As mentioned in my post on the Kim (2007) Thesis, there was a DVD component to her work that I was previously unable to obtain. I have since found copies available at the OISE library. They consist of a few short films produced by “youth,” primarily through the Queer Youth Digital Video Project for the InsideOut Festival. The DVD also includes a series of clips from interviews with youth involved in video-making projects, agency representatives who organize such projects and government officials who fund them. These interviews provide a myriad of different perspectives on the use, function and philosophies of YVPs.
The first series of clips deals with how the term “youth,” and more specifically, “at-risk youth” is defined by the different players involved in YVP production/consumption. Young people themselves saw the term “youth” as defining a period of self-discovery. Some thought “at-risk” was a limiting label, while others felt very comfortable defining themselves as at-risk. Agencies look at these terms in relation to their funding. People involved in video-making at an agency must fit, or be made to fit, within the concepts of “youth” and “at-risk” in order for a project to get off the ground. Finally, a City of Toronto rep defined youth as a developmental stage, and a stage where those at-risk are in need of the greatest level of support. She also mentioned that the specific definition of youth changes depending on which government body is “looking at them.”
The “space” in which youth videos can or do exist is also an important issue for Kim. In the DVD, the young artists seem more concerned with the actual physical conditions of production/editing of their work. Most saw the spaces they were given as being “makeshift.” In contrast, the importance of having an “inspirational,” open space, especially one that allows for a group to work comfortably, was mentioned by one young person. Agency and government representatives, however, look more at the spaces that the young people filmed, the spaces represented in their work. A Toronto Arts Council member mentioned how many new YVPs are making “needy” neighbourhoods and TCHC apartments more visible. He saw this as an attempt to “take back” these spaces. Both youth and adults interviewed felt the mobility of video allowed for a greater use and/or representation of space (or a greater marginalization of young artists forced to work in “some corner”).
The majority of the discussions on the DVD focus on the functions of video for the various people involved. One common “reason” for the production of youth video is for festivals. Youth and agency representatives both gave this as a motivation. Some felt that this incentive creates “product-driven” model, which creates a lot of pressure to produce high-quality work that fits within the ideology of the festival. A couple people from agencies spoke about a tension between personal expression and the politics of the agency/festival/product. One particular comment that caught my attention was one agency worker suggesting that overly personal work ran the risk of being cliché, while broader, more social approaches have more originality or resonance. I wonder if this dichotomy is worth investigating, especially when comparing more personal Youtube works to the more “political” agency-produces YVPs.
The audience for YVPs was also discussed. One interviewee felt that a key function of festivals for at-risk youth artwork was to ease the audience’s liberal sense of guilt by allowing them to feel like they have some level of experience/understanding of the at-risk artists’ hardships. I don’t know if I am so cynical about the process; however, I can understand the argument. Typical forums for viewing YVPs include local or international festivals, websites, public service announcements, etc. One of the most interesting points made on the DVD regarding audiences was that often there is a very minimal viewership. One agency rep even said she had never had a request from funders to see the work they financed. Youth, on the other hand, felt that government and policy makers would be some of the most important viewers of their videos.
The first series of clips deals with how the term “youth,” and more specifically, “at-risk youth” is defined by the different players involved in YVP production/consumption. Young people themselves saw the term “youth” as defining a period of self-discovery. Some thought “at-risk” was a limiting label, while others felt very comfortable defining themselves as at-risk. Agencies look at these terms in relation to their funding. People involved in video-making at an agency must fit, or be made to fit, within the concepts of “youth” and “at-risk” in order for a project to get off the ground. Finally, a City of Toronto rep defined youth as a developmental stage, and a stage where those at-risk are in need of the greatest level of support. She also mentioned that the specific definition of youth changes depending on which government body is “looking at them.”
The “space” in which youth videos can or do exist is also an important issue for Kim. In the DVD, the young artists seem more concerned with the actual physical conditions of production/editing of their work. Most saw the spaces they were given as being “makeshift.” In contrast, the importance of having an “inspirational,” open space, especially one that allows for a group to work comfortably, was mentioned by one young person. Agency and government representatives, however, look more at the spaces that the young people filmed, the spaces represented in their work. A Toronto Arts Council member mentioned how many new YVPs are making “needy” neighbourhoods and TCHC apartments more visible. He saw this as an attempt to “take back” these spaces. Both youth and adults interviewed felt the mobility of video allowed for a greater use and/or representation of space (or a greater marginalization of young artists forced to work in “some corner”).
The majority of the discussions on the DVD focus on the functions of video for the various people involved. One common “reason” for the production of youth video is for festivals. Youth and agency representatives both gave this as a motivation. Some felt that this incentive creates “product-driven” model, which creates a lot of pressure to produce high-quality work that fits within the ideology of the festival. A couple people from agencies spoke about a tension between personal expression and the politics of the agency/festival/product. One particular comment that caught my attention was one agency worker suggesting that overly personal work ran the risk of being cliché, while broader, more social approaches have more originality or resonance. I wonder if this dichotomy is worth investigating, especially when comparing more personal Youtube works to the more “political” agency-produces YVPs.
The audience for YVPs was also discussed. One interviewee felt that a key function of festivals for at-risk youth artwork was to ease the audience’s liberal sense of guilt by allowing them to feel like they have some level of experience/understanding of the at-risk artists’ hardships. I don’t know if I am so cynical about the process; however, I can understand the argument. Typical forums for viewing YVPs include local or international festivals, websites, public service announcements, etc. One of the most interesting points made on the DVD regarding audiences was that often there is a very minimal viewership. One agency rep even said she had never had a request from funders to see the work they financed. Youth, on the other hand, felt that government and policy makers would be some of the most important viewers of their videos.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment