Readings for Monday 10/23 Peter's Sections

Upon reading Gregg Bordowitz, article, I found his work to be both complicated and in depth. Bordowitz wrote this article on the issues of video making and its ideals. Bordowitz stated that “disenfranchised” groups and artists were “…daunted by the monolithic enterprise of broadcast television.” I believe this to be true. Present day television and cinema appear to be hard to get into for disenfranchised groups. These groups lack money, resources and their beliefs, ideas and voices are sometimes too radical, or does not have the money-making qualities needed to be put on television. This is most likely because today’s “dominant culture” is one that places money over values and ingenuity. Bordowitz supported this with a certain argument. He stated that television excludes anyone who does not fit as the “general public” or does not serve a purpose for the advertisement. He said that people will invite a person to be interviewed but will never interview anyone in the audience. I find this to prove true many times. Shows will almost never interview their audience unless it proves to be beneficial to them financially (ratings). Bordowitz also listed Nine Guidelines for all the video and film makers to know. Some of which described on how television can be used as a defense, as “…a form of intervention-interfering with the current social order” and that it can also be proactive in having the ability to “create opportunities for the formation of new audiences and communities.” Both of these are very true. For any group to ever have their ideas noticed they must be proactive and go on the offense and show their ideals to everyone, resulting the expansion of the group to others. Being a video/film maker, one must realize that to ever get your ideas noticed, you must use and do what you can to get to that point. Here is what a few of Bordowitz other guidelines discusses. Bordowitz believes, and I agree, that technology is there for one to use and that you must always remember that one’s ideas, once shown on television, can and will be interpreted differently than originally intended. Sometimes it is hard to find media that has value and substance to it. Due to the Dominant Culture and its desire to make money, media these days are composed of themes that entertain the audience, but does not address or question the audience. As a result, no disenfranchised group can ever exhibit their beliefs and works of art to the audience.

The article written by Gregg Bordowitz is really intense and astute. I think that his suggestion of the media as an expression of a disenfranchised community is what we should somehow expect from our contemporary broadcasting technologies. It can appear a visionary dream. It may seem to be something impossible and pretentious, but when we encounter experiences like Bordowitz’s we know for sure that it is a realizable future. We understand that people can make the difference. His experience shows clearly how today’s media is just another form of control in the hands of a dominant culture and at the same time, how much wider, free, and democratic this system could actually be. The media should have a responsibility to include all voices and parts in the conversation, something obviously not happening today. In response to that, I really like the inner possibility of the contemporary technologies and facilities to be used as a form of sabotage or virus. Something that, introduced into a working system, suddenly can influence or finally stop the entire working machine. Art, culture and disenfranchised people can reach and eventually defeat main stream TV (and the silence and the ignorance that it broadcasts). Today more than in the past, we have the instruments to win this competition. Video is a great weapon, for technical and linguistic reasons. Being a cheap medium to produce it is widely used within people allowing anyone to record the facts and the events they consider to be relevant . In addition to that, because of the strong TV influence on our culture, our mind is extremely sensitive and trained to understand it. Video is a familiar language, sexy and attention-absorbing. Bordowitz’s experience with GMHC, ACT-UP and alternative distribution networks, reminds me of another big event from the history of the independent media: the Seattle riots of 1999. A similar thing happened: as a reaction to an oppressive and dictatorial politic-economic situation, people started to dissenter in a productive and organized way. Common needs of democracy and information created a new kind of media: a people’s media, made entirely of independent and unfiltered articles, video, and a worldwide broadcasting technology. Rather than allow this uprising against corporate power to be viewed through a corporate lens, they were determined to get as closed to the story as possible. They would become the media. Through this community based production, the information travelled freely around the world so that in a short period tens of thousands of people understood that their democracy was being betrayed. This is also what happened during the eighties and the AIDS crisis: community action had been taken towards ending government inaction over an epidemic. Social and political unresolved issues can determine a new subjectivity and an alternative political identity which can bring people together and help establish the grassroots to an alternative way to defeat the dominant order. Change starts with ordinary people working in their communities and that is where media should start as well. We all just have to realize it. We do have a chance.

1. On the first page, Minh-Ha writes that "..for what is one to do with films that set out to determine truth from falsity while the visibility of this truth lies precisely in the fact that it is false?" This contradicts the quote from Hans Richter that "'[documentary] never moves away from the factual.'" So is Minh-Ha posing the question in the beginning to refute it? 2. On page 84 Minh-Ha states that "Good documentaries are those whose subject matter is 'correct' and whose point of view the viewer agrees with." First of all, what is "correct" subject matter? If it's accurate? Or if it presents a "point of view the viewer agrees with"? Secondly, don't good documentaries also present a point of view so as to change the viewer's mind about a particular subject, one in which they are not enlightened before seeing the documentary? For example, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a documentary, but it attempts to persuade the viewer that there were certain reasons why it happened, reasons which many people were not aware of- and some did still not agree with after seeing it. 3. There are a few instances in this piece where Minh-Ha uses the term "Master". Who is he/she? The one creating the documentary? Or any person in general, who is in charge of their personality/art? For example, on page 89: "The new socio-historical text thus rules despotically as another master-centered text, since it unwittingly helps to perpetuate the Master's ideological stance."

Mr. Bordowitz has taken it upon himself to inform the television-watching world about AIDS and HIV, specifically the epidemic that is affecting the “disenfranchised” communities. It is true that television can be utilized to enhance cultural change. The author seems to think that before he and his peers came along, nobody was using video to do so. He writes “Commercial television is produced with an agenda: to dominate the leisure time of its audience in order to sell products, to engender a public of consumers.” He then goes on to describe himself as the savior of commercial television- claiming to be the one that will initiate activism through his work. I would argue that this has been done before, on a grand scale. The journalists of the Vietnam War era revealed the horrors of gruesome massacres in the Southeast Asian country, spurring activism by many American college students. Although this played a large part in eventually censoring the news, it exemplifies video work being used to organize. I believe this is a major reason why demonstrations are not being held more frequently here in regards to the 2nd Middle Eastern War- we are being kept in the dark because of what Bordowitz calls “dominant culture”. I would like to suggest that “video as a means of organizing” comes in waves. It is not consistent in society yet, which is what Bordowitz intends to do, but it has occurred in spurts in the past. I admire Bordowitz’s confidence in representing the “disenfranchised” community of AIDS/HIV victims to inform the rest of society about the disease, more importantly, what it’s like to live under the gun of death. He writes “it may be a long time (perhaps never) before we see public service announcements directly addressing people with AIDS in the audience of television.” People with AIDS/HIV is a relatively narrow demographic to appeal to, especially considering that where the disease is most rampant is in impoverished neighborhoods and countries where families don’t have 2-10 TVs in the household. However, I think Bordowitz is on to something- communities of poverty may not have several televisions, but usually they have access to at least one. Frequently also in these communities the populous has dropped out of school, where sex education is typically taught. If we could increase the numbers of shows about AIDS/HIV (not necessarily aimed at those with AIDS/HIV), and how important it is to protect yourself against it, awareness of the disease would probably be more widespread. In conclusion, I want to comment on Bordowitz’s position on the ignorance of AIDS/HIV educators in regards to death. He writes “Fear of death often goes unacknowledged in much AIDS activist videos.” This is the key to truly informing people about fatal diseases. If you don’t behave safely in regards to AIDS- you will die. Of course, everyone dies eventually, but we have to spread the word that this disease will cause an untimely death, which can be prevented.

Gregg Bordowitz’s “Operative Assumptions” was about creating videos that questions its audiences their ability to make social change. Brodowitz, a gay man affected with the HIV virus in 1988, discussed in his writing how society should be moved through videos that account for disenfranchised groups. He also demonstrates in his writing how disenfranchised groups do not have the advantage to become involved completely in television shows. As he mentioned as an example, a show that focuses attention on people with AIDS and HIV will be more likely addressed to an audience not affected by these diseases rather than people who are actually affected by them. He wants to drastically change this method through the videos that he made. He believes that media defines “commercial television as “produced with an agenda: to dominate the leisure time of its audience in order to sell products, to engender a public of consumers.” He wanted to change this definition by making videos of his own, in which he devotes a lot of his time and dedication to promote social change. He uses his own life experiences to make his videos easier for his audiences to acknowledge. Throughout the reading, Brodowitz mentioned “dominant culture.” He believes that television only exhibit shows that it thinks will appeal to its viewers. I agree with him. In today’s society, media makers, most especially advertises, try as hard as they can to attract audiences that will give them fortune. They do not think about the negative effects of having to appeal to only the “general public.” The “disenfranchised groups” have little say in this so as a solution, these so-called “disenfranchised groups” labeled by Brodowitz had to make reasonable actions to address the audience about things that do not usually show on television. He mainly focused on people with AIDS and HIV in which he made many documentaries about them. I agree with Brodowitz’s belief that in videos that talk about AIDS and HIV, many producers usually direct the topic to homosexuals. The topic has to identify a certain identity which I think is not righteous. Overall, I think this reading is a good example to inspire individuals to become more spontaneous and open to any kind of flux in today’s society. Brodowitz’s constant eagerness to learn how to make videos to make social change stands as an example for people to feel free to express themselves in any way they want, whether it is to influence the viewers’ thinking or to educate individuals more about society. After all, “a community creates itself as it represents itself.”

In the article “Operative Assumptions” author and video-maker Gregg Bordowitz writes about the many factors a video producer must consider when creating his/her own documentary. After being tested positive for HIV in 1988, Bordowitz began to focus on the problems of image concerning people with AIDS. His article revolves around his experiences with the assumptions the public makes of people like himself. Further more, he fights to bring truth into the representation pertaining to people with the virus through video and television. Bordowitz begins his article by stressing that artists should take popular culture seriously. He calls himself an “activist videomaker” because he uses video as a tool to shine light into the places he perceived being oversaturated with false assumptions originally made by dominant culture. Tradition and the dominant culture of America shapes how today’s culture views the world. According to Bordowitz, video broadcasted on television is a significant method to organize audiences and as a result bring about meaningful change. Unlike manipulative and voracious commercial television, whose agenda is to make consumers out of the audience, television could utilize entertainment in the form of documentation (of AIDS for instance) and potentially bring about cooperative action. Instead of giving himself and people with AIDS a political identity, the way the dominant culture subjugates them, Bordowitz uses video and television broadcasting to “promote social equity, dismantling the structures of power that have shaped dominant culture.” Bordowitz challenges the reader with the following question: “What images would I like to see more of in the world?” His answer is: “Make them.” The AIDS virus plays a big role in his life which compels him to produce videos embodying the hard facts of the virus and the struggles of living with it. This illustrates his second challenge to video artists: “Face the representational problems of the day in ways that affect your daily life.” To Bordowitz, it is important to “produce work that grapples with the subjective conditions of living with HIV in ways that challenge conventional means of representation.” True videomakers, whose work questions the status of truth in representation, can cultivate community building, whereas selfish videomakers can build superficial, crude and deterministic accounts of events. Bordowitz learned a very important lesson through his experiences as an “activist videomaker.” He learned to place his identity as an artist below his identity as an activist. Like Bordowitz, it is necessary for all artists to focus on the problems in society rather than becoming caught up in the circumstances of their own problems.

In “Documentary Is/Not a Name” Minh-Ha brings to the forefront the issue of the documentary as raw and pure fact unobfuscated by the facades and ornamentation of the theatricality of cinema. Or, is documentary in and of itself a façade in which a pre-packaged, pre-determined formula presents the aesthetic artifice of the appropriation of truth. To Minh-Ha, it is the latter, and documentary is “not News, but Art.” It is a wholly calculated “film”, complete with a vast subset of technological and cinematic “documentary” techniques (i.e. synchronous sound; close up versus the wide angle shot), all aimed a creating the veracity and authenticity of the image of truth presented. Minh-Ha, however, does not simply question the superficiality of a cinematically manipulated and aesthetically calculated “documentary”, but goes even further, and questions the sheer legitimacy of the intended purpose of documentary (truth) juxtaposed with the discontinuity of the artificial ends produced. Through such documentaries, the marginalized become even further shoved aside, as gritty reality is simply glossed over—through both the disjunction of image and truth. And in giving voice and life to those whose stories have thus far remained untold, the documentary simply defines their voice for them, as the remain forever lost and invisible through the perpetuation of the status quo of hegemonic social norms in which anything is prettier than the truth. Thus, as defined by Minh-Ha, “documentary” is simply a proportion of the truth, and not really the raw facts and brash truth of reality, but the soft, well-lit version that is aesthetically appealing as well as accepted and embraced by the mainstream. Documentary itself is not only institutionalized, but it further supports and recycles the institutionalized norms, never venturing beyond what’s “real” and delving into that which is true. However, while Minh-ha does assert that “documentaries” are hardly anything but, and are a packaged Hollywood ideal of truth smothered by the allure and deception of image and imperceptible manipulation, does that mean that the concept of reality is truly lost upon the enormous influx of “documentaries” from the false “reality” of our television culture to the cinematic documentaries glazed over by political deception? It is a stark contrast to social activist documentaries, much like “Invisible Children” in which the raw truth, while painful, is not glossed over by the false pretense of artificial aesthetics. Thus, through Minh-Ha’s dissolution of “documentary”, is it the loss of veracity, or a deeply rooted fear of the truth?

The title of this article is quite fitting for the point the author is trying to make. This article attempts to point out all of the contradictions that are involved in the making of a documentary for entertainment purposes. The main conflict is that between truth and meaning. By this the author means that it is impossible for the camera to capture the whole truth for the viewing audience. Editing and what the film-maker chooses to include and not include in their documentary all affect the meaning of the film. One of the first points that Minh-Ha makes is that the fact put forth is often accepted as truth but it is not always the whole picture. This is unavoidable due to our human nature because the person who is making the documentary cannot help but put some of their opinion into the film, thereby skewing the meaning of what was originally filmed. The author then goes on to list the sort of technology that should be used in making a documentary in order for it to contain as much truth as possible. This includes a hand-held camera, wide-angle shots, lip-synchronous sound, as little editing as possible and takes lasting the length of 400 ft film stock. These requisites are supposed to promote naturalism in the documentary and prevent the film-maker from putting forth an opinion in the film. Documentary today has gotten away from the original style which was to remain perfectly objective. Now, we accept documentary almost as a style of film-making rather than a genre of cinema that presents the truth to audiences. There are many techniques that are used that are viewed as reality when they usually are a set-up. For example, a star talking about a product and saying that they use it, and how great it is, or when a politician arranges a public appearance to appear to connect with their voters. The author states that reality is greater and stranger than fiction. This certainly rings true today in the age of reality TV. Most of us accept reality shows as truth, although they have script writers just like sitcoms do. Even though reality TV is not truly real, right now is is much more popular and prevalent than sitcoms and other fiction-based shows are. Although we are aware that it is “real,” we tend to view the people on the shows as characters who do not actually exist outside the realm of the show. Anthropological film is one of the fews kinds of documentaries today in which the truth is not obscured by the use of documentary as entertainment. Anthropologists maintain that documentaries made by people outside their field of science are not valid films because they do not know enough about their subject in order to film it and present it to an audience truthfully. The author's conclusion of the article is that currently documentaries are made not to do away with our view of what is real although that is what they seem to be doing. They actually are able to show us simply a different view of the world around us and they can help us realize that what we see is not always the complete and total truth.

Video as a medium, though almost always perceived as an artistic form whether fictional or documentary, is described as being more than just an expression of creativity, but also a driving force by which one can relay a thesis. Gregg Bordowitz explores this concept in the strictest of measures by creating videos that seek to educate audiences, both the “general public” and specific “communities,” about people with AIDS and HIV. His efforts stem partially from personal identification with the subject matter as an individual diagnosed with AIDS himself, and partially from his background as an artist. Furthermore, Bordowitz makes a clear point to utilize video through more unorthodox methods. This inspiration was derived from several artists and their works that have influenced him both as a videomaker and as an AIDS activist, including Dan Graham, Vito Acconci, Bruce Nauman, Martha Rosler, and Paper Tiger. A specific example Bordowitz mentions is a piece in the New Museum in New York in 1985, titled “Global Taste: A Meal in Three Courses,” which made use of outside elements as well as elements inside the television screen to help convey the message. This emphasis on organization was a core component in Bordowitz’s works. Additionally, he demonstrates in this passage his extensive understanding of media by depicting not only what influences television has on society but also how it manifests itself. This is first recognized when he addresses the significance of subjectivity in videomaking, and the necessity for biased perspectives in contrast with neutral accounts on topics to provide intimate details to the audience. He then defines “dominant culture” as being a hybrid of “hegemony” and “tradition,” which is an extremely important point in his writing because his personal works represent what he calls the “community-based production of television” (the minority in terms of media that includes material that is not suitable for broadcast). Perhaps the most impressive evidence of his understanding of media is his Nine Operative Assumptions. These nine principles create the foundation of his philosophy on video and television that include statements such as: “Video is a medium, but television is a situation,” “Don’t trust technology,” and “Television doesn’t belong to the producer.” Bordowitz concludes in a critique of previous works in view of his experiences and thoughts on the future. Here, he discusses the challenges that currently face him as a gay man, as a victim of HIV, as a videomaker, and as an AIDS activist. He goes so far as to question his own credibility because of his paradoxical persona. Conceivably, it is this final statement that grants him the most credibility (even beyond mastery of video), because Bordowitz demonstrates to us that he continues to be open-minded and fallible in his craft.

Gregg Bordowitz is an activist videomaker who holds certain believes that are non-consistent with society. His work, “Operative Assumptions,” offers a very interesting perspective at video and television. According to Bordowitz, Television is divided into two categories, commercial and community-based. Commercial is produced with an agenda and is widely known, while community-based are those produced by disenfranchised groups who are not recognized, or are recognized in limited ways. Because commericial television is broadcasted with an agenda, not much else is included outside the agenda, leaving lots of the video potential unused. In an community-based production, there is no set agenda so the full potential of video can be unlocked and this is why Bordowitz is an advocate for the community-based. He even states that community-based work is “no less deserving of the label “television” than what is considered appropriate for broadcast.” Bordowitz expresses his feelings through nine points which he believes viewers should be aware of. This includes messages such as “don’t trust technology,” “television can be used in directed pragmatic ways as a means of defensive actions,” and that “television […] can be proactive” as well. First of all, viewers did not create the program on the television so what makes it true? Nothing, it is just opinions from several companies or producers and with all opinions, one should think if it is legitimate or not so just take what you can use and use what you can take. All in all, it is just opinions so this can be used as a “crudely fashioned weapon” or as a benefit. In the latter portion of his handout, he explains his current “hour-long” project on the problem of remaining hopeful in the face of increasing loss and despair. He wants to show the “rage and sense of futility” that many people with AIDS and HIV experience. He then states how hard it is to find motivation to make a movie and whether or not he can finish it. It is hard because the direction he is headed in is not what has been done conventionally. He has to also repress his own “ambivalences” in order to convey a sense of certainty in his activist work. His is not allowed to include his emotions because this would make his film seem shaky and not truthful. He then concludes with comments that are more often true then not, “Every assumption is founded is founded on a previously established received idea.” Overall I really liked this work because it introduces another perspective in film making and underscores what is really needed to make a good film, passion. the art of film versus television and how their differences have closed in time through his own experiences and perceptions. He makes himself unique by diverging from the mainstream video artists who are “daunted by the monolithic enterprise of broadcast television” due to their “lack of resources and lack of access to broadcast venues.” Bordowitz stresses the fact that broadcast television is nothing more than “the fundamental component of the medium.” Broadcast television is broadcasted by corporations, big businesses, and the government interests who are very wealthy and financially stable. Their audience is targeted toward mainstream society and this leaves those of the disenfranchised communities out. Their content shifts society and due to their size, community television is neglected. He dislikes this setup and is an active advocate for Sincerely, Eric Su

Minh-ha’s piece is itself an analysis of the film style of documentary. According to Minh-Ha, there is no such thing as pure documentary because of the inherent connotations that go hand in hand with any sort of film or video project. Minh-Ha is concerned with the meaning of the word documentary; it’s origins, it’s evolution, and it’s subsequent place in the cinematic/artistic/pop culture world. After reading Minh-Ha’s piece I was forced to think back and reflect upon my former thoughts on documentary. Prior to reading the article I had my own personal views on documentary and the process of perceived and portrayed truths and facts. Having already watched a myriad of documentaries in class (which include Grey Gardens, Titticut Follies, and Tarnation) I had in my mind what I thought to be the formula for a dramatic and hard-hitting documentary. Without knowing it I readily accepted these films into the category of documentary, as pieces of fact, pieces of truth. After reading Minh-Ha’s article I am able to step back and look at the documentary as a whole. The “art” of documentary has spawned from the desire to give and receive “real” information and stories, unedited and untampered by Hollywood tricks. Despite the genre’s attempts to break free in a form of counter culture, it has developed into itself a cookie cutter form of presentation that is the narrow margin of acceptability in the world of documentary. Prerequisites shape the documentary world describing what is real and what is not. The jostling unsteady camera shot caused by the absence of tripod gives the shot a sense of immediacy, a sense of reality. Close ups on certain people in a shot hint towards subjectivity on the part of the documenter, where as wide angle shots demonstrate passive objectivity (although any shot is inherently a framing of some sort, editing out everything that is not in the frame, there is always something being left out.) The tendency of documenters to determine and critique what is real and what is not real is one that prevails throughout it genre as well. Anthropologists discredit documentaries created by film makers not educated in the field of anthropology. Because, despite their probable ability to accurately and sufficiently portray situations, lifestyles and events, their lack of ability to scientifically state the effect of such situations, lifestyles or evens in society, renders their documentary (which is inevitably and uncontrollably subjective) as nothing more than a mere snapshot, of little use to society more than for aesthetics and entertainment. After reading Minh-ha’s piece I am ready to accept documentary as a genre of film and video with it’s own set of rules in attempts to mask directorial involvement in order to portray a dramatasized truth.

Bordowitz’s view of video as a medium shows how video can be applied to motivate change and action in a community. It can represent more that just “art” that is placed in galleries or mere entertainment, but be an element of time. He was fascinated how videos could be more powerful than still images. Bordowitz was inspired by many artitsts who used video to define cultures and motivate important social changes. He believed that definite action must be taken toward ending government inaction on AIDS. Of course his interest in making videos that would be focused on bringing about progressive cultural work on AIDS was deeply confirmed after being tested for HIV positive so it may appear to be quite biased. However it does seem necessary for the public to be able to explore AIDS from the actual position of people with infected with HIV. The audience themselves may become one with the subjects on screen. Cinema can also be used to do this but television is much easier, cheaper, and faster. Over the years, Bordowitz has developed a set of fundamental organizing principles. His explanation of “dominant culture” involves the role and interaction of hegemony and tradition. His current view of the dominant culture and how it seems to affect the mass media appears to be negative. He is disappointed how disenfranchised communities must constantly keep up with the dominant culture (which changes and grows all the time) in their productions in order to survive. They also have a huge problem about not being able to take advantage of the recourses for production and it is very difficult to get the works broadcasted. Even if the material were to be shown to audiences Bordowitz states that “Television cannot instrumentally affect the actions of viewers.” It only lays out the options and visualizes the choices that viewers may take. Currently he is working on a video about AIDS infected people who are trying not to lose hope throughout their suffering experiences with the epidemic.

In Operative Assumptions, Gregg Bordowitz discusses how the medium of film and TV have split apart, and how television (or videotape) can be used in very much the same way as the other. He specifically cites the use of videotape and television in sending messages, in Gregg’s case, AIDS awareness and HIV. Bordowitz splits Television into two categories – advertisement, or programs of a commercial nature, and programs that present issues that should be brought to attention to the masses (especially presenting more of what you would like to see.), focusing heavily on the big potential television holds in sending a message and its great flexibility in use. Bordowitz focuses heavily on the flexibility and the potential television holds, explaining that while video is a medium while television is a situation (177). Overall he seems to hold television to the degree in that the television should be used as a medium for the people and what one wishes to see, similar to the idea of say, guerrilla reporting. His “Nine operative assumptions” are particularly compelling in that he presents a view of television that we seem to have lost - that the television is for the people and the masses, and should be used for spreading the message of what we want to see. The particular “hook” that makes this reading particularly noteworthy is Bordowitz’s declaration that the idea of television has been lost – his arguments of how the television can be used compels one to think “Why AREN’T we doing that with television?” I wasn’t sure what to make of his AIDS-affected individuals watching other AIDS-affected individuals, but his overall argument in using the television as tool for proactive movements is worth thinking over. His ideas to “downsizing” the television scale (saying that the television is not owned by the television producers (179) to saying that new possibilities emerge when the means of a production are in the hands of people representing themselves (178-179)) calls for a more intimate idea of television instead of the industrialized conglomerate it has become. All in all Bordowitz makes a call for television to become a personalized tool of mass communication where the people can see what they would like to see, and to expand the potential of what one can do with video and television (179-180). Bordowitz views television as having the ability to both protect and the ability to push for different causes and beliefs, and that as individuals, make television live to its full potential that he views it in. I liked this reading in that it (as some others) provides a fresh new old view (new idea from the old) of television and its potential, and how lost society has become to using this technology to its maximum potential beyond what we have now. While we have access to over 200 channels via cable or satellite, we have a handful of channels that Bordowitz would agree as its using television to the fullest potential, in defending and arguing for the peoples’ views. This reading got me into thinking differently about television and the massive potential it holds.

The Minh-Ha article questions the essence of reality and a documentary’s ability to capture truth and meaning through film. Even though the documentary was invented to replicate truth and meaning, neither can be found explicitly in form. To define truth is to define what is real in a world where there is no right and wrong. When right and wrong is based upon opinions, truth boils down to what the film maker’s motivation was for creating the documentary. When what is “right” is defined this way, its credibility seems to be non-existent and a bias will nevertheless be evidenced in such films. The level of reality has also been compared relative to the incorporation of lip-synchronous sound and the range of film speed, as well as the use of a directional microphone. Any deviation there from can be counted as manipulation of the real, and would not be consistent to reporting reality. If one drowns out the background noise with a directional microphone in order to create a focus, what has one done, but to alter reality? Minh-Ha seems to categorize documentaries as a form of art. Because its subjects are not prepped and everything framed plays out on its own, a documentary should be totally unique and the ultimately objective art form. Minh-Ha states that a documentary film must also be unique itself, while maintaining that each viewing is unique in itself. Minh-Ha says that the documentary is shot with three cameras; one physical camera, one of the director’s mind, and the other, the expectations of the viewers, and because of the variability of each, truth and meaning are never the same. Minh-Ha also goes on to say that “In and of itself the documentary is no more realistic than a feature-film” (88). This article also brings up the timeless argument of capturing reality on film, an argument that lives on like a cockroach through a nuclear fallout. Can a picture accurately convey the reality of its subject? And can truth and meaning be stored in an object or scene? Minh-Ha states that it can not if any bias can be implemented upon the meaning or the message conveyed to the audience. Truth is truth where as a documentary is an interpretation of the truth seen through the eyes of three cameras. Minh-Ha also attacks the anthropological method of creating meaning within films because of the monopoly the style imposes on what was supposed to be an art form. Almost like a special interest group, the anthropologists seems to have a firm hold on what can be counted as scientific documentary recording the human interactions of the present compared to phony art mimicking truth. This, Minh-Ha says is for the purpose of self preservation of anthropologists and is complete shit when in the context of anything involving “art” is mentioned.

Gregg Bordowitz’s article, “Operative Assumptions”, is a very personal, self-reflective essay on his views and outlook of the television and video medium (And, on a broader note, media in general) and the power and potential these two hold in the realms of communication and social progression. This piece is presented in a very progressive fashion, almost like diary entries, therefore providing a more intimate and episodic perspective of the subject matter at hand. Through reading this, we are able to view Bordowitz’s formulation and re-formulation of his ideals in relation to his experiences with dealing with the AIDS epidemic and his personal ailment with the virus. The overall message presented here is a very progressive and, somewhat, uplifting one; it is the fact that within the medium of television there is power, a power that can be seized by anyone to forward a message and therefore initiate the wheels of change within a society. Bordowitz exerts a very positive outlook on all of this in that he essentially states that though the airwaves may be a convoluted hodge-podge of establishment messages that work to serve the status quo, the possibilities of initiating a message and/or change through the airwaves is still very ripe and ready for the taking by anyone who is passionate enough to want to get their word or view out there, as he is currently (Well, by the end of the article at least) undertaking in making videos which give a more realistic view and message in regards to those that are stricken with HIV, as he is. Of particular interest is Bordowitz’s emphasis early on of embracing the medium for its abilities in the realm of communication and connection. He states right off the bat that what intrigued/irked him was the way in which video art had been canonized within the art world. According to Bordowitz, video art had basically been broken down into two camps; video that exemplified the limits of the medium and video that was used to showcase performance art (Pg. 173). Apparently, video art was seldom embraced for its raw ability to simply communicate or reflect the current state of things (He goes on to name some examples that actually focused on this aspect; the works of Dara Birnbaum for example). On a more analytical level, this observation seems to reflect not just Bordowitz’s realizations and observations of the overlooked, taken-for-granted, communicative prowess of the medium, but also society’s overlooking of said quality. It would appear that through this article, a statement is being made that says that the messages we digest from the airwaves (And today, through our modems) on a constant basis have become so routine to our workings within the system that we tend to forget that we, as a people, have a choice of what to digest, and what to seize and communicate. Television and video are our tools, and it is up to us to use them to our full potential, yet we become victims to our own apathy. These claims are further supported by Bordowitz’s “manifesto” of sorts; his “nine operative assumptions”. These operative assumptions, with points like “Don’t trust technology” and “Television doesn’t belong to the producer”, only further the key point of this article that the tools to record the reality of the world around us are out there, and that it is up to us to use them. These tools may be subsidized and used to a more fancy degree by the system, but they are essentially there for the taking. Overall, in relation to this class, this article serves a very motivating piece for those who are burning with the desire to present their stories, their messages, or just their everyday observations to the world. As stated before, the reality of everything is out there, it is up to us to present it. We can make it as gritty as we want or as glossy and pretty as we want, but the means are there to do it; and though, according to assumption #8 in the article, “television cannot instrumentally affect the action of the viewers”, if the message is powerful and resonates enough with those it reaches, action on the part of those witnessing it can very likely take place. Is all of this a little bit too positive for it’s own good? Perhaps. Sometimes people just want to be presented with simple entertainment. But for all that is mentioned here that may be a bit to ideal, it is not wise to rule out the possibility of what those that use the medium to the fullest of their capabilities can achieve.

1. if an outsider, with no bias to what is being filmed, shoots a documentary, is it still considered somewhat un-truthful? 2. If an audience connects to a documentary and sees truth in it, is it a truthful documentary ? 3.if a camera is set up to film everything, with no cuts or direction purley filming raw events) is it truthful?

In the article Operative Assumptions, author Gregg Bordowitz discusses how the development of video products has made it possible for average consumers to create life-changing videos. Bordowitz, who tested positive for HIV antibodies in 1988, has made many short, compelling videos regarding the HIV virus. He claims that community videos and television are not only a source of entertainment and information, but they can organize certain groups of people. Commercial television is created simply to advertise and entertain, but video is mainly to organize. This organization, in turn, can bring about change; exactly the point of his documentaries on AIDS. In this article, Bordowitz undermines dominant culture in means of showing community TV as a better option. What he fails to recognize is that commercial TV is a much more significant medium than he has portrayed (not to say that video is not) But commercial television, although it is created by bourgeoisie and big businesses, provides inspiration and funding to millions around the globe. It plays a key role in American economics. This article somewhat undermines its value. It is true that commercial television does not leave doors open to disenfranchised groups, and that alone makes community video important, however neither has to be presented in a negative light to make a point. Bordowitz has made numerous videos on HIV, uniting many with his shared lifestyle to fight for better lifestyles (technological advances...ect.). In order to understand his argument further, a few terms need to be understood. Hegemony; this is the dominant values, meanings and practices of certain cultures. Tradition is another term. Referred to by Raymond Williams as selective tradition; the practice of historical events by the dominant culture. The dominant culture is “the culture produced in the interest of the current hegemony” (page 4). Big businesses and governments usually define what these norms are. Because of this dominant culture, there is a big difference between commercial T.V. and community based T.V. Community television does not have an agenda. Bordowitz considers those who fall outside of the status quo in culture (for example, those with HIV) disenfranchised. This is where the technology of mini-cams has had a large affect. Because majority of the population does not pay to see these groups’ videos, now they can make them with smaller funding. Bordowitz gives nine operative assumptions in his article, including “Don’t Trust Technology” “Video is a medium, but television is a situation.” All of these assumptions formed together say that there is a great deal of power communal behind video making, much more so than commercial television. Essentially the author uses this article to attack commercial television and praise community video. While community TV is very important in organization of small groups, and informing as well, commercial TV is also a very significant, positive aspect of culture. Although at times it is degrading and senseless, many programs provide inspiration, whether it is to athletes or filmmakers. Brodowitz makes a very strong point, however he does not need to undermine commercial television to make his claim.

I felt that Gregg Bordowitz’s paper “Operative Assumptions” was a great read. I agreed completely with many of his theories but overall found his aspirations for broadcast and television a little too idealistic. To begin, I thought that it is a great use of video to document how someone becomes a “subject” of a particular group. Unfortunately, I feel that this concept works perfectly for Bordowitz’s AIDS subject-matter. I feel that other topics may not be fitting for using the video medium in such a way. One thing I did not understand was Bordowitz’s statement that video should, “represent formation of subjectivities by creating conflicts between sound and image over time.” Perhaps this can be cleared up in discussion. Additionally, I thought that Bordowitz’s notion that video should be used to “interrogate mass culture” is a brilliant idea. However, I feel that all art should aspire to do that in some manner, and video is no exception. Again, I felt that his ideas that broadcasted video can be used to organize audiences around critical activities, question culture industry, entrap viewers as participants, and undermine the dominant culture by giving representation to disenfranchised communities were all great suggestions. Unfortunately, I don’t feel that the current version of broadcast television has any possibility of realizing Bordowitz’s goals. The current television industry is far too intertwined with corporations and money-making institutions to truly do these great things. On that note, I feel that Bordowitz’s suggestions for video’s use would be more fitting to a generation of internet savvy video activists. During the modern era, video makers can broadcast their pieces without the need for televisions complications and still reach an equally large (if not larger) audience. Also, I felt that Bordowitz’s concepts of collective action through broadcasted video are a step in the right direction, but found that his examples were contradictory. For example, it seemed as though much of his focus is on the “disenfranchised community” of AIDS or HIV infected individuals. Although I think it is a great use of broadcast time to bring attention to the AIDS epidemic, it seems that this targets a specific audience and thus defeats the goal of collective action. One instance I felt exemplified this contradiction well was his suggestion of public service announcements directly to those infected. On the topic of his manifesto, I felt that Bordowitz has revolutionary ideas for the use of media and video broadcasting. One that I particularly liked was number nine which stated, “Television doesn’t belong to the producer.” I felt that this was an extremely important point that is far too often overlooked in modern video. I feel that ultimately television truly belongs to the viewers, but that modern society has allowed it to stray off into the hands of businesses who use it for pure economic reasons. An information device as useful as broadcasted video seems like it should have a much more pure and useful place in the dominant culture.

Trinh Minh-ha “cuts away” at truth in documentary and examines the name connotated with documentary in cinema and looks at where its meaning begins and ends. Minh states that truth is produced, induced, and extended according to the regime and power and to question the image of a historical account of documentary as a continuos unfolding does not lead to its mere denial. This questioning allows the unfolding of truth and looks at the true meaning of the subject matter. Minh questions the function of documentary by exploring its origin by explaining that documentary is said to have come about as a need to inform the people and to affirm itself as a reaction against the monopoly of the movie as entertainment came to have on the uses of film. Aesthetic objectivity is explored as a calibration between right and wrong. This discovery by Minh states that the result is the advent of a whole aesthetic of objectivity and the development of comprehensive technologies of truth cpapble of promoting what is right and what is wrong in the world and, by extensions, what is “honest” and what is “manipulative” in documentary. This lines between what the filmmaker creates as an honest film versus the manipulative holds strength on the visual platform of its own aesthetic objectivity and not an infusion of opinion. The use of appropiation and how it rendered by the filmmaker does not speak to truth. Minh explains this by stating that the moment of appropriation and of consumption is either simply ignored or carefully rendered invisible according to the rules of good an bad documentary. Good rules to Minh speak to truth. Truth has to be made vivid, interesting;it has to be “dramatized” if it is to convince the audience of the evidence, whose confidence in it allows truth to take shape states Minh. The medium of real life is more provocative a subject than fabricated stories of made up lives. Minh explains that reality is more fabulous, more maddening, more strangely manipulative that fiction and to understand this is to recognize that naivete of a development of cinematic technology that promotes increasingly unmediated access to reality. This reality is opened to the viewer through its truth and has no mediationg of what is and what isn’t reality. This exploration of truth points toward where the subjectivity taints the objectivity. Minh writes that a subject who points to him or herself is a work that displays its own formal properties and is bound to upset one’s sense of identity. This paper reflected all angles of the documentary and its properties where such a vast terrain of truth can be implemented without speaking less about the truth of the image itself.

Jonathan Wai – Gregg Bordowitz’s “Operative Assumptions” presents ideas about Television being more than just a form of entertainment and how much it can present issues and educate people. Some of his views are interesting and some seem like common knowledge perhaps because this was written awhile ago. First, Bordowitz talks about how he discovered that television could be beyond entertainment and act as a medium for activists. However, there are two forms of television that Bordowitz believes in, commercial television produced for the majority and community television created for specialty groups. The first presents the views of the big corporations and government and often lack the views of the second. Community television, though smaller due to funding and audience, connects more with those in the specialty groups. Bordowitz thinks that community television should be expanded and viewed more since it covers a lot of issues many people ignore or are unaware of. People don’t see how the AIDS epidemic affects people’s daily lives and how bad it actually is. Second, Bordowitz presents his nine operative assumptions on how he believes video/television should be used. Although most of his points are valid, he provides no support for any of it and presents a somewhat biased view since he had found he was positive for HIV-antibodies. Next, Bordowitz presents two afterthoughts on his assumptions. The first is that choosing between video and film is not a choice only between mediums but also the message presented. Though the line between the two has broken down, they are still very different mediums, Bordowitz chose video because of its costs and simplicity which I think might hinder his cause. His second afterthought is about experimentation. This isn’t much of a problem anymore since many people experiment with what they can due within film or video everyday and there are no limits to what people can do. The last section of this reading is about the AIDS epidemic. Bordowitz thinks the current form of AIDS awareness doesn’t nearly cover all the facts. It is beyond a disease, it’s a lifestyle. Bordowitz wishes to make video that shows all the aspects of the people living with HIV or AIDS. There are so many points to cover and he hopes to get each and every one in his continuing work on educational programs. He wants to make sure the audience connects with what he or she is viewing and actually care about the people presented. Bordowitz doesn’t want to conform to the traditional ways of making video and tries to express himself but exploring new areas presents new questions.

In “Documentary Is/Not a Name,” Trinh T. Minh-Ha plays with the concept of truth in a documentary medium, asserting that truth and meaning should not be equated to each other, often a common mistake. The essay delves into the history of documentaries, and how they were a “reaction against the monopoly of the movie entertainment came to have on the uses of film. Cinema was redefined as an ideal medium for social indoctrination and comment, the virtues of which lay in its capacity for ‘observing and selecting from life itself’” (Minh-Ha, 78). One must remember however, that objectivity is nearly impossible in a filmic medium. Any display of mis en scene, for example, is simply editing while shooting (the art of choosing what to show in a frame and what to not show is a direct choice of the director, based on personal biases). However, Minh-Ha discusses how even though the “truth” shown in a documentary is a one-sided truth, it is more honest than conventional Hollywood movies, as in documentary, “there are no retakes” (Minh-Ha, 79). Minh-Ha goes into detail about the necessary elements if one is to achieve a documentary that is more honest than others: “Real time is thought to be more ‘truthful’ than filmic time… minimal or no editing… the wide angle [are] claimed as more objective” (Minh-Ha, 80). Minh-Ha questions to conventions of filmmaking; who has the authority to say what kind of film speed is honest, and what kind is fake? “The whole of filmmaking,” says Minh-Ha, “is a question of manipulation—whether ‘creative’ or not—those endorsing the law unhesitatingly decree which technique is manipulative and which, supposedly, is not…” (Minh-Ha, 88). This point illustrates how in a filmic society that has formed a habit of shunning anything outside of the mainstream, on one can truly ascribe titals to what is “normal” or “acceptable” in a documentary format. The author further examines the distinction of meaning by saying, “Meaning can neither be imposed or denied” (Minh-Ha, 96). “Empathic subjectivity” is the result of the filmmaker trying to be “as invisible as possible” (Minh-Ha, 96). Indeed, subjectivity is inevitable in all forms of filming. Real truth comes from how objective a work can be in comparison to other works, and how the audience interprets the work.

Ben Tuller Peter Harkawik In “Documentary Is/Not a Name,” Trinh T. Minh-Ha plays with the concept of truth in a documentary medium, asserting that truth and meaning should not be equated to each other, often a common mistake. The essay delves into the history of documentaries, and how they were a “reaction against the monopoly of the movie entertainment came to have on the uses of film. Cinema was redefined as an ideal medium for social indoctrination and comment, the virtues of which lay in its capacity for ‘observing and selecting from life itself’” (Minh-Ha, 78). One must remember however, that objectivity is nearly impossible in a filmic medium. Any display of mis en scene, for example, is simply editing while shooting (the art of choosing what to show in a frame and what to not show is a direct choice of the director, based on personal biases). However, Minh-Ha discusses how even though the “truth” shown in a documentary is a one-sided truth, it is more honest than conventional Hollywood movies, as in documentary, “there are no retakes” (Minh-Ha, 79). Minh-Ha goes into detail about the necessary elements if one is to achieve a documentary that is more honest than others: “Real time is thought to be more ‘truthful’ than filmic time… minimal or no editing… the wide angle [are] claimed as more objective” (Minh-Ha, 80). Minh-Ha questions to conventions of filmmaking; who has the authority to say what kind of film speed is honest, and what kind is fake? “The whole of filmmaking,” says Minh-Ha, “is a question of manipulation—whether ‘creative’ or not—those endorsing the law unhesitatingly decree which technique is manipulative and which, supposedly, is not…” (Minh-Ha, 88). This point illustrates how in a filmic society that has formed a habit of shunning anything outside of the mainstream, on one can truly ascribe titals to what is “normal” or “acceptable” in a documentary format. The author further examines the distinction of meaning by saying, “Meaning can neither be imposed or denied” (Minh-Ha, 96). “Empathic subjectivity” is the result of the filmmaker trying to be “as invisible as possible” (Minh-Ha, 96). Indeed, subjectivity is inevitable in all forms of filming. Real truth comes from how objective a work can be in comparison to other works, and how the audience interprets the work.

