Week one: disparity in the archive.
Having decided to concentrate my research for a documentary film project on the work of feminist documentary film makers (as a means of discussing representation of the self/other in documentary practice) I am surprised as to how few critical resources there are available to me in Goldsmiths (my university) library.
If you type ‘documentary’ into the search engine, numerous references appear, the same happens if you type ‘feminism’ but put them together and the sources available on ‘feminist documentary’ is vastly under-represented.
Why is this? - Is it that female film-makers and their films are unrepresented in the archive?
Is it perhaps that feminism is not a prevalent discourse in critical documentary theory?
Alternatively, is it too simple to brandish these archive results with the old and tested ‘inequality binary’, the apparently dreaded 'F' word debate?
Should this, apparent ‘invisibility’ matter?
I think yes – Disparity in the archive means a vital and necessary discourse of interpretation and criticality on documentary is being misrepresented. There are many, insightful parallels that can be drawn between feminist ideologies and documentary film practices that will allow for criticality, reiteration and interpretation of both discourses.
Week two/three: ideas.
Divine horsemen: the living gods of Haiti
Instead of my original idea to make a film, focusing on the problematic of representing subjectivity, specifically looking to the work of Maya Deren and Trinh T. Minh-ha, I have instead started documenting the invisibility of feminism and documentary in the archive, available at Goldsmiths.
Feminism and cinema is a widely recognized and significant field of critical study on moving image, with leading, seminal texts such as Laura Mulvey’s ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ or Claire Johnston’s 'WOMEN'S CINEMA AS COUNTERCINEMA'.
Yet critical feminist theory on documentary practice is less well represented.
From the library I have found presently, two extremely insightful resources that look to interpret documentary from a feminist perspective: Diane Waldman and Janet Walker’s anthology ‘Feminism and Documentary’, and the eminent theorist and film maker, Alexandra Juhasz’s text ‘They said we were trying to show reality – all I want is to show my video’: The politics of the realist, feminist documentary’.
Diane Waldman and Janet Walker highlight in their introduction to the anthology this apparent disparity in feminism and critical documentary theory:
“We think this neglect of the Documentary in feminist film theory and criticism was (is) unfortunate in several respects. First, and most obviously, it allowed documentary theory and practice to continue largely without the benefit of feminist insights. But second, since documentary film and video makers and feminist writing about documentary film and video frequently represent subjects and struggles that indicate the messy imbrications of gender, race, class, nation and sexuality, neglect of the documentary may have allowed feminist film theory to move away from its initial engagement with such questions to focus more exclusively on sexual difference.” [1]
Alexandra Juhasz cites a need for feminist criticality on documentary practices to discuss the politics of representation and identification and with not only women, but also representations of gender, class, and race in moving image making. This discussion looks to probelmatise the works of female documentary film makers who implored both realist and non/antirealist approaches to documentary film making.
We presently have two issues for further consideration/reconsideration:
One, the vast number of texts, films and artworks, produced by women that are seemingly unrepresented in the documentary archive and two, further discussion into feminist critical theory on documentary.
Resources:
Feminism and documentary
Authors: Diane Waldman and Janet Walker
Publisher: Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press
‘They said we were trying to show reality – all I want is
to show my video’: The politics of the realist, feminist
documentary.
Author: Alexandra Juhasz
Publisher: Screen 35 (2): 171-190. Oxford University
‘Bad Girls Come and Go, But Lying Girls Can Never Be Fenced In’
Author: Alexandra Juhasz, In Diane Waldman and Janet Walker: ‘Feminism and Documentary’ 1999
Publisher: Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press
[1] Feminism and Documentary: Diane Waldman and Janet Walker 1999
Week 4: counter-archive.
Araya, Margot Benacerraf, 1959.
Watch trailer: http://www.milestonefilms.com/movie.php/araya/
This project is raising many interesting intersections into not only the parallels of documentary practice and feminist ideologies but also ‘documenting’, ‘archiving’ and even blogging practices (see Jason’s blog).
As previously stated last week by Juhasz, representation is a complex and precarious process in moving image making. Documenting, (recording/filming/archiving) re-contextualises how the subject/subject matter is represented, thus the film maker is always implicated in/by this process. Documentation is thus a conflictual process, film makers have to take into consideration polemics of authorship, responsibility, and subjective v objective approaches to filming/archiving practises.
I have thus called this week ‘counter-archive’ as I’m interested in directors and films that I feel are under-represented because they run counter a manufactured (controlled) archive.
To interrogate this disparity further, I have teamed up with Jason (see his page) in order to discuss the implications of documenting, archiving and blogging, along side critical feminist documentary theory.
Resources: Useful articles/Websites discussing Female Documentary film.
Fact not Fiction: Women Documentary Directors of the Americas
Pepita Ferrari, May 25, 2010,
Art /Threat: culture and politics
WOMEN MAKE MOVIES
Films by and about women
“First Run Features was founded in 1979 by a group of filmmakers to advance the distribution of independent film. Under the leadership of the late independent film pioneer, Fran Spielman, First Run Features quickly gained a reputation for its controversial catalog of daring independent fiction and non-fiction films.”
Week 5/6: Does truth determine
Lefties, Vanessa Engle 2009
One extremely important conflict to emerge within feminist film theory that critically engages with documentary practice is the debate on realist v anti-realist documentary approaches.
Alexandra Juhasz, as previously discussed ( week 2/3) marks in her text a discontinuity between filming approaches/styles and how to adequately represent a subject’s ‘subjectivity’.
In her text ‘They said we were trying to show reality – all I want is to show my video’: The politics of the realist, feminist documentary’, Alexandra Juhasz makes problematic issues of denying/resisting the use of realist approaches in documentary film making for fear of purporting or adhering to patriarchal ideology, thus losing any sense of female/feminine subjectivity.
Theoretical analysis laid down in the work of earlier feminist film theory, such as the works of Claire Johnston or Laura Mulvey, made explicitly clear the need to step away from the conventions of narrative based realist cinema that purports the positions of the women as a source of pleasure to the male viewer.
Claire Johnston in her essay 'Women's cinema as counter cinema' pointedly says of this:
‘Clearly, if we accept that cinema involves the production of signs, the idea of non-intervention is pure mystification. The sign is always a product. What the camera in fact grasps is the 'natural' world of the dominant ideology. Women's cinema cannot afford such idealism; the 'truth' of our oppression cannot be 'captured' on celluloid with the 'innocence' of the camera: it has to be constructed /manufactured. New meanings have to be created by disrupting the fabric of the male bourgeois cinema within the text of the film. As Peter Wollen points out, 'reality is always adaptive'.[2]
The intervention or disruption of the filmic language that early feminist implored, did however mean that early realist documentaries were discarded on the grounds of adhering to patriarchal ideologies, Juhasz makes problematic this assertion by saying that production of truth can also be articulated in realist approaches to documentary film making. She says
“Thus, what may seem to be an irreconcilable split between competing feminist theories founded upon either second-wave feminist consciousness raising (as evidenced in much of the period's Documentary film production) or adaptations of ideological analysis (as evidenced in the feminist film critique of these films) is instead a more subtle contradiction in beliefs about the political efficacy of reality and identity. Both of these schools of feminist film theory and practice agree that the identities that are created for women by bourgeois, patriarchal ideology are dangerous and oppressive. They also share the belief that neither identity nor reality are essential or fixed, but rather that they are constructed by patriarchal culture. Yet academic feminists of the period seemed to argue that a dismantling of identity is the viable response to these conditions, while most feminist documentarians utilized the strategic construction of identity as their first step. 'Any revolutionary strategy must challenge the depiction of reality', (29) writes Johnston Johnston
The ‘realist debate’ then articulates the problematic of adequately representing female subjectivity in patriarchal society. Juhasz’s text, in the same vain as other feminist film theorist, is concerned about the appropriate way to represent women in moving image, but she is also imploring the negativities of denying realist documentary footage filmed by women, for women access in the archive.
Diane Waldman and Janet Walker say in their introduction ‘All of these arguments, we would maintain, are productive for thinking through documentary’s relation to the real and to its audiences because they refuse to disallow the opinions expressed in and by the films simply because the means of expression are not immediately acknowledge as such.’[4]
The realist debate marks one of the biggest conflicts facing all documentary film makers and that is whether to film with self- reflexivity (i.e. disruption of the filmic language, to question the inherent process of film and subjectivity) or allow the presence of the camera not to be felt by either the subjects or the viewer (the obligatory style of early ethnographic film makers and later direct cinema directors).
The realist debate ignites an extremely important discussion in feminism and documentary on issues of representation, authorship and responsibility.
