|
By Michael Schoonmaker, Author, Cameras in the Classroom On the surface, the college-level Video/TV production culture might appear very different than K-12 brand. For instance, the typical student in my production classes is a well-rounded, focused, driven and high performing individual who sees his or her self in a professional position in the media industry immediately after graduation. They are, in short, very serious about media and their professional future in it. Because my students share so much in their ability and aspirations, my approach to teaching them production (including media tools and resources I call upon) is similarly focused and consistent. The K-12 Video/TV production scene is much more complicated by comparison. Students not only come from very different places in terms of their interests and abilities, but they are also headed to very different places. The approach to media activities with such a diverse group is comparatively complicated. At the root level, however, more similarities emerge. One thing that seems to unite these two groups is the immense glory students experience in sharing their media creations with other people. I often talk about this with my college students telling them it’s something we moviemakers share in our media-making DNA. When I talk about this, I see a glimmer of familiarity and acceptance. They nod in agreement, as if I have revealed the secret behind their intense motivations. On the very simplest of levels, people with this media-making DNA strand care profoundly about what other people think and feel, and they want to engage these others in some way. Sharing our visions gives us purpose. It certainly seems to ignite self-esteem. But within this need to share lies a significant challenge to media-makers: the challenge of having something to say. The actual technology, work and craftsmanship of media-making (time consuming and backbreaking as a rule) is much easier in comparison to the challenges of having something to say. For instance, I explain to students that a filmmaker is the metaphorical equivalent of a spot lit figure standing up on stage in front of a large audience: All eyes are upon this figure. What does he or she do now? Hopefully, what they have to share will be a worthwhile and fulfilling experience for the audience. Having something meaningful to say is by far the greatest challenge to a media-maker. The best we can hope for, as media-makers, is that our audience will leave feeling moved by our works. My students often talk about their dreams of making someone else feel as good as they felt after watching a great movie. They want to give back. Having something to say when it’s time to share our stories, and truly “giving back” are not arbitrary acts of pointing the video camera at whatever is in front of us. These aspirations involve connecting the camera to the purpose, vision and creativity within us and articulating these elements aurally and visually for others to appreciate. The value in this for an audience is in experiencing perspectives from points of view other than their own. Whether a media-maker is creating content for a professional studio or television network, or their social studies teacher, they are fueled by their hope and desire to meaningfully impress those who read or listen or watch or click on that content—including their bosses and teachers. For my students, the object of their efforts is an unseen, and unforgiving, public. If they are successful they receive increasing compensation and public recognition for their efforts. For K-12 students, the object of their efforts is their teachers, parents and peers. If they are successful, they receive academic reward, compliments, a boost in self-esteem, but perhaps more important than all of that, meaningful and lasting education. In visually and aurally playing out one’s subject matter and ideas in one’s own way, a student can cross the line between learning and living—applying learning to their own expression, all fueled by their intense desire to share—their media-making DNA. With this in mind, it seems a bit ridiculous to characterize media makers as genetically different as other humans. Is it out of the realm of possibility that being seen and recognized in a positive way is closer to a universally human trait and desire? If so, then why wouldn’t media-making be considered a partner in the learning process? Or more fittingly the DNA of an inquiring mind. In the end, it’s not the “DNA factor” that distinguishes media-making professionals (or professionals-in-training) from others. It’s more the way that the DNA is used. In the professional’s case, the DNA is skill-driven, toward industry success. In the student’s case the DNA is lesson-driven, toward educational success. What constitutes this success is the subject of future articles. In the meantime, I will have to find a different metaphor to help my students distinguish themselves from others. But somehow, I don’t think they’ll have a problem seeing their media-making passion as a symptom of their humanity. Michael Schoonmaker is Chairman of the Television-Radio-Film Department at Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of Public Communications, and author of the book, Cameras in the Classroom: Education the Post-TV Generation. . He began his production career with MTV, then joined NBC’s Olympic production unit. He has taught television and filmmaking courses at the University for twenty years, and worked with K-12 teachers and students for the past fourteen.
|
|
DNA of a Media-Making Mind
|
|
Available now in the SVN On-line store |
|
April, 2008 |