Is an etymological approach helpful in teaching practice/theory, ultimately as a means of making through experimentation?
As a method of demystifying the language of academia and of film practice, I teach film conventions through a series of first instances in cinematic technological history. This method does two things: Firstly, it helps to deliver to the students a knowledge of how these conventions, of which we are all versed, albeit unknowingly, came to be confirmed through experimentation and innovation, in technologies either pertaining to film production, or presentation, often working against an existing convention of the day. Secondly to draw attention to the simplicity of the technologies, which at first might seem quite specialist, but haven’t changed much in their most basic conceptual sense, since the first days of the art form.
For many years I worked as a film projectionist and often forget what a magical world the booth was for most people who had only ever experienced cinema from the audience point of view. In developing my lecture series in film for Costume Design students I have revisited the things that made most impression on me in my early days in this world. The separation of sound and image made me investigate this concept more intently, and with awe at the ingenuity of the technologies themselves. This intrigue is what I have tried to replicate for students who, while trying to teach film theory and practice to, must engage on some level with the technologies that make any of it possible.
My favourite examples of this are the friendly competition between Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin in trying to make a feature film with the fewest title cards. Such cards were quickly adopted in the silent movie era, once many other conventions had already been established (such as continuity editing), as a means of relaying information or dialogue to the audience in the absence of sound. During the 1920s the average number of title cards used in a feature film was 250, Keaton and Chaplin competed around the 40-50 mark. The reason I love this is that the answer to the problem is obviously the invention of sound recording and presentation in cinemas. However, until this came, the true innovators pushed against the constraints of their situation, creating in the process a whole new set of conventions that are still employed within cinema today. Often when working with students they constraints they are under, perhaps financially or practically, can seem like a hindrance to their vision. I am trying to show them that it is these very constraints that the most impressive and long-lasting innovations arise from.
This has been an experimental approach to try to get various elemental teachings across to a group of students quickly, while also attempting to inspire.
This etymological approach is also intended to push the student away from the initial preconceived and frequently limited scope of their idea of films and filmmaking. By thinking about how we got here (to the conventions we understand but struggle to perceive and articulate), we can open all kinds of new direction of travel. Often the student will have what they see as ‘simple tools’ available to them. These are invariably miraculous items, such as a smartphone or laptop, and reassessing them as such can prove hugely valuable.
Since I am not overly knowledgeable about the craft of Costume Design, I cannot assess the technical progress students make in this area. Moreover, in the skills I am teaching them I am aware that the limited time I have working with them is not enough to train them fully in any of the technical skills within filmmaking in way that it would be fair to assess true technical competency in each. However, the point of the process is to develop a way of looking at a concept in filmmaking terms and to use this new ‘vision’ to creatively demonstrate their final project, reassess their concept at this late stage and make adjustments, and to develop a feeling of a better understanding within a field that many of them may one day work as part of the collaboration. How do we assess this when the ‘outcome’ is unknown? I do not want to proscribe how the students make their films, I want to be surprised by their approach and by their reading of the methods I have taught. “In terms of meaningfulness, they equate to the notion of ‘understanding’, a cognitive term which is regarded as too complex and which should be substituted by other, more measurable, terms such as, ‘explain’, ‘analyse’, etc. Another drawback in the use for these terms, acknowledged by Biggs (2003), is that they are regarded as ‘divergent’ and as such do not invite one appropriate answer but a range of possibilities.” (Allen Davies – Learning outcomes and assessment criteria in art and design. What’s the recurring problem?)