Film Studies in Motion: From audiovisual essay to academic research video Main Menu Introduction Chapter I: From Scribe to Screen Chapter II: Current Practice Chapter III: Closing the Gap Final Remarks References

Operationalization

8115 Chapter I: From Scribe to Screen
Typically, the terms ‘visual essay’, ‘audiovisual essay’, and ‘video essay’ are used interchangeably. In their manifesto-text in the online journal NECSUS, Cristina Álvarez López and Adrian Martin attempt to make an end of this diversity by arguing for their choice:

we choose audiovisual essay because: a. we all need to put an end to the casual ignoring of the decisive role of sound in every form of modern media; b. video (as in electronic videotape) is already an anachronistic term in the digital age and has been for some time; c. essay is a word which, in the spheres of film and media (both their analysis and production), has come to carry the simultaneous connotations of intellectual research and poetic exploration – neither simply a vehicle for instrumental rationalism nor art for art’s sake. (Álvarez López & Martin 2014a)

While the argument for the preferred umbrella term – ‘audiovisual essay’ – is precise regarding the accurate selection and naming of the term’s components, it is also too general if not inexpressive in terms of possible forms, methods, and functions of an already diversified practice.
            ​In 2013, in an attempt to assign some specificity and open up discussion about more distinctly formulated functionality as well as about the true novelty of the videographic practice, we proposed ‘essay video’ as a new sub-category (van den Berg 2013). This rearrangement of words would signify an emphasis of essay in video-form, rather than allowing ‘video’-technicalities to trump the ‘essay’ component.[12] By now, however, it has become obvious that this codification contains at least two problematic elements. Firstly, the lexical variation is too minimal, and thus prone to confusion. This compromises the desired clarity in categorical distinction.[13] Secondly, the term ‘essay’ is problematic in itself: although an ‘essay’ may entail personal opinion under academic standards, its practice is always founded upon research that is clearly referenced along the progressing argumentation. Due to its vast tradition, the definition of essay might vary, allowing different approaches to serve different scholarly needs. Outside the context of academic writing, the personal angle dominates the construction of ‘essay’, which produces myriad – sometimes esoteric – structures of argumentation that assimilates prior reading into a singular, uninterrupted voice (Lopate 1992); a mode of referral that not only opposes the aforementioned, academic, fashion, but also sets it apart as unwanted.

This page has paths:

  1. Introduction Miklos Kiss