Introduction
 
I wish I could begin this statement by saying that over the past two years, I learned the most from the courses I took in the MIAS program.  I don’t want to disparage the curriculum, which was tremendously useful to me.  But truthfully, a significant portion of my education has come from the conversations I have had with people – fellow students, archivists, faculty advisers, and mentors – that have fueled my thoughts and inspired me towards new ideas in this program.  
 
For example - while completing a project for a class in early 2007, I was talking to Stephen Worth, the Director of the ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive.   By the third quarter of the program, I had begun recording all the interviews I conducted for papers and projects.  At this point, we were finished discussing the project and were just talking.  The subject was how ASIFA is an archive that was created primarily for artists, and how that makes them unique.  Here is a transcript of our conversation:
 
  1. Worth: Animation historians are a different breed – they don’t like to share.  They don’t understand the concept of this archive the ways that artists do …  Since an animation historian’s primary goal is to document others’ work, their ownership is OF the documentation.  So they feel that if they release the information in some way before they can package and sell it, that they’re losing their assets.  For an artist, the general mindset is that the wider he or she can share his or her influence, the more that becomes part of popular culture and the artist culture and that makes his work even stronger.  Which is kind of an interesting difference between artists and historians.  The internet has changed everything, because now people want to add to the free exchange of ideas on the internet, since all of us get so much from it, we want to be able to give back to it what we know.
  2.  
  3. Me: I totally see that attitude.  As a user of this archive, I definitely fall on the historian side of the coin, but one of the reasons I’m doing the [MIAS] program instead of Critical Studies is because I’m all about open access to information.  I don’t care that my research is transparent.   If I had been able to [on the Les Clark research project] without getting in trouble, I would have posted every draft and resource I’d found on the web for everyone.  
 
This thought seems obvious to me now, but at the time I said it, the words just came out of me organically, the seeds of bigger and better ideas to come.  Inspired moments like this are invaluable, and I could probably list off ten more that were equally important in my “contextual” education.  They may or may not make it into class papers and projects, but my goal is that they come through in this portfolio.  
 
 
Beginnings
 
The above anecdote introduces the crux of my main focus in the MIAS program - how to increase modes of access for moving image archives.   The fact of my interest in this particular topic has not changed over the course of my studies, but the way I approach the problem and how I foresee solutions has developed considerably.
 
When I entered the program, my ideas about access were fairly simplistic and limited in scope.  As reflected in my statement of purpose for admission to the MIAS program, the primary way I thought about access was in terms of documentary filmmakers.  In my previous career, I was a researcher and producer for documentary films and television shows.  A large part of my job was finding archival and stock footage.  From this vantage point, I noticed the following problems:
 
  1. ๏Documentary filmmakers are in the dark about how to look for footage, and even more confused about how to license the footage they do find.
  2. ๏The most common solution to this problem is to patronize the large news archives and stock agencies – NBC, CBS, Corbis, Getty Images, etc.
  3. ๏Even for these large organizations, the process of obtaining and licensing footage is clunky, inefficient, and murky.  
  4. ๏In cases where footage can be found outside of these mainstream organizations, archives often do not have a mechanism for providing access, broadcast-quality master copies, or licensing information.
  5. ๏The result is that documentaries start to all look alike and use the same footage, which underscores a broader problem - that of a more homogenized culture, where dominant commercial forces shape the way culture is created and received.
 
These problems are still real, and I used my experiences as launching pads in many of my term papers.  But the main problem with the scope of the above issues is that they reflect user problems, not archive problems.  Over time, I realized that the issue of “sticky door” access policies was a much broader one than I had originally surmised, and how those user problems are intimately connected to archive problems.
 
 
Milestones, Events and Epiphanies
 
Below I’ve listed some key events that started to change the way I thought about access.  A few of these happened at the 2006 AMIA conference in Anchorage.  At the mentor mixer on opening night, I was lucky enough to speak with TWO amazing mentors, Dan Streible and Rick Prelinger.
 
Dan provided me with a bit of history on the orphan film movement, and told me about the Orphans symposium.  This was a bit of a revelation to me - the idea of a world where people are excited about amateur voices and images.  How better to diversify the images of a culture than to ask that culture to provide their own images?
 
I had been a loyal follower of Rick Prelinger’s work for some time, especially since I frequently used his Footage books when I worked as a researcher.  To me, these books were a step in the right direction.  They provided a blisteringly comprehensive list of archives with moving image material, which allowed filmmakers to look outside of the network box.  I was surprised to find that Rick was eager to hear about students’ interests and foci in the program, as he feels that the upsurge of graduate programs are a valuable new addition to the moving image archiving field.  He said that some of us should consider becoming what he calls “MetaArchivists,” or those that don’t necessarily work directly with film or video, but promote the use of archives through the writing of critical archival theory across disciplines.   This was an exciting prospect to me, as I had already considered pursuing my PhD to this effect.
 
Later in the conference, I attended a panel discussion entitled “The Old School and New School of Archiving.”  The discussion that ensued during and after that panel brought to light a reality – that there is still a lack of knowledge about what the typical curriculum looks like, and how that might translate into knowledge that an archive could harness by hiring a graduate.  A deeper issue that surfaced was that the “old school” of archivists valued preservation concerns much more than access issues.  Many speakers and panelists that represented the “new school” were asking questions from the other end of the spectrum - how do we open up modes of access for moving image archives?  
 
Rick later encouraged me to attend an event at USC, at which he was delivering the keynote address.  This event is the next key event that shaped my thinking on access.  The theme of the event was “Remixing the Archive,” and the title of his speech was “Remix or Rollover: Archival Paradox in Century 21.”  The speech was slick, entertaining and frighteningly relevant.  It seemed to underscore and reinforce every notion I had about “sticky” access, and how to combat it.  The main idea I took away from this event was the idea of the “archival fan.”  Using the success of the Prelinger Archives as an example, Rick  made the argument that in order to compete with web video giants like YouTube and Google Video, archives will have to find a way to remain relevant in order to stay afloat.  The Internet Archive has done this with the Prelinger collection and others, by creating a community of “fans” that download and remix the footage.  Thinking about access this way, as “a broad spectrum of possible interactions between archives and users,” [1]  was a launching pad for the way I approached access for the rest of my studies.
 
As previously mentioned, I worked with the ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive more than once, and this experience definitely shaped my definition of what a moving image archive could be.  By admission, the archive is concerned foremost with providing access to their collections and disseminating large amounts of information.  They are not afraid of digitizing and providing server access, or of the potential wrath of rightsholders, whom they embrace by incorporating them (animation studio executives who sit on or are connected to the Board of Directors).
 
Last summer I worked half time at two archives in the Bay Area, the Pacific Film Archive and the Internet Archive.  At the PFA, I learned how important it is to contextualize collections, by connecting them to their related documentation.  I also learned how to focus outreach efforts to an underused potential community of users - high school and college-level in the humanities and social sciences.  The PFA had received an IMLS grant specifically to target these educators (as opposed to English or Film departments), and it was very beneficial for me to see this process in action.
 
In the fall of 2007 I took Steve Mamber’s Issues in Electronic Culture course, which was by far one of my favorite classes in the program.   Our readings concerned the intersections between technology, culture, and archives.  We also completed several lab projects, including a “false photo,” a morph, and the creation of a 3-D cinematic space.  The highlight of the course was on the last day, when Steve showed us his Hitchcock project.  He had received permission from the Academy Library to digitize and create interactive media tools with items from the Hitchcock archives.  The result was incredible - an electronic, interactive archival workspace with which to explore the visual structures, narrative, and aesthetics of Hitchcock’s films.  This is exactly the type of tool that I feel could potentially wrestle archives out of obscurity and into the public’s eye.  
 
I had been somewhat grumpy about having to wait until the 5th quarter of the program to take the Access class, but now I realize that this was actually a boon.  If I’d taken the class during the early part of the program, I would have had a very limited scope.  But by having experienced all of the above events (and many more) before taking the class, I was able to properly synthesize my ideas about access within the context of restoration, technological history, digital culture, and cataloging.   By studying copyright, programming, and distribution outlets in depth, I could approach my arguments on access with a more solid foundation.  It was the perfect MIAS course to end with.
 
 
Synthesis
 
The above experiences laid a foundation for my developing ideas on access, and I tried to extrapolate on them by exploring different ideas throughout my coursework.
 
The contents of this portfolio are a reflection of the following set of core ideas and specializations:
 
  1. ๏Promoting access through a) advocacy and outreach and b) embracing digital technologies and online access
  2. ๏Finding ways to locate and collect ephemeral, amateur and orphan works in order to encourage the use of archives
  3. ๏Specialization in animation archiving, including collection development, access and restoration
 
The excerpts, sample web pages and podcasts that are included here work together to tie these ideas together.  The paper Calvin and the New Librarian endorses a user-centric mindset and speaks of the impact of digitization across all areas of culture.  Visualizing a Homeland speaks of building integrated collections and promoting cooperation among archives, ensuring the inclusion of amateur voices, and making footage more accessible to the public.  
 
The Animation Restoration website, by virtue of its online format, takes the conversation about ethical considerations in restoration into the public sphere, illuminating some of the processes for those who may be unfamiliar with them.  Similarly, the Les Clark website showcases my ability to seek out and synthesize archival research and create educational tools with it, and speaks to the idea of unwritten histories.  
 
The Strategic Plan for the ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive is a working fundraising document, proving that I am able to take a leadership role and articulate many of the concepts from the MIAS program.  The plan outlines a mission that embraces digitization, privileges access and takes an unconventional approach by working WITH studios that own the copyright to some of its assets.  I extrapolate on this approach in the Light My Fire paper, which describes some of the problems and provides possible solutions to providing online access to streaming content.
 
Finally, the podcasts for my practica at the Pacific Film Archive and Disney’s Animation Research Library are further examples of my quest to broaden knowledge of archival education.  
 
 
Looking to the Future
 
After graduation, I see myself taking a leadership role within an archive in order to turn many of these concepts into realities.  I do not expect this process to be easy, but I firmly believe that my training in the MIAS program has prepared me for it.  I have accepted a position as the Assistant Director of the Iota Center, an archive of abstract experimental animation in Los Angeles.  This archive comes with both a huge set of challenges and also great opportunity.
 
In addition, I plan to continue to promote the use of moving image archives.  This means becoming involved with AMIA’s Advocacy Task Force, publishing articles and books on archival issues (especially for publications in associated areas like Media and Cultural Studies, Library and Information Science, and New Media/Technology), and creating blogs, websites and educational tools for outreach.  I hope to earn a PhD at an institution that promotes an interdisciplinary approach between media and archival studies, using my experiences as an archivist to support my writing.  
 
Film archivists are facing a crisis at the point where the exponential growth of their collections are exceeding what they have the resources to catalog, preserve and maintain.  At the same time, YouTube’s collections are also growing exponentially, and becoming exponentially more popular.  A substantial shift needs to happen in terms of advocacy and outreach in order to give archives the kind of public visibility they need to keep afloat, grow and obtain more and better funding.  Remixing and other uses of moving image materials are at the peak of popularity right now, and it is the perfect time to build a base of “archival fans.”  These fans are potentially all around us.   They are MIAS and MIAP students, they are scholars and authors, they are high school teachers and they are college students studying art.   In an age where “content repurposing is driving economic force,” [2] it will be those archives that throw open their doors to these potential fans that survive and prosper.  And I plan to be at the threshold of one of those doors, holding the keys.
 
 
 
1. Rick Prelinger, "Remix or Rollover: Archival Paradoxes in Century 21." Visions and Voices: the USC Arts and Humanities Initiative. Remixing the Archive. Annenberg Center for Communication, Los Angeles. 4 Nov. 2006.
 
2. Howard Besser, “Digital Preservation of Moving Image Material?” The Moving Image 1, no. 2 (2001), 39-55
 
 
 
 
 
Statement