The Living Documentary: from representing reality to co-creating reality in digital interactive documentary by Sandra Gaudenzi A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Goldsmiths (Centre for Cultural Studies), University of London. London, January 2013. I hereby declare that this thesis is entirely my work Sandra Gaudenzi Date: 2 Abstract This thesis concentrates on the emerging field of interactive documentaries. Digital interactive and networked media offer so many new possibilities to document reality that it is necessary to define what an interactive documentary is and whether there is any continuity with the linear documentary form. This research therefore proposes a definition of interactive documentaries and a taxonomy of the genre based on the idea of modes of interaction – where types of interactions are seen as the fundamental differentiator between interactive documentaries. Interactivity gives an agency to the user – the power to physically “do something”, whether that be clicking on a link, sending a video or re-mixing content - and therefore creates a series of relations that form an ecosystem in which all parts are interdependent and dynamically linked. It is argued that this human-computer system has many of the characteristics associated with living entities. It is also argued that by looking at interactive documentaries as living entities (Living Documentaries) we can see the relations that they forge and better understand the transformations they afford – on themselves and on the reality they portray. How does an interactive documentary change while it is being explored/used/co-created? To what extent do such dynamic relationships also change the user, the author, the code and all the elements that are linked through the interactive documentary? Those questions are discussed through the use of case studies chosen to illustrate the main interactive modes currently used in interactive documentaries. This thesis is a first step in exploring the multiple ways in which we participate, shape and are shaped by interactive documentaries. It argues that interactive documentaries are ways to construct and experience the real rather than to represent it. 3 Acknowledgments Looking back at the path that I have followed while doing this PhD I realise how non-linear the route has been. Going from A to B was achieved through trying many routes, sometimes taking U-turns and often walking backwards only to try a new direction. Many times I felt lost, and finding a new route was not always easy. I would like to express my deep gratitude to all the friends, family and colleagues who, at one moment or another, have helped me. Some gave me practical help, others just encouraged me. Without them I would have run out of steam a long time ago. I will never forget how Brigitte Kaltenbacher explained to me that formulating an argument is like fitting sandwiches into a lunch box. It strangely made a lot of sense. Warm thanks to Federica Frabetti for guiding me through the labyrinths of Goldsmiths, to Chiara Petrolini for her support, and to Margherita Pascucci for re- boosting my enthusiasm at a moment it was at its lowest. All my gratitude goes to Alan Sekers and Yvonne Light for having jumped to attention when I needed them. I am also indebted to my first supervisor Luciana Parisi who, regardless of the vicissitudes of life, has never stopped guiding me through this journey; and to Matt Fuller, my second supervisor, to whom I owe the idea of starting my blog on interactive documentaries. I want to thank my parents, for teaching me that critical thinking is an important skill to have, and my kids, for showing me that critical thinking is not enough, and that there is more to life. Thank you for all those “distractions” that kept me sane. Finally, my eternal gratitude goes to my husband for having been there, always, by my side, as a solid rock. Without his psychological, financial and practical help this work would never have been finished. And without his generosity and love, it would not have even started. 4 Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... 4 Table of contents ............................................................................................................ 5 Table of figures .............................................................................................................. 8 Glossary of terms ......................................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 1- The interactive documentary as an emergent form ............................ 21 Defining the linear documentary .............................................................................. 21 Defining the digital interactive documentary ........................................................... 26 Comparing linear and interactive documentaries ..................................................... 32 Interactive documentary: the field so far ................................................................. 37 The conversational mode ..................................................................................... 39 The hitchhiking (or hypertext) mode ................................................................... 47 The participatory mode ........................................................................................ 54 The experiential mode .......................................................................................... 62 Summary .................................................................................................................. 68 Chapter 2 – The interactive documentary as a Living Documentary ................. 72 The interactive documentary as a relational entity................................................... 73 Cybernetics: feed-back loops, autopoiesis and structural coupling ..................... 76 A relational entity that affords the construction of realities ..................................... 80 A new species: the Living Documentary ................................................................. 83 Autopoiesis and assemblage in the context of interactive documentary.............. 84 Applying assemblage theory to interactive artefacts .......................................... 87 Summary .................................................................................................................. 90 Chapter 3 - The hypertext interactive documentary through the lenses of the Living Documentary .................................................................................................. 93 Reactive and interactive hypertext documentaries ................................................... 94 5 The [LoveStoryProject] – a case study of hypertext mode ................................... 100 The [LoveStoryProject] as a dynamic interactive hypertext Living Documentary ...................................................................................................... 101 1. What are the main components and dimensions of the [LoveStoryProject]? 104 2. The [LoveStoryProject]’s organization ......................................................... 111 3. Do changes affect the identity of the [LoveStoryProject] and the identity of the systems that are related to it? ....................................................................... 113 4. What stabilises, destabilises, or ends the [LoveStoryProject]? ..................... 118 Summary ................................................................................................................ 122 Chapter 4 - The experiential documentary through the lenses of the Living Documentary ............................................................................................................ 125 Rider Spoke – a case study of experiential mode ................................................... 139 Rider Spoke as a dynamic, reactive, interactive and collaborative documentary144 Rider Spoke through the lenses of the Living Documentary ............................. 146 Rider Spoke’s questionnaire ............................................................................... 147 1. What are the main components and dimensions of Rider Spoke? ................. 148 2. Rider Spoke’s organization ............................................................................ 159 3. Do changes affect the identity of Rider Spoke and/or the identity of the systems that are related to it? ............................................................................. 162 4. What stabilises, destabilises, or ends Rider Spoke? ....................................... 167 Summary ................................................................................................................ 172 Chapter 5 – The participative documentary through the lenses of the Living Documentary ............................................................................................................ 176 Participation as a high level of interaction ............................................................. 178 Participatory culture and interactive documentary ................................................ 180 From open source code