- Contribution and collaboration – My contribution to the Seminars took place in the context of the Steering Committee, of which I was a part of. This committee helped organise all of the events, and I believed I worked really well with the rest of my group for this. There were often differing opinions, but I was able to smooth over a lot of them and help us all come to a conclusion.
I also actively contributed to each of the weeks (except Radio, as I was shooting my short film that day) by being a 'social media resource', so to speak, and offering my service to each group. I was always able to be contacted during the week, and many did contact me. As a steering committee, we delegated ourselves between the groups, so we could be an 'official' point of call, but people would still speak to any of us when they saw us at uni, etc. I also helped people come up with and refine their ideas for how to approach seminars.
- In terms of social media, I really took the lead in setting up the different social media channels and using them constantly. This worked really well with Tom being an overall Project Manager and Dom having a heavy focus on graphics, design and the website. Sara also was there to contact the groups and keep in touch with them, especially with the content needed before the seminar.
- Proactive Learning - All of my learning for this was proactive. I keep myself updated on whatever was happening in social media, to be able to implement strategies and techniques into the marketing of it. Every week, I tried to update my technique to get more people engaged with the series. I also had to think 'outside the box' in how I would approach the promotion of the event, what was acceptable to say online and what wasn't. I also actively taught others these skills.
- Participation – I heavily participated in each seminar, as not only was I a point of contact for the planning of them but also made my self available to live tweet. I believe this was an invaluable resource that really 'gave' back to what we were doing and also became an important record. It also helped us to become trending in Australia with #dodigital at the Dawn of the Digital seminar, which was really positive. I also helped organise the website zombie promo video, making fake blood, buying makeup and ingredients, helping to make up the actors and acting in it myself.
- Connections & intersections – The seminars were incredibly valuable and allowed us to connect with media professionals, but for me the real value lay in being able to lay down a digital and social media strategy. It was a great opportunity for me to be able to work on such a large scale event and do relatively well, and I can use this experience as part of my portfolio for working with social media in the future, as a thing that will hopefully set me apart from other candidates.
Grade: I give myself a HD of 97. Although I wasn't perfect in other areas of media industries, I was quite invested in this project, and had to sustain this over all of the weeks where others (who were not in the steering committee) didn't have to.
It was clear that this was going to be an amazing seminar from the way it was packed, with people queuing out the door for it. I feel that the main pull for this was the inclusion of John Safran in the panel, and the way he shared the event on his Facebook page and Twitter, as I saw acquaintances there who didn't go to RMIT and found out about it through him. The organisers managed this very well and it ran efficiently, however I feel like it would have been a smart move to have the students come down earlier, as I saw some Media Industries students scrabbling in the back for a seat. (I'm pretty sure scrabbling is not a word but I feel like it sums up what I'm trying to say).
This group also decided not to use Twitter for Q&A, which was entirely up to them but I feel like they may have missed a great opportunity, especially in the way that they could have collected questions even before the event. However, at the same time I can see how this approach may have privileged Safran over the other guests, and so I think it was good that they didn't because the others had some very useful insights.
It would be interesting to see how many of the 'external' audience members actually came back for later seminars, because we may have missed an important marketing opportunity there by not having flyers for later weeks to give out.
All in all this group did a wonderful job of putting the event together, and it was amazing to be a part of it.
So building on from my livetweeting of the event (mostly from the @PYBRMIT twitter account, a lot of which is documented through our Storify) where I documented everything that happened, I thought I'd briefly build on this by discussing some of my personal impressions of the event.
I think this group did an excellent job of running a seminar first off the bat, and they have to be given credit for that. All other groups had an established format of what to do, how to do it, and what to submit at the end - not Filmenstein. They also came up with a collection of amazing guests for the seminar (although, to be fair, most people were more excited about Glendyn Ivin directing Puberty Blues, the television show).
The concept itself was a little tricky for me to get my head around. I could see what they were trying to do - have a script, and see it completed from beginning to end, but I think the guests struggled with this as the script was (deliberately) bad. It was an interesting attempt at engaging interest for the seminar, however in my point of view they would have been slightly better off skipping that and simply talking about the process, without this 'movie' to refer to. It did provide some context, but it was also confusing.
Other than that, this seminar ran phenomenally well. I was surprised at how many unfamiliar faces crept in to the audience. The success of this seminar also helped buoy the next few weeks, especially in peaking interest among the second years, so this was a very positive thing.
“Assumption is the mother of all f--k ups. Everything that can go wrong will go wrong”.
Franziska Wagenfeld, Independent Producer
The advanced skills workshop we had with Franziska was one of the most informative sessions I have attended to date. She was informative, frank, and knowledgable. What she also was, however, was inspirational. The way she moved, the way she spoke, the way she addressed us – every inch of her being indicated that she was a woman in control of her destiny. I liked the way she addressed us, I liked what she had to say, and I even liked that she scolded me for showing up quite late (I had a Room With A View RRR radio show clash). She was authoritative, yet gentle, and an inspiration for any of us wanting to be producers. It was refreshing, and nice, and made me take even more note of the things she had to say.
One of the biggest lessons that was drilled into us in this session was to never assume anything. By making a film, one has to be prepared for all sorts of things to go wrong. Unfortunately, with filmmaking the ‘buck’ has to stop somewhere, and everything that goes wrong is ultimately the producer’s responsibility. This taught me a lot about accountability and the role I will need to take in the creation of our short film. I always felt that the reason that my Film-TV 1 film was not successful was that I wasn’t as assertive as I should have been in the very beginning – I was just learning, after all. Franziska’s comments brought to light the cold hard fact that I think we all already knew, but sometimes refuse to acknowledge: when things go well, it’s to the credit of the director, cast and crew, but when things go wrong, it all comes down to the producer. This knowledge is vital in the creation of any small production, and it’s important that everyone knows it. There will be times in the production of this film where I will be forced to ‘put my foot down’, to follow my own gut feelings and descisions, and to disappoint other people by turning down their ideas or making certain executive decisions. However, this is something necessary that needs to happen for the growth of the project. As Franziska said, every element of filmmaking is creative, and producing is about more than just balancing books. The decisions I make about the viability of the production (or specific idea) will definitely creatively impact the film, artistic decision or not. Hopefully we will have such a smooth working dynamic that not too many problems will arise. However, I have to be willing to sometimes say ‘no’ for the sake of the film, and hope that the rest of the crew will eventually respect that.
I also took a lot of note about the organizational methods she employed in order to keep everything running smoothly. After the writer has written the script, it needs to be broken up into one scene per page (even if the scene is only a sentence long). This is so it is easy to add amendments by simply adding or swapping a page. She also said to print any new ‘edition’ of changes on a differently coloured paper, so it’s easy to see if everyone is on the ‘same page’ or not when going through the script together, as having an old version of the script could lead to someone making a huge mistake. Another colour-coded idea was to go through the script and mark different elements with different colours – one for location, one for art department, and one for wardrobe. In this way, you can easily distribute information to the relevant people, and also make sure that nothing crucial is forgotten. Everything that is in the script HAS to be put down onto the call sheet, under the responsibility of each separate department. Even though we may not have that many ‘separate’ departments in our small production, I think it would still be useful to employ this method as a good practice and a great way to keep track.
Finally, one of the most important things she shared with us was to physically express gratitude and send thank-you cards, with everyone’s signatures, to anyone who gave you anything for free or assisted you in any way. Franziska said gratitude was essential as it built positive relationships, and also meant that the people who helped you were more likely to help other filmmakers, creating a community that continued to share and help each other rather than cutting people off due to bad experiences. This message was important for me because I realised that my actions could not only affect my future networking but also impact everyone else in my field, so it was important to be respectful and careful in asking favours and how we behaved.
All in all it was a fantastic session, and I will be definitely taking more advice from professionals in the future as I have so much to learn!
Another short film I viewed as part of the Vimeo Staff Picks was "Waiting For The End Of The World" - a film that serves as a sharp contrast to The Duel At Blood Creek due to its emphasis on beautiful, compelling shots around an otherwise dry storyline. Normally, I am not that much of a fan of DSLR shots in films as I think it often makes things appear too much larger than life, which sometimes can serve as a distraction. However, here it is exactly what the film needs, and works absolutely beautifully.
