“Crowdsourcing and outsourcing: the impact
of online funding and distribution on the documentary film industry in the UK”
by Inge Ejbye Sørensen
publisched in “Media, Culture and Society” (2012 34: 726), IF 1.4
The main research question proposed in the article: How do schemes of
online funding and distribution of documentaries impact on the traditional models
of documentary production?
Sorensen argues that schemes of online funding and distribution have
become attractive for documentary producers due to the decline and polarization
of documentary budgets in the UK. Researcher examines history of trends in
documentary funding in Britain and cases of documentaries online funding using both
quantative methods (analysis of annual reports and statistics from TV stations,
government, and regulators) and qualitive methods (interviews with documentary
producers and commissioners).
Theoretical basis of the current study is concepts of Benkler
(networking public sphere and its participatory potential) and Bourdieu (the
distinction to the equation, supported by broadcasters in this context).
Key findings: 1) reported a rise in number of
documentary films financed online, 2) described online financing models based
on micro-financing (crowdfunding) and investment in shares, 3) changed the
collaboration between filmmakers and broadcasters: the former avoid editorial control and retain copyrights, the
latter benefit from access to ready-made documentaries, which they could
commission without any risks of production.
According to the study accessible technology of online funding has
lowered the entry barriers for film creators. Nevertheless author comes to main
conclusion that the gatekeeping mechanisms are still in place. Sørensen says: “Gatekeeping
can no longer be seen as a concept confined to an institutional context”. I
think the latter notice is interesting and represents the possibility of
prospective research of non-industrial barriers at the film production markets.
----
The core idea of Russell's theory is differentiation
of 2 types of knowledge: knowledge of things and knowledge of truth. Those two
types refer to the two meanings of the word "to know": 1) to know
smth from immediate experience, i.e. by
our senses; 2) to have an opinion about smth. The second type of knowledge
described by Russell as "judgments" ("the sense which applies to
our beliefs and convictions”, Chapter 4).
Russell describes knowledge of things
distinguished to knowledge by acquaintance
and knowledge by description. The
former is independent from the knowledge of truth, and conversely the latter is
always based on it. According to Russell, knowledge by acquaintance is obtained
from the "sense data" (“things that are immediately known in
sensation“, Chapter 1). The immediate sense-data extended by the acquaintance
by memory (memory as a source of sense-data collected in the past) and acquaintance
by introspection (self-consciousness as a source of knowledge about the
different states of consciousness).
According to Russell the physical objects and
the consciousness of other people belong to those subjects that cannot be known
by acquaintance, but only by description. Russell
defines the “definite description” as “phrase of the form 'the so-and-so' (in
the singular)” in opposition to 'ambiguous' description described by a phrase
of the form 'a so-and-so' (Chapter 5). Definite descriptions are used to
describe such characteristics of object which only refer to this particular
object.
In his theory of knowledge of truth
Russell uses the concept of fact: the statement is true if it corresponds to
the fact. Generally we can understand knowledge as something that applies to
reality, which could be seen as collection of facts. Then any true statement
means that we know some fact. But Russell prefers to talk about only
"knowledge of true" (not "knowledge of facts"), so he does
not define the specific relations between terms "true",
"fact" and "knowledge".
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий