film-making goes digital. the transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the...
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
1/14
Film-makinggoesDigital
KaterinaGnafaki
Abstract
Thisarticlefocusesonthetransformationofthetraditionalculturalartifactof
filmandtheconsequentimpactintheproductionandconsumptionprocesses.
The emergence of the Web 2.0 infrastructure and online networks enables
activeparticipationintheproductionandconsumptionprocesses,whichoftenresults in the formation of hybrid spaces where the role of producer and
consumer is increasingly blurring.Theaimofthispaperistoshowhowthetransformation of the artifact invites participatory culture and how it has
affectedtheproductionofspace(collaborationbetweenfilm -makers)aswell
astheconsumptionofspace(digitaldistributionthroughtheInternet).
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
2/14
Introduction
Therapidgrowthoftechnologyinfilm -makinghaslead toamorecollaborativeanddynamicformofexpression.Throughoutthehistoryof film themedium
hasexperienced remarkable changes, developing into amore advanced and
easy to use tool for film production. These constant improvements on the
medium brought about an overwhelming embrace by film-makers, already
shapedbytherapidurbanizingworldinthelatenineteenthcentury(Charney
and Schwartz 1995), thus inviting active participation between them.
Additionally, there seems to be a shift from individual expression to
communityinvolvement(Jenkins2006,7)thatenablesfreshactionstooccur
and where among them some serve production, others consumption
(Lefebvre1991,73).Alongwiththechangesinproduction,theconsumptionof
spacealters,too. Unlikethetraditionaldistributioninmovietheaters,filmscannowbedistributedin innumerableplaces onlineandoffline. Spectators can
now watch films at their own impulse without having to go to the movie
theaters. Consequently, they are positioning themselves as active and
interactivecomposersof a cinematic and televisual discourse (Naficy2010,
12). Additionally,web2.0 applications bring peoplewith thesame interests
together and facilitate collaborative artistic practices (Christodoulou and
Styliaras 2008). Interestingly, film-making in an online networked
environmentcreatesthepotentialoftransformingtheactionintoamorejoint
endeavor which breaks the boundaries between producers and consumers
thuspermittingparticipantsatdifferentstagesofonlineculturalproduction
toactasusersandproducers(Bruns2007,2).
Social ProductionandConsumptionofspace inpre-new
mediafilm-making
In1931thephilosopherandsociologistWalterBenjamininTheWorkofArtin
theAgeofMechanicalReproduction tracesthehistoryofartandexplorestheearly artifact consumerism brought by mechanical reproduction. With the
adventofmechanical reproductionBenjaminrealizes that thisuniqueaura
emerging fromauthentic works of art suddenly depreciates. The initial cult
valueoftheartifactisreplacedtothatoftheexhibitionvalue;thus,itbecamea
productforthemassesratherthanacultobject.
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
3/14
On the threshold of mechanical reproduction and consequently the
transformationof theartifacttoaproduct, consumerismpenetratedpeopleslivesleadingtoaconsumersocietyofwhichmassculturewastobecomeboth
agent and object (Hansen, 1983 pp.154). The proliferation of new
commodities consumer goods and fashion, characterized the 19th century
Westernmodernity.Thisperiodinvolvedawholerangeofculturalandartistic
practicesthattransformedtheconditionsunderwhichartwasproducedand
consumed(CharneyandSchwartz1995).
Filmwas along thesetransformations.Forcenturies,evenbeforemechanical
reproduction took place, people were trying to develop film artifacts for
realisticallyreproducingmovingimages.Theconstantstruggletoimprovethemedium ofthe film inorder tomake itsmaller, simplerand simultaneously
more advanced, led to a series of technical inventions. New technologies
emergedalongwiththerequiredentrepreneurialskillstospeedupandbring
downthecostofproduction,andultimatelylowerthepriceofprocessedgoods
andconsumeritems.Consequently,newmoviesstartedtoariseandalongwith
them,manydistributioncompaniesentered themarketforreleasing films in
movie theaters such as Fox Film Corporation, Warner Bros. Pictures or
ParamountPicturesCorporation.Inparallel,theoutburstofconsumerismand
modernlifeinurbansettingsproducedtheconsumerdesireandquestforeven
morecommodities,resultingintheformationofasocialspacewherecertain
objects are produced and consumed. Henri Lefebvre (1991), in The
ProductionofSpaceobservesthatsuchobjectsarenotonlythingsbutalsoaset of relations that intervene in production and consumption itself. For
Lefebvre, social space subsumes things produced, and encompasses their
interrelationshipsintheircoexistenceand simultaneity(idem,73).
Inthecaseoffilm-making,therecurringimprovementsoftheartifactinvites
peopletouseitandperformcertainactionsthusproducing,reproducingand
consuming social space (Lefebvre 1991). In 1994, Gottdeimer states thatspatialrelationsaresocialrelationsthatarereplacedbyparticipation.Theact
ofparticipationcanbeseenasbringingspacestolifeaswellascarvingout
newspacesand creatingnewsocialforms (Cornwall2002,2). Interestingly,
filmhasalwaysbeenacollaborativemedium;acombinationoftheeffortsofproducers,directors, scriptwriters, setdesigners, editors, cameramen, actors
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
4/14
andothersbutaswelldirectorsthemselves(Fabe2004,140;Monaco1981).
Inthelattercase,throughoutfilmhistorywehavenoticedmanycollaborative
filmprojectsbetweendirectors,aneffortmainlyreferredtoasanthologyfilm
(Deshpande2010).Specifically,accordingtoDeshpande,asanthologyfilmwe
labela collectionofmultiple short films, eachofthemusually directedbya
different director while surrounded by a central theme, premise or event
(2010). Similarly, anotherinterestingdimensionof collaborativefilm-making
is the re-emergence of multi-productions with multiple national partners,
which have increased among European and Asian countries in particular
(Nacify2010,16).Collaborationin film-makingrequiresthatmultiplepeople
worktogether,buteachindividualservestheneedsofthegreaterprojectand
theemotionalimpactofitsstoryline(Cornwall2009).
In short, film as a medium proliferated widely after the outburst of
consumerism,invitingmoreandmorepeopletouseitaswellasparticipatein
jointactions.Areasonforitswideproliferationwasitscontinualadaptability,
not only in remaining relevant for its time but also by facilitating the
emergenceofothermediaandartsandofmodernityinitstransformationinto
latemodernityandbeyond(Nacify2010,12).Asthephilosopherandscholar
MarshallMcLuhanargues,themediumoffilmasmanyothermedia,survived
bybecomingthecontentsofnewermedia(1964).ThescholarJayDavidBolter
callsitremediationmeaningthateverytimeanewermediumreplacesanold
onewhileatthesametimeregeneratesitsculturalspace (1991).Thisisaverysignificantobservation,judgingbythegreattransformationofthemediumof
filmfromitsinventiontotodayandthechangeinmethodsofproductionand
consumption.
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
5/14
Howthenewartifactinvitesparticipation
ProfessionalFilm-makersgodigital
IstartedworkinginDVformyWebsite,andI fellin lovewiththemedium.It's
unbelievable,thefreedomandtheincredibledifferentpossibilitiesitaffords,in
shootingandinpost-production.Forme,there'snowaybacktofilm.I'mdone
withit.
DavidLynch2005onVariety
It was with the introduction of HDCAM recorders in 1998 that digital
cinematography began to arise1. Soon, more and more companies offered
various high-definition video cameras. Since the price of the digital video
cameras has rapidly fallen, an outburst of digital films has taken place.
Professional film-makersandhome-enthusiasts found, in this newimproved
artifact,newwaystoshowcasetheirfilmsastheyachievebetterqualityimage
andrequirelesseffortinpostproduction2.Film-makerswerefinallygiventhe
opportunitytofreetheircreativepotentialandachievebetterperformancesby
taking multiple camera shoots. Therefore, this new digital environment
changed the traditional artifact and, alongwith it, it remediated its cultural
space(Bolter1991).In2006,theculturaltheoristHenryJenkinsobservesthis
kind of shift in the way media content is produced and circulated3 . He
distinguishes that people empowered by new technologies demand active
participationthereforeproducinganewsocialspace.
