Listening to Arun’s and Wyver’s conversation and later remembering the dialogues of my fellow members, it gives me the impression that documentary has a very well built and indistinguishable relationship to the artist/director before it comes off into a material shape.
Visualisation, self-reflection, impressions, exploring narratives, and experiences, (as expressed by participants) to me revolve around same notion. Documentation is the artist’s relationship with the focus and it further progresses by his or her participation with in the scenario, how he interprets this information or evidences into perceptible form. Participation does not need to be material; it begins when he/she sets off for witnessing the document and cultivates during process of listening or viewing the process itself. Vit Havranek explains in “The Documentary method versus the ontology of documentarism” as “Documentarism in film and photography could be described as a genre in which the director/artist transmits other people knowledge, stances and experiences by articulating the medium and technology he or she uses”.
Articulation of media and technology are groundwork for producing good documentary work. It is the way an artist experiments with his theme or concept and puts his/her individual reflection in it. Moreover I feel documenting can never be universal and absolute truth as it represents a certain percentage of public, views or facts. During the process of formation, at one point the artist him/herself becomes part of the process, as similar thoughts expressed by Arun as well.
For my work “Pakistani truck art and cultural identity” I am looking the concept both objectively and subjectively. My individual reflection will surely mark my work, as I am a partly participating and partly observing. By participation I mean my personal perception of the art and later by collecting evidences of related facts and figures about art form.