One Lens Two Photographers
- Topic / Area of Research
Developing the intended area of research from my proposal, I have made two videos, each acting as documentation of a fashion photography shoot. The first shows a photographer working on location in London. The second shows a photographer working in a studio. Firstly, I am interested in using these differing styles as points of contrast to compare different problems, themes and technical issues in digital photography. Secondly, by adopting different modes of video production I am also interested in issues of video, documentary, and relations between media raised by the videos.
In the first video London, a photographer works in an improvised fashion, walking around the city and making aesthetic or technical decisions in relation to the landscape. While he has a great deal of freedom he has little control over the conditions. I found the most appropriate way to document this process through roughly edited hand-held video making reference to codes of realism or authenticity in documentary video. I also employed to-camera first-person interviews adding to the effect of truth or reality produced by the video, and mimicking the claims to spontaneity of the produced photographs. In the second video Studio, a photographer works in a very controlled environment making work that engages with performance and staging in order to draw attention to the codes of realism in photography. My video here is structured differently, using more stylized editing and controlled shots, mimicking the more artificial structure of the photographic shoot.
As I discussed in my proposal, digital photography, rather than being seen as an index of the real now carries with it assumptions of manipulation and construction. I traced two consequences of this. Firstly that the trustworthiness of photography has been called into question, and secondly that new possibilities for photography have been opened up, in terms of its effects and in terms of perception. I discussed for example Liz Wells analysis, where she contrasts how “photography was associated with truth, realism and evidence” (Wells 2008: 304) but now enables “new ways of seeing the world and changing the very cultural status of images” (304). Both of these consequences have changed our relationship to reality, and this is something, as I discussed in the proposal literature review in relation to the work of Alexandra Mir or The Atlas Group, that many photographers have engaged with. I pointed out one way that they have done this as modes of making the image-making process more transparent, revealing work as fiction and so revealing the processes of construction underlying it, whether for political or for other reasons.
How my work now relates to this proposed area of research is complex and requires explanation. On one level (that of the photographic shoot), firstly, the photographic process in London illustrates some of the potentials opened up by developments in digital photography – using light handheld cameras, amateur photographers with little budget or equipment can operate with freedom, experimenting with multiple shots, knowing that anything can be deleted at ease and no cost. Secondly, in London, the off-hand and improvised photographic style works within conventions of a new form of digital realism, which maintains the indexical relationship of the photograph, suggesting through its style, that despite the ease of use, what is shot is real, true and accurate. In other words, the shoot reveals both sides of the consequences I outlined above – the increased potential of digital photography, and the construction of new codes of realism in the wake of the old. Developing these ideas into a second level (that of the video), I make similar arguments but then take them further through relation between the media. My hand-held video, similarly to the photographic shoot reveals the potentials opened up by developments in digital video. I can easily and quickly move around the city shooting easily with minimal equipment and no budget. It also similarly reveals new codes of realism proposed by digital video – hand-held camera for example suggesting authenticity and truth. In this sense both media are similar. The video mirrors the photographic shoot by illustrating both potentialities and shifts in realism as a consequence of developments in digital technology. However, at a third level (that of the relation between the photography and the video), this mirroring relation starts to break down as the media can operate as a critique of one another. Video makes present a temporality in the photographic process, which exists but is not made obvious in a focus on the photographic product (the photograph itself). This then introduces various critiques into the codes of realism suggested by the photograph. At a basic level here for example the claims to spontaneity and authenticity in the ‘street photograph’ can be either constructed and valorized, or questioned and critiqued (by, say, showing how poses are constructed and framed). The video makes more visible in the photographic process than is evident in the photograph itself, making process transparent, and this self-reflexive transparency is how I hope to engage with the issues raised by my project.
The second video Studio then follows a similar model as well as introducing a fourth level (the relation between the two videos). At the level of the photographic shoot, different effects and consequences of developments in digital technologies are shown. Here, in contrast with the first video, the potential of manipulation is foregrounded through the use of very stylized shooting and studio technology which allows a completely synthetic backdrop to be added. New possibilities opened up by the digital emerge. This in turn, also shows the effect of the looser connection between the photograph and reality, the produced images look stylized and ‘unreal’. At the level of the video, I employed different techniques to illustrate how digital technology can be used in the video process – the intercutting of stills for example, or similar techniques which remove the video from status as supposedly transparent document. This then serves to reveal how the video is actively involved in the construction of reality. At the third level of relation between video and photographic process, many critiques are made, the absurdities of the photographer undercutting their staged heroism for example. Finally, as I suggested above, there is another level of relation between the two videos, and therefore all of the processes, showing how layers of self-reflexivity can undercut the supposed transparency of documentary and engaging with contrasting modes of development of digital technology. I will go on to evaluate all these aspects of my work in detail throughout this report.
- Aims of Project
– Using digital video, to produce two documentary-style videos of digital photography processes.
– To effectively plan, shoot and edit an engaging, creative and technically proficient documentary video of a location digital photography shoot.
– To use this video as a platform for engaging with issues of realism and representation in documentary video and digital photography.
– To effectively plan, shoot and edit an engaging, creative and technically proficient documentary video of a studio-based digital photography shoot.
– To use this video as a platform for further engaging with issues of realism and representation, manipulation and performance in documentary video and digital photography.
– To show a contrast between the styles of digital photography represented – on one hand, realist-style location shooting, and on the other hand carefully controlled studio shooting.
– To create a contrast between the styles of my videos, exploring realist documentary techniques in one, and combining these with more stylized cinematography and editing in the other.
– To distribute my videos for viewing on internet platforms
– To explore the differences between uses of technologies and the theoretical impact they may have on questions of representation and reality.
- Target Audience
The question of who is the target audience for my videos is raised in two main contexts – the academic and distribution contexts. Firstly, as an academic project, the videos are an important tool in the development of my own practical and theoretical skills. In this sense the intended audience is no-one beyond myself and tutors who help me develop my practice. In another sense however, careful theoretical analysis of the work can help to imagine where it could most effectively be situated, and then relate this to distribution strategies. I have opted firstly to show the videos on a shared internet video viewing platform. This implies a certain audience already – one familiar with the web, predominantly young, those who have computers (mainly in developed countries). The audience could be further narrowed down by a consideration of content – issues of technology attracting more of a male audience. Beyond this general characterization of a young western male, the choice of distribution doesn’t offer much more without more analysis of data. It does imply a specific mode of viewing however which I must consider in my project. YouTube audiences for example generally look at something quickly for humour, and not much seriousness is attached culturally to videos on show there. Also aesthetically, compression and size means that videos can’t be viewed at intended formats. As my videos engage with technical issues, it seems that I should have more control over how I show them and arrange my won screening with conditions appropriate. This would also allow them to be viewed more seriously and for people to potentially engage with issues they raise. This then relates back to target audience, ideally, I would want to be able to target a more specific audience than the general anonymous user suggested by sites such as YouTube. Ideally, an educated viewer who was familiar with digital technologies would be more appropriate for me to target. This would require however careful organization in the mode of my distribution, but I would suggest a one-off special screening would allow me to be more selective. This could be targeted through media channels such as TV, or in more of a fine art / short film context which would give me greater control. Decisions such as this could help me focus my project a lot more.