Professional film-makers grabbed the potential of this new medium,
participating in collaborative digital film productions and delivering award-
winning films on lower budgets. For instance, Cities of Love is a series ofcollective motion pictures surrounding the notion of love in various cities
aroundtheglobe.Eachmovieofthiscollectioniscreatedbytheparticipation
ofoutstandingdirectorswhoaregivenaspecifictimelinetoportraytheirview
onthesubject.Sofar,twomotionpictureshavebeenreleased,Paris,jetaime in2006, andNewYork, I LoveYou in2009.Accordingto the InternetMovieDatabase(imdb.com),moreepisodesaretofollowinShanghai,RiodeJaneiro
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography2http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4565771.stm
3Derived from: Schfer, M. T. (2008)
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
6/14
and Jerusalem4. Similarly, All the Invisible Children is a 2005 collaborativemovie project regarding childhood and exploitation. Seven directors were
invitedtopresenttheirownperspectiveaboutthethemeintheirpartofthe
world5.
Theserecentomnibusandcollectivefeaturefilmspresenta nddemonstratethe
affordance and accessibility that the new digital artifact provides and the
participationthatisenabledviaitswideuse.DavidLynchsstatementinhis
interview in2005 onVarietymagazine,manifests themajor transformation
that film-making has been subjected to with the emergence of new digital
technologies.
BeyondtheStill-onlinecollaborativefilmcontestUnliketraditionalmedia,theNetisnotjustaspectacleforpassiveconsumption
butalsoaparticipatoryactivity(RichardBarbrook1997).
Film-makersallovertheworldengageinonlinecollaborationfacilitatedbythe
Web. A usual example of such collaboration entails the exchange of rawfootagebackandforthbetween the creativeparties involveduntilthemedia
contenthasreacheditscompletion.Eventhoughthisprocesscouldalsotake
placeoffline,thetransferofthemediumfromanalogu etodigitalhasenabled
theWebtobecome its naturalmechanismformedia transferandcollective
production.Thiscollectiveprocesshasbeenamatterofdiscussioninacademic
literature.Forexample,SchferobservesthatWeb2.0hasdrawnourattentio n
tocollaborationandcollectiveactionviatheeasy-to-useinterfaceinpopular
applications facilitatinguser-createdor user-providedmediacontent(2008).
The World Wide Web and especially Web 2.0 infrastructures provide an
environmentwhere film-makerscansharetheircreativeoutput.Videousers
canplacetheirmediacontentonaserverwhereotheruserscandownloadit,
edit itanduploaditback, contributing toa recurring,andcyclicalprocessof
mediatransfer.
TheStoryBeyondtheStillconstitutesarepresentativeexampleofhowtheWebfacilitatescollectiveartisticpractices.Theideaofthiscollectiveshortfilmwas
4 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1440846/(From producers Emmanuel Benbihy page)5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Invisible_Children
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
7/14
perceivedin2009,whentheacclaimedphotographerandfilm -makerVincent
Laforet teamed up with Canon and Vimeo to encourage photographers toparticipate ina socialexperimentin storytelling6.UsingaCanon7D,hewas
assignedtomakeathree-minutelongprologuevideoendingonastillimage.
Then the participants,by pickingup where VincentLaforet left off, tried to
continuethestorybyaddingtheirownstandpointsintothedevelopingscript.
Each chapter endedwith an indicative still frame inorder toencourage the
beginning of next chapter and the evolving action entailed. The final result
compriseseight chapters, sixofwhichwhere createdby the luckywinning-participantsunderthedirectionofVincentLaforet7.
On the whole,Story Beyond the Still
represents one of the many examples
wheretheartifactinvitesaconjoinedinteractionofapluralityofindividuals
facilitatedbytheWeb(Schfer2008).
Fromprofessionaltoamateur
Formethegreathopeisnowthat8mmvideorecordersarecomingout,people
whonormallywouldn'tmakemoviesaregoingtobemakingthem.Andthatone
dayalittlefatgirlinOhioisgoingbethenewMozartandmakeabeautifulfilm
withherfather'scamcorder.Foroncetheso -calledprofessionalismaboutmovies
willbedestroyedanditwillreallybecomeanartform.
FrancisFordCoppola
Literature to date on participation has identified that consumers are
increasinglygettinginvolvedwiththeapparatusofproductionbyestablishing
anamateurcultureonaglobalscale(Schfer2008,41).Theavailabilityof
low-cost camcorders and digital cameras has encouraged more and more
peopletoembarkonfilm-making.However,apartfromtheimportantrolethat
themassproductionofconsumergoodsplayed,theWebwasalsobehindthis
emerging culture. The Web has transformed from a static medium to an
interactive one, namely known as Web 2.0, where people engage in thegenerationandpresentation ofmedia contentto large audiences. Insteadof
beingpassiveconsumerstheaudiencesarenowturnedintoactiveproducers
creatingnewsocialspacesforgrassrootsculturalproductions(Jenkins2003).
6 http://fstoppers.com/vincent-laforets-the-story-beyond-the-still/7
http://www.openculture.com/2011/01/beyond_the_still_.html
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
8/14
Interestingly, as Francis FordCoppolacomments, the fact that everyonecan
become a part of the production process, establishes the ground to
amateurisminthecreativepracticesincontrasttothestrictprofessionalismof
the20thCentury.
Thisarisingpopularculturehasopenedthewayforcreativeexpressionand
collaboration.Amateurfilm -makerscannowproduceeditanddistributetheir
filmsandradicallychangetraditionalwaysofproduction.Budgetisnolongera
barrierforcreativity;filmproductionsnolongeremanatefromtheelitefew.
Whetheroneisshootingashortfilmorafriendsgathering,thenewartifact
has now become soeasily accessible thataspiring amateur film-makers are
enthusiasticallyparticipatingintheproductionprocess.
WhilenavigatingtheWeb,onecanfindvariousexamplesofamateurcollective
films.Forinstance,the2008participatoryfilmManwithamoviecamera,for
theproductionofwhichmanypeoplearoundtheworldsharedtheircreativity.
This collective production is inspired by 1929 Dziga Vertovs silent
documentaryfilmwiththeaimtointerprettheoriginalfilm8.Thewebsitethat
hoststhisparticipatoryendeavorincludesalistof everyshotinVertovsfilm
along with a brief summary ofwhat each shot entails. The purpose of the
websiteistoinspireandguidetheparticipantsonthecollectiveprocess.Each
of the participants can contribute from an entire scene to a short shot or
multipleshotsfromdifferentscenes.Accordingtothewebsite ,everydayanew
version is constructed adding different perspectives and interpretations so
that each contribution becomes part of the global remake and screened in
tandem with the original. Interestingly, the software that empowers this
collaborative effort leaves theparticipantwith theentire freedomto choose
where to place their shotwhile the software synchronizes and streams the
mediacontentsasalinearfilm9.
Similarly, Life in a day, the most elaborate crowd-sourced art project in
history 10 , is the result of an idea conceived between award winning
documentarian KevinMacdonald and theproducer RidleyScottwho invited
8 http://dziga.perrybard.net/9
http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/manwithamoviecamerat#filmnote10according to WiredMagazine http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/01/life-in-a-day-
review/
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
9/14
people fromall over the world to visualize how a normal day of their lives
could be as long as it was captured on July 24th, 2010. The enormous
participation and enthusiasm from film-makers all over theworld, led to a
media contentsourceof 80,000videos that addedup to4,500hours ofraw
footage.AllthesubmissionswerethenhandedovertoeditorJoeWalkerwho,
along with t he director, eventually limited the footage to 90 minutes,
encompassing different motivations, perspectives, stories and experiences
surrounding that particular day. For this collaborative achievement, users
aroundtheworlduploadedinYouTubefootagecreatedoncellphones,cheap
consumercameras,orhighdefinitionones.Whateverthecamerasusethough,
high definition, or low definition, expensive or cheap, the segments
consolidationshowcasesathrillingmontagepicturingasingledayonearth11
.
Altogether,ManwithaMovieCameraandLifeinaDayrepresentfineexamplesofhowglobalcollaborationcanbeachievedbyencouragingculturallydiverse
participation enabledbytheartifact andfacilitated through theWorldWide
Web.
Produsage:TheCaseofStroome
Recenttheorizinginfilm-makinghasidentifiedcasesofconvergencebetween
the production and consumption processes. New hybrid terms such as
produserorprosumerhavebeenappliedinordertodescribeanewmode
of cultural production in which participants can act as both producers and
consumersoftendubbed as produsage.Thenewmedia scholarAxelBruns
remarks, that theconceptofprodusage creates a heterogeneousandhybrid
space and emphasizes the role of software in facilitating these collective
processes(2008).
11 http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/01/27/life-in-a-day-review-sundance/
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
10/14
SoftwarehasdrawnattentionbothfromAxelBruns(2008)andthesociologist
and anthropologist Bruno Latour (1992, 2005) in an effort to describe the
agency of digitally created artifacts enabled by the software. As Shferemphasizes,defining participationmerely as an activity performedbyusers
neglects the agency of the software design that channels these activities
(2008, 122). For example, in the case of Stroome12, an online collaborative
videoeditingcommunity,whereuserscanuploadmediacontent,shareitwith
othermembersofcommunityandcollaborativelyeditituntilitispublished.
Video editing inStroomeoffers film-makers thepotential totransformpost-production processes into a less solitary and more communal endeavor. In
addition, the Stroome platform affords produsage by allowing users (bothproducers and consumers) to mix it up and mash it out
as the website
suggests,meaningthattheycansimplyuploadvideos,directlyeditorremixthemandeventuallypublishthem.Thesoftwaredesignedforthisprocess,the
dashboard,helpsusersuploadandremixtheirvideos,watchthemostrecently
updatedvideoswiththecustomizedrecommendationsystem,keepup-to-date
withtheirfriendsprojects,tag,commentandrate.Additionally,thedashboard
of Stroome facilitates dissemination processes by providing embeddedapplications such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace and BlogSpot. AsBrunsobserves,softwareaffordancesopenupnewhorizonsforcreativityout-
distancingtraditionalmediaprocessesandromanticnotionsoftheartistbeing
the primary auteur13 (2008). In general, Stroome constitutes an onlineparadigm of the growing blur between the spaces of production and
consumption.
DigitalDistributionthroughtheInternet
Both professional and amateur film-makers, can benefit from the Web,
showcase their creativeoutput and get greater visibility. Since theweb has
become a common contentdistributionmediumwith low barriers to entry,
almostanyonescreativeactivitieshavethepotentialtothrive.Anincreasing
numberof film-makershave recently started todistribute their filmswithin
online media networks paving the way to other creative people who enjoysharingtheirmediaoutput. YouTube forinstance,isanonlinevideonetwork
12 http://www.stroome.com13In film criticism, auteur theory argues that a director's film reflects the director's personal
creative vision, as if he or she were the primary "auteur" (the French word for "author")
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
11/14
thatallowsuserstodiscoveroriginally -createdvideosormash-upvideos,as
wellasuploadanddistributetheirownones.
The featuresofYouTubearedesigned tofacilitatecollaborativeprocessesbyprescribingskillsandcompetencestotheusers.Bydoingso,aslongasusers
have a broadband Internet connection they can access a great amount of
cultural products, connect with other people, and collaborate and circulate
media content. The outstanding potential behind such participatory video
portalslaysinthefactthatalmostanyonewhoownsthetechnologicalmeans
torecordanduploadavideoclipcanshareitonline.Thesimpleandeasy-to-
use interfaceofYouTubeallows theuserstomakethemostoftheirYouTubeexperience
14byidentifyingtheirdesireinoneofthefeaturessuggested:
watch,
discover, share,personalize, and upload. Byembedding their videos tosocial
networkingcommunities,aswellasuploadanddirectlyedittheirvideos,users
canperformvarious activities, fromwatchingmedia content in3Dandhigh
definitiontosubscribingtochannelstheyareinterestingin.
Conclusion
Technologicaladvanceshaveradicallychangedthewaymoviesareproduced
and consumed. The advent of the Internet and Web 2.0 has empowered
consumerstobecomeactiveintheproductionprocess,thusestablishingthe
ground for the amateur culture to thrive. In the case of Stroome, the low
technological barriers to entry and the easy to use interface results in the
creation of hybrid spaces where producers and consumers converge. In
addition,thedesignofStroomesplatformencouragesuserstocollaboratively
generateanddistribute theirfilmsto largeaudiences;activitieswhichwould
traditionally take place remotely or across a distance. Online collaborative
videonetworks such usStroome, have provided access to media tools to a
broadsegmentofusersfosteringgrassrootscreativity.
In2009,theauthorandnewmediascholarLevManovichquestionswhether
art is still possible after Web 2.0 as he claims that mass production and
consumptionmakeprofessionalproductions irrelevant.Muchof thecurrent
debatehasfocusedonwhatthefutureholdsforfilm-makingbutthepasthas
14 http://www.youtube.com
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
12/14
shown that in every emerging technology there is always a utopian and
dystopian controversy. Walter Benjamins manifesto still seems pertinent.
However, what one can certainly observe is that art can no longer [be] a
pursuitforafew(Manovich2009,329).
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
13/14
Literature
Benjamin,Walter.1969.TheWorkofArtintheAgeofMechanical
Reproduction.Illuminations,ed.HannahArendt.NewYork:SchochenBooks.
Bolter,J.David.1991.WritingSpace:TheComputer,Hypertext,andtheHistoryofWriting.Hillsdale,NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaum.
Bruns,Axel.2007.Produsage:TowardsaBroaderFrameworkforUser-led
ContentCreation.PaperpresentedatCreativity andCognition6,1315June,
URL(consultedJune2007):http://snurb.info/files/.
Charney,Leo.andSchwartz,V.R.(eds)1995.CinemaandtheInventionof
ModernLife.UniversityofBerkeleyCaliforniaPress.
Christodoulou,S.P.and,GergiosD.Styliaras2008.Digitalart2.0:artmeetsweb2.0trend.DIMEA.Proceedingsofthe3rdinternationalconferenceonDigitalInteractiveMediainEntertainmentandArts .NewYork,NY,USA:ACM,
158165.
Cornwall,Anrea.2002.Makingspaces,changingplaces:situatingparticipation
indevelopment.InstituteofDevelopmentStudies.
Cornwall,Natalia.2009.CollaborationandFilmmaking. nataliacornwall.phantomself.org.
Deshpande,Shekhar.2010.AnthologyFilm.TheFutureIsNow:FilmProducer
AsCreativeDirector.WideScreen 2no2.NorthAmerica
Fabe,Marilyn.2004.CloselyWatchedFilms:AnIntroductiontotheArtofNarrativeFilmTechnique.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress
GottdeinerMark.1994.TheSocialProductionofUrbanSpace .Austin:Univ.
TexasPress
Hansen,Miriam.1983.EarlySilentCinema:WhosePublicSphere?NewGermanCritique.29:147-84.
Jenkins,Henry..2003.QuentinTarantinosStarWars?DigitalCinema,Media
Convergence,andParticipatoryCulture.DavidThorburn&HenryJenkins(Eds .),
RethinkingMediaChange:TheAestheticsofTransition .Boston:MITPress.281 -
315.
Jenkins,Henry.2006a.ConvergenceCulture:WhereOldandNewMediaCollide .
NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.
-
8/4/2019 Film-Making Goes Digital. The transformation of the artefact and the consequent impact in the production and cons
14/14
Jenkins,Henry.2006.ConfrontingtheChallengesofParticipatoryCulture:
MediaEducationforthe21stCentury.BuildingtheFieldforDigitalMediaandLearning.Chicago:MacArthur.
Latour,Bruno.1992.WherearetheMissingMasses?SociologyofaDoor .
ShapingTechnology/BuildingSociety.StudiesinSociotechnicalChange ,ed.
WiebeBijkerandJohnLaw,Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,225-259.
Latour,Bruno.2005.ReassemblingtheSocial:IntroductiontotheActor-Network
Theory.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Lefebvre,Henri.1991.TheProductionofSpace.Oxford:BlackwellPublishers.
Manovich,Lev.2009.ThePracticeofEveryday(Media)Life:FromMass
ConsumptiontoMassCulturalProduction?CriticalInquiry35.2.319-331.
Monaco,James.1981.HowtoReadaFilm .ed.NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Naficy,Hamid.2010.Multiplicityandmultiplexingintodayscinemas:Diasporic
cinema,artcinema,andmainstreamcinema .JournalofMediaPractice11:1,
1120.
Schfer,Mirko.T.2008.BastardCulture!:Userparticipationandtheextensionof
culturalindustries.Utrecht:UtrechtUniversity.PhD.