John Grierson (1898-1972), The Art of Making Quality Content

John Grierson (1898-1972) was an icon well ahead of his time. Today's TV personality are usually described according to their respective roles. But Grierson was an epitome of several roles and personalities melted into one. He was a producer, media manager, director, commentator, critic, content producer and many more. Today, Grierson would have to be cloned. But it is not so much of the multiple hats that he wore that was most resonating. There were three core components of his personality that is profound and worth reflecting on:

1. His desires for Quality Content
2. His realisatin of the role that Quality Collaboration brought to quality content development
3. His quest for Equitable Quality Content Distribution mechanism

Quality Content
Though Grierson's focus was to bring content to the homes of people as opposed to ordinary media delivery mechanism which, in his day, used theaters and public arenas, he felt a responsibility towards his viewers. A responsibility to produce quality materials that would be enlightening, informative and of educational value. Grierson used his role in media to advance the courses of positive propaganda. While he sees the TV (medium) as “an instrument of domestic ease,” he would still use the same medium to distribute content to his viewers. The difference – the quality of the content that he produces. TV should not be about entertainment only, as it was the order of his day, but one in which real life situations and realities could be brought into the homes of people. It is as if to say that while this could be an instrument of domestic ease, why dont we make the most use of it? Grierson recognised the need, the desires of viewers for quality content, information and not just entertainment, better than what they were used to. This is visible from the focus of his documentaries, everyday people – miners, soldiers, female soldiers; from the angle of his camera shots, the close ups of axe-picking, gold-digging miners; from the voices of his narrators – which spelled reality in visible and vivid terms. These were brought into the rooms of his audiences. Grierson sees art as, “not a minor but a hammer.” His reference here reminds me of affordances – the use of the right tool for the right job. It was as if to say that it is only when you have a better understanding of the tool and its process of use that you can better deliver results with its application. The quest for quality content production led Grierson to a better understanding of documentary production and its process. This same quest for quality content will take Grierson to India to understand the principles of birth control; or the life interview format which brought commentaries by everyday people, from their living rooms, out to the homes of others. Grierson's perception of quality content was the ability to use TV as an instrument of “making peace as exciting as war.” An instrument to advance the quality of life of the viewers which he ever so brilliantly targeted.

Quality Collaboration
Grierson saw collaboration, not as a limitation of his abilities but as an extension of his skills towards quality content production. Grierson did not know animation but recognized the power animation brought to quality content. He would utilize the skills of Norman McLaren to bring alive the positive values of war propaganda; or Lorne Green's baritone “voice of doom” to give weight to his narratives. Grierson explored and pushed voice, video and animation to the limits. He would be intrigued now to see how this same principles have affected film production today. The Avatar (the movie), Pixar studios, Disney are a reflection of some of the possible outcomes of quality collaborations.


Quality Distribution
The distribution of content could make or mar any production. Grierson recognizes this and ensures that his content reaches both the elite and and the people on the street. He will distribute his content, not only on TV but would utilise the train station, streets to challenge traditional forms of distribution. By doing this, Grierson cut out the middle man in the content distribution process and strove to reach the most audience. His production would be most effective if he could bring it home to more people beyond the means and ways in which content was distributed in his day. Such realization would lead to a new level of quality content distribution besides the traditional studio-home broadcast model. It was as if he challenged the distribution model of his day, to say that, though it [TV distribution] achieved the objectives of meeting certain target audiences, it fell way short of the larger audience for which such TV production would be most effective. Similar to the way peer-to-peer (p2p) distribution mechanisms have challenged today's media industry. With the advent of viral videos and open media distribution platforms such as youtube, Grierson will be pleased that content can reach anyone but will be displeased at the quality of the content that is actually being distributed. The sweet and sour forms of content distribution today may be charting new courses in ways by which content could be more pervasive and most effectively distributed. This has remained true for most ground breaking technology deployment which would commence with fanfare, chaos and completely unregulated vigor but would eventually lead to innovation. P2P has challenged distribution mechanisms but have led to innovation in terms which are common to us now such as video on demand. For that Grierson will be happy.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave – Technology? What Technology?

My initial forage into philosophy takes me down Plato's lane, to seek understanding of his future foresight in describing what did not exist in his day. Perhaps this hindsight would provide direction for the future; define tomorrow, what today may be completely senseless. Perhaps, Plato's future is a microchip embedded in the head that mathematically analyses images it receives through the human eye and translates its meaning to the human brain in a screen like image only visible to the enlightened human brain. Sort of like a mathematical/mechanical device that takes over the natural sensory functions that happens when images are translated between the retina and the brain. Perhaps Plato was talking about a higher knowledge not now conceivable, but such as could only be translated limited by our current understanding, sight. Perhaps we are the prisoners in the cave even though we may seem more enlightened than others. Perhaps there are levels of prisoners, and what we do not quite see from Plato's allegory is the various levels of closeness or nearness the prisoners were to the tunnel of light. Or does Plato just describes two levels of insight. You either know or you dont! And that there is no in-betweens?

“Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance...” Was he talking about rear projection systems1 for a flat panel screen? Or some form of overhead projection like in the movies? Whatever the projection, the images displayed were large enough for all the prisoners to see. They did not peer into a small box. And the happenings behind them, the objects that cast the shadows on the screen, perhaps this was the beginning of reality TV. “Spontaneous multimedia.” Indeed, we see certain forms of it in Youtube and other user generated content sites. Plato talks about, “...see[ing] anything but the shadows...” Perhaps the shadows reflect technology's pseudonyms, pseudo-names, and the pseudonymous nature that characterizes the TV, Internet and the media of today. Maybe, “...the prison had an echo which came from the other side” reflected today's surround sound technology2. And perhaps surround and future sound would actually be generated by a microchip embedded in our heads connected to an FM (or whatever future) signal transmission mode, connected (or not) to the source of the sound.

And when the prisoner is turned towards the light, Plato thinks they are released “...and disabused of their error.” An appropriate analogy to Norman McLaren's “Opening speech.” Was the microphone an error? Was the realignment and refocusing towards the screen a release from prison? Does the migration from one technology towards another emancipate and liberate from one restrictive state? Perhaps today's computers are a “prison state” of some future technology just like McLaren's microphone.

“And if he is compelled to look straight at the light...” What compels us? Or what would? Compulsion, synonymous with a single option choice. “Take it or leave it. Sink or swim.” Is this what emerging technologies would tell us? For how long can we manage without them? How long would the policies against technology use in schools, for instance, remain with us? Would we need to be compelled by the itinerant need or would necessity compel us? And would such compulsion actually cause us pain? Pain from letting go of our comfort zones – such as compulsive use of miniature screens (mobile devices) for large flat panels? Or flat panel embedded on the palm of our hands or behind our retinas to replay pre-recorded scenes? Pain caused by the invasion of our privacy. Perhaps the forceful compulsion to see 'light' or the momentary blindness to reality is but itself another level of 'imprisonment'. And that we are more imprisoned by technology now than they were a couple of years, a decade, a century ago. And that true liberation actually lie with seeing true light. And what is true light, if prisoners are only 'prisoners in stages'?

ICTs as a Tool and a Means to an End

I have been in civil society circles for sometime and one of my greatest arguments, indeed, my greatest worries is the misconception that pushes ICTs as a tool. It is not uncommon to hear statements like, "ICTs for governance" or translated, eGovernance; ICTs for Education; ICTs for Development - the field of development work we all currently engage in. The challenge of definition makes it hard for a proponent of technology solutions to culture and society to pass meaning and influence perceptions of the true meaning of ICTs to custodians and decision makers of society. For instance, you would hear the statement, "mainstream ICTs into gender or governance, or HIV/AIDs", etc which but gives the often myopic and simplistic meaning to ICTs, hence the short changed definition of ICTs as a tool.

Of course, ICTs can be seen as a tool if the definitions of ICTs remain the way they are. D. Hlinka (2008) argues that it is more than a tool. This low level definition is usually attributed to ICTs for the following reasons:

1. The lumping of information AND communication together to describe technology
2. The assuming understanding that technology is only a medium without the necessary comprehension of the entire ecosystem (source, target, medium, content, D. Hlinka (2008) that makes up the ecosystem).

So, where does this limiting definition of ICTs come from, especially within the civil society circles? Could it be an attempt at understanding how best to effectively carry out CSO activities, objectives, goals and the breakdown of measurable indicators by which CSO work will become more visible (ie the number of computers installed in a project)? Or is it that ICTs are already an integral and inseparable part of civil society activism in a way that attempting to understand it creates a limiting definition -- as a tool? Either way, it currently has a limiting focus and that must change for us to effectively carry out civil society development type work. Whether in the purely ICTs area or in what may seem to be any other area in which our now brainwhased traditional understanding would seek to separate it.

ICTs go beyond just being a tool but an integral part of our day to day workings. The TVs, cellphones, radios, pens, watches, shoes, clothes, we put on have a bit of technology to them or rather, are technology in themselves. It becomes difficult to separate them from the core undertakings we may be engaged with.

Another definition that baffles me is one that defines ICTs as a, "means to an end" and not an end in itself.

My simple argument to this has been the simple fact that the designers of goals and objectives such as the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) did not see the integral benefits of ICTs to the other MDGs and have thus led to the creation of a definition that separates ICTs from objectives and goals, creating a definition that will seek an implementation of a 'tool' that brings about the achievement of that particular goal. Recent adjustments to these shortcoming, especially within CSOs has led to the adoption of ICTs as a tool to achieving some, if not all of the MDGs.

Perhaps it is the fact that ICTs can 'easily' be achieved that makes it a goal less 'sexy' for clear cut definitions. Easily, because, goals are set in what we may traditionally call technology and such goals are achieved compared to goals and objectives in other 'non' technical fields that may require the stability of other social and external factors, etc. The rapid implementation and achievement of technology goals makes it th more less challenging for proponents of society's solutions who think a solution may be very complex for it to achieve the status of an endeavor worth carrying out. It is this 'difficult' definition of goals and objectives and when applied to the field of ICTs that makes it hard for a more integral and better definition of ICTs.

I have not attempted to dissect, the acronym, ICTs, for D. Hlinka (2008) did a better job of it. I have used ICTs in its lay sense, perhaps that by so doing it would appeal to the readership and would at least bring a semblance of understanding to what the reader may already be used to.


---
D. Hlinka(2008), A Conceptual and Definitional Focus of the Meaning of Educational Technology in the 21st Century.

Norman McLaren - Welcome

I will attempt to describe McLaren based on the first seven minutes of his film, "Welcome" that I saw today. I have not looked at any reference, I have not googled him up before commenting on this work. In fact, I do not know if the name of the film is actually "Welcome!" I have simply decided to do this so I can evaluate my understanding of McLaren's work as I go through my study. Perhaps I can get to understand McLaren as a proponent of technology use, back in the day. Perhaps I will see technology now and in the future if I could see what McLaren saw when he created the film. Then I will come back and correct my perceptions, ...ah perceptions! The Innis Mode! I cannot bask in a point of view but to seek a deeper and greater understanding and knowledge as I dissect "smaller pieces" of McLaren's work to gain insight into how they interrelate with themselves back then, connect with today's technology and what understanding and insights this gives me into understanding future technology.

McLaren spoke of technology in "Welcome" as inappropriate - the medium by which you pass a passionate message may not necessarily be the best tool to do so. Technology as unsuitable and non dominant in telling "how much" (quantity) and "how much" (quality) one can actually convey. Technology may be limiting but also enabling at the same time. Technology may not be as complex as we make it to be. It may also not be sufficient to do what we intend to as we patch it up with all sorts of inappropriate solutions and try to make it work. On the overall, it may lead to a better technology but we may never be able to discover that until we have failed at some previous attempt at appropriating technology. Technology grows and becomes better when we make several attempts at it. A nip here, a tweak there and we may arrive at 'a' solution. Yet, that could be the basis of something more appropriate to come - a tip of the iceberg. McLaren says, there is no end to technology as it constantly evolves and calls for invention. There is no end to evolution and so will we need to appropriate technology and evolve along side it.

Now I will come back again, revisit this post and hope that what I think about McLaren at first sight remains what he truly was!