- Product Research
In my literature review I discussed different modes of documentary video, which had influenced my research. Focusing on style allowed me to range across contexts of film, TV advertising, TV documentary and fine art photography and video. I was interested in particular how developments in digital technology has led to shifts in codes of realism in documentary video. Stella Bruzzi described documentary as “the perpetual negotiation between the real event and its representation (that is to propose that the two remain distinct but interactive)” (Bruzzi 2008: 15). I suggested that developments in digital technology have led to an increased focus on this process of ‘negotiation’ and drawing attention to processes of construction. Documentary itself is a contradiction. On one hand we watch it as an example of truth, or reference to reality. On the other hand however, in order to construct this truth it has to use various conventions, which change throughout history so are never fixed in a universal image of truth. As I suggested, conventions of handmade style such as shaky handheld cameras have become dominant signifiers of ‘authenticity’ not only in documentary but across culture recently. In popular culture for example, a recent range of advertising for breakfast cereal Weetabix follows a family for a ‘Weetabix Week’. The adverts are intended to signify the realistic everyday interactions of an ‘average’ family and so employ techniques developed from documentary film and filtered through specific genres such as Reality TV. The camera is hand-held and shots are unprofessionally framed signifying that the camerawork is ‘amateur’ and therefore closer to the reality of the family than the assumed distance and objectivity of a professional film crew. The family members address a fixed camera directly, in a reference to the ‘diarycam’ convention of confessional TV Reality shows, or confessional moments in shows such as Big Brother. This creates the effect of spontaneous authentic speech, which offers a supposedly truer account than scripted dialogue. It employs stylised transitions as a reference to home video editing conventions, again signifying authenticity over high-production aesthetics. The adverts raise a number of interesting questions in relation to my project. Firstly it is interesting how much is left out of the frame. Of course the advert is not amateur at all but is shot according to a set of conventions in order to signify this. The Weetabix advert is not really any less scripted, staged or anonymous than other adverts using different production values but it attempts to mask its own corporate appropriation of family life by hiding this fact and acting as if it is really letting a ‘normal’ family speak. The conventions then, which originally could be read as a sign of immersion in the scene or a closeness to events, are now dominant signifiers of deceit. The use of these conventions in such mainstream commercial work shows how dominant they have become. In relation to digital technology, the lightweight and ease of use of digital video leading to the proliferation of amateur video distributed on the internet is now being mimicked by mainstream productions in order to try and capture some of the energy, intensity or banality that its codes suggest. The question then becomes why documentary filmmakers should continue using these styles, which have become so mimicked as to become meaningless.
One possible response is to involve levels of self-awareness of media, as I hope to do in my project. As I pointed out in my literature review, Bruzzi goes on to analyse what she calls the ‘performative documentary’ to describe a mode of documentary which “emphasizes – and indeed constructs the film around – the often hidden aspect of performance, whether on behalf of the documentary subjects or the filmmakers” (Bruzzi 2008: 185). A documentary for example, may be able to simultaneously employ codes, and also be critical of them, through self-aware references to usually hidden elements of performance. This is important in my project in relation to the performance of the photoshoot, normally completely excluded from the final product. Bruzzi goes on to describe its effect:
The performative element within the framework of non-fiction is thereby an alienating and distancing device, not one which actively promotes identification and a straightforward response to a film’s content. (185)
In other words rather than being taken in by the deceit, viewers are made aware of the processes involved in construction, allowing them to both engage with the product and be critical of the conventions it employs. There are many examples of working within this mode, for various and different effects. One example within documentary is the film-maker Nick Broomfield. He has made documentaries on various topics including popular cultural icons such as Kurt Cobain or rappers Biggie and Tupac, and political issues such as events of the Iraq War. He has become famous as an auteur for his distinct style, which can be described as that of performative documentary maker as outlined in Bruzzi’s definitions. The alienating device he prefers is the inclusion of himself, or a persona of himself, into the films. Rather than just watching the action then along with documentary associations of objectivity and reality, the viewer is constantly watching Broomfield in the performance of making the documentary, serving to draw attention to the processes of construction and question the supposed impartiality or objectivity of the codes of digital video documentary (for example, first-person to-camera confessions, hand-held minimally edited footage) that he otherwise uses. Broomfield takes this critique further, not only appearing in the films, but appearing almost as a caricature of part of an amateur film crew, holding a boom-mic and adopting a clumsy uninformed persona. One effect of this of course is to put his subjects at ease and allow him to perhaps gain material which may otherwise not have been possible in contexts such as high-security US prisons. Another effect though is draw attention not only to the dominant codes of realism, revealing them as arbitrary, but also to reveal how they are usually so excluded from representation, by their strangeness becoming part of his distinctive style. There are also limitations with this approach, one being that it then itself becomes as much a convention as what it sets out to critique. In other words, the ‘performative documentary’ establishes new codes of realism which start themselves to become unquestioned. This is evident through Broomfield’s caricature of himself in a series of Volkswagen adverts. Here he uses his own trademark style not really to critique documentary codes but more as a commodifiable style designed to give Volkswagen a more ‘cutting-edge’ image.
The performance of the documentary maker as a self-aware part of the production process is also now common in TV documentary such as Louis Theroux’s recent Law and Disorder in Philadelphia (2008). Here, as in Broomfield’s work, Theroux’ process of construction is foregrounded, not so much in terms of physical construction of the work (like Broomfield’s own sound recording persona), but more in his positioning as interviewer in relation to his subjects. Rather than the conventional illusion of the interviewer being absent (as the crew being absent in Broomfield’s work), here the absurdity of a white, middle-aged and middle-class English presenter asking difficult questions about crime and drugs to Philadelphia gangs serves, in one sense, to heighten tension and allow identification, but, in another sense, also act performatively to show how information gathering and production are never neutral and objective but always coloured from a particular perspective.
So, documentary has been massively affected by developments in digital technology. The ease of use and distribution due to low-cost digital cameras and internet networking has been part of the shaping of new documentary convention. Realism and authenticity now is produced less by the objective styles of previous work but from the personal subjective mode of amateur-style handheld camera. This mode has become so common that it is employed by advertising as codes of realism and closeness to everyday life. Performative work however, operates in various ways to draw attention to, and therefore critique, these dominant codes. I have illustrated here examples of staging the construction of documentary. In my project I will approach this differently, taking a self-aware performative approach to revealing the processes behind the production of digital photographic images. I hope this strategy will give more ‘critical distance’ to my work, allowing me to focus on how shifts in digital technology have changed the processes and relations to reality of photography and documentation.
- Project Plan / Timeline
Chapter 1 ~ London – 7.5 Minutes
Music: Girls on film (music is 3.5 Minutes)
1-Danny holding camera -Taking pictures
Split screen and Information about the photographer
2-short interview: Danny explaining his shooting plan
3- Team arrives-Make up Artist+ Model
4- Make up artist start the transformation of model
5-Interview: Danny Explaining his Style
6-Atmosphere of location
7-Model make up
8- Photo session in progress
9-Seeing images in the camera
10-Moving to new location
11-Photoshoot in progress
12- Danny directing model
13-The end playing picture on back of camera
Chapter 2 ~ Studio – 7.5 minutes
1- Start with one of our Model Images
2-Music: “I want to break free”
3-Wide angle shot: Photography in progress
For 20 Sec
4- Photographer image and introduction
5-Close up shot of make up artist
6-wide angle shot- atmosphere of studio (energy, Action)
7-Photographer profile shot- shutter click… Play Picture
8-Wide angle… Video camera follows photographer
9-photographer directing model by showing sketches
10- Interview with photographer
11- Wide angle Photographer explaining position
12- Model going to position Click and picture plays
13- photographer and model discussing the shot
14- Pictures showing on back of the camera
15- model checking pictures
16- Interaction with model
17- make up artist preparing for next shot
18-photographer looking through camera lens
20- Last frame- photographer say good bye to the team
21- edited image play with Music: I want to break free …
- Critical Analysis of Production
6.1. Review of Technologies/Resources Employed
As my critical focus is on the impact of digital technologies, I have chosen all digital technologies to use in the production. The photographer in London used a Canon D400 with Tamaron lens, and I used a Sony HVR-Z1U HDV camcorder with shotgun mic, and edited on Final Cut on a Mac Powerbook. The photographer in Studio used a Canon 30D with 12-70mm Canon L-series lens, along with an Interfit 3200k kit, 2 x 500 w heads, 2 stands and umbrellas, a grey backdrop and Calumet wireless flash trigger. For post-production he used Photoshop and Aperture on a Mac Powerbook. I used the same video camera, plus a second camera (same model) for the wide angle shots.
The main issues of importance in relation to technology were general points about digital technology. For the first video how light and portable equipment could be easily used and moved around the city, photographs can be reviewed, altering the whole process of the shoot. In terms of video equipment, this allowed me to shoot the video on the move working with no crew but obtaining the desired results. In parallel with the photographic shoot, I had little control over issues like lighting and this led to slight variability in the video colours. This was not a problem in this context however, as it added a further reference of realism. Shooting on digital allowed me to amass a large amount of material knowing I could easily abandon any that I did not want to use. This process was foregrounded in both videos in scenes when photographer and model review digital images on the camera screen. In Studio in particular, I have shown how important the on-shoot editing process is when involved in digital photography. I used a sequence with the frame of the camera within the video frame in both videos. This shift in temporality – shoot, then look at the image before re-shooting is an important difference within digital photography. In Studio the photographer is unhappy with the shot and goes to retake, in London, it allows the model to see and gain confidence. In both it functions as part of the rhythm of the shoot, adding an element of control. In terms of editing, I used Final Cut Pro on a Mac Powerbook laptop. This illustrates another important effect of digital technology, that the editing process has become so mobile and accessible.
6.2. Review of the Production Process and Production Phases
The production process went smoothly. The timing of my editing allowed for space walking between shoot locations to create a sense of movement around the city. This revealed, on one hand, the lack of the control of the photographer, but on the other hand, also the potential for unexpected events to occur. Rather than being planned beforehand, the final production shots were obtained by chance and the less structured approach, made possible by the digital, left open the potentiality for these events to occur. Although planned to an extent, shooting in this way produced a kind of structured improvisation where the structure could be adapted to various contingencies along the way.
Location shooting also however produced problems. My sound recording was low quality and the voiceover was not very clear over ambient sound. There were inconsistencies of exposure, for example in shooting the section in the scaffold when the outside pat of the frame seems a lot whiter. The lack of control over the environment is also revealed by the interference of passers-by who got in the way in the background. Greater demands were also placed on the model who may not have responded so well to the flexible direction. To accommodate for the rawness of the handheld footage I used techniques such as overlapping the voiceover in order to create more coherence. I used the to-camera interview to provide greater realism for my documentary, which also added insights and humour to the video. The photographer is an amateur, working primarily as a quantity surveyor it turns out. It also revealed assumptions in his attitude to photography, he ‘prefers to get it right first time’ for example, suggesting a mode of thinking not in keeping with the dominance of the multiple in digital discourse. He also suggested that it is ‘more creative’ to work and adapt to conditions outside, reflecting a feeling for the importance of the human in the shoot. I was able to mimic elements of the still photography through my own process such as the shared use of backgrounds and use of angles, as in the phonebox section.
I had to overcome various difficulties and problems throughout the shooting process. During planning stages, it was difficult to organize people to all be available at the same time and keep control of changes in their plans. Many problems arose when I came to shoot. I had not effectively planned how I was going to move between the different perspectives – that of the photographer and that of the video maker. I could have used cuts in editing but, especially in the first video, I had to shoot so much live that it was hard to organize this. I managed to overcome this by using live action techniques such as zooms to move between perspectives. I had little control really over the first shoot as my main aim was to document the actions, and to constantly restage events would have led to losing spontaneity. This was at times frustrating though as it made the editing process more difficult. Editing in general it was hard to shape the footage into a coherent, structured and engaging narrative I decided to mainly follow the narrative of the photographic shoots. The style of the videos could have been more pronounced. For example I could have made more distinctions between the hand-held style and use of fixed shots in Studio. I will consider ways of doing this in future projects.
There were many similarities of style between my videos. I used mainly all handheld camera again for example in Studio, but this time used some fixed shots as well. I used the same strategy of shifting between perspectives as this was my main idea for the videos. I wanted to create a sense of alienation by moving between seeing from the eyes of the photographer, and the eyes of the video maker and I feel I achieved this well. There were also some differences though. In this video, the photographic images were integrated into the video, acting as a further distancing device. Rather than combining them smoothly, I have edited them abruptly, stopping all music and diegetic sound, before returning to the scene. This accentuates the differences between the still and moving images as well as mimicking the abrupt nature of the shutter. They function as an interruption to my video as I am interrupting the photographic process. The use of stills also created more of a narrative for the video as it became organized around the static moments and ended with a final image with superimposed background, illustrating potentialities of the digital. The way that the video narrative became subordinate to the narrative of the photoshoot – it didn’t really develop its own independent narrative – is something I could have improved. I also used other more stylized techniques in this video. As well as the use of stills, I used non-diegetic music at the start, moving away from codes of realism to create a more spectacular high-key introduction. I intercut shots of short duration such as jumping quickly between close-ups and long-shots of the performer. Again this removed the video from codes of realism and gave it an edge of digitally manipulated effect. Although the videomaker was mainly absent as in the first video, there were moments when he became more present, in speaking to the performer directly at one point for example. This was interesting as it opened up more self-reflexivity to the video-making process as well as the photographic process. Again, I could develop this in future work.
- Evaluation / User Testing
In order to effectively evaluate my project, I would use qualitative methods combined with quantitative methods. I would organise a focused research group consisting of members of my target audience – postgraduate students specifically, who I would easily be able to contact. I would then provide a screening of my work, which would allow me to show it in the context over which I have most control, allowing me to take into account elements such as the effects of projection or monitor screening, cinema style screenings and related factors. I would plan to organise a group of around 8-10 people to allow for a diverse group of opinions but to keep the discussion manageable. For the first part I would use questionnaires. This would allow me to gather data easily and quickly, although it may not provide a great amount of detail. Questionnaires would provide a quick way of assessing whether my target group responded positively or negatively to my project, as well as allowing me to create identity profiles, taking into account factors such as age and gender, which may be useful when deciding upon my target audience. For the next part I would use semi-structured interviews, which would allow me, in more depth, to organise conversations around the issues that were important for me in the construction of the project. This format would keep the conversation fairly open, allowing for unexpected responses, but also allow me to keep control to make sure that topics such as realism and self-reflexivity were adequately covered. The importance of this has been discussed in research on quantitative techniques such as Silverman 2004: 140, and Jensen 2002: 156).
In terms of what I set out to do then, I feel that I have adequately achieved my aims. The first video London effectively communicated a sense of location shooting. My main strategy in terms of performative documentary was to enact a constant shift between the gaze of the photographer and the gaze of the video maker watching the photographer. In other words I would cut between roughly what he would see while shooting and shots of him taking the photographs. The fluidity of the handheld style allowed me to do this sometimes through the use of zooms. I think this effectively managed to create a distance for the viewer, and focus on how illusions of objectivity and realism are constructed. By constantly shifting perspective it was hard to maintain a sense of identification with any one point of view, and it was the whole process that was foregrounded instead. I think this managed to give a sense of the artificiality of conventions of realism through a process of self-awareness. It also raised other interesting issues. The relation of voyeurism was complicated for example. The film theorist Laura Mulvey has argued that the cinematic apparatus assumes a ‘male gaze’ as it objectifies and fragments women as objects assuming a male viewer who places them as objects of desire (Mulvey 2001: 395). The relation of photographer to female model illustrates this quite bluntly, one hiding behind the lens and the other revealing herself through various sexualized images. In my video however, this relationship is complicated as it is the third person of the video maker who is never present in the frame, remaining absent in a voyeuristic position watching the whole process. The effect of this is to act as another mode of performativity or self-reflexivity, drawing attention to, rather than assuming, the operation of the male gaze, the video potentially works as its critique. Indeed by framing the whole heroic masculine action of the photographer protagonist, framed as the objective for an unseen other, the masculine romanticisation of the photographer is undercut. On the other hand, there was a certain romanticisation of the whole process in the video too, which allowed for more lingering looks and the capturing of material details like the click of the shutter, which are left out of still images.
Other interesting points emerged from the differences between still photography and video. By introducing temporality to the photographic process, I was able to focus on details before and after the captured moment. A pose which may look intense, sexy or heroic as a still, often became absurd when exposed to a longer gaze, in the model’s nervousness waiting to be photographed for example. This is interesting in relation to realism as it raises the question of whether these moments are more ‘natural’ and less staged than the posed moments captured in stills, and whether duration can be a way of ‘unlocking these moments in a new form of realism. I also allowed my camera to ‘look away’ at moments and capture other details such as the make-up bag, which are those excluded from the final photographic image. These are ideas which would require more development in future practical work. Overall, the video supported my ideas well although I could have improved the narrative structure. It drifted along and then drifted away without much of an engaging narrative and no real sense of closure at the end.
The second video Studio was interesting in relation to my aims as the shoot itself explicitly engaged with issues of performance, reality and artificiality. Its subject matter of a model playing the role of Freddie Mercury made it an appropriate shoot to examine the manipulations and potentialities of digital photography. In the video I successfully highlighted elements of the shoot that I found interesting. This included for example, the way that, paradoxically, in order to aim for an image that seemed ‘realistic’, the photographers tried to achieve really exaggerated ‘larger-than-life’ postures creating a sense of excessive stylization. This suggests that ‘reality’ in the digital may be related more to intensity of representation than to its indexing. This is another point I could consider more in the development of future projects. Overall I feel Studio worked well. The controlled environment allowed me to create a more controlled piece contrasting with the loose structure of London. If the photo shoot could be seen as a glamorization of the glitzy world of rock n roll, then the video, through its introduction of temporality and self-reflexivity, served to undercut this, giving as much weight to the moments of production and construction, as to the stylized intensity of the images.
The Atlas Group (1998) The Fakhouri Notebooks, http://www.theatlasgroup.org/data/TypeA.html
Basualdo, C. (2002) ‘The Atlas Group’ in Documenta 11: Exhibition Catalogue . Kassel: Hatje Kantz.
Broomfield, N. (Dir.) (2002) Biggie and Tupac. Film Four, UK.
Baudrillard, J. (1999) ‘The Evil Demon of Images and the Precession of the Simulacra’ in Postmodernism: A Reader, Ed. T. Docherty. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Bruzzi, S. (2008) New Documentary, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge
Cotton, C. (2004) The Photograph as Contemporary Art. London: Thames & Hudson.
Crary, L. (1993) Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge MA, The MIT Press.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2007) A Thousand Plateaus. London: Continuum.
Jameson, F. (1999) ‘Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism’ in Postmodernism: A Reader, Ed. T. Docherty. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 62-92.
Jensen, K. (2002) A Handbook of Media and Communications Research Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. London: Routledge.
Mir, A. (2001) ‘First Woman on the Moon’, http://www.aleksandramir.info/projects/moon/moon.html
Mitchell, W.J. (1992) The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mulvey, L. (2001) ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ in Durham & Kelner (Eds.) Media and Cultural Studies. Oxford: Blackwell, 393-404
Myrik, D. and Sanchez, E. (Dirs.) (1999) The Blair Witch Project. Haxan Films, UK.
Robins, K. (1991) ‘Into the Image: Visual Technologies and Vision Cultures’ in P.Wombell (ed.) PhotoVideo: Photograpy in the Age of the Computer. London: Rivers Oram Press.
Silverman, D. (2004) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. Sage.
Theroux, L. (Dir.) (2008) Law and Disorder in Philadelphia, Channel 4, UK.
Wells, L. (2008) Photography: A Critical Introduction, 3rd Edition. London & New York: Routledge.
Winston, B. (2003) Media Technology and Society London & New York: Routledge.
‘The Weetabix Week’ (2008), http://www.visit4info.com/advert/Weetabix-Week-The-Barnes-Family-Weetabix-Range/58751