[2] Claire Johnston ‘Women’s Cinema as Counter-Cinema’
[3] ‘They said we were trying to show reality – all I want is to show my video’: The politics of the realist, feminist documentary Alexandra Juhasz, Oxford University Press, 1994
[4] Feminism and Documentary: Diane Waldman and Janet Walker 1999
Week 8/9: Alexandra Juhasz
There is no artist’s file available on Alexandra Juhasz in Goldsmiths Library.
This is a real shame as her critical writings and films have made a significant contribution to the discourses of feminism, queer theory and documentary studies.
Below is a number of links to texts, books, videos and references for films, which will introduce you to her influential works.
‘Women of vision: histories in feminist film and video’
An extremely informative text on female documentary making, ‘Women of vision: histories in feminist film and video’, explores the feelings, expressions, works and writings of twenty-one female directors. In a conversational tone, the book, (a companion piece to the 1998 documentary Juhasz made of the same name), explores, defies and therefore chronicles the ever evolving discourse of feminist media history.
Watch it: Women of Vision: 18 Histories in Feminist Film and Video, http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/women_of_vision_18_histories_in_feminist_film_and_video/
I discussed in week 4 the problematic of ‘authority’ in archiving practices and brought in feminist film theory as an intersection into discussion of admission and representation of women’s film in the archive.
The text ‘Views of the Feminist Archive’ published in FLOW 2010 about the ‘Women’s Building’s’ collaborative archive project, links in excellently with our research into feminism, documentary and archiving projects.
Juhasz says in the text,
“Viewed today, the Woman’s Building’s incongruous archive of process displays a continuingly relevant project of women’s visibility: a theory and practice for being seen and remaining remembered through video. While film has often been used for this function since its inception, the Woman’s Building made and archived their work through unique feminist commitments to process and knowledge, producing an anomalous and invigorating archive.” [1]
In earlier discussion, referencing Juhasz’s text ‘They said we were trying to show reality – all I want is to show my video’: The politics of the realist, feminist documentary’, we looked at issues of representation in documentary film making and the exclusion of footage that conformed to patriarchal ideologies.
In this text, Juhasz’s again interrogates the omission of documentary footage on the grounds of it being of ‘lower category’ film making, she says
‘John Grierson, considered the father of documentary, looked scornfully on the “lower categories” of the form, so base, they did not even deserve the name. In so doing, he programatically rehearsed a “male-conceived dualistic Cartesian symbolic system wherein things are with ‘this’ or ‘that.’” The kinds of films Grierson disdains are those commonly made by the mothers of feminist video, artists of the 1970’s Los Angeles Woman’s Building’[2]
The woman’s building’s collection of fragmented video footage resists formal, linear structures and the manufacture of their work as a product; it is what Juhasz triumphs as women’s realist film.
Juhasz text, along with the ‘Women’s Building’ archive project evidences footage that runs counter to the archive and thus is in a position to question the very politics of truth production, representation and the politics of documenting and archiving that we have been discussing.
[The Views of the Feminist Archive” is part of a larger essay, “A Process Archive: The Grand Circularity of Woman’s Building Video,” which was commissioned by Otis College through a Pacific Standard Time: Art in LA, 1945-80 Research Grant, and will be published, with other commissioned essays, as part of the catalogue for the 2011 exhibition, Doin’ It in Public.]
Further websites/texts of interest on the collective works of Alexandra Juhasz:
Website link: http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/juhasz/
Doin’ It in Public http://www.otis.edu/public_programs/ben_maltz_gallery/womansbuilding.html
Texts:
‘They said we were trying to show reality – all I want is
to show my video’: The politics of the realist, feminist
documentary.
Author: Alexandra Juhasz
Publisher: Oxford University
‘Bad Girls Come and Go, But Lying Girls Can Never Be Fenced In’
Author: Alexandra Juhasz, In Diane Waldman and Janet Walker: ‘Feminism and Documentary’ 1999
Publisher: Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press
[2] Link: http://flowtv.org/?p=4996
Week 10: making visible
Without the recognition of female documentary filmmaker’s works and without feminist critical theory on documentary practice instrumental methods/concepts for representing people’s subjectivity will remain under-developed.
The invisibility of these directors has raised issues with the politics of being represented in/by the archive on documentary; it has also made problematic for documentary practitioners and theorists, issues such as the consideration of admission, identification, authority, representation and debates over objective v subjective filming styles.
The invisibility of these directors has raised issues with the politics of being represented in/by the archive on documentary; it has also made problematic for documentary practitioners and theorists, issues such as the consideration of admission, identification, authority, representation and debates over objective v subjective filming styles.
This project has made evident the overwhelming need for feminist documentary theory and practice to be present and readily available in Goldsmiths Library, and not only for feminist documentary film makers/theorists but everyone who talks about, creates and watches documentary films.
That is why we have decided to place a folder of resources on feminist documentary film makers/films into Goldsmiths Women's Library (as well as this user-accessible/ changeable blog).
My essay:
I thought yes, any disparity in the archive on documentary theory/practice means a vital and necessary discourse of interpretation and criticality on documentary is being misrepresented.
There are many, insightful parallels that can be drawn between feminist ideologies and documentary film practices that will allow for criticality, reiteration and interpretation of both discourses. So instead of my original idea to make a film, (focusing on the problematic issues of representing subjectivity) I joined forces with Jason Billings-Cray and we instead started documenting (blogging) on the apparent invisibility of feminism and documentary in the archive on documentary available in Goldsmiths Library. This project became known as ‘Feminism and Documentary.’
I started out by noting the disparity between feminism and cinema and feminism and documentary. To discuss this I looked to Diane Waldman’s and Janet Walker’s anthology ‘Feminism and Documentary’. They highlight in their introduction to the anthology the apparent disparity in feminism and critical documentary theory by saying “We think this neglect of the Documentary in feminist film theory and criticism was (is) unfortunate in several respects. First, and most obviously, it allowed documentary theory and practice to continue largely without the benefit of feminist insights. But second, since documentary film and video makers and feminist writing about documentary film and video frequently represent subjects and struggles that indicate the messy imbrications of gender, race, class, nation and sexuality, neglect of the documentary may have allowed feminist film theory to move away from its initial engagement with such questions to focus more exclusively on sexual difference.”[1]
Alexandra Juhasz work was another key resource; in her work she cites a need for feminist criticality on documentary practices in order to discuss the politics of representation and identification. She discusses this not only in terms of women but adequate representations of gender, class, and race in the moving image. We therefore had two avenues for further consideration/reconsideration: One, the vast number of texts, films and artworks, produced by women that are seemingly unrepresented in the documentary archive and two, further discussion into feminist critical theory on documentary. To research this we created two individual research pages and one shared main section, this evidenced all of our joint research of useful resources and links.
The project started raising many interesting intersections into not only the parallels of documentary practice and feminist ideologies but also ‘documenting’, ‘archiving’ and even blogging practices. So we decide to create a section called ‘counter-archive’ to represent directors and films that we felt are under-represented, thus running counter to a manufactured archive. To interrogate this disparity further Jason and I separately discussed (on our individual pages) the implications of documenting, archiving and blogging, along side critical feminist documentary theory. I for example started to document the important conflict that emerged within feminist film theory that critically engages with documentary practice, the debate on realist v anti-realist documentary approaches.
Alexandra Juhasz marks in her text a discontinuity between filming approaches/styles and how to adequately represent a subject’s ‘subjectivity’. In her text ‘They said we were trying to show reality – all I want is to show my video’: The politics of the realist, feminist documentary’, she makes problematic issues of denying/resisting the use of realist approaches in documentary film making for fear of adhering to patriarchal ideology and losing any sense of female/feminine subjectivity.
Early feminists implored intervention with the filmic language to disrupt patriarchal ideologies; however this meant that early realist documentaries were discarded on the grounds of purporting to patriarchal ideologies. To articulate this further I evidenced Juhasz’s assertion about how production of truth can also be articulated in realist approaches to documentary film making. She says ‘“Any revolutionary strategy must challenge the depiction of reality”, (29) writesJohnston Johnston
To further discuss blogging polemics in relation to the disparity inherent to feminism and documentary I again drew inspiration from Alexandra Juhasz. I evidenced the lack of an artist file available on her work in Goldsmiths Library. I decided to include some of her works and how they linked in with mine and Jason’s blog.