The article by Gregg Bordowitz, “Operative Assumptions” offered interesting insights into the formation of an artist's motivations based on personal identity, social orientation and even, in his case his medical condition. His straightforward but somewhat rambling discussion seemed honest and revealing, and at the same time seemed to be part of a process by which the author was continuing to understand and define himself and his own work. I found that the discussion seemed to become more personal and somewhat less didactic as it progressed. I thought his uses of the ideas of ‘dominant culture” and “disenfranchised groups” were conceived somewhat inaccurately. He seems to argue that dominant culture consciously excludes groups (the disenfranchised). This certainly occurs in certain political and social circles, but I think it is more accurate to try to understand the idea of disenfranchised groups as groups that come into being that can not be easily assimilated into the dominant culture. I think there is always a temptation for someone who sees themselves as an activist to see opposing forces as willful and personal, but I would argue that the dominant culture is a kind of lowest common denominator brute that is simply operating according to the rules of a capitalist/materialist culture and really has no will of its own to exclude, rather it lacks the capacity to include. Where he sees the mission of the new alliances of the disenfranchised as one of dismantling the structures of power, I think it would be more practical to think in terms of expanding the capacities of social organization. Either way, there is still a role for the thoughtful use of media to infiltrate and educate dominant culture. His discussion of distribution networks raises some questions about what appropriate distribution networks are for alternative material. It seems to me that the problem of getting your work viewed ends up being in the hands of the potential viewer. If they are not interested there are hundreds of other sources competing for their attention. Mainstream media caters to viewers of the most indiscriminate kind, while the alternative distribution networks that he mentions are usually viewed by more receptive viewers. If one is really interested in being more mainstream it would probably, realistically mean altering one’s work, and I don’t think the author would want to do that. All that being said, I found his ideas about creating more vital forms of television interesting and compelling.

Drastic events in life can shape and change a person’s goals. This is exactly what occurred in the life of Gregg Bordowitz. In Operative Assumption, Bordowitz explores video as a medium to use, for example, as a way to organize and communicate the AIDS epidemic with the world. He explains that there exist two productions of television: production of commercial television and community-based production of television. The former made for and by the mainstream, making it the dominant television, while the latter is made by disenfranchised groups, which are much less popular than the former. For the disenfranchised groups to gain more recognition, they must challenge themselves to band together and become more active. Bordowitz’s own experiences with the HIV virus drive his motives because he is a part of the “disenfranchised” group. He believes that video can be used in more possibilities than people have projected, beyond that of simple entertainment and commercialism. But, at the same time, he believes that television should not be trusted completely. There is more than meets the eyes. Utilize television to improve and expand on the goals of a group, because “a community creates itself as it represents itself,” but at the same time, it can have meanings behind the scenes, so pick out what is important and ignore the rest. This is a valid argument as television can be a powerful tool when used correctly. The medium can motive viewers to stand for a cause, or they can choose to read the ideas carefully and ignore them. Bordowtiz second half of this work seems to be a view on his work and his future as an AIDS activist filmmaker. He looks back to why he started the subject of AIDS and what the reason for his fate is. He concludes that there is no reason, but it is simply an unfortunate event he stumbled upon. There is no reason, but there is meaning. He proposes his new direction of ideas and questions the lack of government action on the HIV disease. I definitely think that his point is valid that something needs to be done about AIDS, although it’s not like there aren’t people out there working night and day on a cure. Bordowitz then proposes his next project and contemplates his next direction. Borowitz has good intentions with his videos and the drive for it as part of the disenfranchised community. Television as a medium is much stronger than anyone can predict and we should always be on the look out for what’s there and not.

In “Operative Assumptions”, Greg Bordowitz concentrated on exploring the differences and similarities between video for the mainstream and that for the disenfranchised. Bordowitz saw most commercial television as a way to “dominate the leisure time of its audience in order to sell products, to engender a public of consumers”. But he realized that there was a much greater potential for the video medium as a way to spread the messages of the disenfranchised, a new way in which to be an effective activist. He saw himself as an “activist videomaker”. His ideas about the need of the disenfranchised community to be represented and given a voice to seem to be partially (if not greatly) motivated by his own positive HIV status and thus inclusion in that group of the underrepresented. Still, his arguments seem to me to be valid. It seems that there might be a greater use for the powerful medium of video than simply entertainment, capitalism, or even just aesthetics. Bordowitz is exploring this as a tool of education and activism, playing an important role in our daily lives and decision-making. Putting the video on television exploits it as a tool used for perhaps the furthering of the public. Bordowitz also states that we should not trust technology, including television; imploring us to look beyond what is shown on the screen. What is shown has been manipulated to bring about a certain response in the viewer. Therefore, it is necessary to filter out only what you deem worthy to retain in your sphere of knowledge, and “read between the lines” of what you are being inundated with. Another principle of making television that Bordowitz mentions is that “the knowledge that one may die gives life its value” and that there are always things that are beyond his control. The first is an enigmatic statement referring to the fact perhaps, that because we each have so little time, it is necessary to focus on the things that are important. Therefore, videos should made that are of great significance perhaps to a certain cause or group of people. I agree with the overall morality and principles of this literature, but also think that this is a medium that needs to be explored and experimented with further, even if in non socially activist means. If we continue to explore this technology and all the ways in which it can be varied, we can perhaps then put these new findings to use in some sort of socially beneficial way.