards reconciling the ‘gaps’ in the historic progression of the field. The day drew its parameters around work centred on factual, non-fiction-based media that engage with and represent the ‘real world’ through journalistic and documentary formats, and whose products are intended for mass or substantial public circulation. The training day brief also appealed for researchers drawing on a
wide range of theoretical approaches newly associated with media research, such as anthropology, film-practice, legal studies and development studies, as well as the more traditional schools of cultural studies, social psychology, semiotics and literary theory.
The programme was structured around three thematic workshops highlighting different facets of the relationship between theory and practice. The first of these, Workshop 1, dealt with practice in methodology across two panels. The first encouraged discussion on film as a method of research, documentation and the presentation of data. The second looked at practitioners’ uses of their inside experiences of the media to inform their research. Examples of this included drawing upon professional contacts, knowledge of production terminology, roles, codes of conduct and practices to gain access to research subjects and locations, and to interact effectively with them. Two out of five panelists were anthropologists, highlighting the rapid growth in popularity of ethnographic research methods.
The second workshop, Workshop 2, took examples of theory in practice as its topic, reversing the equation between intellectual models of media institutions and practices, to ask how often intellectual models form the basis of media practice. The workshop was split into two panels exemplifying cases from the Western world and the developing world respectively. This was so that the different issues generated by firstly long-established and globally dominant media systems and secondly those still in formation in countries which have yet to reach a plateau of political, social and
economic stability could be given separate consideration.
Workshop 3, the final session, was set up to encourage ‘double practitioners’ to bring to the floor more personal accounts of the challenges – personal, ethical, political and practical – facing those whose careers combine the media industries and academia. The intention was that presentations in this session would tie together the issues raised by the explorations in the first two sessions of practice brought into the academic world and intellectual models taken up in the media industries.
In keeping with the aims of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network of providing peer support and networking and learning opportunities, it was decided that all the organizational and academic preparations should be carried out by postgraduates for postgraduates. Given the range of practice specialisms in broadcast, print and online
journalism, and filmmaking that the event sought to engage with, and the scattered location of researchers with an industry profile, the organizational team was recruited from universities across Britain (plus one in Denmark). Cathy Baldwin, a D.Phil student in Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Oxford and a former BBC World Service and Radio 3 /4 reporter, received over 40 emails and phone calls from individuals interested in participating. She recruited the team below to compliment the work of the small team in Oxford comprising herself, Paddy
Coulter (Reuters Institute) and Andres Schipani-Aduriz, an M.Sc student at St Antony’s College, University of Oxford, also a media studies graduate and print journalist with the Observer as well as a variety of international publications.
The other team members were Lizzie Jackson, a PhD Media Studies student at the University of Westminster and BBC New Media editor and consultant; Dafydd Sills-Jones, a PhD Media Studies student and lecturer in Media Production at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and a former documentary development producer; Catherine Joppart of The Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research, who also works as a freelance journalist for Associated Press Television and as a fundraiser and researcher for the One World Broadcasting Trust; John Sealey, a PhD by Film Practice student and lecturer at the University of Exeter and award-winning filmmaker specialising in cultural identity and the African diaspora; Line Thomsen, a PhD Anthropology student at the University of Aarhus, Denmark and ITN/Channel 4
news reporter; and Venkata Vemuri, a PhD Media Studies student at the University of the West of England (UWE) and former print and television journalist and executive producer, Aajtak News Channel, New Delhi, India.
The training day was hosted by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, a new research centre within the Department of Politics and International Relations which opened in November 2006. It builds on the long-
running Reuters Foundation Fellowship Programme (Green College). Its broad aims are: to become the focus within the University for the study of the role of journalism in modern societies; to consider the ethical basis, the practice and the development of journalism; and its public policy implications; to pursue impartial scholarship of the highest standard in the study of journalism as it is practised on all media platforms at an international, national and local level; to offer an academic analysis of long term issues, but also to respond in a timely way to the emerging agenda created by the media in their daily operations, and to provide an independent forum for exchanges between practitioners and analysts of journalism, and all those affected by it. http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/ Media research is a new and emerging tradition at the University of Oxford and is currently being consolidated through a number of other units and programmes across the university including Oxford Internet Institute, the Programme in Comparative Media Law at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (Wolfson College), and Oxford Media and Communications Seminar Programme.
Additional support in kind was obtained from The Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research (London). The Centre is closely affiliated and receives institutional support from the Annenberg School of Communication at the
University of Pennsylvania and collaborates closely with partners such as City University, the London School of Economics, Central European University and Oxford’s Programme in Comparative Media Law. It was developed to provide a forum for open dialogue and scholarship related to media law and policy around the world.
Stanhope is particularly keen in developing and working with student researchers, often acting in an advisory role and engaging MA and PhD students on media policy related projects. www.stanhopecentre.org Delegates from a range of institutions from around Britain and Europe attended the training day. Presenters represented the following institutions: Goldsmiths College, Bournemouth University, London South Bank University, University of Westminster, SOAS, University of Aarhus (Denmark), University of Wales (Aberystwyth), University of Edinburgh, Institute of Education, University of London, University of Oxford, University of Vic (Barcelona, Spain), LSE, University of Worcester, University
of Exeter and University of the West of England (UWE). Additional institutions represented by non-presenter delegates included University of Cardiff, University of Loughborough, Trinity College, University of Wales and City University.
The event was opened by Cathy Baldwin and Paddy Coulter, who welcomed delegates and explained the origins and aims of the event. Cathy stated that it was her personal experiences of the difference between media studies and working as a
radio journalist that motivated her to initiate the conference. Paddy, currently Director of Studies at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and a Fellow of Green College, Oxford, has had a prolific career as a television producer (formerly Director of the International Broadcasting Trust) and a journalist specialising in international development issues. He pointed out that getting journalists and media academics together was the main goal of the Reuters Institute, and that the training day was the very first conference to have achieved this at Oxford University. He outlined the difficulties that have already emerged in mediating between the two sets of professionals, with the timescales of research in journalism and academia being vastly different and also the differences between the conceptual frameworks of the
two arenas.
The keynote speech, entitled ‘If it Bleeds it Leads….’: Modes of Inquiry in a World of Sensation, was delivered by Professor Brian Winston, award-winning documentary maker, renowned media academic and journalism commentator, and currently Dean of the University of Lincoln. He laid out the similarities between journalism and academia, particularly the underlying rationale for carrying out reporting and research, and the nature of the problems with both pursuits. He opened the debate of why greater academic attention is not afforded to journalism. He illuminated the
contradiction between the status of journalism in society as ‘powerful and important’ and its relatively low status as a subject of study on the elite intellectual agenda. He suggested that the roots of the problem lay in a ‘constant schizophrenia’ directed towards journalists by academics, that ‘practice’ was not respected as ‘research’ and there was a suspicion of and hostility towards journalists among academics. He put this down to academic snobbery! Delegates found him a dynamic, provocative and involved speaker, and he raised many a laugh and smile with his animated delivery
and performance-like manner.

The first of the day’s three workshops began with a presentation by Adnan Hadzi of Goldsmiths College, who opened panel 1 – Sound and Image: Alternative Methods of Research and Presentation – with a description of his research project on collaborative film entitled ‘Deptford TV’. This comprises an online media database documenting the regeneration process of Deptford in South East London. He explained how it functioned as an open, collaborative platform that allowed artists, filmmakers and people living and working around Deptford to store, share, re-edit and redistribute the documentation of the regeneration process. His contribution closed with a screening of several clips depicting local residents taking part in the project.
Trevor Hearing of Bournemouth University briefly introduced and screened his 15- minute reflective film that considered how he might develop the documentary film form into a method of ‘writing’ with video to articulate a more complex
understanding of the world. He outlined the importance of two strands in his practice as a film-maker: the meaning of evidence in the use of documentary video and the value of documentary video as a creative academic research tool.
Dr Charlotte Crofts of London South Bank University talked through the challenges of legitimating and gaining accreditation for film as a form of research within higher education, particularly among funding bodies. She explored the point that practice research differs from professional practice mainly in the way in which it is framed and reflected upon within a research context. She screened a short research film which used “pro-sumer” technology to document and reflect on the effect of emergent digital technologies on mainstream cinema production from image acquisition, post production and delivery to film preservation and archiving.
Finally, Tony Dowmunt of Goldsmiths College outlined what he described as his ‘research journey’ during the production of a video-diary based film – A Whited Sepulchre – which drew on the stories of his great-grandfather’s account in his
diaries of his posting to Sierra Leone as a soldier in the 1880s and his own video diary of a trip to Africa made in December/January 2004-5, where he explored his position as a White man in a Black environment. He also investigated the ‘authenticity’ of the more personal/confessional mode of the video diary in contrast with the formal written tone of the Victorian written diaries. The presentations were introduced by Cathy Baldwin and responses were given and
the discussion chaired by Dr Charlotte Crofts who stood in for filmmaker and Film Studies lecturer, John Sealey who was sadly unable to attend due to illness.
Lizzie Jackson from the University of Westminster/BBC chaired the second panel of the workshop, entitled: Bringing Work to School: Industry Experience in Media Research.
Somnath Batabyal from the Department of Film and Media at SOAS gave a paper that clearly illustrated how his academic career had been enhanced by having had a career in journalism. As he said in his paper, ‘However much time a researcher spends in a newsroom, one can never really be a part of the newsroom dynamics.’ He made the case that journalists in academia have the advantage of being able to bring their professional experience to bear on research taking the newsroom as a locale of study. He reflected that had he not had a career in journalism, his research would have been approached differently and the results would have differed. In turn, if it were not for his fledgling academic career, he would not have been able to conceive of his project.
The second paper was given by Ole J. Mjos from the School of Media, Arts and Design at the University of Westminster. Ole demonstrated how he considered a deconstruction of empathy and sympathy for journalists to be important. He showed how research findings have shown that journalists often occupy a detached position.
Ole suggested that this could assist in the development of training for journalists who might arrive at the scene of an incident looking for comment, and who by lack of awareness of the impact of their tone of voice or their actions might inadvertently distress victims.
Line Thomsen from the Institute of Information and Media Studies at Aarhus University talked through her thoughts prior to her doctoral observation of a small selection of newsrooms, including the BBC newsroom. She deconstructed participant observation and observation, picking out ways of approaching the contact time with journalists as a researcher. Her paper carefully listed many of the classic problems and risks, but also the potential benefits of the methodology.
The fourth paper was delivered by Dafydd Sills-Jones, lecturer in media production at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. He gave examples, taken from his field work with television history producers, of oft-used uncritical and celebratory language exemplifed by the constant and un-defined use of the word ‘big’. He noted that whilst such uncritical useage could be a barrier to scholarly study, he also believed it was important to engage with what he referred to as the ‘big discourse’. In order to outline the advantages and pitfalls of such an approach, Dafydd offered three provocative ‘confessions’ as to his methods, and ended by inviting the audience to reflect on their own methodological ‘sins’.
In the final paper, Dr Dorota Ostrowska of the Department of Film Studies at the University of Edinburgh covered a wide area, including the benefits of partnerships between academics and industry, through the learning extracted by both parties in the setting up of a major film festival, the UK Festival of Chinese Cinema. She noted the cultural benefits to Edinburgh and its residents, and also the benefits to the university through the availability of experts from China over the period of the festival. She presented a useful business model in action, proving the importance of bringing together the joint experience of academics and practitioners.
After a networking lunch where delegates mingled and chatted, the afternoon sessions began. Dr Charlotte Crofts briefly outlined the aims of the MeCCSA Practice Session and encouraged delegates to get involved. The first panel of Workshop 2 entitled Theoretical Models in Mass Media Practice: Perspectives from the West, was chaired by Lizzie Jackson (Westminster) and Line Thomsen (Aarhus).During this panel, Gavin Rees of Bournemouth University reflected upon the fact that journalists in the UK receive scant formal training on how to interview, and that emotional interactions between interviewee and interviewer were subject to little professional or theoretical analysis. Drawing on his research talking to news organisations about the trauma training given to reporters, such as in situations of war, mental illness, bereavement or violent crime, he examined why the emotional interactions of the interview space remained under-explored. In particular he concluded that empathetic listening skills need to be taught both for ethical reasons and to improve the quality of journalism and its ability to engage audiences.
Jo Henderson of the Institute of Education, University of London, focused on the BBC’s Video Nation, in which ‘ordinary people’ are invited to represent themselves through the creation of self-filmed monologues to camera: video diaries. She located her research within an exploration of the implications of the notion of ‘the citizen producer’ in the particular climate of the BBC news and factual programming departments. Her paper revealed that the ‘Amateur video’ tag enabled broadcasters to distance themselves from low production values and subjectivity. Maxwell Boykoff of the University of Oxford presented the findings of his research examining the application of journalistic norms in the coverage of human
contributions to climate change in the US and UK. An analysis of the output of numerous news organisations and print media led him to the realisation that some news sources have significantly diverged from the consensus view in climate science.
The need for ‘balance’ in reporting has created bias when reporting a scientific concensus such as the role of humans in climate change. Cristina Perales García and Mon Rodríguez Amat from the University of Vic, Barcelona reflected upon the importance of managing new and constantly evolving modes of communications, specifically a new approach to the growth area of e- journalism. Their particular concern was the creation of an appropriate and non- traditional theoretical model that would serve to study this new communicative sector.
In the final paper, Patrice Holderbach from the University of Oxford considered the investigative nature of journalism which can propel media practitioners and their products into sensitive environments that are prone to judicial scrutiny, including judicial penalties for refusal to disclose sources. She focused on the pros and cons of a controversial bill considered in 2006 by the US Senate to create a federal shield law protecting media practitioners from disclosure and the wider implications for journalists and the general public, particularly ‘bloggers’.

The second panel, Theoretical Models in Mass Media Practice: Perspectives from the Developing World, was chaired by Catherine Joppart of the Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research and Venkata Vemuri (UWE). Sarah Kamal’s paper looked at how media reconstructions form a natural space for investigating media theory. She examined the concept of ‘media development’ as practice and theory in post-Taliban Afghanistan, problematizing the reciprocal relationship of media theory and the development context to pinpoint lessons for media theory in reconstruction
and in the West.
Nina Bigalke of Goldsmiths College scrutinised the operations of Al Jazeera English, the latest English-language 24-hour news channel which made headlines prior to its launch in November 2006, as a noticeable example of an institution that effectively incorporated long-standing academic debates into its policy and brand identity.
Dr Carolina Oliveira Matos, also of Goldsmiths College, discussed her research methods when investigating the relationship between the democratization process that occurred in Brazil in the last two decades and the role played by the media. She also reflected upon the difficulties that many academics and journalists have in combining theory with practice and the misunderstandings that exist on both sides.
Dr Xin Xin of the China Media Centre at the University of Westminster set out to explain the complexity of journalistic practices in different social contexts by focusing on the case of China. She analyzed the causes, dynamics and consequences of the negotiations between political, economic and socio-journalistic interests in journalism practice. She also aimed to clarify confusion regarding the coexistence of investigative journalism and ‘paid journalism’ during China’s media transformations.
Two papers were delivered in the final workshop, Double Vocations: Media Practice and Theory, as the third contributor, John Sealey, had to withdraw due to illness. The session was chaired by Dafydd Sills-Jones and responses were given by Cathy Baldwin. Maureen Matthews from the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Oxford discussed the cross-cultural nature of media practice using the example of a recent documentary project broadcast on Canadian radio which debunked the popular ecological stereotype of ‘Mother Earth’ found in the cosmology of Native Canadians. She drew parallels between journalism practice and anthropological concerns over ‘reflexivity’ during field research, postulating that journalists would benefit from attention to the latter. She also outlined how they could improve their practice through taking up anthropology’s ethical stance towards the representation of its subjects.
To close, George Nyabuga of the University of Worcester drew upon his personal experience as a journalist with The Standard, the oldest newspaper in Kenya, to explain how professional journalistic ethics and press freedom in that country were under threat both internally within the media establishment and externally by representatives of the state and business sectors. He revealed how objectivity and unbiased accounts of events intended to enlighten people and provide a forum for exchanges of information and views were being sacrificed for the sake of vested interests and financial gain.
Professor Winston rounded off the day’s academic discussions with some summary remarks. He warned the delegates against the danger of treating the gaps outlined across the discussions in an ahistorical manner, reminding them that he had experienced them throughout the course of his career. He was optimistic at the rise in the number of practitioners in research, lamenting that 30 years ago, the numbers were considerably lower. He also defended the arena of media research in the light of many delegates having expressed a concern with a perceived general misunderstanding of practice. He recalled that when media research was launched as an academic discipline, figures from the media industry were disconcerted by the critical analyses presented by himself and his colleagues from the Glasgow Media Group! He concluded by suggesting that journalism could be improved through a closer engagement with academia, and inversely that the climate for journalism studies is much better today than in the early years of his career, with greater
receptivity within academia and more opportunities to obtain funding.
Paddy Coulter then brought the event to a close by leading Brian Winston and all delegates in an open evaluation discussion where points were taken from the floor.
The feedback was resoundingly positive, and aspects praised included the breadth of media forms and theoretical approaches discussed, the frank and candid tone of the day set up in the opening speeches, the friendly and informal atmosphere, the small scale which enabled delegates to converse with a wide range of people in intimate surroundings, the splendour of the conference venue at 13 Norham Gardens, the internationalism of the delegates, and the choice of keynote speaker. Constructive criticisms raised were the short length of the event, a general consensus that its high
quality merited two days, and frustrations were expressed at the restricted time for the development of prolonged discussions due to the tight schedule.
Delegates finished the day with a wine reception at Reuters Institute, a meal at the Pizza Express in Oxford and drinks at the pub afterwards where discussions went on late into the night!
Due to the popularity of the event and the excitement that it generated, several postgraduates from the Media and Anthropology departments at SOAS and Goldsmiths College have proposed to repeat it next year at either university over a two-day period. As media research is in its infancy at the University of Oxford and the concentration of staff and postgraduates working on media topics is still growing, the organizers have fully endorsed and encouraged this proposal. The envisaged title of the second event is ‘Mending the Gap’, with an aim of building on the agenda of concerns set up by this first event and moving forward to look for concrete ways of addressing them.

Our grateful thanks are due to all the ‘Minding the Gap’ delegates, both presenters and non-presenter audience members for bringing their enthusiasm and passion for the topic to the lively and productive discussions that took place. Special thanks are owed to Paddy Coulter for his tremendous support and dedication throughout the preparation process, and to Professor Brian Winston for his inspirational address and generous input into delegates’ discussions and keen engagement with the issues facing young researcher-practitioners today. We would also like to thank Professors
Marcus Banks and Harvey Whitehouse of the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology (ISCA), University of Oxford, and the Art Design Media Higher Education Academy Subject Centre (ADM-HEA) for funding the event, and Oxford
University Anthropological Society for support in kind. Thanks are also due to Nicole Stremlau for linking the project with the Stanhope Centre and to Peter Bailey and Jennie Turner for their valuable input in the coordination of the day. A debt of gratitude is owed to Andres Schipani-Aduriz for assisting with the production of the event and for turning out to register delegates in spite of illness. Additionally, we are grateful to Dr Charlotte Crofts of the MeCCSA Practice Section for standing in as a chair at the last minute. Last but by no means least, I would personally like to thank my colleagues at
MeCCSA Postgraduate Network for encouraging me in the running of the event within a university that is a new collaborator for the MeCCSA network, and in particular the current chair, Kaity Mendes for compiling delegates’ feedback. Finally, without the commitment and high quality input of the postgraduate organising team and chairs,
the event could not have taken place.

Cathy Baldwin, MeCCSA Postgraduate Network Executive Committee University of Oxford, 3rd June 2007.

Deptford.TV will take part in the moving images archive research until December 2008.

Using Moving Image Archives in Academic Research

Applications are invited from doctoral students registered at U.K. universities in film, television, media or cultural studies, history, American studies, architecture, anthropology and other relevant disciplines for an Arts and Humanities Research Council sponsored collaborative doctoral training programme on using moving image archives and archival materials in academic research. Leading academics, together with representatives from the BFI National Archive, the Imperial War Museum, The British Universities Film and Video Council, the Media Archive of Central England, the national archives of Wales and Scotland, the Broadway Media Centre and others will deliver training events between November 2007 and December 2008. Students can be linked to an archive/institution appropriate to their research. Bursaries are available to defray the costs of travel and accommodation.

We will welcome applications from anyone pursuing doctoral research using moving image materials. To apply please contact Professor Roberta Pearson at the University of Nottingham and Dr Lee Grieveson at UCL.

Click here to download a poster (pdf).

Click here to download a letter with more information for applicants.

Click on the links below to visit the sites of participating institutions.

Graduate Programme in Film Studies : UCL

University of Nottingham : Institute of Film and Television Studies

University of Ulster : Centre for Media Research

University of Ulster : Media Studies Research Institute

Imperial War Museum

British Film Institute

Scottish Screen Archive : National Library of Scotland

British Silent Cinema

British Universities Film and Video Council

Peercasters – Future Film workshop #3 with Penny Nagle and Adnan Hadzi

Based at the ICA, the third masterclass in the Future Film series was on the subject of ‘Peercasters, podcasting and P2P’ and was hosted by Penny Nagle and Adnan Hadzi.

Penny Nagle began with a breakdown of the issues of distribution and marketing of film online – but also via more traditional routes to give a sense of perspective. It was surprising how well Internet marketing and distribution compared to more established markets, and it seemed – encouragingly – that there were more and more possibilities for film makers to get their work shown to large audiences.
You can download a high quality archive of Penny Nagle’s presentation here.

Adnan Hadzi then talked about the possibilities and potentials of collaboratively editing film, deriving his ideas from his first experience of learning to do ‘paper edits’ of celluloid film. By adopting new technologies of collaboration, his presentation pointed towards collaborative film editing online – sharing edit decision lists – as in some ways being a return to that simple, accessible paper medium.

You can download a high quality podcast of Adnan Hadzi’s presentation here.

This time we had the ICA’s excellent caterers to thank for the classy sandwiches and drinks, and after a quick re-fueling, the workshops began.
Penny’s workshop was a film promotion surgery, where participants were invited to bring up their current ideas and projects, and develop niche marketing strategies for them. It was fascinating to see how breaking down a film into which niche audiences need to be addressed transformed how it should be presented and marketed in unexpected (and sometimes hilarious) ways.

Adnan’s workshop was very hands-on. Laptop-wielding participants paired up and learned the nitty-gritty of podcasting using Broadcast Machine and some other simple tools to edit, compile and upload video documentation of the first Future Film workshop into a new narrative. Technical problems abounded (of course) but everyone got there eventually.
There is a short summary video of the Peercasters workshops here.

Pressed for time by the overrunning workshops, the Talkaoke table did it’s best to make itself heard in the crowded bar, as you can see from the Peercasters talkaoke video podcast.
Many thanks to Irem and Sion and the ICA for hosting the event, and to London Westside and the London Development Agency for organising and funding it!

• More information (via NM-X.com)
• More photos
• More video
• Workshop learning resources wiki
• see the video

paper presented at IM2.

method a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, from Gk methodos ‘pursuit of knowledge’, Concise Oxford Dictionary

Research Unit for Contemporary Art Practice

inventing methodologies2 is the second in a series of experimental workshops which aim to provide a platform for the discussion of the novel and highly-contested notion of practice-based research.

Practice-based researchers are faced with a dual challenge. The first is the intrinsically bifurcated nature of a research project composed of a written element in conjunction with a practical element. The second is the interdisciplinarity inherent in writing art. These structural complexities are also an enduring characteristic of the practice/theory relationship.

What constitutes research in the context of practice-based PhD? What is the relationship between research and artpractice? Is the written element also a practice requiring its own set of competencies? Indeed, how many practices are involved in practice-based research?

Can the tension between theory and practice provide one way to unravel methodological processes? Does the reflexive monitoring of empathic or ‘obsessive’ research strategies in fact generate the discourse and criticality of the project? Is it possible to outstrip the criteria of legitimation by setting tailor-made criteria for research objectives?

inventing methodologies2 provides the opportunity to unravel these processes and the incentive to articulate these personal avenues by encouraging discussions on the possibilities of practice-based research.

Adnan Hadzi “Deptford.TV – strategies of sharing”

What Is Deptford.TV?
• A platform for collaboration with a focus on Deptford communities. (Elvira)
• A collaborative environment for film-making on the Deptford regeneration that accommodates different levels of participation and engagement. A community project. (Bitnik)
• A pool of clips. (Stephen)
• A grassroots media project. (Camden)
• A public access media project that investigates into new areas such as collaborative film editing. (James)
• A project that aims to generate shared resources by uploading materials which people will be able to share. (Gordon)
• A collaborative film – a project on issues of regeneration. (Amanda)
Deptford.TV (1) is a research project on collaborative film-making in collaboration with Deckspace media lab (2), Bitnik collective (3), Boundless (4), Liquid Culture (5) and Goldsmiths College (6). It is an online media database documenting the regeneration process of Deptford, in South- East London. Deptford.TV functions as an open, collaborative platform that allows artists, filmmakers and people living and working around Deptford to store, share, re- edit and redistribute the documentation of the regeneration process. The open and collaborative aspect of the project is of particular importance as it manifests a form of liberated media practice. In the case of Deptford.TV this aspect is manifested in two ways: a) audiences can become producers by submitting their own footage, b) the interface that is being used enables the contributors to discuss and interact with each other through the database. Deptford.TV is a form of ‘television’, since audiences are able to choose edited ‘timelines’ they would like to watch; at the same time they have the option to comment on or change the actual content. Deptford.TV makes use of licenses such as the creative commons (7) and gnu general public license (8) to allow and enhance this politics of sharing.
1 See http://www.deptford.tv
2 See http://dek.spc.org/
3 See http://www.bitnik.org/en/
4 See http://www.boundles.coop
5 See http://www.liquidculture.info
6 See http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk
7 Creative Commons is a nonprofit organisation that offers flexible copyright licenses for creative works. See http://creativecommons.org
8 The Gnu General Public License aims to guarantee everybody’s freedom to share and change free software. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.htm

in september we where taking part in the pure data workshops with a copy of pure dyne during the dorkbot camp, a short report quoted from dorkboters saul albert and robert atwood:

This place is pretty amazing even when there’s no burningdork happening. We were in the Scout Leader’s Training Centre, past the rifle range, below the go-karting track. Apart from several clearings and a big fire circle, there was a beautiful old lodge-type building with a hard-wood floor, an industrial-scale kitchen full of assorted strange catering equipment (a full set of balti dishes, but not one sharp knife.. weird) and little needlepoint mottos on the wall like ‘a scout’s pledge is to do his honour to God and the Queen’.

We arrived a few hours before an enormous pile of organic vegetables was delivered by these people: http://organic-gmfree.co.uk/ which April DeLaurier marshalled a small gang into cooking with remarkable efficiency. I think that meal was African sweet potato soup with coriander, delicious spelt-flour cornbread and yoghurt. mmm. What happened to the leftovers!? Then we pitched tents, got drunk and went to sleep.

Saturday was rainy and everyone crammed into the scout hut and the workshops started with an amazing degree of energy and enthusiasm. First I did Ralf Schreiber, Christian and Sebastian’s ‘building self-sufficient electronic animals’ workshop, which was amazingly inspiring. Yoshi Imamura was on hand (in most situations actually) to give great advice on how to bend components through PCBs, hold and cut them efficiently and solder with grace.. It was a bit chilly on Saturday, so I was glad to have the chance to try fire-making in Paul Granjon’s workshop. As several onlookers pointed out – even if you don’t get a blaze started, all that energy expended in making smoke without fire warms you up wonderfully. Later that day (I missed a bit as I had some pickups from the station), under Anita’s supervision I reacquainted myself with knitting, badly. Scarves only for me I’m afraid. But I enjoyed what little I had time to do as we prepared the next feast – bean and cheese burritos with salsa, rice and salad. Mmm.

The presentations started as the meal was being prepared. After being used to the dorkbot crowd as an urban, mobile grouping that shifts and changes as people come and go, it was great to see everyone actually living in the same field and paying wrapt attention to each other’s presentations. As Gavin Starks was giving his presentation about music and astro physics, Adrian handed out some incredibly delicious bowls of Yoshi’s miso soup which kept everyone going until burrito time! Yay! Then Greenman opened his dodgy bar, Matthew Venn made a really wonderful wild apple and blackberry crumble, and headphone performances began. I was still going to and from the station, so I missed many of them, but caught a few amazing highlights. Again the room filled with wrapt dorkbots, headphones on, while outside fires were built and nasty liqueurs were consumed.

At 5am Sunday morning, I packed up my hammock and sneaked out to cycle like a loonie to Gatwick. I caught my 8am plane – just, with 10 minutes to spare, but thanks to those of you who offered to wake up at 6am and drive me there anyway 🙂 Of course I’m also bitterly disappointed that I missed the clean-up 😉

Anyone care to fill in a few blanks? What happened on Sunday? I can see you all built and burned a big stupid thing. Well done! I’m annoyed I missed that bit too.

Next year : dorkbot-on-sea! Any suggestions for a location? Maybe somewhere near http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/orfordness/ Maybe on an island somewhere hot! (by Saul Albert)
The leftovers seemed to form part of Sunday lunch/dinner. Javier’s amazing paella and Paul’s delicious potato non-omlette (vegan omlette) featured prominently as well. We heard stories about you leaving at 5:15, told by some of those nocturnal folks who were just going to sleep at that time. My headphone performance was last, and only a few people remained. However, after the headphone performances, there was an impromptu, relatively low-volume, laptop + feedback + vibrating inflatable chair + kitchen utensil jam session at the dodgy bar, it was great fun. Nobody complained so I guess it was not too loud! Alejandro managed to patch my feedback machine output into a sample looper and digital effects program on a laptop, Ian provided something like a beat from another laptop, and Evan played a mean eggbeater rhythm, some other people I don’t remember who, were participating as well. No recording as far as I know. Dot was fooling people into believing that she was drinking organo-luminescent fluid by aiming a concealed torch into the base of the glass containing that weird blue liqueur from the dodgy bar. Then Lucy impressed everyone with her collection of pop ring tone midi files played on a laptop around the campfire. I got up rather late on Sunday, ‘lunch’ was sort of find what you can or what you brought, with some advance paella and leftover soup. The wireless was up and running since the raindrop interference was solved by virtue of not having rain. So, I checked my email. How exciting. Some more laptop jamming round the campfire with Ian and company, then I produced a small carved wooden circuit diagram for the Dork that others were hard at work to build from stray pallets and stuff. There was a tissue paper balloon making frenzy, at least, I got to help lay the sheets out in order , and to hold the balloon during inflation. After a test inflation, the balloon was refolded and some presentations were given. I can’t remember which ones were on Sunday and which on Saturday, there was some amazing video feedback effect going on at some point. More of Yoshi’s miso soup; even better if that’s possible, and the full version of Javier’s paella then appeared. Some conversation about Japanese Moomins was going on in the kitchen. Then the burning of the ‘dork’, flashing light-bulb eyes and karoke voice. It was plugged into the mains until the light bulbs stopped flashing. All bets about whether it would fall forward or backward were lost because it fell sideways. People danced around it while playing music on laptops. Followed by the tissue paper balloon ascent. It proved not to quite lift its own burner , after quite some time of holding it , and then holding it over the remaining fire to get extra hot air, and breathing hot smoke, the shouts of several onlookers to ditch the built-in burner and frame and just hold the tissue part over the fire were heeded and the balloon took off. (then it came back down) Unfortunately Dot and I, who had been helping to hold it steady for a while when it was not lifting enough, went to get fresh drinks from the kitchen for just a minute, possibly required due to smoke inhalation … during which time it took off! Aargh. Then April, Adrian and I left in Adrian’s car . (by Robert Atwood)

On 5th of August 2006 Deptford.TV had a two hour discussion session with Videosafari on free TV. The session is all in German.

Ueber das Fernsehen von Roman Weber und Adnan Hadzi. Moderiert von Mario Purkathofer

It took place in Zuerich in the Dock 18 medialab on the frequency of radio LORA over the stream Kanal7. .