Transmission

Trajectory

ETWIE (the Center for Industrial, Technical and Scientific Heritage in Flanders) took on 2 of the 10 case studies within the Focus Craftership project. One of these was water-related heritage. Maritime craftership was recorded at De Scute in Blankenberge (Flanders).

In early 2022, the Scute built a new mast for one of its barges. The whole process was filmed and documented. The volunteers of this association wanted to revive knowledge and skills of traditional shipbuilding by restoring lost ship types of fishing communities and, if possible, making them sail again.

Context

The timber for the mast had already been ordered in December 2021 and the ship was to be made ready for another season of maritime festivities by May 2022. The community would usually work on Thursdays. So it was imperative that the documentation process followed the rhythm and deadline of the heritage community.  

From the beginning, the community indicated that they hoped for a video that would showcase their craftership and organisation in an appealing fashion, which was also linked to the community's desire to recruit younger people. This was at odds with the process of documenting the technical craft of building the wooden mast.

To meet their wishes, a plan was made and time was taken to film extra material to create an additional montage.

The decision to shoot additional footage alongside the technical making process of the mast meant that the different expectations and needs of the heritage community were accommodated.

Approach

In total, there were 7 shooting days on location. This included the extra material for the additional, promotional montage:

• an interview/voice-over recording session
• the installation and inauguration of the mast
• the first voyage with the new mast on the ship

To document the making of the mast, the heritage community was open to trying out the participatory filmmaking method:

Daniel Lefebvre, a community member in charge of De Scute's communications, helped film the making process. It was agreed that for the larger works on the mast, the filmmaker would come by to shoot. In between, Daniel forwarded footage of the work in progress to ETWIE and information was exchanged on what would be interesting to film and how to do it.

Community members were asked to comment on the footage during a voice-over as if it were a sports report, which included interesting anecdotes in addition to information about the making process.

This could only be done after the mast was finished and with a completed edit. This involved processing the more than 30 hours of footage to a manageable and practical length.

Two distinct videos were edited after filming:

1. The recruiting montage

The first montage is 26 minutes long and contains:

• some insights about the craft of shipbuilding
• the history of the ship
• the problems with the old mast
• finding budget for building the new mast
• a condensed version of the whole process of making the mast
• the installation and inauguration of the mast
• the dynamics of the organisation and its members
• the first sailing with the new mast

This short film is based on the stories recorded during the interview sessions and uses appropriate music. The function of this film is to raise awareness, the appropriate explanation and methodology can be found in this toolkit. 

2. The video log of the making process

The second montage is 1 hour and 30 minutes long and includes:

• showing the entire process of building the mast
• the voice-over of the practitioners
• material from 2 different people (filming) and camera sources
• different chapters in the making process, indicated by graphic maps
• no music because of the focus on the making process itself 

Filmmaker's experience

"At times, the filming process slowed down the work on the mast and caused frustration. This was due to the speed needed to get some parts of the mast finished and not being able to film in time. After discussion, this was quickly resolved by splitting the work and not filming some repetitive processes until later." (A. Kerkhof, Feathers on Wings)

Conclusion

Audiovisual documentation of intangible heritage is a complex process. Sometimes heritage communities do not realise what the real expectations or needs are until the process has already started.

A good understanding between heritage professional, filmmaker (when working with an external filmmaker) and heritage community is therefore crucial.

Reflecting together, looking at what the possibilities are and working further towards meeting these (new) expectations is necessary to use the participatory filmmaking method.

Trajectory

Marc Reymen, an instrument maker from the Antwerp region, has been immersing himself in hurdy-gurdy making since the 1980s. He turned to CEMPER (Centre for Music and Performing Arts Heritage) for guidance to document his craftership in instructional tutorial videos. Marc built a hurdy-gurdy, CEMPER staff helped with (keeping an overview of the) documentation process and filmmaker Alexander Kerkhof filmed the tutorials.

Context

Getting to film this process himself was not possible for Marc. He needs both hands and his full attention to make the instrument, which meant it was not possible to operate a camera as well. For example, a static camera cannot focus on small details and cannot track his movements. The help of a filmmaker was needed to make quality instructional videos.

Heritage professional, craftsman and filmmaker came together in this trajectory and analysed each step of the creation process. This information was translated into a colour-coded spreadsheet, which served as a production schedule and handhold to keep track of shooting progress and notes.

Approach

During production, one or two heritage professionals were always present. Their tasks in the documentation process were:

• helping to keep an overview of the extensive production planning
• tracking and monitoring all steps in the construction process and ensuring that no steps were skipped
• monitoring recording continuity and keeping an eye on the various cameras
• listening attentively to the spoken instructions and watching for continuity in the practitioner's explanations (This way, they tried to assess whether the explanations would be understandable to someone watching the videos - and learning from them.)

The filming itself was technically challenging. The limited spatial layout of the workshop did not allow cameras to follow the action. Therefore, the filmmaker suggested a multi-camera setup. Depending on the action, up to five cameras were used to capture it. Especially on his main workbench, where most of the action was performed, all five cameras were used: left, right, top, a general wide shot and a camera with a long lens to capture detailed shots.

To ensure consistent and sufficient lighting, additional LED panels were mounted in the ceiling. The panels were fixed with special clamps screwed into the wooden ceiling beams and a safety chain was attached to each panel.

Setting up the equipment took half an hour to three quarters of an hour per shooting day. Dismantling easily took half an hour. 

Filmmaker's experience

"Even with these different camera angles, we sometimes had to ask Marc to turn towards the camera to make the action more visible. Sometimes Marc was doing work in a different place in his workshop, at a drill or on a different workbench. This meant we had to reorganise the set-up with limited time." (Alexander Kerkhof, filmmaker) 

One of the challenges in making a hurdy-gurdy is that it is not a linear process. Sometimes you can't proceed with a part because the glue has to dry. At other times, you have to wait to finish one part until another part is ready. For this reason, you have to work on different parts of the instrument at the same time.

Working simultaneously on different parts reflects the real making process. It creates opportunities because you can film something else while you wait. However, it also creates a challenge to keep a clear overview of the making process (on one side) and the filming process (on the other).

Another challenge is the pace of the different parts within the making process itself: some parts of the making process require so much attention that they cannot be done in one go. If you try to work too fast, you run the risk of breaking the part and having to redo bits unnecessarily. Then again, other parts of the making process are so repetitive that only part of their execution needs to be filmed. The rest can be finished behind the scenes to save filming time.

Conclusion

Making tutorial videos is an intense and in-depth process: there is a huge multitude of steps to follow, information to convey clearly and this requires a lot of coordination between all parties involved.

Proper preparation and (following) a clear roadmap were therefore essential for success.

In addition, be aware that this filmmaking methodology is time-consuming: the documentation process takes (at least) as long as making an instrument, including the 'waiting time'.

Trajectory

Lieve De Saedeleer, heritage professional at Bokrijk | Craftsmanhip & Heritage undertook a trajectory on audiovisual documentation of wattle and daub, an architectural technique that involves braiding (daubing) on a wooden framework and then applying clay.

This case study was chosen because by October 2023, a worksite was scheduled at the Bokrijk Open Air Museum where the process of wattle and daub would be applied. The planned worksite was an ideal opportunity to capture this craftership through film. The purpose of the videos is to convey the knowledge and skills of the various techniques.

Context

For this trajectory, a different filmmaker was involved: Lieve Willekens, a visual anthropologist. She replaced the lead filmmaker in the Focus Craftership project, Alexander Kerkhof. He indicated in the course of the project that the predetermined timing was not feasible. However, it turned out to be the ideal opportunity to have the methodology tested by another filmmaker.

In addition, the location of the site was also a challenge, as the lead filmmaker was to spend a lot of time transporting to the Bokrijk Open Air Museum because he does not live in the nearby region.

The context of this documentation process is perhaps unique: both the practitioners, the accompanying heritage professional and the filmmaker are all employed by one organisation: Domain Bokrijk ngo. 

Approach

Preliminary stage

The new filmmaker was briefed beforehand on the purpose of both the broader project (Focus Craftership) and the process of wattle and daub itself. She carefully went through the methodology (above) beforehand and discussed some elements further with the regular, experienced filmmaker.

Before filming began, a field visit and some exploratory discussions took place with several possible practitioners. The final choice was a worksite on the Domain Bokrijk site and 3 practitioners employed by the Open Air Museum Bokrijk. This was simply because the practitioners mastered the entire process so well: right down to watering the sticks and turning the clay. Moreover, collaborating with commercial practitioners proved difficult. They found the project worthwhile, but struggled with time constraints.

By staying in-house, both practitioners, accompanying heritage professional and filmmaker determined the timing themselves. This was an advantage since loam, like many other historical building techniques, is highly seasonal. Night frost, for instance, is out of the question. 

Filming the making process

Filming the entire making process took place within the period of 1 week (about 4 days). 1 camera and 1 (directional) microphone were used.

The fact that all the different locations in the making process were close to each other on the relatively small site made this possible. In addition, the craftsmen's studios were also located at the Bokrijk estate. After all, wattle consists of 5 stages: watering the wipe, turning loam, varnishing, applying loam and smoothing. So it was easy to film all the different operations in a short time.

During the filming itself, 3 experienced craftspeople took turns during the different shooting days.

Finishing

After filming the making process, a supplementary interview with the professionals was conducted.

Colour correction and finishing (editing) was provided by the original filmmaker, Alexander Kerkhof, in December 2023 to ensure continuity of the look and feel of the videos.

Filmmaker's experience

"We received feedback after showing a first finished version that one of the interviewees' names was spelt differently and still needed to be adjusted. So we now know that it's better and more practical if you deliver footage for finishing without graphics. That comes only after colour correction and otherwise the graphic is coloured along with it."

Conclusion

Collaborating with people from the same organisation offered several advantages:

• proximity to different locations
• possibility of self-determination of timing (depending on weather conditions)
• previous experience of working together

Still, it is important to mention that other practitioners (who exercise their craftership as a profession) were also approached. As always, good preparation - which includes scouting of different stakeholders plays a major role! - is crucial for the smooth running of a documentation trail.

In addition, weather conditions played a major role in this documentation process: so keep an eye on the weather forecast!

• Good preparation is the key to a successful project!
• Listen to practitioners: they know what the making process is all about and will dictate both the content and rhythm of their making. Be flexible.
• For facilitators: be as activating as possible! Communities can sometimes be reluctant and/or intimidated to actually hold the camera in their own hands. Reassure them and point out that there's definitely no need. Provided some practice and help, things can work perfectly, just look at the millions of videos on Youtube!