What should IAC be thinking about?

[Brian Saberton]

I've been off the forum for a few days helping with the arrangements for the AGM weekend so I'm only just catching up with the posts. I just want to pick up on Ned's point about AV workers and the IAC. I agree that the IAC was set up for film makers but the Institute has been catering for audio visual workers for many years and this has attracted many new members thus keeping our numbers up. I suspect that many have joined to get the copyright licenses and whilst two out of the three licenses are available via the RPS, the RPS subscription is considerably higher than is ours so joining the IAC is clearly an atttractive option. The last few years have seen a big upsurge in interest in AV due to digital becoming so popular and the availability of simple editing software tools for the creation of sequences. Now that many digital cameras come equipped with the facility to shoot video, and that AV software can create movement, e.g panning and zooming, I think we are beginning to see a convergence at the hobbyist level. This is something we cannot ignore and there is considerable potential to attract a lot of these workers into the IAC. It woudln't surprise me to see joint movie/AV clubs emerging at some point in the future and I'd rather they were in our camp than someone elses.

[Dave Watterson]

Cleethorpes Camera Club is already there - see http://www.cleethorpescameraclub.co.uk/

[Mike Shaw]

I tend to agree - I have seen some stunningly inventive and creative AV sequences, that are way more dynamic than just static slide shows. I've also seen some bad ones - but then, I've also seen some bad movies ... even been responsible for a few myself. When you think aboutn it, each regime is a hobby to do with moving images - maybe still images put into motion where AV is concerned, but then I'm sure we can all recall videos with still images included, lovingly panned and zoomed a la Ken Burns. The dividing line is getting blurred, especially with still cameras shooting movies these days. AV makers can already join the IAC: extending the awareness deeper into photographic clubs could help to swell the IAC ranks.

[Chrisbitz]

I'm compelled to disagree with Mike (for once!)

I have never seen an impressive "AV", whatever that is. What's wrong with calling it a Slideshow? Unless I'm barking up the wrong tree, isn't an "AV" a slideshow with music? And I'm sure the music isn't a modern invention. Throughout history, people have bored other people with slideshows, and put music on in the background?

In my opinion, the only place for a slideshow, or to include it's video companion, a "pretty pictures set to music" film, is as a film maker's first film. they're relatively unchallenging to throw together, and are great for introducing someone to a new editing interface, and they make something showable on a club evening. But an experienced filmmaker ought to be challenging themselves a teeny bit more, by telling a story or entertaining, or informing their viewers.

But as for a club evening of pretty pictures set to music, I shudder to imagine!

Slideshows are great for still camera clubs, but let's leave them there. Still photography and documentary/drama film making are two unrelated disciplines, and let's not try to merge them, for the sake of a few cheap member gains. You'll end up diluting yourself to such an extent that you're neither particularly relevant to either, and the only people that stay are there for the social aspect.

To make this relevant to the OP, Does the IAC imagine that you've attracted all the film makers there are, and you need to expand your userbase to still camera users to gain more members? Of course not.

I think it's a really relevant point that there is a distinction between a film maker, and someone who has a video camera - a videographer maybe? It's very tempting to try and be all things to all people, but i'm not convinced it's always the solution to growing, and I wonder where to draw the line.. To take it to an extreme, do you try and attract people who like to watch films too?

[Mike Shaw]

There are slide show AVs, just as there are holiday movies with a commentary trying to drag them into being a documentary. But there are also 'slide shows' that tell a story and are truly inventive and thought provoking.

They both use images to impart ideas, and the techniques used for each are merging.

Bit like saying only artists using oil are allowed to join the Arts Club, watercolour artists not welcome...

I reckon you should visit BIAFF more often Chris! Not all the AVs on show are great, but neither are all the films, and amongst each there is usually a gem. Lets not look down on the creativity of other regimes from our lofty mole-hills! The Cleethorpes club Dave referred to earlier seems to have combined the talents of both disciplines very well

[Chrisbitz]

The Cleethorpes club Dave referred to earlier seems to have combined the talents of both disciplines very well

I'm not sure I agree with you. They have distinctly separate days for each discipline. They don't have a single evening where everyone from every format all shows their own films at the same time.

That way, people who pour scorn on drama makers, don't have to endure an evening of no interest to them at all. It's a fantastic setup, but possibly a unique solution, perfectly suited to a club with their own clubhouse.

Bit like saying only artists using oil are allowed to join the Arts Club, watercolour artists not welcome...

That's not at all what I was suggesting. I was saying that graffiti artists might not be interested in the Fine arts club, Sculptors might not be interested in the animation drawing club, and Tracey Emin might not be interested in any sort of Art club

To requote my last point, Where do you draw the line?

[Mike Shaw]

They have distinctly separate days for each discipline. They don't have a single evening where everyone from every format all shows their own films at the same time.

Ah, no. But they can go to the club on the 'other' evenings if they so choose (who knows how many do or don't?), and I'm sure, maybe, an Annual show would embrace the efforts from all? Sounds a wee bit blinkered to shut out what is really a loosely related craft.

graffiti artists might not be interested in the Fine arts club, Sculptors might not be interested in the animation drawing club, and Tracey Emin might not be interested in any sort of Art club

Very true. But artists generally appreciate/recognise the work of other artists in different fields, and the (Chelsea) Arts Club is open to all. Even I was a member ... grief, nearly sixty years ago ... and the Chelsea Arts Ball ... well. That's a different story.

Mind you, I can't see an AV section flourishing very well at OVFM at the moment ... not unless the walls are rubberised to allow more people in ... but 'twinning' might be an option ... one day ... maybe ... in years to come ...

[Chrisbitz]

Mind you, I can't see an AV section flourishing very well at OVFM at the moment ... not unless the walls are rubberised to allow more people in ... but 'twinning' might be an option ... one day ... maybe ... in years to come ...

is that Orpington Visual Arts club, or Orpington VIDEO AND FILMMAKERS club?

[Mike Shaw]

Well, AVs are made into videos, so I guess they could be the 'video' bit of Video & FilmMakers?

How about animators ... are they allowed? That's just lots of still pictures photographed one at a time (the old fashioned way of animating that is), or created entirely on a computer (the new-fangled way) ... where no camcorder or camera is involved ...

[Willy]

In Belgium we also have a national magazine. It looks very professional, but our umbrella organisation is actually "sponsored" by our Ministry of Culture... It all started about 10 years ago. In the previous century we were only an umbrella organisation for filmclubs. Now our CvB is an umbrella organisation for filmclubs and photoclubs. About 3/4th of the articles in our magazine are about photography. I don't have the impression that our filmclubs attracted photographers as new members.

[Willy]

[quote="Willy"]
Real autographed photos
I have a collection of real autographed photographs of the most important politicians in the world. Some names : the USA-presidents Clinton, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Edward Kennedy (who was not a president) etc ...Your former Prime Ministers like Macmillan, Edward Heath, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, John Major etc... Also, Willy Brandt, François Mitterant and King Hussain of Jordan. I had to go to the Jordan Embassy in Brussels one day. The Embassador said with a special accent : "I know you are a very good friend of Karel Van Miert" (former European Commisioner). "So I have a present for you." He showed me a box in blue velvet. In it a photograph of his Majesty King Hussain of Jordan. The frame was made of silver. On it a little crown in gold. At the bottom some very kind sentences written by the King himself : "To my good friend Willy Van der Linden ..." At that time I was a professional politician, a federal secretary of a political party. Luckily I could escape from politics and I could go back to Education. But that's a different story.

Real autographed IAC-certicificates
Why am I telling you this ? About 10 years ago we received authentic autographed IAC-certificates. They were called "gold, silver, bronze and blue seal awards." I was very happy with them. They looked very professional and had some "cachet". Also the AMPS-ones look(ed) very prestigious. They were excellent to frame and to hang on my wall. In order to cut the costs the IAC made very small ones some years ago. I could not understand this. Are beautiful certificates so expensive ? Now they look like diplomas that you can print with your own computer. Even the signatures are printed ones! They don't look so authentic anymore. They are so unpersonal. Everybody can produce as many certificates as he wishes. Maybe I am now exaggerating a bit now.

She prefers a bunch of real flowers
In 2011 there were about 220 films that took part in BIAFF. Signing 220 certificates takes only a few hours. Even famous Presidents, Ministers and other wellknown policians find the time to sign photographs. Why not the IAC-VIPS and/or judges ? Should the IAC also think about producing more prestigious certificates? The IAC is a prestigious and world famous institute and so is the BIAFF. However, the certificates look too cheap. A reflection of prestige should also be seen in its certificates. Maybe this is a detail, a subtlety, but I am sure that a lot of filmmakers are still sensitive to it. Of course you don't have to agree with me.Perhaps you all find this banal.

My wife prefers a bunch of real roses to a bunch of plastic roses.

[Souterman]

I would just like to thank Dave Waterson for fetching to the attention of the IAC committee the thoughts and ideas of this form and the membership in general. It's just a pity that some members that were present thought that he ''Dave'' was trying to stir up a hornets nest they were not listening properly. So I will await the outcome of the committee's meeting in the not to distant future for their report and future ideas when the lovely Film & Video Maker comes out.

[Chrisbitz]

That sounds bizzare! What happened?

And yes, Thanks Dave!

[Dave Watterson]

Thanks Frank and don't worry Chris ...

I raised only some of the fine ideas from this thread, but as there was only 20 minutes or so for discussion in the "Members' Voices" section I also deferred to other people so that they could make their points too. (Democracy for ever!)

Last year the IAC Council gave each English IAC Region a grant of £500 and I expressed concern about the way this grant giving was handled in terms of paperwork and accounting. Unfortunately I failed to make it clear at first that I am all in favour of the principle: putting some money into regions is likely to help them do more for members and potential members.

Many folk got the idea I was objecting to the money going to help the people around the country who do so for our movement and some vehement comments were made. Luckily the Chairman gave me a chance to apologise and explain my true views which soothed everyone a bit.

For a few minutes I wondered if I would lose all my IAC friends with a few badly chosen words! I am glad that did not happen.

I will send to the Chairman the other ideas which were proposed in this thread so that the Council will have a chance to consider them in future meetings. It is, naturally, easier to raise points here and at the informal part of the AGM than it is to prepare a helpful paper for a Council meeting ... more homework ... that's my punishment ...

[Mike Shaw]

I think the problem Dave was that you started by saying in what sounded like an angry and accusatory tone that the Regions had been given money "they hadn't asked for" and hadn't been asked to account for. That was definitely how it was picked up by some of the speakers (and me) - and the treasurer commented "Damned if we do, and damned if we don't".

You weren't at last year's AGM (where, fortunately, member's voices came after the AGM, not before) when, after the further increase to the IACs coffers, I pointed out that the Regions when having to organise these events do so out of their own funds - which in many cases has also meant out of their own pockets, with no financial assistance whatsoever from that 'big IAC pot', and furthermore, they (the regions) have to follow strict rules on how the event is organised. Also, at the end of the event, a large proportion of any profit made (60% if I remember correctly) has to be handed over to the IAC (raffle money excluded). (No mention of what happens if the event actually loses money - which puts an extra unnecessary strain on the Region's council members). On hearing the financial situation at last year's AGM, with so much money in the IAC coffers (around £150,000) , I felt it was totally unfair to expect the regions to 'invest' money (deposits etc have to be paid on hotels and excursion arrangements well in advance of the event) especially when the regions are struggling to keep their own heads above water. Remember - the Regions have no source of income - membership fees for example - and rely entirely on their own 'activities' to raise funds to do things. I believe it may have been as a result of those comments that the IAC made a 'one off' payment from their pot to the regions - my understanding of it was, as a way of mitigating that situation. In spite of that 'donation' the funds again rose this year, so it was affordable. From my own chats with Council members, I believe it was a 'lets do something now and while we work out other ways of putting the member's money to work helping member's activities.

In those circumstances, your comments which, as I say, did sound - for those who were at last year's AGM - like an angry and vehement accusation of money being 'given away' unasked for and not to be accounted for', and hence, I suppose, like an unreasonable rant (and so prompting the treasurer's comment mentioned earlier, plus one or two other 'caustic' remarks).

Should that money have been 'accounted for' by the regions? Possibly. But we're all adults here - and trustworthy, I'd hope - and the regions were being given back some of the money they had 'subscribed' to the IAC. I doubt whether any of the region's councils used the money to have a 'jolly': I would almost guarantee that the money went in their own pots to help fund regional events and magazines on behalf of their membership.

Hence the furore I guess. I think it really was a quick 'one off' "let's do something now, while we work out how to put the money back to work for the membership".

With the coffers growing larger each year, it also does mean that the magazine isn't bleeding the pot of money as has often been suggested, and that other activities can be added to the mix without dispensing of the magazine in order to fund such activities. But that is just my opinion!

But yes, all was smoothed out at the end - as indeed one would expect in a society of very friendly people. Thankfully, we could still enjoy a jar or two afterwards with no throats being cut!