I had discussed in week 4 the problematic of ‘authority’ in archiving practices and brought in feminist film theory as an intersection into discussion of admission and representation of women’s film in the archive. Juhasz’s text ‘Views of the Feminist Archive’ published in FLOW 2010 about the ‘Women’s Building’s’ collaborative archive project, linked in excellently with our research into feminism, documentary and archiving projects. Juhasz says in the text, “Viewed today, the Woman’s Building’s incongruous archive of process displays a continuingly relevant project of women’s visibility: a theory and practice for being seen and remaining remembered through video. While film has often been used for this function since its inception, the Woman’s Building made and archived their work through unique feminist commitments to process and knowledge, producing an anomalous and invigorating archive.” [3]
Our blog looked to discuss feminist contributions to documentary theory and practice, in order to make them ‘visible’ for analysis. The woman’s building’s collection of fragmented video footage resists formal, linear structures and the manufacture of their work as a product; it is what Juhasz triumphs as women’s realist film. Juhasz’s text, along with the ‘Women’s Building’ archive project therefore evidences footage that runs counter to the archive and question the very politics of documenting and archiving that we have been discussing. Without the recognition of female documentary film maker’s works and without feminist critical theory on documentary practice instrumental methods/concepts for representing people’s subjectivity will remain under-developed. The invisibility of these directors has raised issues with the politics of being represented in/by the archive on documentary. It has also made problematic, for documentary practitioners and theorists issues such as admission, identification, authority, representation and debates over objective v subjective filming styles. Our project has also made evident the overwhelming need for feminist documentary theory and practice to be present and readily available in Goldsmiths Library, and not only for feminist documentary film makers/theorists but everyone who talks about, creates and watches documentary films. This is why our final part of the project will be to place a research folder of resources on feminist documentary film makers/films into Goldsmiths Women's Library (as well as the user-accessible/ changeable blog).
The blog evolved naturally to accommodate mine and Jason’s separate interests within the subject (mine strictly the discontinuities inherent with feminist-documentary theory, Jason’s in online blogging/archiving polemics). It has meant we have been able to cover not only various problematic disparities inherent to feminist documentary theory and film-making but blogging and archiving practices that are co-evolving with the advent of online technologies.
We also hoped to disavow the constrictions of archiving practices by having a blog that online users can access and contribute to. The resource folder (in Goldsmiths Women’s library: MAKE) is also an open ended archive and we hope people will carry on contributing to the vast and complex project we have started.
Documentary project essay: Bibliography
My essay:
Feminism and documentary
Having decided to concentrate my research for a documentary film project on the work of feminist documentary film makers (as a means of discussing various forms of representing of the self/other in documentary practice) I was surprised as to how few critical resources there are available to me in Goldsmiths library.
Why is this? Is it that female film-makers and their films are unrepresented by the archive on documentary? Or is it perhaps that feminism is not a prevalent discourse in critical documentary theory? Should this, apparent ‘invisibility’ matter? I thought yes, any disparity in the archive on documentary theory/practice means a vital and necessary discourse of interpretation and criticality on documentary is being misrepresented.
There are many, insightful parallels that can be drawn between feminist ideologies and documentary film practices that will allow for criticality, reiteration and interpretation of both discourses. So instead of my original idea to make a film, (focusing on the problematic issues of representing subjectivity) I joined forces with Jason Billings-Cray and we instead started documenting (blogging) on the apparent invisibility of feminism and documentary in the archive on documentary available in Goldsmiths Library. This project became known as ‘Feminism and Documentary.’
I started out by noting the disparity between feminism and cinema and feminism and documentary. To discuss this I looked to Diane Waldman’s and Janet Walker’s anthology ‘Feminism and Documentary’. They highlight in their introduction to the anthology the apparent disparity in feminism and critical documentary theory by saying “We think this neglect of the Documentary in feminist film theory and criticism was (is) unfortunate in several respects. First, and most obviously, it allowed documentary theory and practice to continue largely without the benefit of feminist insights. But second, since documentary film and video makers and feminist writing about documentary film and video frequently represent subjects and struggles that indicate the messy imbrications of gender, race, class, nation and sexuality, neglect of the documentary may have allowed feminist film theory to move away from its initial engagement with such questions to focus more exclusively on sexual difference.”[1]
Alexandra Juhasz work was another key resource; in her work she cites a need for feminist criticality on documentary practices in order to discuss the politics of representation and identification. She discusses this not only in terms of women but adequate representations of gender, class, and race in the moving image. We therefore had two avenues for further consideration/reconsideration: One, the vast number of texts, films and artworks, produced by women that are seemingly unrepresented in the documentary archive and two, further discussion into feminist critical theory on documentary. To research this we created two individual research pages and one shared main section, this evidenced all of our joint research of useful resources and links.
The project started raising many interesting intersections into not only the parallels of documentary practice and feminist ideologies but also ‘documenting’, ‘archiving’ and even blogging practices. So we decide to create a section called ‘counter-archive’ to represent directors and films that we felt are under-represented, thus running counter to a manufactured archive. To interrogate this disparity further Jason and I separately discussed (on our individual pages) the implications of documenting, archiving and blogging, along side critical feminist documentary theory. I for example started to document the important conflict that emerged within feminist film theory that critically engages with documentary practice, the debate on realist v anti-realist documentary approaches.
Alexandra Juhasz marks in her text a discontinuity between filming approaches/styles and how to adequately represent a subject’s ‘subjectivity’. In her text ‘They said we were trying to show reality – all I want is to show my video’: The politics of the realist, feminist documentary’, she makes problematic issues of denying/resisting the use of realist approaches in documentary film making for fear of adhering to patriarchal ideology and losing any sense of female/feminine subjectivity.
Early feminists implored intervention with the filmic language to disrupt patriarchal ideologies; however this meant that early realist documentaries were discarded on the grounds of purporting to patriarchal ideologies. To articulate this further I evidenced Juhasz’s assertion about how production of truth can also be articulated in realist approaches to documentary film making. She says ‘“Any revolutionary strategy must challenge the depiction of reality”, (29) writes
To further discuss blogging polemics in relation to the disparity inherent to feminism and documentary I again drew inspiration from Alexandra Juhasz. I evidenced the lack of an artist file available on her work in Goldsmiths Library. I decided to include some of her works and how they linked in with mine and Jason’s blog.
I had discussed in week 4 the problematic of ‘authority’ in archiving practices and brought in feminist film theory as an intersection into discussion of admission and representation of women’s film in the archive. Juhasz’s text ‘Views of the Feminist Archive’ published in FLOW 2010 about the ‘Women’s Building’s’ collaborative archive project, linked in excellently with our research into feminism, documentary and archiving projects. Juhasz says in the text, “Viewed today, the Woman’s Building’s incongruous archive of process displays a continuingly relevant project of women’s visibility: a theory and practice for being seen and remaining remembered through video. While film has often been used for this function since its inception, the Woman’s Building made and archived their work through unique feminist commitments to process and knowledge, producing an anomalous and invigorating archive.” [3]
Our blog looked to discuss feminist contributions to documentary theory and practice, in order to make them ‘visible’ for analysis. The woman’s building’s collection of fragmented video footage resists formal, linear structures and the manufacture of their work as a product; it is what Juhasz triumphs as women’s realist film. Juhasz’s text, along with the ‘Women’s Building’ archive project therefore evidences footage that runs counter to the archive and question the very politics of documenting and archiving that we have been discussing. Without the recognition of female documentary film maker’s works and without feminist critical theory on documentary practice instrumental methods/concepts for representing people’s subjectivity will remain under-developed. The invisibility of these directors has raised issues with the politics of being represented in/by the archive on documentary. It has also made problematic, for documentary practitioners and theorists issues such as admission, identification, authority, representation and debates over objective v subjective filming styles. Our project has also made evident the overwhelming need for feminist documentary theory and practice to be present and readily available in Goldsmiths Library, and not only for feminist documentary film makers/theorists but everyone who talks about, creates and watches documentary films. This is why our final part of the project will be to place a research folder of resources on feminist documentary film makers/films into Goldsmiths Women's Library (as well as the user-accessible/ changeable blog).
The blog evolved naturally to accommodate mine and Jason’s separate interests within the subject (mine strictly the discontinuities inherent with feminist-documentary theory, Jason’s in online blogging/archiving polemics). It has meant we have been able to cover not only various problematic disparities inherent to feminist documentary theory and film-making but blogging and archiving practices that are co-evolving with the advent of online technologies.
We also hoped to disavow the constrictions of archiving practices by having a blog that online users can access and contribute to. The resource folder (in Goldsmiths Women’s library: MAKE) is also an open ended archive and we hope people will carry on contributing to the vast and complex project we have started.
[1]Diane Waldman and Janet Walker 1999, Feminism and Documentary, pg 10
[2] ‘Alexandra Juhasz, 1994, They said we were trying to show reality – all I want is to show my video’: The politics of the realist, feminist documentary pg 184
Documentary project essay: Bibliography
1. Diane Waldman and Janet Walker c1999 Feminism and documentary, University of Minnesota Press , Minneapolis
2. Alexandra Juhasz, 1994, They said we were trying to show reality – all I want is to show my video’: The politics of the realist, feminist documentary, Screen 35 (2): 171-190, Oxford University Press
3. Alexandra Juhasz, May 21st, 2010, The Views of the Feminist Archive, Special Issue: The Archive, Volume 11, http://flowtv.org/?p=4996 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment