Running Head: - fucinarieportfolio.com... · Web viewThe Moving Image in Modern Theory. Heather...

H. Fucinari The Moving Image in Modern Theory 1

Running Head: The Moving Image in Modern Theory

The Moving Image in Modern Theory

Heather Fucinari

San Jose State University, School of Library and Information Science

LIBR 256 Archives and Manuscripts, Summer 2007


The Moving Image in Modern Theory

It has been little over a century since the Dutch Manual made its mark on the

archival profession. As the key components of provenance and original order are still

central to traditional archival theory, there remain hotly contested views on these

concepts. Among the theoretical permutations that have stemmed from these original

principals are various ways in which appraisal and implementation of collection policies

are conducted. Another concept that has drawn analysis is the societal impact of archival

records. These debates have, until fairly recently, concentrated on the textual document

and ignored the medium of the moving image.

Prior to the publication of Dutch Manual, the moving image had already become

a part of the culture of society, and thus, potential historical evidence. This is a theory

apprehensively adopted by some scholars and archivists, which is one of the reasons this

resource has been ignored by the archival community at large for so long. This paper will

look the factors that hampered film preservation on the onset and bring together current

theories of appraisal, collection policies and cultural significance of moving image

archiving. Traditional archival codification can be adapted to these materials to assure

they keep their place as part of our culture and history.

Attempts to legitimize the moving image as a necessary medium to archive came

as early 1898. The first movie theater opened to the public just three years prior; a date

which is known as the “birthday of the movies” (Kawin and Mast, 1996, p. 22). Polish

cinematographer, Boleslaw Matuszewski, recognized film as a resource beyond simple

entertainment. In a pamphlet translated as A New Source of History he writes,


The film, the simple ribbon of printed celluloid, constitutes not only an historical

document but a parcel of history, and history which has faded away, which does not

need a magician in order to come to life again…It is necessary to give this source,

perhaps a privileged one, the same official existence and the same possibilities as are

given to other already recognized archives (Jeavons, 2007, p. 24).

Matuszewski not only recognized the need for film archives, but also proposed a system

of legal deposit, standards and methods of access. Unfortunately, his insight was ignored.

Consequently, a great number of moving images were lost between the time of

Matuszewski’s plea and the birth of the first official film archives decades later.

Several factors contributed to the early abnegation of moving images by the

archival community and the subsequent loss of the physical films. Sam Kula (2002)

explains the hesitance of custodians to give consideration to film, “Moving images

quickly became associated with vulgar entertainment, the popular culture of the music

halls and burlesque theatres with which they were first associated, and the only value

assigned to them was measured by the financial return they could generate” (p. 11). There

was no warrant to save this escapist entertainment which not only included fictional

films, but also newsreels and travelogs.

In addition to the views of this medium as low-brow entertainment, the films

themselves met with termination. There were two major instances during the Silent Era

when nitrate film was melted down to extract the silver content after the films had run

their course in public viewing. With the emergence of full length, talking pictures, these

films were deemed obsolete and destroyed. Jeavons (2007) notes, “All in all, it has been


calculated that approximately 80% or more of silent film output in the major film

producing countries has been lost” (p. 23).

A third factor preventing the initial housing of moving images was based on fears

of the volatile nature of the nitrate film stock itself. Problems associated with the storage

of these films deterred institutions from accepting them into their collections. This

drastically affected the Library of Congress which had acquisitioned 3,000 films for the

purpose of copyright between 1894 and 1912. Not until 1942 would the library continue

its collection (Kula, 2002). As a total picture, Kula (2002) states, “it is estimated that

fully one-half of the moving images produced before 1930 have been lost, or to be more

precise, are not known to exist” (p.12). The first few decades following the inception of

moving images were certainly tumultuous in the scope of preservation and validity of

film as a contributing factor to the collective memory of society. Slowly, however, the

vanguard ideas of Boleslaw Matuszewski would come to fruition.

Film started to gain acceptance as an art form around the mid-1920s when film

societies began to spring up in Europe. America had witnessed the stylistic wares of

European filmmakers. What was once considered pedestrian entertainment was now

accepted a part of public history. The first official archives to collect films based as art

and as historic record were set up in the years from 1933 to 1935, although there is debate

as to which institution was first. Ernest Lindgren of The National Film Library in the

United Kingdom (later the National Film and Television Archive), Iris Barry of the

Museum of Modern Art Film Library in New York and Henri Langlois of the

Cinémathèque Françaises in Paris are known to be among the innovators of film

archiving (Kula, 2002). In 1938 the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF)


was founded in Paris to provide a voice and a forum of collaboration amongst these

archives (Jeavons, 2007). As theories range for traditional archiving pioneers such as Sir

Hilary Jenkinson and T. R. Schellenberg, so vary the philosophies of these founders of

moving image archives.

The approaches of Langlois and Lindgren are the main staples in what would

become modern theories of moving image and audiovisual archiving. Their beliefs of

how a film archives should work were diametrically opposed to one another. Langlois, an

eccentric film collector, focused on collection and access of most every feature film at the

risk of proper preservation. According to Kula (2002), “he declared that any policy of

selection was an evil that archivists should avoid at all costs”. This stance of archivists as

keepers, not selectors, is reminiscent of Jenkinson. Conversely, Lindgren strove for a

more practical approach in appraisal and collection and saw the importance of

preservation, however, sometimes at the risk of accessibility. Not only feature films, as

focused on by Langlois, but non fiction, documentary, and amateur genres should all be

seen as important to the record of society. He would not forsake the long-term survival of

a film for short-term accessibility (Jeavons, 2007). Lindgren had three reasons for

selection of film, “to make the collection representative of the art of the film, to provide

historians of the future with their raw material, to record the life and habits of the present

day, such as our taste in clothes, houses and food, our mannerisms, our accents, our turns

of speech, and in so doing to throw light on our changing ideals and social outlook”

(Francis, 2006, p. 32).

Although Henri Langlois is seen by many to be the father of the film archive

movement, the efforts of Lindgren are recognized as a foundation of the collection


policies of modern day film archives. It is credited that without his efforts to develop

policies and prevent already acquired films from being destroyed for the sake of access

archives would be a hodge-podge of damaged film that may not accurately reflect a

working historical record for researchers. The FIAF Code of Ethics was adopted in 1998,

not only bringing a compromise to the Lindgren/Langlois debate, but finally providing its

network of archives a semblance of structure. Its preamble states, “Film archives

recognize that their primary commitment is to preserve the materials in their care and –

provided always that such activity will not compromise this commitment – to make them

permanently available for research study and public screening” (Francis, 2006, p. 41).

Even as Langlois and Lindgren went at odds with each other and national,

regional and private film archives were developed with the guidance of FIAF, the

archival community as a whole was not quick to recognize film as a necessary addition to

their collections. Reasons range from the prohibitive costs of proper film preservation,

the reluctance to identify film as viable historical evidence, and the idea that film cannot

easily be appraised in accordance with archetypical theories such as T. R. Schellenberg’s.

Not until the early 1980s did moving image archiving develop any official stance (not to

be confused with standards) on preservation, appraisal and cultural significance.

Arguably the most significant document contributing to the structure and

legitimacy of moving image archiving was adopted at the United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) General Conference in 1980. The

Recommendation for the Safeguarding and Preservation of Moving Images defined

moving images, dictated principles concerning them as part of a country’s cultural

heritage, stated they should be preserved and made accessible, and promoted the


cooperation of both governmental and non-governmental agencies to work together in

these endeavors (UNESCO, 1980). Kula (2002) mentions, “At the time the

Recommendation was adopted there was not one organization, governmental or

nongovernmental, that was achieving the ideal objective: the safeguarding of every

moving image of the national production” (p. 61).

