Documentary's Expanded Fields: New

Media and the Twenty-First-Century

Documentary Jihoon Kim
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/documentarys-expanded-fields-new-media-and-the-t
wenty-first-century-documentary-jihoon-kim/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Critical Distance in Documentary Media 1st ed. Edition

Gerda Cammaer

https://ebookmass.com/product/critical-distance-in-documentary-
media-1st-ed-edition-gerda-cammaer/

Documentary Resistance: Social Change and Participatory

Media Angela J. Aguayo

https://ebookmass.com/product/documentary-resistance-social-
change-and-participatory-media-angela-j-aguayo/

Beyond Bias: Conservative Media, Documentary Form, and

the Politics of Hysteria Scott Krzych

https://ebookmass.com/product/beyond-bias-conservative-media-
documentary-form-and-the-politics-of-hysteria-scott-krzych/

The civil rights movement: a documentary reader First

Published Edition Kirk

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-civil-rights-movement-a-
documentary-reader-first-published-edition-kirk/
Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty
First Century 10th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/environmental-policy-new-
directions-for-the-twenty-first-century-10th-edition-ebook-pdf/

Governing California in the Twenty-First Century

(Seventh Edition)

https://ebookmass.com/product/governing-california-in-the-twenty-
first-century-seventh-edition/

Cognitive Theory and Documentary Film 1st ed. Edition

Catalin Brylla

https://ebookmass.com/product/cognitive-theory-and-documentary-
film-1st-ed-edition-catalin-brylla/

Russian-Arab Worlds: A Documentary History Eileen M.

Kane

https://ebookmass.com/product/russian-arab-worlds-a-documentary-
history-eileen-m-kane/

Militant Aesthetics - Art Activism in the Twenty-First

Century First Edition Martin Lang

https://ebookmass.com/product/militant-aesthetics-art-activism-
in-the-twenty-first-century-first-edition-martin-lang/
Documentary’s Expanded Fields
 Documentary’s
Expanded Fields
New Media and the Twenty-​First-​Century
Documentary

Jihoon Kim

1
 3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Kim, Jihoon, author.
Title: Documentary’s expanded fields : new media and the
twenty-first-century documentary / Jihoon Kim.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2022] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021050425 (print) | LCCN 2021050426 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197603819 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197603826 (paperback) |
ISBN 9780197603840 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Documentary films—History and criticism.
Classification: LCC PN1995.9.D6 K4765 2022 (print) |
LCC PN1995.9.D6 (ebook) | DDC 070.1—dc23/eng/20211109
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021050425
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021050426

DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197603819.001.0001

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Paperback printed by Marquis, Canada
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America
 For Sun Joo Lee,

who has become and will be the reality of my life.

Contents

Acknowledgments  ix

Introduction: Documentary’s Expanded Fields  1

1. Expanded Images  24
2. Expanded Vision  64
3. Expanded Dispositifs  106
4. Expanded Archives  146
5. Expanded Activism  185
Afterword: Harun Farocki and COVID-​19  232

Notes  251
Index  291
Acknowledgments

My second monograph came out of my two-​year (2017–​19) research project enti-

tled “Expanded Documentary: New Media, New Platforms, and the Documentary
in the Post-​cinema Age,” supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of
Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-​2017S1A5A8019361). It
marks an expansion of my primary research interest in theorizing the shifting forms
and platforms of film and moving images in the post-​cinematic condition into the
objects and frameworks of documentary studies.
Working on this project from scratch, that is, without any prewritten draft such
as a dissertation, I have benefited from a great many scholars who have guided my
journey into the concepts, histories, and issues of documentary with their existing
works that have made significant contributions to founding and enriching the field.
So it’s time for me to send my sincere gratitude and respect to the giants of the field,
Bill Nichols, Michael Renov, Jane M. Gaines, Brian Winston, Patricia R. Zimmerman,
and Alisa Lebow, on the one hand, and to its younger-​generation scholars, who en-
compass Erika Balsom, Tess Takahashi, Leo Goldsmith, Kris Fallon, Josh Glick, Pooja
Rangan, Leshu Torchin, and Paige Sarlin, on the other.
Because the book is also a logical outcome of my previous study Between Film,
Video, and the Digital: Hybrid Moving Images in the Post-​media Age (2016), I also re-
call many of the scholars, colleagues, and friends whom I addressed in that work’s
acknowledgments. They include esteemed scholars to whom my scholarship has
tremendously been indebted, Francesco Casetti, Raymond Bellour, and the late
Thomas Elsaesser; my cohorts in the Department of Cinema Studies at New York
University, Gregory Zinman, Jinying Li, Paul Douglas Grant, Martin L. Johnson,
and Priyadarshini Shanker; and my longtime friends Sangjoon Lee and Seung-​
hoon Jeong.
Since I wrote the whole of this book during my appointment as department chair,
from February 2017 to January 2021, I am wholeheartedly grateful to all my senior
colleagues of the Department of Film Studies and the Graduate Program in Film
Studies at Chung-​ang University for their wisdom, tolerance, and care. In addition,
without the courtesy of all the copyright holders who kindly granted me permission
for the use of figures, many parts of the book would not be accompanied with such
precious images; without fabulous support and encouragement of Oxford University
Press’s editorial staff, Norman Hirschy and Lauralee Yeary, the book would not come
to full fruition; and without positive yet insightful comments by anonymous review-
ers, the book’s manuscript would not have become more polished and elaborated in
the directions they suggested.
x Acknowledgments

My last but not least acknowledgment must go to my mother, my sister, and my

parents-​in-​law, who do not know the details of my work yet know me best. Finally,
I gladly dedicate my second book to my wife, and film studies colleague, Sun Joo Lee.
Her unrequited love, devoted cinephilia, and slow but prudent pursuit of life have
made me learn who I am and will be.
Portions of ­ chapter 1 are excerpts from “Expressing Duration with Digital
Micromanipulations: Digital Experimental Documentaries of James Benning,
Sharon Lockhart, and Thom Andersen,” published in Cinema Journal 57.3 (Spring
2018): 101–​125; parts of the introduction and afterword appeared in Film Criticism
45.1 (2021) as “Data Visualizations, Vlogs, Drone Imagery: Expanded Documentary
Forms in the COVID-​19 Emergency,” doi: https://​doi.org/​10.3998/​fc.1060; and a
section in ­chapter 2 was published in Film-​Philosophy 25.3 (November 2021) as
“Synthetic Vision in Virtual Reality Documentaries,” 321–​345.
Introduction
Documentary’s Expanded Fields

Forensic Architecture, a multidisciplinary research group led by architect and theo-

rist Eyal Weizman, has extensively investigated various cases of air strikes, chemical
attacks, violence on borders, political assassinations, environmental destructions,
refugee crises, and violations of human rights across the globe. Besides its investiga-
tion documents, legal reports, and interactive platforms associated with those cases,
the group’s video documentations, available from its website, have widely been show-
cased in a number of international exhibitions. They are read as electrifying docu-
mentary’s political, aesthetic, and technical possibilities. The videos have originated
from the group’s activist media practice, which has often involved collaborations with
other activist groups, NGOs, professional or citizen journalists, and the civic commu-
nities that have been affected by and resisted the state, corporate, or military power re-
sponsible for those cases. In terms of its challenges both to the Western news media’s
biased coverage of those cases and to the authorities’ gatekeeping of the information
related to them, Forensic Architecture’s documentations originate from “participa-
tory journalism,” which Leah A. Lievrouw refers to as a type of alternative activist
media practice designed to “provide alternatives to mainstream news and opinions”
and to critique the “mainstream’s marginalization or exclusion of local, minority, un-
popular, or fringe communities, issues, and views.”1 The documentations’ underlying
narrative comprises the exposition of a case, collection and analysis of evidence, re-
construction of the case, and a conclusion. It also evokes investigative journalism,
whose scientific model of news reporting and analysis emphasizes “the meticulous
collection and evaluation of evidence.”2 These two characteristics are undoubtedly
grounded in the participatory and investigative modes of practice in theatrical and
television documentaries.
What makes Forensic Architecture’s practice particularly noticeable, however, is
that it has extensively employed a variety of digital technologies and computational
techniques, including video and audio analysis, 3D modeling, fluid dynamics, and re-
mote sensing. The group does so not only to investigate the cases and but also to make
its documentations, which in turn refashion the aesthetics and politics of documen-
tary cinema as we have known it. For Airstrikes on al-​Hamidiah Hospital (2017, figure
I.1), a documentation on the case that a hospital in al-​Hamidiah, Syria, was hit in
two separate air strikes on February 15, 2016, the group incorporated and explored a
number of videos contributed by ordinary citizens on the ground who had witnessed

