Thoughts on having an "Impact" with film

Increasingly, the foundation community is asking the question, how can we have more impact with film? Quite often they are focused only on social media, and the implications are twofold: first, that past efforts to have impact through film have not succeeded, and second, that impact means more than eyeballs – in other words, that audience size isn’t enough and that some larger change also must take place. Let us realize from the outset that the first assumption is completely false. The second assumption puts forth a proposition destined for failure, and one that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation of media to culture, the civic sphere and social change. That said, as many filmmakers and media organizations rely on foundation support, we must address this concern now, for although grounded in many false assumptions, the premise is ultimately true.

The independent media arts have had enormous social, cultural and political impact – but this story has been overlooked because it is one of baby steps and aggregate sums. The independent media movement started because individual artistic and socially important voices were absent from the media sphere. Today, independent media is ubiquitous and one could argue that it is one of the greatest success stories of arts and culture. We now have thousands of film festivals across the US, independent film has become so big that it is now referred to as “indiewood” and subjects that were once the purview of independent artistic voices are now mainstream. Aesthetic practices of the avant garde are so successful that advertising, Hollywood and even commercial news broadcasts mimic their techniques (albeit for different ends). Advances in technology and media literacy (or at least usage) have spawned an entire “amateur” culture of user-generated content that threatens business models. Training in media, once the purview of small, independent media arts centers, has resulted in films schools having more difficult entrance ratios than Harvard Medical School, and an entire for-profit cottage industry of training exists, with thousands of potential filmmakers spawned each year. The most popular traded files on the internet are now video files, and a large percentage are not Hollywood media.

Independent content has generated numerous television broadcast channels, led to syndicated television shows, and become a profitable sector for businesses who disseminate the work. The themes of the content are no longer just a niche industry – Hollywood is spending millions to duplicate themes that they used to never touch, and are seeing profitable results. And the world has changed as a result – innocent prisoners have been freed, films on global trade practices have changed global policy, election strategies have shifted in response to political films, entire social and political movements (MoveOn and house parties) have come about because of film marketing ideas. Independent films are helping to encourage society to ask key questions on the death penalty, the health care crisis, employment practices – the list is endless. Further, they lead us to question fundamental aspects of copyright law, licensing issues and net neutrality – all of which are essentially questions of control of content – but most importantly, the questions are being pushed most vigorously by the need for access to visual content.

It is also interesting to look at the impact of Hollywood movies. Billons are spent advertising these films, and their impact on culture is huge – financially, in the cult of celebrity worship and in how they shape our very goals as a society. But if one steps back for a moment, it is easy to see that their impact has also been incremental. For example, it has taken years of small steps to finally make a movie, Brokeback Mountain, that can show two lead gay characters and make money – but it still couldn’t win the Best Picture Academy Award ™. Politically, very few Hollywood films have individually made progressive, or other, social change. Good Night and Good Luck, a film on Edward Murrow and Senator Joseph McCarthy, should have sparked a timely national debate on the role of the press in exposing political inequality. There couldn’t be a better moment for this film to have an impact – our country is plagued with real, national events to spark a political movement for reform. The film was financed by Participant, Jeff Skoll’s company, with an explicit aim to make political change. The film has huge movie stars, deep pockets behind it, and indeed it made money, many people saw it, and the stars were on the cover of many a magazine and guests on many a show. Yet its net impact on policy, by any estimation, has to be considered nil. Nothing. We’ve heard Oscar speeches and press-recognition to the contrary, but beyond spawning a great Frank Rich article in the New York Times, no real change has come about.

I am being hard on this film – it has had an affect, but only as part of a cumulative process. Many such movies, coupled together, have subtle effects on our culture. The world knows about this additive effect, which is why many foreign countries try to limit the amount of Hollywood films that can show in their country – such as through the French “foreign exception” or outright censorship and bans. Indeed, the MPAA was formed to ensure two things: first, that Hollywood business continued to make money without outside threats, and second, that American values were spread like wildfire around the globe. It is also why Hollywood movies shy from tough subjects or trying to effect change – they can have a far greater effect through subtlety while also filling their cash registers.

Still, what do we mean by having an impact? We need to disambiguate the term. What does impact mean? Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 has had enormous social impact – millions saw the film. To this day, millions of people subscribe to Moore’s website and consequently become politically active in certain causes; millions of liberal, democratic voters watched the film and became even more cynical; democrats thought the hype around the film meant they were ensured of a backlash against Bush; millions of conservative voters voted for Bush because of the film. A variety of impacts. Likewise, MoveOn.org used to have a map on their website of what cities held house-parties for Robert Greenwald’s Uncovered: The Truth About the War in Iraq. It was supposed to show how far their reach was; unfortunately it coincided perfectly with the map of who voted with Kerry – their impact was on the “already converted.”

Something is working (baby steps, remember) because one of the more interesting changes – which should signal to the progressive community that something is working - is that those on the Right are copying the media movement of the Left and trying to finance, distribute and make social impact through media. You can see this in film festivals that launched this year devoted to conservative ideologies, and in Philip Anschutz’s company Walden Media, which makes media with “family values.” If the Right is copying the Left, why are progressive foundations convinced that the sky is falling? Perhaps because they feel the impact has not been big enough, or that it could be better. And here, they are correct. But, the problem has not been a lack of good ideas for having impact though media. Rather, it has been a refusal of the progressive community to fund, support and build new systems where it matters most – the dissemination of important media.

The Beginnings of Some Solutions

One can’t discount the power of knowledge. Audience – not just numbers of people but type of audience – is extremely important. Madison Avenue knows that to get someone to respond to a message, it must be ubiquitous – it must be everywhere and it must be repeated multiple times, for you may not be convinced to buy Crest Whitening Strips until the fiftieth time you’ve seen the ad. Advertisers also know that you must get to what are called trend-setters: that small group whose adoption of a clothing, product or lifestyle – or their political power to give a business an advantage – are a further key to mass impact. Translation: the number and types of eyeballs that see a film matter immensely.

Marketers know something further, and they are ruthlessly good at this – they know how to find out what the customer wants and what the customer doesn’t know they want but can be persuaded to desire. There is an old saying in the marketing world that a customer never desires a ¼-inch drill bit, they want a ¼-inch hole, and the drill bit is the tool that gets them what they want. Home Depot profits not because it markets drill bits, but because it offers tools to fit your needs. No one necessarily needs a tooth whitening strip – but they do want acceptance, a perception of beauty and ultimately love. Marketers know this, so they created a product that would fill these needs. Filmmakers then, should focus on what the audience wants; or, be willing to use the knowledge of what they want to make them think they want what you’ve got. Translation: The audience matters, and filmmakers need to start giving them the tools they need to get what they desire – which can also be of social import. Hollywood does this already. Independent films should start doing it more.

Last, marketers have discovered that customers want what they want when and where they want it, period. This “get it when/where I want it” attitude translates to pre-made peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, drinkable and unspillable soups for the car, and myriad other products. Coupled with digital technology, this attitude is responsible for the spread of the iPod (one of the clunkiest interfaces ever, but a quick way to get to the song you want), TiVo (watch your show when you want it); and Slingbox (watch your media from your computer anywhere). Translation: There is no question that release windows will shrink, and possibly disappear, and filmmakers (and distributors) should be welcoming the change as it means more audience and more impact.

Independent media has, with few exceptions, ignored the lessons that Madison Avenue and Hollywood have mastered. As mentioned above, independent media has been successful at times, and amazingly so considering its failure to utilize these tools, but overall its greater “impact” has been small. New technologies, new business models, rethinking and application of time-tested methods – all of these are needed to increase the impact of independent film. In my next article, I will suggest some of the changes needed, and try to give a more nuanced definition of the term “impact” as it applies to independent media.

AIVF Reinvention

I mentioned in a previous post that AIVF was among many nonprofits having some trouble. A couple people commented that they would hate to see them go, while some others seemed to feel it was about time. Well, for those of you interested in their survival, I suggest checking out their website soon. They are gathering members and supporters for some "reenvisioning" of the organization, are creating a new business plan to move forward and are looking for help raising funds. Give 'em some love y'all.

MacroCinemas...One Idea

During the time I was posting my last entry, I ran across a blog thinking about similar issues - Self-Reliant Filmmaking, by an old filmmaker acquaintance Paul Harrill. We exchanged some emails and links (see bottom of last post), and his most recent post essentially posits one possible scenario in response to the problems I've listed about filmmakers finding an audience (side note: he did this on his own, not in response to this blog, but it fits as an answer regardless).

Paul has proposed a MacroCinema network - an non-hierarchical system to build a circuit of microcinemas that filmmakers could tour. It's a great idea, and one that I've heard proposed before (once by Jem Cohen, an artist who has travelled to many a microcinema), but I think his blog is the first one that's trying to collectively build a workig system for such a network.

I think this is only one of the systems we need to think about building, but a great start. It would be even better if the organizers and programmers of regional film festivals would think this creatively; same goes for arthouse programmers; museum and gallery curators and the like. Our end goals should all be the same - to help filmmakers reach a broader audience (and maybe someday earn a living while doing so) and to help audiences find films which are usually not easy to see. Some cooperation will be key, but I think there's room for collaboarations along with actual business models - all of which accomplish the same tasks and that aren't mutually exclusive. In the meantime, I'm glad at least one other blog is thinking about these issues. If anyone knows of others, please bring them to my/our attentio in the comments. Thanks.

Festivals and Distribution

Today, too few independent films reach a broad audience, and despite some signs to the contrary, the situation is worsening. Outside of a few successful instances, truly independent work by exciting makers remains largely in the realm of film festivals, limited theatrical runs and institutional sales, brief (if any) exposure on cable or broadcast television and the extremely rare success on home video. In spite of — and often because of — recent developments, including the DVD, the distribution system for independent media remains in crisis, with few films successfully reaching a broad audience.

Although generally made with the goal of connecting to audiences in person, few films are picked up for distribution that involves screening for live audiences outside of a few select cities. For-profit distribution companies often release a film in a few major cities (New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco), but do not see reaching a larger theatrical release as cost-beneficial, and often rely on a home-video sale to make profit. Non-profit distributors have generally survived by relying on institutional sales as a business model. These distributors argue that efforts to reach individual consumers would erode their institutional base, and that they actually reach more individuals through institutions than they would by marketing directly to consumers. While this approach does get smaller films to a market, it leaves the vast majority of consumers unaware that such films exist or how they could purchase or rent one.

It has become obvious that the market for a diversity of voices has grown over the past several years, as evidenced by the success of blogs and the recent success of several documentaries. American audiences hunger for diverse, interesting work and are connecting with it in new ways. At first confined to major cities, film festivals of one form or another began to pop up in towns across the U.S. (and internationally) more than 30 years ago. These smaller, less internationally recognized film festivals have become the de facto art house circuit, often screening works in conjunction with local film societies. General audiences have prospered culturally by having more access to a wider range of films than ever before. Unfortunately, this type of exhibition leaves the filmmakers well-traveled but none the richer for their efforts.

The proliferation of festivals highlights two interesting items – that an audience exists nationally of consumers who want to connect to exciting independent and artistic films, and that festival screenings may be the best way to place a film into the cultural consciousness and promote a film. At festivals across America one can often hear the same question during the Q&A – how can I purchase this film? The common answers are either “We hope to get a distributor soon —check back with this festival soon to find out how to buy it” or “Our distributor only makes it available to institutions.” This means that filmmakers are letting a captive audience of anywhere from 50-800 potential impulse purchasers go home empty-handed. Few will care once they’ve left the theater to follow up with the distributor or the film festival. This cycle is repeated in numerous cities, with neither the filmmaker nor the potential or existing distributor taking immediate advantage of the “buzz” of the film on the festival circuit. In fact, they will end up spending much time and money trying to re-create the film’s buzz, most likely never recapturing the audience’s attention.

What if the same filmmaker could sell copies of their film at the festival? What if filmmakers handed out postcards to the audience, with a website where they could buy or rent the film and recommend it to a friend? What if they did this in every city they visited and mentioned the website every time they were interviewed? One can imagine a small success for a filmmaker who took this approach. Why do so few filmmakers and/or distributors do so? Because it doesn’t fit the model of the release window — a model that only works for a small number of films. Additionally, few filmmakers want to put their energies behind distribution of their film — generally, they want to make another film. Many distributors work with festivals as publicity for a theatrical release, or sometimes to allow filmmakers to satisfy their desire to connect with audiences before an institutional release on DVD. Almost none have made a concerted effort to use these festival screenings as nontheatrical tours of work, to help spur DVD sales. Even fewer filmmakers have taken this strategy, with most hoping that a festival tour will help them find a distributor, instead of helping them find an audience.

We now need a more systematized, comprehensive approach that uses film festivals as a tool to help filmmakers profit from their filmmaking - or at least to be able to make a living at it. DVD, film festivals and the internet have transformed the way audiences interact with independent material, but no one distributor, and very few filmmakers, have yet effectively addressed these changes. The independent film sector is in dire need of a distribution system that recognizes these new realities and devises a comprehensive, duplicable method for distributing such content to a wider audience.

I'll post some ideas about this in my next post, but in the meantime, a similar thread has begin at Self-Reliant Fimmaking, which I suggest you check out.

Maintaining control through DRM

Kathryn Cramer has an interesting post about DRM as the "new killer app for corporate authorship.". As I've mentioned before, and as many others have known, the war on internet piracy has nothing to do with lost profits, but everything to do with maintaining control. While there may be some merit to the argument that pirated DVDs sold on the streets of New York (for example) contribute to lost sales, good studies have shown that the effect of internet piracy is nil. By arguing that piracy is hurting their bottom line, however, big media can now convince Congress and the Courts to install DRM software that enables them to control what gets made and distributed. Don't believe the hype - this is just another way to make sure that in the future, the media you share will be bought from the same people as today. A long time ago, before most people started thinking about using OurMedia.org to distribute content, Hollywood figured out that user-generated-content could be bad to their bottom lines and watermarking and other DRM is a way to re-professionalize media such that user-generated-content falls to the wayside.

......subMedia: Erasing Eminem

Great (relatively) new video by Franklin Lopez over at SubmediaTv.com which mashes up Ipod Ads, Iraq images and Eminem. In his own words:
THE SHORT STORY: A video Mash-Up/Re-Mix, whatever, of the Eminem Ipod TV ad. We replaced Eminem with Iraq war images, and added new lyrics to the instrumental version of 'Loose Yourself'. The clip was inspired by ForkScrew's 'Iraq' posters. Watch it at:......subMedia: Erasing Eminem


Submedia has been making some amazing mash-ups of video, and he's right in the thick of the rising trend of video sampling, which is about to shake the video world more strongly than it did music. More on this soon.

The end of an era?

The situation in the world of nonprofit media arts centers has never been more dire. In the past few years, we have seen the closing of several important media centers - Boston Film/Video being just one. Now, AIVF is having some trouble, and while I can't speak to the actual situation at any one center, it is no secret that there has been turmoil and/or massive change at Film Arts Foundation, IDA, IFP (and some of its sister orgs), Film/Video Arts...the list could go on and on, and doesn't even consider what were once strong regional media centers that are also now close to crumbling. While none will admit it, nearly every nonprofit media center and/or media arts service organization is near death.

Several factors have led to this situation. First, and most importantly, the field has been largely abandoned by its traditional support structure - Government and Foundations. All of these centers began in the early 1970's with strong support from precursors of and then the NEA. For many years, additional and substantial support came from the foundation community. NEA money began to disappear during the culture wars, although they still make some grants to these institutions. Foundation support began to dry up in the mid 90's and is shrinking rapidly.

The loss of Foundation support has been particularly painful and unfortunate. As Foundations priorities have shifted, they have switched from general operating support (money to be used as the nonprofit saw fit, essentially) to program support, or money that can only be spent on certain initiatives. Witness the explosion of youth media a few years ago - yes, cameras got cheaper and people wanted to train youth, but the youth media movement was largely started by a few program officers at a handful of foundations. Nonprofits, always desperate for money, shifted their entire programs into youth media, and guess what? When those program officer's whims changed and the money dried up - these center's programs began to die. Currently, the foundation community seems to feel that it is no longer necessary to fund the majority of media centers unless they are working on a handful of issues that fit the current trends in foundation support. To make matters worse, foundation support for the arts is declining in all sectors, so these media center's must look elsewhere for support.

