Foundations of Science

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 197–205 | Cite as

The Documentary Real: Thinking Documentary Aesthetics

Article
  • 518 Downloads

Abstract

In this article we consider the growing interest in recent years in the use of documentary strategies in the wold of contemporary art, film and performing arts and explore some of the central epistemological assumptions underpinning the persistent idea that the documentary should be equated with ‘non-fiction’. Following Stella Bruzzi we argue that if documentary theory maintains objectivity as the primary measure of value, it will inevitably and continuously arrive at the conclusion that the documentary genre is fundamentally flawed. Instead, we propose to move beyond the ‘realist epistemology’ of documentary theory and focus on the ‘documentary real’, i.e. the specific performativity of the reality constructed in and by the documentary genre. In the last paragraphs, we introduce the various articles that address the “documentary real” in this special issue.

References

  1. Barthes, R. (1986). The reality effect. In The rustle of language (pp. 141–148). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berrebi, S. (2007). Documentary and the dialectical document in contemporary art. In M. Schavemaker & M. Rakier (Eds.), Right about now. art and theory since the 1990s (pp. 109–115). Amsterdam: Valiz.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial hells: Participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bruzzi, S. (2006). New Documentary. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Chanan, M. (2008). The politics of documentary. London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Forsyth, A., & Megson, C. (2009). Get real: Documentary theatre past and present. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Irmer, T. (2006). A search for new realities. Documentary theatre in Germany. TDR, 50(3), 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Martin, C. (2013). Theatre of the real. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mercer, K. (2002). Documenta 11. Frieze, September (69).Google Scholar
  10. Musser, C. (2013). Problems in historiography: The documentary tradition before Nanook of the North. In B. Wilson (Ed.), The documentary film book (pp. 119–129). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nichols, B. (1991). Representing reality. Issues and concepts in documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Nichols, B. (2001). Introduction to documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Reinelt, J. (2009). The promise of documentary. In A. Forsyth & C. Megson (Eds.), Get real: Documentary theatre past and present (pp. 6–23). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Richards, M. (2013). Global nature, global brand: Bbc Earth and David Attenborough’s landmark wildlife series. Media International Australia, 146(1), 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Steyerl, H. (2008). Politics of truth. The wal-martization of documentary practice. In B. Hofmeyr (Ed.), The Wal-Mart phenomenon. Resisting neo-liberalism (pp. 55–64). Maastricht: Jan van Eyck Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. White, H. (1998). The Historical Text as Literary Artifact. In B. Fay, P. Pomper, & R. Vann (Eds.), History and theory. Contemporary readings (pp. 15–33). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Art, Music and Theatre Studies, Studies in Performing Arts and MediaGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.ACOD cultuurGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations