Last week I discussed the shifting role of the national film archive in
the age of the internet, as discussed within the context of the
History, Cinemaand Digital Archives Slow Conference,
hosted by the ANU Humanities Research Centre and the National Film and Sound
Archives (
NFSA) in Canberra this July. Another key issue that emerged within
the conference was the ability of archivists to clearly re-imagine their civic
and heritage role, given a the broad range of political, legal, ethical and
technical contingencies.
Bronwyn Dowdall of the
NFSA offered an insight into the idiosyncrasies
of copyright law, and the types of challenges presented by the outdated
exceptions and exclusions contained therein. For instance, the ability to
ascertain copyright and provide access is often stalled because the chain of
title is not intact. Another issue is amendments to law; prior to 1969 there
was no provision for cinematographic film, and as such, films made before this
time remain covered by two separate systems, either as dramatic works or as a
series of photos.
NFSA cannot make copies unless the work has been lost, stolen or damaged (yes, you read correctly), and moreover, of the 3 copies it can make under the preservation exceptions, it can only record a single flat copy when optimum preservation strategies require at least thirty copies.
The numerous technical considerations illuminated by
RayEdmondson (Principal of Archive Associates Pty Ltd) include the multitude of
different film stocks used over the last century and a half to record,
duplicate and preserve content. Each of these has their own aesthetic and material
characteristics, which raise significant questions about the status of the
original within the context of the archive. Should a film be restored to its
original glory, and can this even be achieved when different film stocks and
mediums behave so differently? Does the preservation and cultural heritage
extend to the preservation of some forms of decay (scratches and fading for
instance), which provide evidence of a particular film’s cultural and physical
journey over time? And if so, which forms of degradation are valued and how is
this decided?
An interesting response to this question was offered by media
artist
Grayson Cooke (Southern Cross University), who invited attendees to
linger over his "
after image", a visual performances of negatives being chemically and physically
destroyed, revealing how cultural processes of memory and forgetting are
conveyed by the materiality of the celluloid as much as it is by the content
that it is used to transmit. (Check out his work via his
youtube channel and his
civilizedmachine website).
On the second night of the conference, attendees were
prompted to consider their personal (and intellectual) aesthetic preferences regarding
preservation and restoration in the form of a magic lantern show. First, the
show emulated the experiences of nineteenth and early twentieth century
audiences via the presentation of the magic lantern show in its original
format, accompanied by a live musical performance (special thanks to Martyn
Jolly, Kate Bowan and Peter Tregear for their amazing performance). The same
show was then projected using vibrant digitalised versions of the slides,
accompanied by a digitalised recording of the aural performance dating from the
early twentieth century. That consensus regarding the preferential format
remained elusive only served to underline the ephemerality of “the original,”
as both concept and material object.
Beyond digitalisation of analogue formats, the conference
also showcased some of the digital tools being developed by and for humanities researchers,
and which re-imagine the form and function of the archive.
Tim Hitchcock began by demonstrating how uncritical use of
(very pretty) visualisation and topic modelling tools risk re-instituting an
exclusive canon of valued works, and also risks underwriting lazy scholarship.
This was complemented with some compelling presentations that demonstrated
current scholarly attempts to overcome the apparent limitations of
computational methods for conducting and presenting analysis.
Eric Hoyt (University of Wisconsin-Madison) provided an
overview of
Lantern (you can view the talk
here), a searchable archive of digitalised cinema trade magazines
which he has created with colleagues. The tool not only provides access to
important primary resources, but also uses topic modelling and visualisation
strategies to communicate which trade magazines have been most utilised by
researchers, thereby opening new opportunities for scholars to conduct research
that contests the cinematic canon.
Deb Verhoeven (Deakin University) treated attendees to a
tour of her digital portfolio, which evidences innovative development of collaborative
learning research environments. The virtual lab called
Humanities NetworkedInfrastructure (
HuNI) project was particularly compelling, and promises
researchers new collaborative spaces for building and growing networks across
disciplines, and for building and sharing research resources.
HuNI and LANTERN are of course, only two film resources
indicating how the form and function of (digital) archives will be re-imagined
into the future. For an overview of conference proceedings, and the thoughts of
other attendees, you can search the twitter stream using the hashtag #cadh
