I started writing something about what happens if I don’t hit the target or what happens if I exceed the target and it just felt all wrong.
The first one particularly felt like:
- introducing some sort of fake jeopardy to induce people to part with cash;
- writing a risk register (*shudder*);
- just a lie really because I know and you know (if you know me well enough) that I only ever do things that I’d do even if it didn’t raise any money at all and that half the fun is making do with what you’ve got instead of throwing money at problems to make them go away.
So it’s going to happen whatever, but I will be able to spend more time on this project if the pot is fatter and less time if it’s slimmer – simples.
So go ahead, make it fatter
The one thing I do want to avoid is having a conversation with someone that goes “Oh what a shame you didn’t come last month, I had a load of old film that I didn’t know what to do with, so I chucked it out.” So I’m going to get on with this thing as quickly as I can with whatever resources I have.
Today I’ve purchased digitalshoebox.org.uk it points to the campaign page for now, tomorrow it will become the real home of the project!
I’m working on a digitised archive for Bromsgrove (last 48 hrs of crowdfunding) first because it’s a space and time that I have some knowledge of, I know the geography, I know some of the people who were there, I have stories of my own to tell.
But as much value as I think is there (and I think there’s loads) I’m just as interested in this as a learning project that can be replicated in other places. One of the attractions of Bromsgrove is that there’s very little notable about it. Until you start to dig… It’s nowhere special (for that value of special that we’ve developed during the last 100 years) but everywhere is special, everywhere has interesting stories to tell, it’s just more obvious to me what they are for this case.
So what about applying it in more conventionally “interesting” places? One of the most idea-sparking conversations I’ve had about possible next steps (always remembering that we haven’t done the first one yet!) came up yesterday at #altukgc13. I was talking about the importance of standing up for our own home-made media to tell a fuller story than mass media can and Mary McKenna pointed out that while the BBC has loads of archive material about Northern Ireland in the 1970s it’s completely dominated by stuff about the Troubles. And this might be a really neat way of telling more rounded stories about life beyond the ethno-political struggles and violence.
Oh yes. I like that a lot. We’ll do that.
Just scribbling this at lunchtime. For those not in the know, we’re running a massively cut-down informal version of UKGovCamp in a public space at the Royal Festival Hall basically “because snow”
We’re running a live stream via Google Hangouts which then ends up on YouTube. I’m just sayin’ the following:
The stream is provided strictly on an expectation-free basis.
- I know it’s frustrating if you’re listening to our conversation and then suddenly you can’t hear anything, but I think we have to make the conversation work foremost for the people in the room.
- We’re working for free in a public space of public wifi with a macbook air and a snowball mic. That’s the best we’ve got.
- None of us is being paid to be here, we’re all showing up for the conversation on the same basis you are, because we want to have the conversation and we’re having it now.
- No-one’s in charge here, we didn’t make a decision that we would stream this thing and then go about implementing it craply because we’re crap, we just thought it would be a good idea.
- This is not the only chance ever to join in this conversation, UKGC13 proper will happen soon and you’ll get the chance then.
- I can get a bit pompous and up on my high horse sometimes, I try not to, but I may be doing it right now. If you read what I’ve written and think “what a git” I’m sorry you feel that way.
Now we’re going to get talking again.
The reason for stuff staying in the shoebox is often “Who would want to see this?” This is partly because we’re used to the idea that in order for something to be made publicly available, a lot of people need to want to see it. The reason that used to be the case is that it cost something to reproduce and distribute media. That cost has now fallen to practically zero, but our thinking hasn’t quite caught up with that fact.
The work I want to do on this project is not about finding a small number of images or films that will engage thousands of people. It’s about finding thousands of images, each of which might engage a small number of people.
I spoke to Bill Thompson about this, he’s a big cheese in the working out of what to do with the BBC’s huge amount of archive material. He pointed out that most items are going to have little or no value to the majority of people, but for the *right* people, they will be priceless.
Suppose I show you a picture of a party twenty-odd years ago, you vaguely recognise some of the people in the foreground but slowly you realise that the slightly blurred couple on the left are you and the love of your life and what’s captured there is the first few moments you ever saw each other. Now to anyone else, it’s just a picture of some slightly drunk people with a rather strange taste in fashion, but to you and your beloved? It’s *that* moment!
Of course, not every photograph holds images of people who’ve since spent their lives together, but I believe that that sort of value is more common than we usually think. And it’s the kind of effect I hope to find in this work, the sort of value I hope to create for people who see the archive.
Help me make this
Nothing to see here, move right along, folks…