The storyline simply follows Petr, a supermarket employee who spends every night doing the monotonous night shift. He seems to be absolutely alone in his life - people don't notice when if he's late, or speak to him at all, and he seems to do nothing except sleep during the day and work alone in the store at night, with an hours break spent staring at a television that doesn't work.
What really struck me about this film is that it is a film where nothing actually really happens, yet it is so completely riveting. After watching it a few times, I started thinking about the way in which we were presented scripts in class - the way the writers pitched their ideas to us, the way we pondered which would make the 'best' film. Would any of them be so audacious as to pitch a script that could be construed as being about nothing? Would any of us have picked them if they did? This film provides no resolution, no happy ending, no horrible event that provides some sort of impact, and yet it still works. It thrives on making something quite ordinary (or even less than ordinary, depressingly mundane) into something compelling, moving and beautiful. On analysis, perhaps it is this key fact that draws the viewer in so deeply: the fact that the subject matter is LESS than ordinary. It's not everyday life - it's dark, depressing, hopeless, and these feelings are communicated to the viewer from the title itself, and beyond.
Something that is does incorporate (which is very traditional) is the use of repetition - the scenes where he is counting down to the end of his shift are some of the most suspenseful. There's something about the countdown to zero that communicates the feeling of waiting for a bomb to go off, and this is heightened by the way the viewer never gets to really relate to Petr. We are always held away from him at arms length, unable to understand why he lives a life so bleak and alone, and wondering what is wrong with him - wondering if he will snap. The beauty of this film lies in the way it builds up suspense but leaves us hanging. There are so many questions left unanswered and uncommunicated, and that is okay. As filmmakers I think we spend so much time trying to make sure that everything is clarified, that everything is established and 'makes sense', and we forget that sometimes the biggest allure lies in mystery.
Regardless of what 'type' of film we make, I will definitely get the rest of my group to watch this film before heading into preproduction because the cinematography and direction are absolutely superb. The film is shot with a Canon 5D Mark II, which I think is the type of camera we were considering using. I've mentioned previously that I am sometimes apprehensive about using DSLRs for films, but this is done in such a spectacular way. The timing of each shot is so precise - not too short or too long, but the exactly right amount of time. I also love the lighting, especially the use of alternative light sources such as the flickering from the broken television. On top of all this though, what really makes this film stand out is the collation of extremely interesting shots. The filmmakers here have been experimental in their camera placements - from on the floor to behind bottles, but each shot works and serves to alienate the viewer even more while keeping them enthralled.
In short, this film was nothing like I was expecting, but I am so glad to have seen it. It changed my views on so many different elements, and I am excited to try and incorporate some of these in my own work.
As we are currently in the process of starting pre-production for our short film next semester, our tutors thought it would be a good idea for us to look at some other short films out there. This process has been fantastic - not only have I started to think about the different elements needed to make a successful film, but also have started (once again) looking outside my direct circle of influences and searching for new and inspiring work. I think one of the dangers in being in a media course is that you get into it because you're so influenced by work that is being produced by people you don't know, but then sometimes can get trapped with just working off each other, in a way. I decided to explore Vimeo - an arena that I hadn't really searched before - and was pleasantly rewarded by coming across this video in the Staff Pick's section: The Duel at Blood Creek.
One of the most important characteristics of this film was its ability to directly transport the viewer to a different time and place (and then back again, with a twist at the end). The opening shots are of vital importance as they really help establish the scene: with two men dressed in such a way walking across the countryside, with one admonishing the other, we see so much even before the characters start talking. We assume this film is set sometime long ago, perhaps in the 19th Century, and probably in England due to the landscape. From this, we can also see that one of the characters is somewhat important, probably with a far bit of money due to his outfit, and the other is his servant. The music also adds to the positioning of the viewer in terms of context - one is able to establish 'time and place' with a certain amount of accuracy (or so one is led to believe) by the soaring sort of instrumental composition also used in other productions that are based around that time: reminiscent of any Austen novel adaptation, for example.
Besides this opening section, the rest of the film is so heavily carried by the script - something I found very important, as a lover of dialogue. Emotions are conveyed through expression and tone, but always clearly in the words themselves. In fact, without such dialogue, and such continued and varied 'plot twists', this particular film would not be as half as entertaining. The exasperation felt by Lord Orsbury (spelling may be incorrect) and the rest of the characters, as well of the trappings of proprietary relevant to the time, with the expression of honour and pride, would not have been communicated as effectively if the film was silent. In fact, it is the shouted phrase "HE F--KED MY WIFE", breaking out over all the petty squabbling, that shakes both the audience and the rest of the characters. I personally don't think I have heard a curse word used as effectively in a film for a long time - it momentarily shattered some of the societal expectations of the time and place, but conveyed such a depth of emotion and drew everyone in, in stunned silence.
Although the dialogue of this film is one of its greatest strengths, it is also completely essential in terms of the suspension of disbelief. This may simply be my opinion as a prospective filmmaker, but although I appreciate the beauty displayed in many of the DSLR shots many edits don't seem to 'gel' well with me. Also, in some of the dialogue scenes, the line of sight is not correctly positioned so it doesn't really look like the men are looking at each other or in the same direction. I'm not sure if it was in the timing, or perhaps just the angle of shots that were being cut between, but I wasn't a big fan of the editing in this film at all. However, this is still an outstanding film, winning various awards (Audience Choice Award DC Shorts Film Festival 2011, Audience Award Vancouver DSLR Film Festival 2010, Best Film Judges Choice Iron Mule Film Festival 2011) showing that audiences are willing to forgive slightly jarring edits if there is a compelling storyline to carry them through. This is a positive when it comes to making a short film as a student, because it is easy to feel like the work you have produced isn't good enough to enter into festivals or to show because it's not 'perfect'. The Duel at Blood Creek isn't perfect, but it is a spectacular film (with a twist that surprised me so much that I even watched it again with my grandmother on one of my repeated viewings of it). It goes to show that script selection can be vital, as it can really improve the quality of the film (and may be the reason why your little flaws are forgiven!)
Before I start this, I'd like to share the two most important things this course has taught me this semester: honesty, and the value of personality.
I've done a lot in terms of proactive research for this course, and this is because I picked a topic that was directly in line with what I personally wanted to work on for the future. Youth Radio in the Digital Age was a topic that I was extremely interested in because I wish to work in the online (convergence media) components of Radio in the future - a path I have been experimenting with this year as I joined SYN's brand new Online Team as an Online Editor. I’ve actually been using this research to inform the directions taken by the Online Team as much as I have used ideas put forward in SYN’s Vision Meetings as a springboard for new research directions.
So, although I’ve arguably been doing quite a lot of practical, hands-on stuff, what I haven’t done is a lot of blogging about it.
This is clearly my own fault, and I really should have done it (considering it was mentioned that this would happen, and that we would be marked on it!) however at this point in time there’s not much that I can do to rectify this fact. I could create posts about things that I DID do at the time and then backdate them, but I won’t be able to do that kind of thing in the ‘real world’, so what kind of practice is that?
I can see what blogging can achieve, especially for individual projects: it is a record that you’ve actually done what you’ve said you’ve done, and it also lets you ‘publish’ your ideas so that others can reference them and (hopefully) not create exactly the same thing at the same time. However, all my work hasn’t been done alone – it’s often been in group contexts (either with Jae and Verity) or with the SYN Online Team, where individual roles I undertook were reported back to the rest of the team on a regular basis. (Unfortunately, to link to this information would be a breach of privacy in my opinion, but if you need back up for the marks I am giving myself I can do this in person.
Now, moving on to an evaluation of each of the criteria:
Initially, I think I came up with a lot of great ideas and also was very enthusiastic about approaches we could take and directions in which we could go. I think I played quite a distinct role in the initial distribution of tasks, allocating them between different people. However, as Verity began to take charge of this I let go, as I was comfortable with her leading us.
I felt confident in doing this project as I had external ties to information, and by engaging with those SYN projects (as well as exposure to different radio issues) I got to constantly test and reformulate my ideas. However, my team members had quite a different approach than I did when it came to producing content and just because ideas were ‘bubbling away’ in my head and not on the site, it appeared as if I was actually not doing any work.