The adoption of the Recommendation showed UNESCO’s support in validating

moving images and was a springboard for further documents and manuals describing

practices and the significance of audiovisual archiving as a profession. In 1983 UNESCO

published a distinctive work by Sam Kula, who originally chaired the meeting that

drafted the Recommendation. The document entitled, The Archival Appraisal of Moving

Images: A RAMP Study with Guidelines was “the first attempt to examine the principles

that should govern the assessment of archival value with regard to moving images, an

assessment that should be carried out before moving images are acquired” (Kula, 2002, p.

5). It should be noted that archival value is distinct from the monetary value of an

audiovisual record. Kula’s seminal work juxtaposes textual archival theories with that of

the moving image. Key aspects of modern archival theory are pillared in provenance,

original order, and evidentiary and information value. As it was necessary to adapt these

rules into non-governmental textual documents, so is it necessary to realize the need for

adaptation when appraising non-textual records.

According to Kula’s RAMP study, the standards developed by Schellenberg and

Jenkinson ignored the moving image as an archival resource. Issues of evidentiary value,

which is core to Schellenberg’s theory, do not usually fit with the appraisal of the moving

image. Unless the film describes operations of an agency, functional or evidentiary value


cannot be placed on it. Conversely, moving images almost always contain informational

value. It is up to the appraiser to determine if this value is worth while to researchers and

warrants the cost of preservation (Kula, 1983). The idea of value should be handled

carefully in the hands of the archivist. Kula (2002) explains, “Archivists do not merely

identify value, they also create value when they attribute it to a document and then

complete the accession, and they destroy it when they sentence a document (or an entire

series of documents) to destruction, just as they create memory by their selection of

records on behalf of the community they serve” (p.25).

Kula (1983) reminds archivists that if a moving image is intended for a mass

audience it is then part of the public record. Authenticity of a document is a key element

in traditional appraisal methods for archival records. In the realm of moving images, tests

of accuracy that are used for textual documents do not always apply. The following two

examples are put forth to illustrate the need for moving image archivists to look past the

traditional views of accuracy. After the outbreak of the Boer War and the Spanish-

American War, faked newsreels surfaced. This shows the attempts to utilize film for

propaganda and is valuable to our understanding of the time because they are fakes.

Another example is in the documentaries produced in the 1950s demonstrating what a

citizen can do to protect themselves in event of an atomic attack. Kula (1983) describes

the latter as, “a valuable record of government attempts to communicate directly with the

population on an issue that was, and remains, of paramount concern to every person on

this planet, and they accurately reflect the political climate of the day and the ideologies

of their sponsors” (p. 37).


Delving further into traditional ideas of archival appraisal, Kula (1983) goes on to

discuss how provenance, function and form relate to the moving image. The three criteria

are not mutually exclusive and can define one another, such as function dictating form.

The idea of provenance relates to moving images in three ways. The first is to identify the

film, or episode in the case of television broadcasts, in relation to a series. One episode

should not be judged on its own, but as part of the series as a whole when appraising. In

the same vein, any textual documents that are associated with the moving image, such as

production files, must be kept intellectually connected. The second relates to relationship

of the image to the documentation that explains the intention of the work and why it was

produced. The third aspect relates most to the non-governmental moving image. The item

should be appraised in relation to the entire body of work of the maker or the production

company. If an item is identified as one belonging to a company already targeted for

collection, then that item should also be accessioned (Kula, 1983). In general, the idea of

provenance to the moving image does not weigh as heavily in moving image archival

theory as it does for textual archival theory. There are times when provenance is

unknown as in the case of amateur films that may lack credits, pieces of moving images,

or films made outside the industry but are culturally significant such as those made in

times of war by factions. In the case of donations, many times films are acquired by the

archives anonymously when the donor has procured them through nefarious

circumstances.

The idea of function is applicable to the moving image in knowing how well it

met its objectives. However, commercial failure should not dictate disposition without

attention to several other factors. Kula (1983) describes circumstances such as innovative


techniques “ahead of its time” may warrant retention (p.56). A second idea of function is

if it is for the purpose of “political ideology or a commitment to social change” (p. 56).

Like the attributes of textual appraisal, the idea of uniqueness of a moving image should

be taken into consideration. If the contents can be captured elsewhere and by other

medium just as effectively, then this should weigh on whether or not to accept the item.

The idea of form is one that has been discussed by Schellenberg (1956) in his

bulletin, The Appraisal of Modern Public Records. His test applies to the form of the

information in the records and the form of the actual record. The former relating to the

concentration of information in a given record and the latter referring to the physical

condition of the record. When applied to the moving image, however, form refers to the

structure of the film, i.e. fiction versus nonfiction, and its intended purpose for its

audience. The principles of age and quantity can help in assessing an item for selection.

An item that is the only copy of a lost series, or old in terms of the moving image (prior

to 1950), should be selected for acquisition (Kula, 1983).

There are no steadfast rules to appraisal criteria, only guidelines, whether the

materials is textual or non-textual. The massive number of audiovisual media that is

being produced calls for some type of selection process, however. Some attempts to curb

the influx of material are used in national plans that urge broadcasters to take

responsibility for their own productions (Kula, 2002). Non-governmental archives can

apply the following appraisal techniques that lay outside the appraisal policies of national

agencies that tend to focus on historical content. Because private moving image archives

tend to focus on art, the idea of aesthetics is one which they can base their criteria off of.

This, however, gets into a very complex situation where selection can be highly


subjective. In this case, most archives call in the advice of film theorists. A second

technique is to select films that mark firsts, such as the first sound film, first satellite

broadcasts, etc. A third option is that of “universal retention” (Kula, 2002, p. 44). This

relates back to the third aspect of provenance in which a film is acquisitioned based on

the producer or director of whom the archives has already decided to collect.

One of the most significant differences to note on moving image appraisal theory

in relation to traditional theories is the use of the bottom-up approach, also known as

documentation strategy. This is a fairly controversial strategy when speaking of textual

archiving and is preferred for non-governmental institutions and for use with unique

types of records. Conceived by Helen Samuels, this strategy is “a multi-institutional,

cooperative analysis that combines many archives’ appraisal activities in order to

document the main themes, issues, activities, or functions of society” (Cook, 1997, p. 14).

The vision of pioneers such as Lindgren to capture society’s nuances and the emphasis on

cultural heritage prescribed in the Recommendation for the Safeguarding and

Preservation of Moving Images make this approach necessary as it is able to focus on

community diversity.

Richard Cox (1994) discusses the documentation strategy in relation to the

archival principle that encourages consideration be taken for non-textual records in

archiving practice. A complete representation of our cultural past cannot be obtained

through one, hierarchical, aspect of documentation alone. He notes, “Archivists

sometimes suggest that the evidence from the transactional textual record is somehow

superior to other evidence” (p. 236). Some argue there is a tendency to believe if

archivists focus on these textual records, from a top-down approach, they are only


collecting the accounts and culture of the elite and leaving out the vast majority of a

society’s experience. The moving image, like artifacts, oral histories and other non-

traditional means of record can show us a perspective on society not readily captured by

textual documents. Lindgren’s philosophy to “record the life and habits of the present

day, such as our taste in clothes, houses and food, our mannerisms, our accents, our turns

of speech…” would not be realized in a world of textual documents of the upper echelon

of society (Francis, 2006, p. 32). This bottom-up approach calls on archivists to look at

the community and evaluate if all aspects are being collected. Kula (2002) explains the

theory of documentation strategy in direct relation to moving image archives,

What this approach signals to moving image archivists is the need to move outside

the boundaries of the moving image industries to reach out to amateur and

independent image-makers, all types of artists working in film and video, and image-

making on the margins of society, to ensure that their collections are truly reflective

of the entire society (p.34).

The documentation strategy is not the last word in moving image archival theory.

There still remains no standard of appraisal and varying theories abound. Individual

archives must formulate what works best for them as situations differ between country,

funding, private and national sectors and mission. The FIAF is still the leading

collaborative associations for film archives and, as mentioned, provides a Code of Ethics

which guides its members by offering general principles, not concrete archival appraisal

or collections development criteria.

As diverse in structure as moving image archives are, so may the collections

policies also fluctuate among them. Although there are varied types of moving image


archives today, Edmondson (2004) notes, “Audiovisual archiving began as a culturally-

motivated movement, preserving material because of its intrinsic worth, regardless of

commercial potential – sometimes, working, in fact, against a prevailing commercial

ethos which drove the destruction of ‘outdated’ and apparently worthless films and

recordings” (p.29). This cultural motivation has been, and still is, the ultimate force

behind appraisal and collections policies. This core concept is a reason why bottom-up

approaches such as the documentation strategy are necessary for moving image archives.

Active support between archives in order to adequately document is foremost.

Section 4.1 of the FIAF Code of Ethics addresses the need for archives to work in

collaboration, “Archives believe in the free sharing of knowledge and experience to aid

the development and enlightenment of others and the development of the archival ideal.

Their staff will act in a spirit of collaboration, not competition, with fellow archivists in

their own and kindred institutions” (International Federation of Film Archives, 2002,

para. 15). This type of collaborative effort can help reduce the amount of duplicates that

may be accumulating between archival collections and strengthen the community of this

under-represented archival profession.

With so much emphasis on collecting in order to represent society as a whole,

coupled with the inclusion of amateur film, an archivist may tremble at the thought of a

never-ending onslaught of media. In an attempt to bring together these overlooked pieces

of historical value, while simultaneously merging preservation with access, several

archivists created Home Movie Day. In conjunction with the Small Gauge and Amateur

Film Interest Group (SGAF) and Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA) this

enterprise sought to solve the dilemma of preservation and access by calling on


communities to share their home movies (Becker, 2007). The event has brought a vast

number of people who are interested in showing their films, as well as those interested in

watching this history. Open dialog between the owners of the films and the audience

“help convey the historical and documentary significance of each reel beyond its narrow

family context” (Becker, 2007, p. 23). Not only do individual members of the community

show their films, but historical societies and regional archives bring their collections of

amateur films and provide access to the public. Also, this novel approach facilitates

archives in collecting amateur film which represents the greater part of society. Becker

(2007) explains, “It also provides a collection development opportunity for archivists or

curators to solicit footage from owners, encouraging them to donate their materials so

that they can be made accessible to researchers in an appropriate regional or historical

context” (p. 24).

Special precautions are taken when showing the films in an attempt to keep with

the ideals that film should not be accessed at the risk of preservation. This is, however,

not a fail safe approach. Becker (2007) justifies the risks involved, “For the general

public, however, having a trained archivist take charge of projecting a unique home

movie is a new and better choice than what is normally available” (p. 25). While the

FIAF Code of Ethics may not agree with this theory, this approach shows archivists are

attempting grassroots initiatives in which collections can be aided and society can be both

represented and educated with moving images.

Programs like Home Movie Day are beneficial to ensure the often times

overlooked percentage of the population is captured in memory when commercial

examples are not always the best representation. This is, however, only one way to ensure


rounded collection development. Moving image archives wrestle with many factors when

attempting to carve out an existence. Because situations can be drastically different for

archives, collection policies remain in flux. Prohibitive costs of preservation also hamper

the eventual access of the collections to the public. The innovation of video and digital

media also adds a tremendous influx of records for moving image archives to deal with.

By looking into the history and present situations of several countries active in the

collection of moving images, a greater understanding can be gleaned of this pursuit.

While seeking to obtain a suitable collection, issues of access are a major concern.

The situation in the United Kingdom demonstrates the differences between

national and regional archives and the need for both types of institutions in moving image

collections development. Known as one of the first four official film archives and

founding member of FIAF, the National Film Archive (now the National Film and

Television Archive) of Britain was established in 1935 with Lindgren at the lead. The

archives worked with an advisory committee and selection criteria would be based on

cultural and historical basis. The committee decided that all types of films from feature

length to home movies would be considered; however, a guideline would have to be

developed as cost is high in preserving this large amount of media. Kula (2002) notes the

adoption of A Guide to the Selection of Films for Historical Preservation in 1959, “that

excluded films whose subject matter could be adequately dealt with in another medium”

(p. 39). Essentially, if the idea conveyed can be expressed in another form such as sound

or text then the moving image would not be accepted, although this does not mean the

film was destroyed.


Clive Cochran (1994) notes that the National Film and Television Archive

(NFTVA) is, “the largest collection in the country and reflects all aspects of film, video

and television culture” (p. 123). However, between 1976 and 1986 attention was turned

from the national archives to that of regional and special collections. During this period

in time the Scottish Film Archive, the North West Film Archive and the East Anglian

Film Archive was established to capture films that may have otherwise been discarded

and also to collect materials that directly represented these regions. Beyond the

introduction of these regional archives, specialized archives were established such as the

National Motor Museum and the National Maritime Museum (Cochran, 1994).

The system of national, regional and specialized archives in the United Kingdom

work together in developing a representation of the culture diversity of the country,

however, access and funding are always issues. The NFTVA runs its films at the National

Film Theatre which helps outreach efforts for the institution. Cochran (1994) emphasizes

that although this network of archives is beginning to be recognized as important;

selection, acquisition and preservation problems are only growing more significant for

archivists and librarians. Interestingly he states, “The use of material, often felt to be in

direct conflict with preservation, has increased in recent years” (Cochran, 1994, p. 129).

This shift, while clearly not an ideal situation, reflects the compromise of Home Movie

Day in that, perhaps, issues of preservation must sometimes be forfeited in order to bring

these images to the public.

The National Archives of Canada (NAC) did not adopt a program to acquire

moving images until the 1970s. Prior to that, the archives relied on production companies

to preserve their own films; which rarely seems to work to the advantage of preservation


and proper collections development. The decision to introduce moving images revolved

around the concept of respect des fonds in both the arguments for and against.

Eventually, a concept similar to the National Film and Television Archive in the UK was

adopted wherein the moving image record would be disposed of if the information on it

was readily available elsewhere (Kula, 2002). In an effort to represent the French culture

of Canada, the national archives have built a connection with the Cinémathèque

Québécoise in Montreal to conserve the moving images of that region. Kula (2002)

states, “In addition, the national archives had been encouraging and promoting the

development of moving image conservation programs in provincial archives and regional

museums for documentation of regional interest” (p. 81). Today, the Library and

Archives Canada works in unison with governmental and non-governmental archives to

preserve and share Canada’s documentary heritage through “publications, archival

records, sound and audio-visual materials, photographs, artworks, and electronic

documents such as websites” (Library and Archives Canada, 2007, para. 1).

The state of the moving image archives in the United States is a diverse system of

national, regional and special archive repositories. Kula (2002) illustrates that the

national archives network alone represents private organizations such as the Film

Department at George Eastman House, the USC Film and Television Archives, the

Museum of Broadcasting as well as those specializing in everything from political

campaign advertisement to horror films. In addition to the national network, film and

television studios maintain their own collections. Collaboration of these groups with

FIAF and AMIA seek to stave off duplication among this eclectic pool of institutions.


Collection policies range from highly selective criteria based purely on aesthetics

such as that of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) to that of the Library of Congress’

deposits for copyright registration. Preservation of these moving image records is aided,

in part, by the National Film Preservation Foundation (NFPF) which was created by

Congress in 1996 on behest of the Library of Congress. The NFPF issues grants for film

preservation to ensure access and education of the film heritage of America (National

Film Preservation Foundation, n.d).

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was another agency created by

Congress in an attempt to further fund arts and education for American citizens. The

agency was crucial in funding the newly created American Film Institute (AFI) in 1967.

At the advice of Richard Kahlenberg, the structure of AFI would be based off of

Lindgren’s work at the British Film Archive, including its preservation and collection

policies. One year later, a dialog was begun involving Kahlenberg concerning the

national needs to maintain an ample collection for research. Soon after, it was decided

that AFI’s collections would be housed at the Library of Congress as part of a national

collection with its name still attached. The Library of Congress association with

copyright laws authorized it to accept film copies with little governmental cost which

made it a more suitable repository (Kuiper, 1988). This solution, however, would prove

to have its share of issues.

The 1980s were turbulent years in regards to the NEA and other funding

organizations. This was an even greater problem when coupled with increasing costs of

preservation and proliferation of institutions in need of funds. The AFI and other efforts

in preservation and collection took on criticism as noted by Kuiper (1988), “there are


important elements missing from the mix of archival acquisition policies currently

practiced by our institutions. Independent video, student film and video, amateur film and

video, and social documentaries of the sixties and seventies are all neglected” (p. 52).

In addition to acquisition policies being sub-par, there are other factors that work

against building well rounded archives. Funding, although extraordinarily necessary, can

sometimes lead to the situation of under-represented film types. It is typically easier for

archives to obtain money to fund preservation of more popular film titles at the risk of

ignoring orphaned titles and others of unique value. Preservation funds for these well-

known titles can be beneficial as they usually lead to exhibitions which increase

awareness towards the archive. On the other hand, these lesser known titles tend to

represent the moving image archives goals as voiced in the aforementioned principles of

documentation.

The UCLA Film & Television Archive illustrates a good example of an archives

working in tandem with another establishment in attempt to collect, preserve and give

access to moving images of a socially relevant, yet under-represented group. A

partnership was formed between the UCLA Film & Television Archive and Outfest, an

organization devoted to preserving the film and art of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and

Transgender (LGBT) community, to form The Outfest Legacy Project. The Project not

only works to preserve and give access to better-known titles in LGBT film, but also

solicits donations from the public (Outfest, 2007). Everyone has an opportunity to donate

their films to achieve an ample representation of the LGBT community and become a

part of the collective memory of society. Initiatives such as these are tantamount in

creating the kind of symbiotic relationships necessary for moving image archives. Not


only do these partnerships facilitate a well rounded representation of society through the

medium of the moving image, but increases awareness, outreach and funding potential

for the archives.

The moving image can be as viable a medium to preserve as textual documents.

The proliferation of this resource as documentary evidence cannot be denied as

legitimate. Cochrane (1994) notes, “To fully comprehend twentieth century culture it will

be difficult for current and future historians to ignore audiovisual communication because

of the immense impact it has on the lives of most people” (p. 127). The need to increase

awareness for moving image archives is reflected in the majority of readings on the

specific subject, but continues to be passed over in traditional archival literature, even in

respect to articles that speak directly to the cultural record. Also echoed in the moving

image archival community is the need for standards and appraisal theories for non-textual

archival records. Sam Kula (2004) notes the lack of moving image appraisal theory in

archival literature prior to his Ramp study and even after his 2002 publication, Appraising

Moving Images. He states, “I could draw on a body of established policies and practices

with regard to government records and even for audiovisual records, but appraisal theory

remained as elusive as ever and, in relation to audiovisual records, largely irrelevant” (p.

3).

Although leaps have been made since Matuszewski’s revolutionary idea of a film

archive in 1898, there is still a lack of understanding and recognition of the moving

image as an authentic record of culture. Organizations such as FIAF, AMIA, Moving

Image Collections (MIC) and the National Film Preservation Board have taken strides to

introduce best practices, outreach, education, training, task forces, and publications to the


benefit of the movement. The moving image archivist has had to contend with debate that

this should even be called a profession. Recently, an increase in graduate programs has

lent some credence to professional recognition.

Too many moving image records have already been loss due to neglect and

ambivalence to the medium. With the disappearance of each film, newsreel, home movie

and documentary, evidence of our nuances, politics, values and history are erased. The

direction is looking progressive in terms of acceptance of the non-textual archive as part

of the archival community at large, with actions such as the sporadic inclusion of training

and workshops for film by the Society of American Archivist (SAA), but individuals and

their representative organizations must work together and prove that this irreplaceable

resource be fully realized.


References

Becker, S. (2007). See and save-balancing access and preservation for ephemeral

moving images. Spectator: The University of Southern California Journal of Film

& Television, 27(1), 21-28. Retrieved June 27, 2007 from EBSCOHost Film &

Television Literature Index database.

Cochrane, C. (1994). The collections, preservation and use of moving images in the

United Kingdom. The Audiovisual Librarian, 20, 122-130. Retrieved July 20,

2007 from Library Literature & Information Science Full Text database

Cook, T. (1997). What is past is prologue: A history of archival ideas since 1898, and

the future paradigm shift. Archivaria, 43, 17-63. Retrieved June 5, 2007 from

http://journals.sfu.ca/archivar/index.php/archivaria/article/viewFile/12175/13184

Cox, R. J. (1994). The documentation strategy and archival appraisal principles: A

different perspective. In R.C. Jimerson (Ed.), American Archival Studies:

Readings in Theory and Practice (211-244). Chicago, IL: The Society of

American Archivists.

Edmondson, R. (2004). Audiovisual archiving: philosophy and principles. Paris:

UNESCO. Retrieved June 27, 2007 from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001364/136477e.pdf

FIAF. (2002). Code of ethics. Retrieved August 6, 2007 from

http://www.fiafnet.org/uk/members/ethics.cfm

Francis, D. (2006). From parchment to pictures to pixels balancing the accounts: Ernest

Lindgren and the National Film Archive, 70 Years On. Journal of Film

http://www.fiafnet.org/uk/members/ethics.cfm


http://journals.sfu.ca/archivar/index.php/archivaria/article/viewFile/12175/13184


Preservation, 71, 21-41. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from

http://www.fiafnet.org/uk/publications/fep_journal.cfm

Jeavons, C. (2007). The moving image: Subject or object? Journal of Film Preservation,

73, 19-32. Retrieved June 27, 2007 from EBSCOHost Film & Television

Literature Index database.

Kawin, B. F. & Mast, G. (1996). A short history of the movies (Rev. ed.). Massachusetts:

Allyn & Bacon.

Kuiper, J. (1988). The decade of access? Moving image archives in the USA, a

retrospective look and a status report. Journal of Film and Video, 40(1), 49-54.

Retrieved June 27, 2007 from EBSCOHost Film & Television Literature Index

database.

Kula, S. (1983). The archival appraisal of moving images: A RAMP study with

guidelines. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved June 27, 2007 from


Kula, S. (2002). Appraising moving images. Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Kula, S. (2004). Appraisal of the audiovisual records in the documentation of popular

culture, collective memory, and national identity. Paper presented at the 2004

International Congress on Archives conference. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from

http://www.wien2004.ica.org/fo/speakers.php?ctNv1=7&ctNv2=34&IdSpk=18&

AlphSpk=&p=&SpkV=2

Library and Archives Canada (2007). About Us. Retrieved August 7, 2007 from

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/about-us/index-e.html

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/about-us/index-e.html

http://www.wien2004.ica.org/fo/speakers.php?ctNv1=7&ctNv2=34&IdSpk=18&%09AlphSpk=&p=&SpkV=2

http://www.wien2004.ica.org/fo/speakers.php?ctNv1=7&ctNv2=34&IdSpk=18&%09AlphSpk=&p=&SpkV=2


http://www.fiafnet.org/uk/publications/fep_journal.cfm


National Film Preservation Foundation (n.d) About the NFPF. Retrieved August 7, 2007

from http://www.filmpreservation.org/

Outfest. (2007). The outfest legacy project. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from

http://www.outfest.org/legacy.html

Schellenberg, T.R. (1956). The appraisal of modern public records. In M.F. Daniels &

T. Walch (Eds.), A Modern Archives Reader: Basic Readings on Archival Theory

and Practice (57-70). Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records

Administration.

UNESCO. (1980, October). Recommendation for the safeguarding and preservation

of moving images. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from

http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/cinema/html_eng/page1.shtml

http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/cinema/html_eng/page1.shtml

http://www.outfest.org/legacy.html

http://www.filmpreservation.org/

Running Head: - fucinarieportfolio.com... · Web viewThe Moving Image in Modern Theory. Heather...

Documents

Transcript of Running Head: - fucinarieportfolio.com... · Web viewThe Moving Image in Modern Theory. Heather...