Video Vortex Reader II: moving images beyond YouTube

182 Video Vortex Reader II Moving Images Beyond YoutubeAsia online183activism based on tactical 13 initiatives that produce video aimed at influencing public perceptionand key decision-makers (from here on addressed as ‘tactical video activism’); 14 and (3)activism based on technological experimentation and deconstruction of imagery as a meansfor shifting the relation between the audiences and the medium (from here on addressed as‘experimental video activism’). 15It is worth noting here that the above distinctions are the result of an effort to envisage the differentdimensions of video activism, rather than to pigeonhole them. 16 Rather than being mutuallyexclusive, these three realms of video activism are situated along a spectrum of discreteyet interwoven practices, which shift according to technological and ideological dynamics.However, we are interested in rendering these activities at their points of coalescence in orderto relate these shifts to broader social movements.The first group work and interact with specific communities to intervene at specific sites,while the latter two formations tend to be more mobile and flexible in their interventions.Although some groups adopting video-based approaches are independent entities, manyof them are also embedded within other social change organizations that share common visionsand agendas. 17 Some major political differences can also be identified from the distinctapproaches of each group. In our focus-group discussion with video activists in Jakarta,Maruli from UPC expressed his concern about community video practices becoming a wayof ‘flirting with new media’. In a particular traditional community in Java, whose environment13. The term ‘tactical video’ here is an extension of Michel de Certeau’s concept (1984), whichdistinguishes strategic and tactical actions in the domain of popular culture. Theorists andactivists David Garcia and Geert Lovink extended de Certeau’s concept of tactics to the field ofmedia activism, by identifying a class of producers who amplify temporary reversals in the flow ofpower by exploiting ‘spaces, channels and platforms’, necessary for their practices. http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors2/garcia-lovinktext.html.14. This grouping encompasses video-makers who are engaging with tactical uses of video contentproduction and distribution. Included in this group are: Offstream, established by Lexy J.Rambadetta and focusing on documentary work; KoPI, which is based in Bandung, West Java,and also working in the documentary genre; Fendry Ponomban and Rahung Nasution, who,aside from forming Jaringan Video Independen (JAVIN), also independently produce videos withpolitical content; Maruli Sihombing, who is active at the Urban Poor Consortium (UPC); andGekko Studio, in Bogor, West Java, which concentrates on environmental issues.15. This group includes ruangrupa, a Jakarta-based artist initiative founded in early 2000 in Jakarta;VideoBabes, formed by three female video artists based in Bandung, West Java. In Semarang,Central Java, Importal works to open alternative public space for video works. The final group inthis category is Forum Lenteng in Jakarta which specializes with introducing video techniquesamong youths and collaborative development of audiovisual research methods.16. In the interviews conducted, we asked the respondents where their activism fitted in withcontemporary movements, and received many nuanced reflections. Only a few video activistscould give a clear label to their practices, while most located themselves within a diverse range ofmovements and contexts.17. For instance, Gekko Studio collaborates on projects with environmental NGOs, and Etnoreflikahas partnerships with organizations assisting marginal communities such as street kids and sexworkers.was at risk due to plans to develop a cement factory nearby, community video organizers hadchosen to work with the community to produce a video – a process that Maruli consideredinappropriate considering the time available to produce a community-based video and theurgency of the situation faced by the community. This situation prompted Maruli to take theinitiative to make an independent campaign video on the issue so that the information couldstart to circulate publicly, and advocacy for the case could be initiated right away. 18We raise this example to point out that the steps taken by Maruli and the grassroots videoactivists he criticizes, while different in form, need not be perceived in opposition to it. Suchfriction can be viewed as creating momentum towards a common end: the production ofinformation that counters that distributed by the local government and the corporation developingthe cement factory. Conducted simultaneously, video facilitation at a communitylevel, production of socio-political content, and efforts to popularize video-based technologiesconstitute a new configuration in which video becomes a means to collectively transform society.The key question is whether the collective activism in this field can sustain the strategicinteraction and communication among different factors required to open broader political opportunities.Can video-based activism in Indonesia form a coherent and supportive network?How might online tools be employed to assist in such a formation?Most of our informants have shown hesitance toward, if not outright rejection of, the idea ofworking together as a single strategic network across the three categories we identified. Themain reason identified for this hesitance was the limited capacity of groups to function as anetwork, especially when it comes to the availability of human resources. For example, YogaAtmaja from Kawanusa pointed to the lack of available staff to open and manage networkingactivities, as the group is already exhausted by its existing commitments working withcommunities. More pertinent still are the significant political differences between the variousgroups. The organizations discussed here are in no way homogeneous, and run the gamutfrom alternative commercial enterprises, to medium-scale NGOs, to all-volunteer radical activistcollectives. Additionally, issues of conflicts of interest between actors have often taintedexisting networks or led to the disbanding of early network formations. While the technologiesthat enable the easy creation of sophisticated networks are available, without a shared politicalvision for the purpose of the network, it could not be successful; an affinity for the mediumof video and a political commitment alone are insufficient.Even so, the activists interviewed did not dismiss the possibility of partnerships with othergroups with similar interests. However, how soon the relationships could be built remainsuncertain, as a convincing video-networking model that can inform the activists of how tomove forward is yet to appear. The success story of the student movement in toppling theNew Order government in 1998, for instance, although organized through networks of disparategroups, is considered by many as too fluid to be characterized as an example of anestablished network.18. This video is available from: http://engagemedia.org/Members/maruli/videos/gunungkendheng1.avi/view.