Mardy has a quick and good response to i-docs (I agree, sounds like an Apple product), and what is good and problematic about some of the proposed modes. Tom at the end of a sweeping post has a couple of brief points about the Aston Gaudenzi reading too. Ali picks up a point and elaborates that documentary is much more than story and/or entertainment, and yes, film documentary is a very creative complex area, in some ways it engages with form and content in much more experimental ways than fiction cinema has. Jackie joins up documentary studies with integrated media to think about whether a six second Vine clip is documentary. Nice point about whether documentary is about an explicit point of view versus more interpretive works. One way to think about this is the sorts of documentaries being considered are ambiguous, closer to poems than tracts. If you recall the reading from network media about essays, then we’re interested in documentaries that are essayist rather than explicative. Lauren has notes from Aston and Gaudenzi, and is interested in Nielson’s 90-9-1 principle (which is a version of the same rule we saw in network media in terms of the 80-20 rule). Brenton has some notes, noticing that information flows are not multi directional rather than one way.
Zoe has a detailed write up of the essay, with summaries and explication. An outline of the modes they define, and yes, the most interesting work is when the boundaries are blurred (as if they aren’t or weren’t to begin with, the boundaries came from the academics corralling the work into boxes that were not there to begin with for goodness sake). If you skipped the readings (why??), then check this. Koston has notes, linking some of the ideas back to remediation (it’s always good to find connections between or across ideas), while outlining the modes of i-docs they describe.
And who there, Emily’s made a prezi about i-docs, OK, I’m intimidated.