Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen | solitude.dk

While talking about the recent breakdown of Justin Hall, Jay mentions that video is the fly on the wall that shows situations objectively, while writing forces choice on you:

I say this because text blogging forces you to have judgement. If i decribe a moment between us, i am forced to color it with feelings…if I am to be honest or interesting. But with video, you let the viewer choose what to think. “This happened…no denying it. What do you think?” Words force choices on you.

And I disagree very much with this thought of video existing only as a fly on the wall that represents the situation objectively. In Rasmus Dahl's article “Disctinctions in Documentary Television” (in “The Aesthetics of Television”, Aalborg University Press, 2001) it is discussed among other things three types of intervention in documentaries. I've simplified the article a bit because I'm just trying to prove a point.

Scripting/organisation

Not everything is filmable. As Rasmus Dahl says: Going from the muddy, baffling field of reality, or realities, to the focused and limited space of the pro-filmic — the events observable by camera and microphone — involves necessarily a sort of transformation, and the nature of this transformation is dependent upon the decisions made by the producing agency.

Shooting

A more visual form of intervention takes place when you shoot the video. You can't film everything, you have to choose when to turn on your camera, and since you can't encompass a whole situation you have to choose what to film as well. In the same vein perspective plays in, moving the camera up or down from eye level makes a distinct difference for the viewer for example.

Editing

The way you attach clips in order to create the story is the last type of intervention. Additional material like music, graphics and sound effects also have an effect on the level of intervention here.

There are rich possibilities for doing intervention in video. In fact I think the amount of choices are on the same level as written accounts, if not higher. You can make a video open for interpretation, or you can make it closed — just as you can with a written text! The problem lies in the fact that people have a tendency not to think about video as a subjective work of intervention because it can easily appear to be a mirror of realities. Thus video is more effective as a tool of deception for the author, because the viewer doesn't expect intervention to have the impact that it does.

One last somewhat related thing I want to point out. Jay suggests that Justin should be videoblogging instead of text blogging, because that way he wouldn't have alienated himself from the world around him. But taping video instead of writing won't solve his problems. Justin needs to edit himself, whenever you insist on making everything that happens to you public it doesn't matter if you're writing or filming.

The problem is that you are “recording” situations that partcipants don't want recorded. A lot of situations aren't meant for public consumption, and it would seem Justin lived in a fantasy world where this wasn't true. If he can't or won't accept that he will continue to alienate the world around him.