Given the limited time available to carry out the work, we knew we’d only begin to understand the possibilities. Our approach was nonlinear, reaching out to people while doing desk research, figuring out questions while structuring methodology.
We wanted to access interdisciplinary knowledge that may not emerge in standard interviews or focus groups. Integral to this was adapting to what makers express as important in real time, allowing it to shift the project methodologically and open space for probing connections. For instance, in initial talks with makers, several expressed they didn’t want to center the material media or physical making practices, since these weren’t separate from their reasons or the conditions in which they make. We changed a workshop plan, de-centering object- or technically-focused approaches, and ensuring flexibility. Each workshop uses a tailored combination of exercises, artistic research interventions, general discussion and experimental media archeology with makers’ input in mind.
For feasibility, we organized the workshops in three groups: (i) Media students not familiar with analogue audiovisual tools and practices (ii) Analogue producers and artists making pieces with social justice goals, who critically intervene in archival ethics and (ii) Analogue film artists who push the technical medium, and are interested in archiving.