While the foundation community needs to take some of the blame, so do the nonprofits themselves. All of these centers have been underfunded for years - most have operating budgets under 1 million, in fact, most have budgets under $500,000. Their staffs often make much less than $30,000 a year, many work part-time, with hourly wages that are below national averages. This has meant that each center has a hard time attracting talented individuals to the field and/or retaining them. On top of this, the staff and leadership of these organizations feel a strong demand for the work that they do - they hear from their membership constantly about the value of their programs. So, they are reluctant to cut programs, cut staff or make change. As a result, many are going under because they can't make the drastic changes necessary to survival. The sky has been falling for years, since at least 1995, and leadership wasn't able or willing to see the big picture and affect massive change.

Too, there is much overlap in the field. When I was in Atlanta, at least five groups started - within four years - whose missions overlapped with that of IMAGE Film & Video. Which meant competition for the same limited funds, all to do essentially the same job - to serve filmmakers and their audiences. The situation is the same nationally, and remains so. The field needs to consider consolidation, sharing of resources (especially back office type functions) and yes, even mergers as appropriate.

Nonprofit media centers are also being killed by an essential part of their own structure - their board of directors, mandated by law. Almost every single center has a board that consists of filmmakers, friends of film and people who love the mission, but very few people who can raise money. No nonprofit can survive this way - you have to have board members who can "Give, Get or Get off" - give money, get money or quit. The board of most of these organizations refuse to give or raise money, and they've also been ineffective at seeing the big picture and forcing policy changes to change their organizations for the future. Essentially, most of these boards have been building their resume while suffocating the field.

Last, those centers that are dying can essentially be categorized as those who didn't recognize and shift to the changing nature of the field due to digital technologies. Media artists today don't often need (or don't think they need) cameras, edit systems, markets, magazines and the like. Things are different. What they do need are a community in which to connect, advocacy for policies that affect them, good information they can use, money to make their work, and new ways to distribute it. These can all be found or developed online, and these centers haven't made the shift. Let's face it, if these nonprofits had been thinking of the future, there would have been no need to start an indieWire, ShootingPeople or an Ourmedia.org or the like. Not that these aren't great developments, but that they were created out of a void that shouldn't have existed.

Many people will say, well, perhaps they don't need to exist anymore, their time has run out. Why does it matter if we lose places like AIVF? Because they have been and could be the lifeblood of this field. I will speak in terms of could be, because even those that used to be relevant no longer are. If media centers can repurpose, and take into account technological changes, they could be a central hub for media artists to connect - to find crew, to find out how to solve technical issues with their gear, to share their media, to get advice on distribution agreements, contracts and the myriad needs everyone has, especially when they first start.

Major policy changes are being proposed that will forever affect media artists' ability to create and distribute their work - and we need an advocate who can speak on our behalf, as a group, to get what we need. At one time, groups such as AIVF advocated so strongly that ITVS was formed to help independents. As many producers are now opening their contracts with ITVS and finding things they can't accept, they need a group that through sheer membership numbers can advocate on their behalf to change these contracts. Places like AIVF could lobby not just government, but also corporations to change policies (such as archival footage pricing) to better serve our needs.

When the MPAA (and others) can shut down a technology that could help independents distribute their films without a gatekeeper (Grokster), and can claim that technology is only good for piracy (a blatant lie), filmmakers need someone who can tell them the truth and fight the MPAA to ensure our films remain distributable through the new technologies. Make no mistake about it - the gatekeepers want to maintain their control, and without places like AIVF, there will be no one to stand up and fight on behalf of the "little" filmmakers.

Want cheaper health insurance? AIVF. Want to make sure you can upload your short to the internet as fast as Fox can, and that it can be found? Laws are being considered to make sure you can't - and AIVF could fight them. Want to ask someone whether a contract you've been given for distribution of your film is fair? Want to find out how to raise money for your film? Just moved to a new city, and simply want to find a home with others like you - creative people making media - and connect to help each other make films? These are all made possible through places such as AIVF, and when they die, our culture and our society will be worse for it.

The stumbling of the Boston Film and Video Foundation should have been seen as the canary in the mineshaft - the first sign of systemic change for the worse. AIVF's troubles, and I am hopeful they will rise above them, are just the next in a line of possible futures. It is not melodramatic to see this as another ominous sign. What's going to happen to smaller, nonprofit distributors, especially as many of their leaders near retirement? What about places like Anthology Film Archives, one of the only places caring for experimental film? PBS is under serious attack and simultaneously has no clue as to what it should do in the future. What would happen if both ITVS and POV disappeared? Most remaining arthouse cinemas are nonprofit, and most festivals are as well, where will your film show if they collapse next? Not at Regal, and possibly not even on the web.

Yes, we have some great new possibilities - ITunes, indieWire and SF360, BitTorrent and the like. We also have some growing for-profit film festivals such as Tribeca and SXSW, and channels such as IFC, Sundance and VOD services such as Here. But these are corporate entities, they are beholden to their shareholders, not to the needs of the independent community. Even those with good intentions, such as indieWire, can't take on all that a place like AIVF could offer - it's beyond their means or their own mission. Only a place with the public good in mind can serve our needs as media artists.

With increasing consolidation of the media, a very real and silent push by corporations and governments to limit the ability of smaller individuals (such as an independent filmmaker) to create and disseminate their work through the new technologies and with an increasingly limited sphere in which an independent can make their work and profit from it - there has never been a greater need for places like AIVF. There has never been a time of greater need for a strong system of national and regional support for the field, through places such as AIVF, Film Arts Foundation and others like them in this sector - and yes people, they are all near death. If you want any of them to survive, get involved now - whether through money or ideas, because otherwise I predict 2006 will be the year the nonprofit media movement dies. The definition of independent is debated regularly, but could soon just mean one thing: alone.

Patriot Act and Creativity

Reuters reports that NYC is being sued by Indian filmmaker Rakesh Sharma who was arrested and detained for four hours for filming the streets of New York. While not mentioned in any of the press that I have seen, this is not the first filmmaker to be stopped by the police for filming - just the first to file suit. Filmmaker Jem Cohen has been stopped numerous times for taking Super-8 footage of bridges and structures in New York, and he was pulled off an Amtrak train for shooting footage through the windows - a creative practice he has done for years.

Jem told me once that when he brought this to the attention of the New York Times, they told him that their photographers are stopped evey day by the police, so it wasn't news. I'm sorry, but that in itself is news. Artists and others are being stopped from practicing their art, reporting on news or simply practicing a hobby to "stop terrorism."

Recently, Creative Capital held a day-long seminar on the effects of the Patriot Act on creativity. I'll post more soon on the conversation, but it's not pretty - artists being arrested, organizations being asked to check terrorist lists before giving grants to artists, the list goes on and on.

Possible Media Futures

Just under a year ago, I was asked by a foundation to write a brief memo about my thoughts on the future of media. I have posted it here , with some edits, to get some conversation going on this blog about this subject.

THE POSSIBLE FUTURE(S) OF MEDIA ARTS

“Access is, after all, about determining kinds as well as levels of participation. It’s not a question of who gains access but rather what types of experiences and worlds of engagement are worth seeking and having access to. The answer to that question will determine the nature of the society we will create for ourselves in the twenty-first century.” Jeremy Rifkin

“Media” means many things today and the definition constantly changes. In thinking about the future of media, this blog will focus on developments in the media arts — a mix of commercial endeavors and “independent” media, including social documentaries, animation, video games, Hollywood films, experimental films, journalistic videos, educational media, video installations — virtually anything that incorporates motion media using film, digital media or computer-based formats. The media arts include works that entertain and educate, and serve the public good by allowing individual and multiple alternative voices and ideas to be heard.

This is a pivotal moment in the history of media arts, a time filled with possibility and uncertainty, but most of all, promise. Simultaneously, there are concerns, both old and new, that threaten to undermine the possibilities. To best address the future of media arts and its promise to contribute to a civil, democratic society, one needs to keep in mind all of the changes and contradictions inherent in the technological advances that affect their production, dissemination and use.

THE PRESENT POSSIBILITIES

Historically, broad uptake of the media arts has been affected by concerns in three areas: production (the cost of making media); distribution (getting the work out to the public); and policy (concerns, such as copyright, that impact the use of media arts). Media artists have never lacked for ideas or subjects, but they have lacked the resources (financial and otherwise) to create their work, reach their audience and still make a living. Advances in technology provide tools that allow for easier production, dissemination and use of media. With increasingly affordable and available tools of production (cameras, editing systems and computers), artists and amateurs alike can create media more readily, which has led to an exponential increase in production worldwide. Technology also allows one to create new art forms and new forms of knowledge. For example, Open Source software technologies are changing the ways in which media is produced and consumed by promoting a vision of the world where knowledge, in all forms, is open, accessible, and even changeable by all.

Matching the exponential increase in the number of media projects produced are advances in distribution modes. Multiple platforms for the delivery of media arts now exist — whether through film festivals or art house cinemas, galleries or nightclubs, over broadband networks, on cable, through Netflix, on DVD or over the web. Artists have more ways to reach audiences than ever before. Increasingly, the disenfranchised, poor and excluded are gaining access to the means of production and to their share of the world’s audiences (via increasingly universal, cheap broadband WiFi), although certainly a digital divide persists.

Many theorists have worried that such ubiquity is a problem: that due to the cacophony of multiple voices, audiences will have difficulty finding alternative visions. Nevertheless, technology and other recent trends promise some solutions. Social networks, fan websites and blogs have formed around almost any topic or interest imaginable. Recommender systems, and search technologies like Video.Googleor iTunes allow the public to find the visual content they want, and technologies such as BitTorrent will allow individuals to subscribe to video content much as they subscribe to newspapers. The true merger of the Internet and television could allow greater consumer access to content. And all of this can happen on a global scale: the same technology that allows a well-to-do New Yorker to download a music video from the Internet over a latte allows indigenous workers in Colombia to spread word of their resistance efforts through digital video shared over cheap wireless networks.

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES

Of course, technology doesn’t solve every problem — indeed, it has the potential to shut down the very openness it brings. It can spread terror or piracy as easily as children’s programming. As theorist Siva Vaidhyanathan has pointed out, technology points the way to both anarchy and oligarchy, but real possibility lies somewhere in-between. At this crucial moment, the field and its supporters must tackle the possibilities in such ways that allow the media arts to help us envision a better world. Some of the primary issues and challenges that need to be faced in the present to prepare for the future are listed below.

The Digital Divide
True, as the costs of certain new technologies decline, those with less purchasing power have more access to technology, yet the digital divide persists. Perhaps more troubling than exclusion from physical access to technology is that the poor and excluded continue to be left out of conversations about policy, technological change and the arts, resulting in an ever-growing divide of exclusion.

The fact that the means of production have gotten cheaper simultaneously creates a problematic paradox for the arts: the majority of media artists working today must still spend large sums of money to make their art. While some work can be made cheaply, others remain costly endeavors due to the extensive research, expert opinion, talented actors or the high production values that are expected and demanded by a more media-savvy audience. Many artists have a hard time convincing funders (whether investors or donors) to allocate the resources necessary for quality media production, much less to fund a living wage.

Dissemination

Audiences have more access to more diverse media arts than ever before, but large bodies of work remain inaccessible to large segments of the public. A geographic divide persists, with few noncommercial works screened outside of major cities, and while the number of foreign films being produced is exploding, the ubiquity of American media overshadows them. Additionally, valuable cultural heritage is being lost: much media is disappearing from public access because archives often can’t afford to convert it to the digital formats that would allow for its safekeeping and dissemination.

The distribution system for independent film and video is in dire need of new paradigms. Many worthy films do not receive proper distribution due to a crowded marketplace, unimaginative distributors locked into old methods, or a lack of funding for proper dissemination. While the Internet promises new delivery mechanisms, many films and new media works are made for (and thrive in) a live, public audience. Unfortunately, reaching these audiences remains difficult, as many artists don’t have the knowledge, the funding or the tools to distribute their own work, or must settle for distribution systems that are less than satisfactory.

Policy Issues & Changing Business Models

Numerous policy battles are currently taking place that could forever change how society participates with media — in spectrum policy, copyright, media ownership and digital rights management, to name but a few. For example, the balance of copyright has shifted away from the public good to over-control by rights holders and the increasing issue of expiring rights is limiting the distribution of important work (as with the landmark civil rights documentary series Eyes on the Prize). No one’s interests are served when media is “stuck on the shelf” in both non-profit and for-profit archives because it’s too expensive to clear rights for extended use, and a balance must be found that benefits both media rights holders and users. In addition, business models are changing radically — or sometimes fail to change with the times, thus choking off new avenues. Many companies claim to be fearful of piracy or losing markets, but many resist change only because it threatens their (now antiquated) business model.

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
To address these challenges and to have the greatest societal impact, the field needs to think of innovative, transformative ideas. The arts should be the place to experiment with new models, and to envision new possibilities for the future, whether through newly invented technologies or new uses for existing technologies. Creative thinking in the media arts could have impact beyond the field, and possibly set new paradigms for other arts and for society.

Research, Policy, Advocacy and Education
There is great need for continued research, mapping, convening and policy work. The field needs the data to show the problems (such as lack of diversity), and the advocacy to ensure good policy decisions. There is also a need to convene around the multiple issues facing the media arts: What can be done collaboratively to broaden the reach of socially important media? In light of new developments, what directions are most central? Who is not being served? What can be learned from other fields? Last, there is still a need for education — of gatekeepers, of artists and of general publics — in the importance of media arts; in the value of media artists’ contributions to society; in the craft, technology and business of media arts; in its distribution and in media literacy. Through such work, the field can encourage broader support for and public understanding of the value of media arts.

Distribution
There are new models for dissemination, including alternative distribution and marketing strategies, new exhibition avenues, direct video sales and ever-increasing home video (DVD) markets. Systemization of festival screenings, web-based networks and new distribution strategies could get the work to broader audiences than ever before. The field needs knowledge sharing — strategies, stories, case studies and experiments focused on distribution and dissemination. Citizens need assistance in building communal media experiences where individuals and groups can connect, learn from and utilize media for social change or educational purposes. What if audiences could coalesce at a website for documentary films, talk about and recommend media, and even contribute video-blog feedback on what they have seen? What if they were engaged in a conversation with this media instead of being “fed” such media? Leaders in the field must think of what the public wants and deserves, and work together to make that happen so that audiences can find and use this important media. As a result, media artists will prosper, by finding new audiences for their work.

New Financing Models
The media arts need innovative funding models that validate artists, help them attract new sources of funding, and help them find and reach the broadest possible audiences. New strategies could be found in novel approaches to the venture capital model, or with open source and social networking advances. For example, an online, audience-driven fund for progressive media arts could enable individuals, foundations and investors alike to support a variety of work. The Internet provides great potential to encourage individuals to become art patrons rather than mere consumers. Most of all, funders need to support creative experiments, where new knowledge and thinking may help expand the field. Many funders are experimenting with ways to get money, services and advice into the hands of artists. Such funds may come from multiple sources, but collaboration could be encouraged to leverage investments to most benefit artists and society.

Furthermore, boundaries between commercial and noncommercial media are disappearing, and are increasingly irrelevant to creators and consumers of content. Many people theorize that successful future strategies in media arts will come from combining the assets of the for-profit and non-profit sectors to realize both financial and social profits. This new space, perhaps called with-profit (as in social goals with profit potential), promises a rich field for exploration. What if with-profit organizations funded socially important work that will receive commercial distribution, thus reaching broader audiences that aren’t commercially attractive to the for-profit community? What if a with-profit developed a rights-licensing system that allowed creators and rights-holders to be compensated based on actual usage while simultaneously increasing public access? Perhaps the greatest potential for increasing the impact of media arts lies in with-profit ideas.

Conclusion
These potential solutions, while not all-inclusive, suggest some of the work that remains to be done. Society will benefit most from a multi-faceted strategy that considers these options alongside methods that are already working. Most of all, the field needs to continue to discuss the “big picture” and imagine possible futures for society. Every new technological advance in the arts has brought us closer to realizing the ideals of a civil society. Each time, there has been a chance to realize dreams —of technology allowing everyone to share and build knowledge, of a more democratic society where everyone could be producers, not just consumers, where multiple viewpoints could be shared and, in general, where the world could be a better place. Each time, such possibilities have been squandered due to a lack of vision about the future, the forces of greed, the power of the few over the many and the simple fact that technology never quite realizes its potential. Once again, society has been given a set of tools, none perfect, that can help realize our dreams, if we are willing to imagine the possibilities and act soon to ensure their success. All that we need is in front of us. Will we act upon it, or let this chance slip away once again?