In the end I feel like I contributed quite an even share of the workload, writing about a third of the words online. I’ve actually never worked in a project before where someone else has ‘lead’ so working with someone else’s style was quite unusual for me. In the end I accepted that because of our different approaches, Verity doing more work did not necessarily mean that I wasn’t doing my fair share. For once I was a ‘follower’ group member rather than a ‘leader’, which was an important experience to have. However, I also was constantly experimenting with new ways to be creative and make our presentation more innovative, which I think was essential given our subject matter - learning to adapt, evolve, change and keep up!
I did learn quire a lot about research through this project and also the way that I undertook concepts and built on ideas. I actually learnt a lot about different approaches to radio by stumbling upon and then engaging with the work of Mark Ramsey and becoming quite a fan of his methodology and research approach. I realised through doing this that I much preferred reading information that was written in the first person, in a way in which you could see the writer’s personality coming through, rather than formal academic writing that we had chosen to do our report in. This was a big problem for me as although I could talk freely about ideas I wanted to present in a ‘casual’ way, actually finding the formal words and tone for my argument was much more difficult. The process was interesting – there was a lot of blank staring at computer screens until I took a pencil and dashed down dot points of everything I wanted to say, and then ‘formalised’ it while typing it up.
I also progressed a lot in my knowledge about the topic and the way that I began to apply my research to real-life situations. For example, when it was brought to my attention that the Naughty Rude show on SYN had stopped podcasting, I got in contact with the Executive Producer and passed on my knowledge of how important online components were, teaching her how to upload podcasts and video to the site. In a similar way, I also got the opportunity to work with a local musician throughout the semester, and taught her some of the social media skills we listed as ‘essential’. By seeing how she was able to grow and interact with this knowledge, I could be more certain that the claims I was making in our report were actually substantiated.
There were many different strategies that we implemented during this project. The collaborative strategies were probably the hardest to maintain, as although we all divided up the workload I believe that Verity didn’t have much faith in the fact that I was going to commit myself to the project or finish my section, as I did break my word quite a few times (being caught up with different projects). Our communication was fantastic other than that, as we talked through our Facebook group, through text and also through shared Google Docs (as well as the website itself).
A personal research strategy I undertook was to look up the names of people who had written articles and see if I could find them on social media (as you would assume people who worked with digital content for a living would be online-savvy). I found that through doing this, I could personally analyse the difference between the public and the professional on Twitter while also using each individual as a gateway to further links and greater pools of information, from things they had shared or responded to.
In terms of writing the report itself, I felt intimidated by the word count and actually found it easier to write smaller paragraphs in a different document and then paste it in to the website. The site writtenkitten.net was particularly inspiring as it gives you a new picture of a kitten as a reward after you’ve written a certain amount of words. Although this might seem quite basic, it means that you can keep writing and not worry too much about looking at the word count (in fact, I’m using it right now).
One of the problems we had was being unable to get the exclusive interviews we wanted. This was because commercial station managers were often either too busy, had inaccessible contact details or didn’t reply. I did get a late response from Triple J Unearthed saying they were flattered but too busy, and that I would find everything I needed to know online.
After thinking for a while about this, I decided to take this advice but use it to my advantage. There are so many broadcasters that have already been interviewed through many reputable publications, so it made sense to reference these interviews rather than trying desperately to record my own. I decided to look on the bright side – at least these transcripts were already written for me! (It took me ages to write up the Andy Lynch interview.)
Another problem I faced was the stresses in my own life and my tendency to leave things to the last minute. Unfortunately I get quite panicked and stressed when this happens, which tends to make things worse for everyone. By doing this, I was also creating unnecessary stress for my group members as they then also had to worry about my own shortcomings. This wasn’t really fair, and after communication with Verity I think I was able to convince her that I wasn’t going to let the project down and I was actually going to come through in the end. Through this I learnt an important lesson about doing work earlier, as leaving things to the last minute is way more stressful for group projects than it is for individual ones.
Connections and intersections:
I think this course has been invaluable in terms of what is has taught me about the industry but also about teamwork. It seems a little odd to think that I have not really been in the ‘backseat’ when it came to group work for most of my life – but that’s just the way it is. I think now I’m a lot more comfortable with being a contributor and I actually like handing over control to other people: the danger is, however, that I can then be a little bit tardy with the work that is required of me (I’d been so used to OTHER people doing that).
I’ve also learnt so much about online personas (as well as the important of creating personalized content) and now have more confidence in telling my own story, as I realize my ‘uniqueness’ allows for interesting potential as it is something not found everywhere. However, one of the most important real life applications of Media Industries was our experimentation with social networking, with the #mediaindustries hashtag that I started on presentation day becoming the second more popular trend in Australia for a little while, just by having a few different students interacting with and live tweeting the course. I know we all got a lot out of that experience (it made waiting the whole day worth a lot more than the 2 points and the biscuits!) and it also taught me that you don’t necessarily need heaps of manpower to make a splash – just certain passionate individuals who are passionate about what they are doing.
Overall grade: D
Tony Walker – head of ABC digital radio
Involved in development of something new
Started JJ (precursor of Triple J)
Radio now is no longer “just” radio, it is decidedly multiplatform
Now you need a completely different skill set – have to be able to do audio production AND multimedia content.
Spot talent, tell story, and present a story still the basis of it, values as public service broadcaster, virtues and values of good journalism, but it’s the range of skills you’ve got to use to explore what radio is.
There is one other critical factor tied up with then he came in and when he is leaving – when he came in in 1974, people at a similar level to him could come and produce content with the same skills – people 20 or 30 years older could come and do it again even if they had taken a long break and moved into management etc, now it is completely different.
In 1974 – the audience listens to radio, so did he. In management, same thing. Listened, called into talkback, that’s about it.
NOW, the audiences engage with it on multiple platforms. People engage with ABC radio content without even going NEAR an ABC radio platform – could find it somewhere else, curated by 3rd party, podcast, social media, etc. There is now no necessity for people to go to ABC properties in order to be engaged with ABC content. There are large numbers of people now LIVING in social media – whereas he doesn’t – therefore his behaviour is a long way removed from current audience’s behaviour – no longer has skill sets to go on the floor to make content and does not engage with content that the merging audiences do. Lack of attributes = becoming obsolete – time for him to move on.
Huge scale of change that’s gone on in his time.
If there’s one thing he’d recommend to us when we think about media, and how audiences are responding to it – DO NOT FOCUS ON THE TECHNOLOGY, focus on the user behaviour.
People began to start talking about ‘publics’ rather than audiences as radio interaction became more participatory – ‘users’ include both of it. Someone who interacts with content without going to ABC sources is hardly a traditional audience.
Hundreds of journalists are losing their jobs every week in the US – web impact on business model increasing failure
PHILANTHROPY – a business model more popular in US than here, somewhere where someone rich sponsors out of their interest in the public good
Guardian 3 little pigs: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/03/05/147977288/the-three-little-pigs-and-the-future-of-journalsim
Guardian put all government documents online (given to them as a ploy to be overcome by the information) and let readers go through it and find the relevant information to help them (over taxpayer scam)
Journalism as the 4th estate? New belief that the INDIVIDUAL is the new 4th estate, not the media. KONY 2012 highlights increasing self organization of individuals around issues.
The thought has always been that media organizations should generate their own original content & reporting and stand behind it with their brand – and if they have a good reputation for fair & honest journalism people will come to them.
in the last 10 years – blogging- led to the emergence of blogs as very substantial sources of good information and analysists. If you don’t go to work as a specialist you go to work as a generalist – every day with a new story, a new understanding you need to develop about an issue in order to present it coherently to people who are relying on you.
With blogging, a new range of people came into the field who were EXPERTS in certain issues, and built their reputation around this expertise.
Media organizations started to run their own blogs, pulling in opinionated journalists, but didn’t bring in anything really more substantial than other journalists.
now we are moving more and more towards curation as a form of authorship in itself – trusted people who are essentially doing the job of editors, who may select an area of interest or activity and mine deeply through that area finding as big a range of sources as they possibly can finding information around that area – curation. Finding audiences for their recommendations.
PARTICIPATION is a new driving force – done more to change media in the last 15 years than anything else. You now no longer need to be a cashed up millionare in order to found a media organization – if you’ve got the information, if you’ve got a reason for people to read you, or watch you, or listen to you, you’ll have an audience.
From the point of view of media organizations, this has been traumatic, and editorial policies have been amended on user generated content at the ABC.
Those editorial policies recognize formally the role of the audience in producing content along with us.
If everybody is living in media, making media, and distributing media everyday, from Lolcats to Kony 2012, where do media professionals fit in this?
1% of people create content, 9% edit or modify it, and 90% just watch.
Focus on the 1% - they will work with you and help you do whatever it is that you’re doing: recognize that for what it is – it’s real
The days of mass vegetation in front of TV are gone with so many other choices available – yet still, a lot of us (highly educated, skilled) are willing to while away hours sitting in front of the tv. Technology around us today not only allows us to make content but COMPELS us to do it and participate in social media.
It’s not about journalists being replaced by citizens, it’s about citizens and journalists collaborating.
THINGS THAT ENABLE PEOPLE TO COLLABORATE:
Autonomy - I did it myself
Mastery – I can do this, I am good at this.
Membership – If I don’t turn up, someone will notice
Generosity – I am helping others by doing this.
Getting started in the arts can really be difficult.
Whether you’re trying to produce an EP or an album for your band or planning to shoot an independent film, it’s extremely hard to get started without funding.
While there are definitely ‘more traditional’ ways to get funding, such as scoring a record deal, getting a grant from funding bodies or approaching wealthy investors and convincing them of your worth, the internet is now providing many with another solution, and it’s all through the power of social media.
No matter how worthy you think a cause might be, the act of forking out money can often be seen as a risky investment, as there’s no real way of knowing how much others have contributed to the cause or whether it’s actually going to go ahead. Also, not very many people like giving away something for nothing, and would be happier to ‘buy’ something if they knew they were going to get a return on it. This is where crowdfunding sites come in – to bridge the gap between uncertainty and making plans a reality.
To explain the concept of crowdfunding, it would probably be easier to use a real-life example.
The Jane Austen Argument are a Melbourne cabaret duo who are currently generating money to make their debut album through the Australian crowdfunding site pozible.com . They already had a number of fans through playing a number of gigs (including a national tour with Amanda Palmer from the Dresden Dolls) and had already independently released a few EPs, but they knew an album was going to cost a lot more money to produce. They created a Pozible page, setting the funding goal at $5000. People could pledge as much money as they wanted, from just $1 to hundreds of dollars, but the money would only come off their credit card if the $5000 goal was reached during the time limit set. This way, people could be certain that their donation was going to achieve results, and that they wouldn’t be losing money to a dead cause.
On top of this, the band offered different ‘rewards’ depending on how much was donated. For example, a donation of $15 or more would entitle you to a digital download of the album, once it was made. A donation of $30 or more would entitle you to a signed copy, while $50 would get you a signed copy plus a tour booklet memento. For a couple of hundred more dollars, rewards included a 20 minute concert over Skype, a song written especially for you, or even a private performance at your house – all yours in thanks for your hefty donation.
Novel ways of funding such as this are good as they not only generate excitement, but can be spread quite easily over the internet through the use of Facebook (an event was made that their fans were invited to) and Twitter (constant reminders were sent out to please donate), as well as fans passing on information to their friends with an easy link to their page. Also, having exciting rewards for the more expensive donations encouraged some fans to pool in money to have them play at their house, while another couple booked them for their wedding.
In this case, the Jane Austen Argument are a success story, having passed their $5000 goal and being on their way to $10,000 – enough to cover all the costs of their album. If it worked for them, there’s no reason why it couldn’t work for you – and could be a great way to get an EP recorded for your band or some money together to make a music video or short film – other artists have even used this method to pre-sell tickets for shows with the concert only happening if enough people have pledged to come. The only downside is that crowdfunding sites do take a percentage of the money donated to you as a fee, but still, the ease of getting donations and the clear transparency of the financial growth of your dream is seen by many to be worth the cost.
The Revival - Prime Minister Gorton, focused on building up cinema in Australia
Peter Weir - Important filmmaker of the revival
"In virtually all of of his films something - often quite literally someone gets lost. Innocence, idealism, and faith are the usual casualties."
Clash of cultures
DAVID GULPILIL - another perception, an experience for which there are no words, seeing something in another way.
LOST GIRLS OR CHILDREN - Implied danger of the land haunts the Australian psyche
Threat to innocence, juxtaposed with bush, influence of colonial roots? stolen generation motif