Video Vortex Reader II: moving images beyond YouTube

136 Video Vortex Reader II Moving Images Beyond Youtubecollection case studies137tool; a showcase and display portal rather than a substitute for offline distribution. Thus, itmay have been its positioning as a non-distributive entity that led SAW Video to be backed forthe Mediatheque over other more ‘qualified’ distribution centres.The proposal was to digitize its deteriorating material collection, with a focus on showcasingolder local works, as a means of preservation, and to give many of the works a second life.However, the actual project strayed quite far from its stated mission. Consequently, it gavethe notion of preservation an alternate meaning to that which was proposed and fundedunder the archival banner. Instead of limiting the project to the digitization of its collection,SAW Video opted to create a ‘living archive’ that redefined the central tenets of archiving:storage, display, and preservation. Spinning the idea of the archive to include the mobility ofartists and the circulation of their works outside the region, Morris proposed a more flexiblevision of the local, and of what the internet afforded in terms of a coherent artistic community.Morris also took into account the potential for artists to interact and participate through theMediatheque, which was something that the traditional material archive did not emphasize.In short, how to maximize the web’s potential for video art in Canada became a combinationof the visionary drives of Lechasseur, Morris, Ignatiev, Smalley, and later, McCann, alteredand adapted to the continuously changing technoscape. 17As is common to government-funded initiatives, the Mediatheque was also directed to functionas an educational tool. In the follow up on the Partnership Grant Report from CanadianHeritage, several questions revolved around the use of the Mediatheque by educators, andtheir access to documentation about the works and the usage of the database. The Mediathequewas to have a component that would ensure its relationship to a broader (if notyounger) audience, essentially proving its utility as a repository of rare and significant worksthat both promoted and conserved bilingual Canadian culture. To achieve this aim, it was essentialto provide artistic, cultural, and historical context for the works. According to McCann,this important conceptual component of the database was never actualized to its fullest potential.Instead, context was relegated to an oversimplified drop-down list within the Mediathequeinterface, without possibility to curate, organize or make cross-connections betweenworks. So, whereas the first incarnation of the Mediatheque was instrumental in collecting,categorizing, and digitizing content for the collection, the curatorial potential of the web wouldbe more fully realized in McCann’s reconfiguration of the project in 2011.To generate content for the living archive, SAW Video collected works through an open calldirectly from artists, video distributors, and co-ops across the country. 18 Of $350,000 dol-17. See Arjun Appadurai ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’, inM. Featherstone (ed.) Global Culture, London: Sage, 1990, pp. 295-310.18. McCann explains that the open call was an issue for a site that defines itself as an exhibitionspace. Because the works were not curated or ’chosen’, the works were by default organizedaccording to traditional archival categories without much insight to the who and why of anyparticular work or any aforementioned idea of how certain works speak to one another. On theflip side, the open call meant the project was open to all video artists, amateur and establishedalike.lars budgeted for the project, $100,000 dollars was dedicated to the acquisition of rights forshowcasing the videos. 19 The enormity of this sum is reflected in the detailed attention paidto copyright and artists’ fees in the elaboration of the project. What was described by McCannas a ‘mad dash’ for artists’ fees ensued, as the Mediatheque promised artists a sum of $200per video regardless of length, exhibited for a three-year period through the Mediathequeportal. 20 Artists were limited to 12 independent works on the original Mediatheque project.Completed, the project featured 486 works by 238 artists from across the country, of which412 were ‘local’ and 25 were French titles. If Ignatiev’s and Morris’ memories serve right, fewof the submitted titles were turned down from entry into the Mediatheque. Those that werenot included were pieces that the committee felt unfit for presentation for either aesthetic ortechnical reasons, or videos pulled out by the creators themselves. However, the parametersaccording to which some works were rejected remain vague across the interviews conducted.While Morris claims that set standards were in place to ensure the quality of works, guidelinesabout this part of the process do not exist. Artists submitted works, new and old, and cashedin on the rare occurrence of being paid for un-curated and un-commissioned work.The rest of the budget would pay for administrative and technical contracts, supplies andequipment, storage and streaming, digitization, training, and resource development. Despitethis capital, stemming in large part from Canadian Heritage, the steps involved in organizingthe Mediatheque project were numerous and gruelling, as there was no model upon which tobase a project which was innovative by definition. Not only did a database of the works needbe constructed and conceived, but contracts with the artists had to be drafted and signed.The technical and logistical aspects of the project were interdependent, and a great effortfrom both sides was required to catalogue, insert metadata, digitize, burn DVD-ROM copies,encode, and finally upload content to the site. Much of this labour had to be calculated interms of ‘minutes and hours’ for various funding reports; a quantification which failed to accountfor the important affective basis of the project – the component that lingers on longestafter the portal itself went offline.The Mediatheque’s digital archivist Ignatiev recalls coming to work at SAW Video before theinternet was even installed. Just a few years later, he is credited with developing the digitizationprocess for the project. Because the initiative was unprecedented, Ignatiev created a systemthrough trial and error, testing compression and encoding rates and various formats. Thefinal report on the project states that digitization occurred in ‘real time’, such that 10 minutesof footage would require 10 minutes to be converted, averaging approximately 5,000 minutesfor the entirety of the collection, for an average duration of 10 minutes for each video. Burningthe digital file to DVD, however, would require double the time per video, and encodingwould demand as much as four times that amount. As is also stated in the report, these times19. According to the Executive Summary of the project, the total expenses of the project amountedto $570,614, with contributions from Canadian Heritage ($382,917), the Canada Council of theArts ($25,000), corporate sponsor Xstream Labs ($90,600), and funds from fundraising effortsand SAW Video’s operating revenues (estimated at over $72,000).20. The length of videos determined their worth based on television broadcast rates – this is still thesystem in place for many screenings and festivals.