Interview with Edward Sharpe: Envisioning VUCAVU.edu

(Cette note n'est disponible qu'en anglais.*)

This note was created as part of interConnect, a collaborative inquiry into digital transformation. Learn more in the box at the end of the text.

Introduction

The following interview with Edward Sharpe was conducted by Ashlee Conery. Both Edward and Ashlee were participants of interConnect’s co-learning group 2.1, and used this brief interview as a way of testing the group’s document designed to help others to carry out interviews, reflect on projects, and build collections of case studies for understanding digital platforms: Interview Questions and Considerations for Digital Platforms.    

Edward Sharpe is the Senior Technical Manager at the Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre (CFMDC) and a board member of VUCAVU.

Ashlee Conery is the Creator & Project Lead of Cube Commons, a Digital Strategy Funded DAO and streaming platform for the educational materials produced by arts organizations and artists living and working in Northern Turtle Island (Canada).

Interview

Ashlee: What is the purpose of your project?

Edward: To disseminate and promote Canadian Media Art. For historical context, click here. 

In an ongoing shift, VUCAVU is transitioning from a strictly Video-on-demand (VOD) model to an exhibition/educational programing platform—VUCAVU.edu—that will facilitate streaming licences with major universities to be part of educational libraries. 

Due to changes made by their integrated storage tools, VUCAVU is looking at new structures/software for housing and interacting with their content.

This project is in the process of collaborating with other video distributors to make decisions about how much this should cost. Groups they’ve collaborated with include: Video Pool, the Independent Media Arts Alliance (IMAA), Canadian Artists’ Representation / Le Front des artistes canadiens (CARFAC), Media Arts Network of Ontario (MANO), Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre (CFMDC), Winnipeg Film Group, VIVO, Moving Images, Spira, VideoF3M, Groupe Intervention Video (GIV), VTape.  

As well, they have consulted with potential users—using grants to consult with outside librarians and universities on what they need. And what they discovered was that they need to be able to work within the MARC (machine-readable cataloguing) system used by university catalogues. So they have done projects and research around MARC records to help define a strategy around video and education in relation to this system.

Online databases that include tools for public engagement, education and exhibitions also blur the lines between what is a platform and what is an organization—VUCAVU, is an early example of this. It was conceived as a platform that then became engaged in projects in a way that looks like an arts organization.

Ashlee: What are some challenges this project has confronted?

Edward: The  Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre (CFMDC) is always walking a line between encouraging professionalization while at the same time lowering barriers to access—for example, navigating between the file types provided by filmmakers vs. what is required by presenters. In the context of VUCAVU this means a lot of administrative work and money for the scanning of film prints or the digitization of tapes. 

There was a process when CFMDC joined VUCAVU and we tried to align the two organizations ‘categories’ (essentially tags) for films, stuff like ‘Ecology’, ‘Dance’, ‘Food’ etc. This proved quite difficult to resolve what the categories would be and also to add categories as required. And Kentico (the CMS VUCAVU uses) cannot add categories easily; therefore this became a barrier to integrating the two databases/organizations, because the needs of each organization have to be compromised. 

Ashlee: What would technical and community success look like for VUCAVU.edu?

Edward: I think a sustainable subscription model, which facilitates artists getting paid and is easy for educational institutions to access, is what success looks like.  

Ashlee: Can sustainability happen alone or does it depend on collectivity? 

Edward: Ideally, all independent distributors need to come together to create one offering that they collectively sustain. In the case of a film that belongs to more than one artist, there needs to be a way that an artist can easily decide (with the click of a button) which organizations get the distribution fee. 

Using a collective tool is not homogenizing, we are all able to reach our local communities in ways that are not possible by one large organization. But setting standard rates is already the case with the Canada Council for the Arts (CCA). The platform is just a tool that makes this possible and does not eliminate the need for local video organizations. My hope is that it allows us all to continue to thrive. 

About this note   

• This note was nurtured by the discussions that took place during interConnect  workshops, particularly those of co-learning group 2.1.   
• Note authored by Ashlee Conery and Edward Sharpe with revision support from the interConnect team.

The interConnect initiative was led by the Independent Media Arts Alliance (IMAA). The views expressed in this note are those of the author(s) and not official IMAA recommendations.

———

*interConnect était une initiative bilingue. Cependant, en raison de la quantité de contenu créé au cours du projet, et compte tenu des contraintes budgétaires et de la capacité de l'équipe, toutes les notes n'ont pas été traduites.