Documentary’s Expanded Fields. Jihoon Kim, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197603819.003.0001
2 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

Figure I.1 Still from Forensic Architecture, Airstrikes on al-​Hamidiah Hospital

(video documentation, 2017). Courtesy of Forensic Architecture.

the attacks and filmed them with their mobile phone. In so doing, it cross-​referenced
the videos with the testimonies of the survivors, converting their images into a 3D
model of the hospital to locate the points and times of the attack. Video evidence
made by activists and professional journalists, too, was also used as a building block
for the group’s collaborative practice of investigation, which invited citizens’ partic-
ipatory acts of media witnessing and documentation. In Herbicidal Warfare in Gaza
(2019, figure I.2), a video report based on its collaboration with local NGOs and agri-
culturalists, the group used videos taken by an activist and their GPS data and jux-
taposed both with digitally processed aerial maps whose color spectrums indicate
vegetation health across the Gaza region over the past three decades of Israeli occu-
pation. In this way, the video demonstrates that the Israel military’s unannounced
aerial spraying of crop-​killing herbicides on the eastern border of Gaza since 2014
has resulted in the destruction of its farmlands and the loss of livelihoods for Gazan
farmers.
By combining the modes of alternative media activism and reenactment-​based
investigative journalism with digital techniques and materials, including the videos
produced and circulated by the citizens equipped with networked digital interfaces
for recording and sharing, Forensic Architecture’s documentations not only inherit
but also transcend documentary’s participatory and performative modes. The latter
aspect enables us to consider the documentations as going beyond the boundaries of
traditional documentary cinema—​its form, its components, and its methods of pro-
duction—​while also calling upon us to devise an expanded definition of documentary
in the digital media regime of the twenty-​first century. This definition, as Selmin Kara
and Daniel Marcus might suggest, establishes documentary “as a type of connector or
creative hub among vast fields of media activity” in tandem with the growing applica-
tion of “the extra-​cinematic (such as the data culture, social and locative media, im-
mersive technologies, video games, animation, and graphic and experience design)”3
 Introduction 3

Figure I.2 Still from Forensic Architecture, Herbicidal Warfare in Gaza (video
documentation, 2019). Courtesy of Forensic Architecture.

to what has traditionally been nonfiction-​cinematic. Forensic Architecture’s incor-

poration of various media activities, techniques, and materials echoes documentary
as a “type of connector or creative hub.” A case in point is Destruction and Return in
al-​Araqib (2017), which intervenes in the situation in which Israel authorities have
demolished the village of al-​Araqib in the northern Naqab desert over the past sixty
years. As part of its activities to collect historical and juridical evidence of that vio-
lence on the land in support of the village’s residents, Forensic Architecture produced
a video report. It starts with photos taken by Activestills (a group of photojournalists
who portray human rights violations on the Israel/​Palestine borders) that document
the Israeli police’s destruction of the village’s facilities on July 26, 2010. The video then
moves on to the on-​the-​spot record of a public hearing held by the group, in which
several Bedouin residents speak for their ownership of the land while presenting its
certification document ancestrally handed down to them. While the group’s inter-
action with the community in this way attests to its appropriation of the participa-
tory mode of documentary cinema, its investigative procedures for validating the
ownership and the historical existence of the village were derived from the combi-
nation of grassroots media activism and computational image analysis. Exploring
aerial photos of the village from 1945 that had been taken by the Royal Air Force,
Forensic Architecture also employed small digital cameras suspended from kites or
balloons in collaboration with the residents to collect hundreds of low-​altitude aerial
images containing GPS information—​a process that the group termed “community
satellite.” Those two sets of aerial photos were juxtaposed in the software environ-
ment, in which a computational process called “photogrammetry” turns them into
a virtual 3D terrain of the village that attests to the historical continuity of Bedouin
inhabitation (figure I.3). The data sets produced by these multistep processes, such as
4 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

Figure I.3 Forensic Architecture’s use of “photogrammetry,” still from Forensic

Architecture, Destruction and Return in al-​Araqib (video documentation, 2017).
Courtesy of Forensic Architecture.

the historical changes of the households, cemeteries, and farmlands on the territory,
were also transposed into a navigable website entitled “Ground Truth: Destruction
and Return in al-​Araqib” (https://​www.naqab.org/​). The interactive platform aims
not only to connect the political and environmental conflicts of the land in the pre-
sent with the history of its repeated destruction but also to update the community’s
ongoing and future acts of resistance against the governmental forces that make its
life precarious (figure I.4).
Forensic Architecture’s practices emblematize the ways in which activists and
protest groups use technologies similar to those exploited by military strategies and
governmental policies to transform our territories and borderlands into a constant
battlefield, turning them in favor of resisting their power. The result has been, as Kris
Fallon rightly observes, an explosion of experimentation with visual representation,
one that has spawned the hybridized forms of nonfiction practice that combine “older
technologies like photography, film, and video with newer technologies like digital
networks, social media, video games, and data visualization.”4 Added to this is that
these “hybridized forms,” encapsulated by the video documentations of Forensic
Architecture, lay claim to, and are indebted to, broader and more profound changes
in the five components of documentary cinema than the upgrade of alternative and
activist nonfiction practices: the aerial photos as documentary’s visible evidence are
manipulated multidimensionally with the help of digital techniques, through which
they are treated as graphic elements that are collated into the virtual model of the
territory; the group’s cameras mounted to kites or balloons and the British aerial
photos are linked to the contemporary proliferation of drones, whose view above
the ground exceeds the vision of the documentary camera as extension of human
 Introduction 5

Figure I.4 Forensic Architecture’s online website “Ground Truth: Destruction and
Return in al-​Araqib,” screenshot

sensorium; the group’s exhibition activities, which often involve multiple screens and
interactive platforms inside the gallery walls, are associated with the constellations
of moving image installation distinct from the standardized cinematic apparatus on
which theater-​based documentary cinema is still built; the group’s interactive plat-
forms render as open-​ended the documentary text and its storage of memory objects
and testimonies, their reception hingeing on the interplay of users’ activation and
their underlying algorithms; and finally, the villagers’ participatory production of the
amateur aerial footage is treated as integral to the group’s professional practice of al-
ternative and activist media.

Defining Documentary’s Expanded Fields

Documentary’s Expanded Fields: New Media and the Twenty-​ First-​
Century
Documentary performs a critical mapping of the various documentary practices that
have emerged and developed over the last two decades thanks to the proliferation of
digital media technologies and the new experiential platforms for production, circu-
lation, and display of the moving image and information that shape and represent re-
ality as what we know, understand, and share. Building on the interdisciplinary nexus
of documentary film studies, digital media studies, and contemporary art criticism,
the book theorizes how these practices rework the aesthetic, epistemological, rhe-
torical, political, and ethical dimensions of the traditional documentary cinema in
the twentieth century as they dismantle and redraw the boundaries of its form and
media. For these two ends, and as illustrated by the practices of Forensic Architecture,
the book identifies five domains of the conventional documentary film that these
6 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

nascent practices refashion and transform, namely, image, vision, dispositif, archive,
and activism, characterizing them as “documentary’s expanded fields.” This rubric
originates from my take on the two ideas of expansion associated with the dissolution
of the doctrine of modernist medium specificity in cinema and contemporary art.
The first idea is Gene Youngblood’s “expanded cinema,” which refers to an array
of nonstandardized cinematic practices in the 1960s and 1970s that problematize
and transcend the traditional boundaries of the cinematic image, apparatus, and
spectatorship. In his seminal and semiprophetic book Expanded Cinema (1970),
Youngblood demonstrates that these practices were derived from and reflective of
the profound effects of then nascent electronic and digital media. The intermedia
network that conditions human beings as their new environment, he argues, “carries
with it the potential of finally liberating cinema from its umbilical to theatre and lit-
erature since it forces the movies to expand into ever more complex areas of language
and experience.”5 For Youngblood, an array of technological and artistic innovations
of the time, such as video cameras and synthesizers, television, analog computers,
and multiprojection environments, do more than destabilize the hierarchies of cin-
ematic components (such as the prerequisite of the drama) and enlarge cinema’s
formal and aesthetic boundaries. The nonstandardized cinematic forms built upon
these innovations, as he envisions, ultimately respond to the new world, perception,
and consciousness that were being restructured by electronic and cybernetic tech-
nologies: the world marked by the global communication network that precipitates
the explosion of information and images; synesthesia as the combination of different
perceptual experiences; and a new ecological system of thinking that expands man’s
consciousness outside of his mind and into his natural and built surroundings. In this
regard, expanded cinema is, for Youngblood, a matter not simply of cinematic form: it
is also that of the cinematic apparatus, cinematic spectatorship, and the reality itself
that the form converts into a particular aesthetic experience. It is in this context that
Youngblood also contextualizes direct cinema and cinéma-​vérité within a larger ev-
olutionary process, by which cinema was transforming itself through its embrace of
television that influenced both the human world and its mode of communication: “By
incorporating a kind of bastardized cinéma-​vérité or newsreel style of photography
and behavior, the filmmaker has not moved closer to actual unstylized reality itself
but rather a reality prestylized to approximate our primary mode of knowing natural
events: television.”6
Youngblood’s quasi-​prophetic observation on the nascent stage of electronic
and computational media, particularly his emphasis on their role in incorporating
new forms of consciousness, communication, behavior, and sociality, seems to have
increasing relevance to more than the expansion of cinematic forms in the domains
of contemporary art and new media art. These forms have gone hand in hand with the
transition to the “post-​media condition,” in which the crisis of modernist medium
specificity due to the proliferation of electronic and digital technologies has allowed
“the emergence of artistic practices by which the media’s components have new, pre-
viously uncharted relationships with those of other media in ways that go beyond its
 Introduction 7

formal boundaries.”7 More significantly, however, the transition to the post-​media

condition has also led to pervasive experimentations with the technologies for doc-
umenting, investigating, and representing reality and turning it into information,
knowledge, memory, and discourse. In his take on the condition, Lev Manovich
argues that post-​media aesthetics “should adopt the new concepts, metaphors and
operations of a computer and network era, such as information, data, interface, band-
width, stream, storage, rip, compress, etc.”8 In so doing, he also introduces the idea of
“information behavior,” which refers to a particular way of accessing and processing
information available to people in a given culture. The proliferation of software and
other information technologies in the digital age, for Manovich, gives birth to a new
kind of information behavior. They do so by dismantling the traditional idea of a me-
dium that champions its physical properties. For software and other information
technologies transform a cultural object into data whose form is amorphous and thus
not tied to any specific medium. In this way, they establish a new model of commu-
nication, in which the computer’s user interfaces and the software’s operations struc-
ture the user’s enhanced capability for dealing with the data in various ways: “Daily
life and work in our society to a large extent revolve around new types of behaviors
and activities which involve seeking, extracting, processing and communication large
amounts of information, often quantitative one.”9 Manovich’s emphasis on the role
of the user in shaping and altering the final form of a cultural text is also reflected
in the idea of “spreadability,” coined by Henry Jenkins and his coauthors. The term
indicates the feature of media content that makes it easier to create, access, modify,
share, and circulate on and through social media platforms. As Jenkins and others re-
mark, the technical affordances of these platforms enable those user activities, which
in turn make the content itself malleable and diffusible: “As material spreads, it gets
remade: either literally, through various forms of sampling and remixing, or figura-
tively, via its insertion into ongoing conversations and across various platforms.”10
Manovich’s association between post-​media aesthetics and the new types of in-
formation behavior, and, by extension, Youngblood’s idea of expanded cinema that
liberates cinema from the dictates of the drama and passive viewing in favor of
embracing synesthesia and the enlarged consciousness of intermedia network, in-
deed resonates with a series of discourses in the 2010s on the demand to redefine
documentary cinema in ways that address various yet interconnected experiments
with digital and computational technologies. The MIT’s Open Documentary Lab,
founded in 2012, has aimed to explore the potentials of emerging digital technologies
and platforms to cultivate collaborative, interactive, and immersive forms of docu-
mentary. The research initiative contextualizes its mission within the popularization
of video-​equipped devices that “have the capacity to transform the ‘great mass’ of
spectators into makers of the image” and at the same time are “part of a larger dis-
positif that includes networked connectivity, aggregation sites for live uploads, ac-
cessible and user-​friendly editing systems and popular distribution portals.”11 Here
it becomes evident that the users’ new behaviors in the networked environment are a
key motivation of the lab’s research call for reworking the traditional assumptions of
8 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

documentary’s media, artifact, authorship, and spectatorship. In a fashion similar to

Youngblood, Peter Wintonick coins the term “docmedia” to isolate a variety of non-
fiction media practices proffered by new digital platforms: “I would showcase and
celebrate transplatform digital documentary in all its docmedia incarnations: cyber-​
docs, digidocs, transmedia docs, cross-​docs, cross-​media, 360 degree docs, netcast
docs, interactive docs, 3D-​docs, [and] made-​for-​mobile docs.”12 Wintonick’s propo-
sition to replace the film-​based term “documentary” with “docmedia,” which encom-
passes such diverse media forms, is allied with rethinking documentary’s object and
audience within a new “ecosystem,” a complex media environment in which digitally
enabled interactivity, immersion, connectivity, and participation “[engage] with ‘old
media’ in ways that are rich and multifaceted.”13 Alexandra Juhasz and Alisa Lebow’s
“Beyond Story: An Online, Community-​Based Manifesto” (2019) demands that “doc-
umentary is poised to liberate itself from its narrative moorings” in favor of the inter-
active nonlinear platforms.14 The various forms of documentary that emerge within
the digital environment, Juhasz and Lebow continue, “flow—​often with little human
effort—​across and between platforms, places, and singular entities or systems,” be-
coming popular “when the world opens outward and destabilizes newly, in relation
to climate, migration, authoritarianism, global corporate media, neo-​capitalism and
other impending catastrophes.”15 The two scholars’ proclamation of reconfiguring
documentary practices beyond their story-​based constraints and in favor of an open-​
ended manner is also reflected in Patricia R. Zimmerman and Helen De Michiel’s
recent dossier for the journal Afterimage, in which they and other contributors trace
the new documentary landscapes across locations, platforms, and spaces in light of
“cocreation.” The term refers to communities’ and citizens’ involvement in the cre-
ation of nonfiction artifacts. According to Zimmerman and De Michiel, cocreation
does more than overcome the single-​authored model of documentary production,
rendering documentary itself “a process that is contextual and contingent on a wide
spectrum of variables.”16
The second idea of “expansion” is indebted to renowned art critic Rosalind
R. Krauss’s concept of the “expanded field.” By this she explains the ways in which,
within the situation of postmodernism, art practices are defined not in relation to
a given medium but in relation to “logical operations on a set of cultural terms, for
which any medium—​photography, books, lines on walls, mirrors, or sculpture it-
self—​might be used.”17 For instance, since the late 1960s, sculpture has included
not just a three-​dimensional plastic entity made with stone or wood and exhibited
inside the gallery wall, but also a monument in the landscape, an architectural set-
ting in an interior or exterior space, and other activities such as photographic doc-
umentation and performance. A more significant implication of the field is that it
is based on “problematizing the set of oppositions between which the modernist
category sculpture is suspended.”18 According to Krauss, the modernist practice of
sculpture is grounded in two kinds of oppositions: to architecture and to landscape.
Postmodern sculpture, then, broadens the concept of sculpture by embracing what
has not been regarded as sculpture, that is, architecture and landscape, as well as their
 Introduction 9

corresponding materials. Thus, the term “expanded field” refers to the ways in which
postmodern art opens onto multiple sets of formal possibilities in a medium and
the diverse uses of different media rather than insisting on any singular operation of
the medium. It also suggests that the new sculptural practices in the expanded field
emerge from and spread across other places than that of traditional sculpture, for ex-
ample, the white cube. This results in dismantling a group of material and technical
hierarchies that underlie traditional sculpture, and blurring the boundaries between
what sculpture is and what it is not.
Krauss’s idea of the expanded field is pertinent to numerous moving image instal-
lations since the 1990s that adopt and transform cinematic components beyond the
confines of the movie theater and inside gallery walls. As Erika Balsom eloquently
notes, “Cinema becomes a preoccupation of contemporary art precisely at a time
when it is perceived to be in crisis due to the increasingly consolidated hegemony
of new, electronic media—​media that would be digitized and networked as the
1990s progressed.”19 A more recent subtendency of the “cinema of exhibition,” “art-
ists’ cinema” inside the black box, or “gallery film”20 since 2000, has been an increase
in works that do not merely take as their theme the realities and subjects of tradi-
tional documentary cinema, but also rework its technical and aesthetic features, its
epistemological and ethical issues, and its modes of practice. This subtendency has
been demonstrated both in the growing popularity of documentary-​oriented works
in various international exhibitions, including such mega-​exhibition events as docu-
menta and biennales, and in the wide-​ranging demography of the practitioners, who
include renowned veteran experimental documentary or essay filmmakers such as
Chantal Akerman, Harun Farocki, Agnès Varda, Isaac Julien, and John Akomfrah,
to name just a few, and a great number of the artists who have led the trend toward
artists’ cinema. The popularity of documentary installations is considerably indebted
to the “documentary turn” in the contemporary art of the 2000s, through which the
artist negotiates her artistic will with her involvement in social realities and “crosses
back and forth between the domains of reality and fiction.”21 The ways in which these
installations problematize the hierarchies of traditional cinema, however, are not
limited to that of reality and fiction. As art critic Boris Groys rightly points out, the
growing infiltration of moving images in the gallery space subverts two models “that
give us control over the length of time we spend looking at an image: the immobili-
zation of the image in the exhibition space or the immobilization of the viewer in the
movie theater.”22 Just as the moving image that changes over time inside the gallery
walls dismantles both the stability of an art object and the viewer’s freedom to deter-
mine how much time she spends on appreciating it, so too does it, often comprised
of multiple screens and viewing platforms that encourage the viewer’s mobility, de-
stabilize the traditional model of cinematic spectatorship that presupposes her sed-
entary position in front of the single screen. Groys’s insight suggests that moving
image installations, including documentary installations, thus are capable of not only
constructing the formation of screens and their relationship to the viewer beyond
those of traditional cinema, but also challenging the distinctions between cinema and
10 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

other artistic media and redrawing the former’s borders with the latter. The uses of
the term “expanded” in a couple of recent contemporary arts discourses attest to the
two effects of the moving image installations on redefining the formal and expressive
possibilities of documentary cinema. Anna Raczynski, for instance, writes that “the
term ‘expanded’ refers to the shifting role and evolving definition of documentary in
the artistic context and digital age, in which the merging of documentary with other
art forms such as video or performance results in entirely re-​invented documentary
practice.”23 Similarly, Evgenia Giannouri calls a variety of documentary practices in
the realms of artistic creativity over the last two decades “expanded documentary.” It
is “understood as expanded not only in view of the diversity of the objects it produces
and practices it combines, but equally in view of the plurality of its objectives,” inas-
much as it is “inseparable from a paradoxical force that pushes the genre as we know it
beyond its established boundaries.”24
Still, the impacts of digital technologies on the form, media, and spectatorship of
documentary cinema in the twenty-​first century are too pervasive to be reduced to
the documentary installations that reflect our complex screen ecologies and call for
our renewed understanding of the documentary apparatus. In his 2008 introduction
to the special issue on digital documentary for Studies in Documentary Film, Craig
Hight observed that a crucial challenge that it poses to documentary theorists would
be to redefine documentary itself “in favor of identifying a number of distinct prac-
tices that overlap the digital and analogue, moving and still image, photographic and
graphic, two-​and three-​dimensional, and distinct practices of engagement centered
on a clearly-​defined continuum of interactivity and participation.”25 Hight’s obser-
vation is read as suggesting that the technologies problematize a set of technical and
ontological binaries that have determined the established category of the images in
documentary films and videos, such as lens-​based/​found images, production/​post-
production, inscription/​manipulation, observation/​imagination, and photographic/​
graphic images. For instance, digital technologies are able to challenge the traditional
conception of documentary cinema that privileges the camera’s observation of re-
ality while also downplaying animated, graphically rendered images as less authentic
and more fictional, with their capability of making coexist photographic stillness and
cinematic movement, photographic and graphic components, and lens-​based and
manipulated records. It is possible, then, to stretch this idea of documentary expan-
sion as the challenge to the traditional definition of documentary cinema beyond its
images and into how the viewer perceives the images (vision), how she engages its
textuality and its formation of memory (archive), and how its forms and its effects
on audiences are reinvented with regard to social change and movement (activism).
The question can be divided into the following: How do drone cameras, GoPros, and
virtual reality (VR) interfaces undermine the idea of the human camera that has long
defined our anthropocentric understanding of documentary vision? How do inter-
active websites that champion the open, collaborative, and experiential forms of user
participation defy the idea of documentary film as a closed, preorganized text that
stores records of the past? Finally, how do the proliferation of mobile and networked
 Introduction 11

devices for filming reality and sharing its records demand our refreshed conceptions
of radical documentary film and video, their producers, and their audiences?
Built upon the idea of expansion suggested by Youngblood and Krauss, this book
develops the following key arguments. First, in line with Youngblood’s line of thought,
what I call “documentary’s expanded fields” indicate the ways in which emerging
documentary practices and artifacts remediate the modes of traditional documen-
tary cinema beyond its standardized form, place, and spectatorship through incorpo-
rating new consciousness, behaviors, and cultural or political climates affected by the
digital technologies for production and postproduction of images and the nontheat-
rical experiential platforms, such as VR interfaces, the gallery, video-​sharing services,
and interactive websites.26 Second, deepening Krauss’s idea, the expanded fields also
concern five horizons in which the emergent digital technologies and platforms have
led to inventive ways of recording, visualizing, and observing the real, creating ac-
counts and argumentation of the world, offering knowledge and memory of it, and
confronting new social and political realities insofar as they are geared toward refig-
uring the image, vision, apparatus, memory, and activism of documentary cinema.

Twenty-​First-​Century Documentary and

Documentary Studies
Drawing a topological map of the expanded documentary practices in and out of the
movie theater that have been enabled by the digital affordances for recording, im-
aging, and viewing reality and circulating its audiovisual documents, information,
and argumentation, Documentary’s Expanded Fields also aspires to locate them
within the twenty-​first century. For it is during this period that those technological
developments have signaled a new evolutionary phase of documentary cinema in
response to social crises and cultural changes. Documentary as a genre has always
been a fuzzy concept that encompasses for documentarians “a large range of formal
choices in registering for viewers the veracity and importance of what they show
them.”27 The difficulty for any clear-​cut definition of documentary could be attributed
to the continual shifts in its interlocking political, technological, cultural, and institu-
tional dimensions, which have had profound impacts on the changes of its forms and
themes, audience expectations, and the “attempted communications of both people
and agencies.”28
Despite all the challenges to which its various directions and tendencies have been
linked, however, it goes without saying that the modes and functions of documen-
tary cinema have discursively been established in close dialogue with its surrounding
technological changes. Classifying documentarists’ four historical roles into explorer,
reporter, painter, and advocate, Erik Barnouw also asserts that defining documen-
tary film “has necessarily been an ongoing process as each decade brought social
upheavals that cried for documentation, and media technology innovations to meet
the challenges.”29 Similarly, Bill Nichols assumes that each documentary mode of
12 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

practice “may arise partly as a response to perceived limitations in previous modes,

partly as a response to technological possibilities, and partly as a response to a chan-
ging social context,”30 while also noticing “an expansion of documentary into media
such as CD-​ROMs or interactive Web sites devoted to historical issues and organ-
ized according to conventions of documentary representation.”31 From Barnouw’s
and Nichols’ viewpoints, it is possible to identify certain historical periods in which
new technologies played a key role in refashioning forms of documentary cinema,
its communication modes, its experiential platforms, and its underlying epistemo-
logical assumptions. The documentary tendencies in the 1960s and 1970s, such as
the American direct cinema, the alternative newsreel movements in North America
and Europe, and the video guerrillas in the United States, all were galvanized by the
introduction of lightweight 16 mm and video cameras and sync sound equipment,
stipulating “transparency and noncontrol as a paradigm of authenticity”32 distinct
from the postsynchronized voice-​over discourse that organized a disparate array of
materials in the state-​sponsored documentaries of the 1930s and 1940s. The person-
alization of those cameras, the development of video-​based editing and playback
systems, and the growth of public access and cable TV networks in the 1980s and
1990s made documentarians pursue the “post-​verité” tendency characterized by the
rise of autobiographical and essayistic documentaries in response to the key social
and cultural changes of the era, including the emphasis on the politics of the eve-
ryday and the interrogations of identity, subjectivity, and private histories and mem-
ories.33 This same period, too, witnessed two major epistemological challenges to the
myth of documentary’s capacities for representing authentic reality and making truth
claims: first, questions of documentary’s reference to history that blur the bound-
aries between fiction and nonfiction and between subjectivity and objectivity,34 and,
second, the partiality and multiplicity of truth that Linda Williams’s and Stella Bruzzi’s
concept of “New Documentary” asserts.35 What posed these two challenges were not
merely reality TV and docudrama based on the possibility of distorting and altering
reality through the intervention of the camera and documentarian, but also the ways
in which digital image manipulation would decouple the photochemical documen-
tary image as the hallmark of documentary’s evidentiary function from its referent
in reality. Brian Winston warned of the latter effect in the mid-​1990s: “It is also clear
that these technological developments . . . will have a profound and perhaps fatal im-
pact on the documentary film. It is not hard to imagine that every documentarist will
shortly (that is, in the next fifty years) have to hand, in the form of a desktop personal
video-​image-​manipulating computer, the wherewithal for complete fakery.”36
How, then, can the emergent documentary practices in the twenty-​first century be
periodically distinct from their predecessors in the 1980s and 1990s? In 1995, Dirk
Eitzen argued that any definition of documentary on the basis of textual elements or
authorial intentions would always be nebulous and tricky, instead proposing to con-
sider “how people make sense of those particular moments and elements of films that
they frame as documentary—​whenever that may be.”37 Eitzen’s suggestion to define
documentary as a mode of reception was originally concerned with the distinction
 Introduction 13

between documentary films and other forms of cinema that include nonfiction com-
ponents. As Vinicius Navarro appropriately points out, however, Eitzen’s solution in
response to the elusiveness of documentary could be assessed beyond the problem of
distinguishing between fiction and nonfiction when we think of contemporary dig-
ital media. “Asking when is a documentary,” in this context, he writes, “implies dif-
ferent kind of elusiveness: the elusiveness of the documentary artifact.”38 During the
last two decades, the openness and indeterminacy of the documentary artifact has
been more than a matter of negotiating between fact and fiction, between subjectivity
and objectivity, and, as encapsulated by Winston’s concern with digital manipulation,
between the image as evidence and the image as fake or camouflage. At the turn of
the twenty-​first century, Michael Renov argued that a new horizon of documentary
studies has been emerging thanks to the growing impact of new televisual and digital
mediascapes on nonfiction film: “New methods for representing the self in everyday
life (home video, Web pages) have begun to wear away the distinction between home
use and public display, just as the traditional modes of documentary exposition . . . no
longer prove adequate for comprehending the contemporary nonfiction environ-
ment.”39 Here, Renov underscores that the nonfilmic technologies for self-​represen-
tation do more than reflect the changes in the ways that people make sense of and
express themselves: that is, they also affect the form, platform, and experience of docu-
mentary cinema so pervasively as to go beyond its “traditional mode” (form), to blur
the distinction between its traditional site and elsewhere (platform), and to embrace
people’s media activities other than viewing (experience).
Built on Navarro’s and Renov’s insights, Documentary’s Expanded Fields proposes
the rubric of the twenty-​first-​century documentary as a periodizing concept that iso-
lates a wide array of nonfiction media practices impacted by digital technologies
and new platforms of exhibiting and experiencing moving images, such as 2D and
3D digital imaging, digital image manipulation, mobile phones, cameras without a
human operator, the gallery, databases, VR and AR (augmented reality) interfaces,
and social media and video-​sharing services. My concept of the expanded fields,
then, establishes two rationales for this periodization. First, the concept contends that
the emergent artifacts of documentary practice and the behaviors and experiences of
their spectators in contemporary media affordances and environments transcend the
story-​based, long-​form documentary cinema grounded in the movie theater and tel-
evision network. It thus suggests that the artifacts’ potentials for documenting the real
and offering its knowledge, truths, and perspectives are not sufficiently theorized only
in terms of the definitional and epistemological pairs that have undergirded the tradi-
tional documentary cinema, such as fact and fiction, subjectivity and objectivity, and
actuality and its creative treatment. And second, the term also suggests that the con-
tingency of different media strategies and the variety of audience activities across dif-
ferent places and networked platforms have been developed to cope with the shifting
political and cultural conditions of reality in the twenty-​first century, including those
structured by digital technologies and affordances. As Fallon persuasively demon-
strates, the digitally enabled experimentations with nonfiction visual representation
14 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

across video games, data visualization, and social media have been driven by the po-
litical instability and national uncertainty of the post-​9/​11 situation, inasmuch as
they describe “the space of transition from one worldview to another, a space where
the disruption of what once seemed solid and trustworthy (or ‘true’) forced the search
for a new ‘truth’ to replace what was lost.”40 The new worldview that Fallon means can
perhaps be expanded into dimensions of instability and uncertainty other than those
inflicted by the war on terror, given Juhasz and Lebow’s manifesto, which contextu-
alizes the outpouring of nonstandard digital documentary practices within climate
change, migration, authoritarianism, global corporate media, and so on.
All the crises in the twenty-​first century, including the COVID-​19 pandemic as its
most recent case, have undoubtedly propelled scholars around the globe to ponder
what cinema and its neighboring media have been, as well as emerging forms and
practices aimed to produce records and information, arguments, affects, and soci-
ality. More than structural transformations in the production, distribution, and ex-
hibition of film, the spread of COVID-​19 has had far more sweeping and profound
impacts on the time and space that hitherto grounded forms and experience of ex-
isting media, dismantling and restructuring their normative locations and tempo-
rality. It is in this context that scholars have developed the idea of “pandemic media,”
namely, a set of media forms and practices geared toward conditioning the mode of a
crisis and allowing existing modes of culture and communication to operate—​albeit
in vicarious ways. The scholars who engaged in the edited collection Pandemic Media
(2020) conceptualize the idea, for instance, to address not only forms and practices
such as film and video streaming, pervasive uses of Zoom for screenings and meet-
ings, the proliferation of charts, curves, and tables depicting infection and death rates,
and drone cinematography for portraying cities under lockdown. The idea also con-
cerns the ways in which these forms and practices have reordered the space and time
of existing media: the popularity of streaming platforms, Zoom, and social media
services has transformed the private space into one filled with a panoply of screens
and windows operated to continue everyday activities in the public space and to be
connected to the external world and communities; similarly, the suspension of nor-
mative media operations, such as the shutdown of movie theaters and museums, has
elicited nostalgia for what they were before the crisis, while also introducing the tem-
poral senses of acceleration and urgency marked by the constant updates of the in-
formation related to the spread of the disease and to the governmental and scientific
control of its medical, social, and economic effects. Associating these transformations
of space and time with the idea of “pandemic media” that has made the pandemic “a
highly mediated event,” the authors of the introduction to Pandemic Media ask about
their modes of production, circulation, and consumption: “How do media render an
invisible virus and its threats visible? What form and format do graphs take to inform
policy makers and the public about the crisis? How and why do amateur media get
distributed transnationally and win transnational popularity?”41
What these questions suggest, in my view, is that several artifacts and practices that
pertain to the “pandemic media,” including drone imagery, data visualizations, and
 Introduction 15

the online videos produced and circulated by ordinary citizens, demand a renewed
understanding of nonfiction media forms, including documentary cinema, inasmuch
as they engage and document the unstable and devastating reality of the world under
the crisis. Lisa Parks and Janet Walker’s timely and rich conceptualization of “disaster
media,” too, raises this demand. Thinking about satellite images, graphs and charts,
and people’s massive production and dissemination of posts, GIFs, and videos in re-
sponse to the COVID-​19 crisis and other disastrous realities, in the words of Parks
and Walker, “has led us to ask all over again what ‘media’ are and to contend with how,
especially during harmful events, media in various modalities proliferate, transform,
translate, and inevitably sculpt the environment.”42 The notion of disaster media, in
this sense, aims to recognize and analyze the ways in which media forms and technol-
ogies construct natural and human-​made disasters, document their reality, convert
records into knowledge and argumentation, and communicate their affective, social,
and cultural consequences. Not only does it enable one to think of documentary in
the situation of disasters as embracing a wider variety of media artifacts and technol-
ogies than a limited set of audiovisual representations organized by the orchestra-
tion of people, profilmic reality, and an expository or persuasive discourse, but it also
suggests that the disasters have been transforming documentary forms and media,
including their definitions and boundaries.
While concurring with the rationales for the ideas of “pandemic media” and “dis-
aster media” and their implications for the ways in which documentary forms and
media need to be rethought in the current situation of the crisis, I also point out that
what the ideas suggest as para-​documentary artifacts or practices are never unprec-
edented before the crisis: rather, certain instances of pandemic or disaster media
should be framed within the larger transformations of documentary objects and
media that have occurred with the advance and proliferations of digital technol-
ogies in the twenty-​first century. This is in concert with the ways in which all the
crises in the twenty-​first century, and the transformations of media that they have
caused, have reconfigured what documentary has been and how it has been practiced
during the last two decades. In this way, this interdependence of “disaster or crisis
media” and “documentary media” lays the groundwork for the “twenty-​first-​century
documentary.”
From another angle, my use of the term “twenty-​first-​century documentary”
rhymes with Richard Grusin’s characterization of the “nonhuman turn” in arts,
humanities, and social sciences as an interdisciplinary initiative to engage and un-
derstand the world since the turn of the century: “Given that almost every problem of
note that we face in the twenty-​first century entails engagement with nonhumans—​
from climate change, drought, and famine; to biotechnology, intellectual property,
and privacy; to genocide, terrorism, and war—​there seems no time like the present
to turn our future attention, resources, and energy toward the nonhuman broadly
understood.”43 It, too, is partially inspired by Mark B. N. Hansen’s idea of “twenty-​
first-​century media,” which asserts that the proliferation of mobile and ubiquitous
computational devices such as GPS, radio frequency identification (RFID), sensors,
16 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

and wearable computing challenges the previous assumptions about media in that
they gather, process, and circulate data without intended action on the part of a
human subject: “If twenty-​first-​century media open up an expanded domain of sensi-
bility that can enhance human experience, they also impose a new form of resolutely
non-​prosthetic technical mediation,” Hansen writes: “Simply put, to access this do-
main of sensibility, humans must rely on technologies to perform operations to which
they have absolutely no direct access whatsoever and that correlate to no already ex-
istent human faculty or capacity.”44 What Grusin and Hansen commonly suggest, in
my view, is less an ineluctable replacement of the human by the nonhuman than the
increased connection or border crossing between the two, or the former’s reliance on
the latter in the construction of its identity, perception, and worldview. The permea-
bility and exchangeability of the two seemingly opposing categories, then, is also the
case with other major phenomena of the twenty-​first century—​for instance, climate
change and massive migration that connect the local to the global, and the numerous
social movements that have occurred both online and offline—​that the emergent
practices of documentary stem from and engage. Their eruptions, with a heteroge-
neous array of technologies, forms, places, and strategies, are accordingly seen to re-
flect and incorporate the conditions of the world in this era.
It is here that my stipulation of documentary’s expanded fields as demarcating
the twenty-​first century is also in line with a recently expanding body of work on
digital media practices and artifacts in the terrain of documentary studies. The
Act of Documenting (2017), written by Brian Winston in collaboration with Gail
Vanstone and Wang Chi, argues for the potentialities of digital technologies to en-
courage new forms of documentary, to democratize documentary production, to
reconfigure documentary texts as open and processual, and to reinvent spectators
as cocreators: “Liberated from the demands for realist photographic imagery, the
digital documentary encourages a multiplicity of new forms of documentary,” they
write: “Digital’s easing of the barriers to entry for documentary production is the
key to enabling the emergence of a hybridic filmed/​filmer as well as an expansion of
production.”45 Patricia R. Zimmerman is one of the most prominent scholars who
have cultivated the new horizon of documentary studies in the digital age in the same
spirit as that of Winston and his cowriters. Her work with Dale Hudson, Thinking
through Digital Media (2015), features a wide array of case studies on online projects
as well as site-​specific gallery installations and live performances, demonstrating how
digital media ecologies based on archives, databases, networks, crowdsourcing, and
user-​generated content have developed to engage and document such timely issues
as participation, surveillance, climate change, mass migration, and perpetual war.46
Zimmerman’s theoretical venture into those emergent forms is also the case with
“open space new media documentary,” a term that she coins with Helen De Michiel
to indicate community-​based, collaborative projects of documentation and archiving
that harness digital platforms’ connective and participatory affordances: “The term
open contains three interrelated concepts: first, rejecting enclosure; the second, per-
meating borders; and the third, abandoning entrenched positions in favor of dialogue
 Introduction 17

relationships.”47 Her theorization of the ways in which the triangular conceptual

structure of the “open space new media documentary” reconfigures traditional docu-
mentary’s artifact, space, and spectatorship is also extended into Documentary across
Platforms (2019), whose essays “envision documentary as a complex ecology com-
posed of different technologies, sets of practices, and specific relationships to politics,
communities, social struggles, and engagement.”48
While acknowledging and benefiting from all these works’ contribution to estab-
lishing the objects and approaches that cut across and shape what one could call
“twenty-​first-​century documentary studies,” Documentary’s Expanded Fields aspires
to advance the field by theorizing the implications of the new documentary practices
across digital technologies and nontheatrical platforms in more nuanced manner. In
terms of the scope of survey, the works that Winston and Zimmerman address focus
on interactive documentaries (i-​docs), as do several recent edited collections on the
emerging practices of documentary production.49 It is based on this awareness that
Documentary’s Expanded Fields covers several other nonfiction artifacts that are not
comprehensively discussed in these recent works, such as data visualization, investi-
gative and experimental documentaries featuring graphic and manipulated imagery,
documentaries and videos shot by drone cameras and GoPros, VR documentaries,
documentary installations, and citizens’ vernacular online videos. In terms of its the-
oretical scope, the book attempts to conceptualize several aspects of documentary
cinema that these recent works bypass. For instance, The Act of Documenting argues
that digital technologies liberate documentary cinema from the demands for realist
photographic imagery, but it does not proceed to examine the impacts of graphic or
manipulated imagery on the traditional assumptions of documentary imagery as
the evidence for phenomenal and historical realities. The demand for expanding the
scope of theorization is also the case with documentary apparatuses. While The Act
of Documenting and the books written by Zimmerman discuss how new technolog-
ical affordances challenge the traditional ideas of documentary production, spec-
tator, and politics, their limited focus on i-​docs does not lead to a comprehensive
theorization of how new documentary media and platforms affect the concept of the
documentary apparatus. Documentary’s Expanded Fields fills this theoretical gap by
incorporating several other technologies of recording, viewing, and archiving, as well
as documentary installations that are crucial to building a refreshed concept of the
documentary apparatus.
The book’s nuanced approach, too, is meant to consider the twenty-​first-​century
documentary in light of the constellation of differentiation and succession vis-​à-​vis
its predecessors, while also indicating a more subtle shift or transformation in the
realms of documentary production and experience. Hansen’s formulation of twenty-​
first-​century media tends to mark their substantial break with both the recording
capacity of film and the perception and cognition of the human that absorb the re-
cord. The recent scholarly works mentioned earlier on the emergent documentary
forms and platforms tend to foreground i-​doc’s possibilities for textual openness
and users’ connective interaction as unprecedented or new. Instead, my use of the
18 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

twenty-​first-​century documentary emphasizes the double movement of continuation

and discontinuity that new media and experiential platforms make in restructuring
the traditional modes and components of documentary cinema for the sake of docu-
menting and archiving reality. Taking this double movement into account, too, means
that the book situates the emergent documentary artifacts within the “post-​cinematic
condition,” within which the traditional cinema has gone beyond its established ma-
terial, technical, aesthetic, and experiential boundaries. In the words of Shane Denson
and Julia Leyda, “The post-​cinematic perspective challenges us to think about the
affordances (and limitations) of the emerging media regime not simply in terms of
radical and unprecedented change, but in terms of the ways that post-​cinematic media
are in conversation with and are engaged in actively re-​shaping our inherited cultural
forms, our established forms of subjectivity, and our embodied sensibilities.”50 Following
this, Dominique Chateau and José Moure posit post-​cinema not as signaling the birth
of a new cinema but as being “in a state of unstable equilibrium between the original,
persistent cinema dispositif and new ways of making and considering the film.”51 Seen
in this light, what is at stake in theorizing the twenty-​first-​century documentary is to
parse out which aspects of traditional documentary cinema the new technologies and
platforms affect most significantly and how the emerging artifacts, formations, and
experiences of documentary alter and refashion them in response to the shifting so-
ciopolitical and cultural conditions of our contemporary media regime. Performing
this task at the methodological juncture of documentary film studies, contemporary
art criticism, digital media studies, and media activism, Documentary’s Expanded
Fields provides a systematic theorization and comprehensive mapping of the twenty-​
first-​century documentary into five “expanded fields” (image, vision, dispositif, ar-
chive, and activism) that correspond to its chapters. In so doing, it puts forward the
idea of documentary expansion as marking continuities and discontinuities between
old and new media formations.

Chapter Outline
The five “expanded fields” are geared toward a critical map of the twenty-​first-​century
documentary practices enabled by the proliferation of new digital imaging and post-
production techniques; lightweight and nonoperator digital cameras; multiscreen,
mobile, and VR interfaces; and websites. While many of the practices classified into
and discussed in those fields produce a wide variety of nonfiction artifacts that exist
and are circulated on nonstandardized experiential platforms, the book also lines up
a number of feature-​length documentaries available in the movie theater, television,
and Netflix.52 These two overlapping lines of inquiry are intended to demonstrate
that the expansion of documentary across the technologies and platforms during
the last two decades has been built on and propelled the increasing intersections of
the cinematic and the post-​cinematic. Examining the implications of those intersec-
tions on the aesthetic, epistemological, rhetorical, ethical, mnemonic, and political
 Introduction 19

dimensions of nonfiction film, this book argues that documentary cinema in the age
of new media and platforms dynamically changes its boundaries while also offering
viewers new aesthetics and experiences of reality in the past and present.
The first two chapters focus on documentary cinema’s most basic components.
Chapter 1 discusses the expanded horizon of documentary images by investigating
a wide array of nonfiction media practices that adopt digitally graphic images or em-
ploy digital postproduction techniques, theorizing what these images and techniques
imply for the documentary image’s epistemological and rhetorical functions. It starts
with recapitulating the debates on the impacts of CGI and digital manipulation on
the indexical and evidentiary values of the photographic image in the domains of
documentary and post-​cinema studies. Its engagement with the debates also entails
attention to studies on animated documentary. For, in the words of Nea Ehrlich,
“As animation becomes a regular form of representation used in wider non-​fiction
contexts, such as news segments, infographics, medical, geographical and scientific
visualizations, educational and explanatory platforms, animation’s epistemological
capability is changing.”53 In this context, this chapter argues that more than desta-
bilizing faith in the indexical properties of photochemical images, digital technolo-
gies for imaging and postproduction expand the traditional boundaries of what the
documentary image is and does, by dismantling the existing hierarchies between the
photographic and the graphic, between the lens-​based and the manipulated, between
still and moving images, and between factual records and investigative or revelatory
approaches. The chapter’s two lines of case studies serve to support this claim. The
first is an array of contemporary data visualization artifacts that are either accessible
on websites or included in feature-​length documentaries. If the traditional objectivist,
scientific assumption of documentary reality privileges the preexisting phenomenal
world that awaits the camera’s physical and immediate registration, then data visu-
alizations have increasingly been endowed with the traditional documentary film’s
expository, reflexive, and performative modes such that they document and point to
the chaotic or uncertain realities whose invisible, massive, fluid, or malleable changes
are grounded in the complex intersections of technological and material, and human
and nonhuman, dimensions. The second is a group of investigative nonfiction arti-
facts and experimental documentaries that employ digital manipulation techniques
to reconstruct political events marked either by the absence of key evidence or by
the contested presence of multiple documents (in the cases of Forensic Architecture’s
works), to deepen the viewer’s awareness of the uncertainty immanent to the docu-
mentary record (James Benning), and to provide a refreshed look at the photographic
inscription of reality (Sharon Lockhart). All these cases suggest that their pictures’
blurring of the boundaries between live action and animated images, and between the
recorded and the manipulated, results in satisfying documentary epistephilia (a “de-
sire to know”) and stimulating the viewer’s speculative and pensive engagements with
the photographic trace as possible spectatorial modes of documentary.
The second chapter discusses how new digital recording apparatuses and viewing
interfaces, encompassing drone cameras, GoPros, and VR, expand the visual field of
20 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

documentary practices as well as the viewer’s perception of reality. It starts with map-
ping out two competing concepts of the documentary camera in accordance with the
history of documentary cinema: first, the camera as extension of the documentarian’s
embodied perception, and second, the camera as incarnation of a disembodied vi-
sion that goes beyond the confines of the anthropomorphic gaze. In so doing, this
chapter argues that a more recent trend in digital documentaries has been to acti-
vate the disembodied vision that in turn stimulates the viewer’s embodied percep-
tion and thereby expands her knowledge of our contemporary world. The first part of
this chapter examines several contemporary documentaries and a group of YouTube
videos shot with drone cameras and GoPros, therefore demonstrating that the dis-
embodied gaze enabled by these new recording devices remediates and expands the
visual fields of the observational and participatory modes in traditional documentary
in a nonanthropomorphic manner. Based on the dialogue between the studies on VR
and immersive media, film theory, and the recent discourses on VR documentary, the
second part redefines VR’s vision as characterized by varying negotiations of its dis-
embodied and embodied gazes. Countering the recent hype of immersion and sense
of presence as what VR documentaries guarantee in innovative ways, my investiga-
tion of recent VR nonfiction projects enables me to argue that these two aesthetic
effects hinge upon how the two gazes intersect with each other and what modes and
subjects of documentary practice VR technologies remediate.
Chapters 3 and 4 shift the scope from the forms of documentary image to the
experiential platforms of documentary. There has been ongoing scholarly and crit-
ical interest in the material, technical, aesthetic, and institutional dimensions of the
cinema of exhibition, as well as in the increasing border-​crossing of cinema and con-
temporary art thanks to the dominance of the moving image inside the gallery walls
since the early twenty-​first century. It has only been in recent years, however, that
the discipline of documentary studies has noticed the sheer visibility of documentary
installations. In his short reflection on this phenomenon, Michael Renov argues that
notwithstanding the persistence of the distinctions between documentary cinema
and art, contemporary gallery-​based artists have refueled the “defining conditions
for the documentary film,”54 such as its preservation of reality and landscape, its en-
gagement with the social, and its construction of history, memory, and experience.
Despite the variety of practitioners whose works have demonstrated the possibili-
ties for refueling the “defining conditions for the documentary film” at the juncture
of cinema and contemporary art, there has still been a paucity of works that discuss
them in the domain of cinema and media studies. In this context, c­ hapter 3 theorizes
how the gallery functions not simply as a new platform for documentary experience
but also as a basis for expanding the apparatus of documentary cinema. For this pur-
pose, it presents the concept of documentary’s “expanded dispositif.” It derives from
theorizing the aesthetic and technical strategies of documentary installations and the
experiences of their viewer in terms of Francesco Casetti’s idea of “relocation” and
Jacques Rancière’s “redistribution.” Developed from the ideas of Thomas Elsaesser,
Raymond Bellour, and Adrian Martin, documentary’s “expanded dispositif” refers
 Introduction 21

to the installations’ arrangement of heterogeneous technical and aesthetic elem-

ents, which results in the various moving image expressions that are linked to, but at
the same time not totally identical to, the theater-​based standardized documentary
cinema. In order to explain the double operation of the dispositif, I elaborate on the
concepts of relocation and redistribution and explain how these two are applied to
various documentary moving image installations in three aspects. First, this chapter
examines how the expanded dispositifs of multiscreen installations remediate the ob-
servational, poetic, reflexive, and performative modes of documentary cinema in
the works of Ben Rivers, Steve McQueen, Kutluğ Ataman, and Omer Fast. Second,
the chapter’s discussion of installations by Naeem Mohaiemen, John Akomfrah, and
Isaac Julien aims to illuminate how the uses of the multiscreen interface extend the
dialogic, decentralized, and polyvocal aesthetics of the essay film that takes as its sub-
ject migration, diaspora, and postcolonial histories. Third, it also focuses on the ways
in which separated rooms, sound/​image disjunctions, and mixed-​media assemblages
redistribute the material and sensory elements of the documentary record to renew
viewers’ encounter with traumatized subjects, politically contested spaces, and global
or regional crises, drawing on the installations by Lucien Castaing-​Taylor and Véréna
Paravel, Angela Melitopoulos, Chantal Akerman, and Amar Kanwar.
Chapter 4 discusses the ways in which the interactive platforms of the World
Wide Web and mobile media transform and expand the formation of memory in
traditional documentary cinema. It focuses on interactive documentaries (i-​docs),
a variety of web-​based or locative documentary projects that furnish users with the
experience of interacting with their textual elements to various degrees. Since i-​docs
have been discussed most in the domain of documentary studies, this chapter relies
on and advances the existing studies’ classification of their modes into three catego-
ries, namely, hypertextual (which activates the user’s hypertext-​based navigation of its
contents and her interactive response to their change), participatory (which enables
the user’s contribution of her textual or audiovisual contents to its platform), and ex-
periential (which engenders the user’s production of the memory and experience of a
place in her interaction with its corresponding data fed by location-​based media). At
the same time, however, this chapter tackles the existing studies’ emphasis upon inter-
activity itself as integral to the user’s experience of i-​docs. For the emphasis upon in-
teractivity alone tends to leave unanswered how the web-​based and mobile platforms
of i-​docs affect or transform the documentary record and the viewer’s memory of it.
Also, the studies’ ambiguous definition of interactivity still demands a more nuanced
discussion of the different types of interaction between the user of i-​docs and their
digital systems. In order to complement these two weaknesses of the existing studies
on i-​docs, this chapter develops the concept of “performative archive.” This refers to
the ways in which i-​docs dismantle the traditional idea of documentary cinema as
the stable and organized repository of memory objects, records, or testimonies by
activating intersections of two types of performativity: the user’s different degrees of
performative engagement with i-​docs’ audiovisual and textual elements, and the dig-
ital platforms’ automatic performativity. The intersections render the user’s memory
22 Documentary’s Expanded Fields

of documentary text open, connective, coevolving, and generative. Drawing on and

expanding the scholarly works on hypertext, digital memory and archive, Web 2.0,
and mobile media in the domains of digital media studies and digital humanities, this
chapter examines the ways in which the performative archive is constructed differ-
ently in the three modes of i-​docs. In so doing, it further suggests that the concept of
performativity needs to be extended farther than that proposed in the realm of docu-
mentary studies, in response to digital platforms’ infrastructural or algorithmic activ-
ities and the user’s behaviors of searching, navigating, and producing data.
The interaction of the two performative aspects found in i-​docs is linked to the
larger field of participatory culture in which documentary is expanded in sync with
political upheavals across the globe since the late 2000s, from the Arab Spring and
Occupy Wall Street to the recent mass protests in Hong Kong and the United States for
democracy and social change. The last expanded field this book identifies, maps out,
and investigates in ­chapter 5 is how the vernacular creativity of ordinary citizens and
the technological affordances for interactivity, connectivity, and communicability
have propelled remediation and reconfiguration of the forms of activist documen-
tary, including radical film and video, and their political effects. In their introduction
to the special issue “Radical Documentary Today” for Studies in Documentary Film,
Sarah Hamblin and Ryan Watson identify the rise of neoliberal capitalism, and by
extension, people’s various acts of resistance to it, and the digital turn as key factors
that have fundamentally affected and restructured the production and reception of
radical documentary in the twenty-​first century. In so doing, Hamblin and Watson
propose that the coincidence of these factors necessitates “a multi-​faceted approach
that is open to expanding definitional boundaries of what a documentary is, how and
where it functions and circulates, and how its impact is measured.”55 The “multi-​faceted
approach” to the radical documentary today also accords with Michael Chanan’s in-
sight in The Politics of Documentary (2007), in which he aptly summarizes the mutual
bond between documentary cinema and the public sphere as follows: “Documentary
addresses the viewer primarily as a citizen, member of civil society, putative partic-
ipant in the public sphere, [influenced by the] conditions which govern the public
sphere.”56 Inspired by these scholars’ views, this chapter argues that the rapid devel-
opments of Web 2.0 platforms and social media rekindle and update the participatory
mode of documentary cinema and its activist tradition. At the same time, however,
this chapter further contends that the technologies’ activation of citizens’ direct en-
gagement with the production and circulation of factual records fundamentally
transforms the traditional definitions of activist documentary forms and media while
also generating their political effects. In order to demonstrate the synergetic coevo-
lution of the two domains within the larger fields of the global protests, I propose the
concept of a “hybrid docmedia ecosystem,” classifying and examining the types of cit-
izens’ vernacular videos produced and circulated within it. I also identify and discuss,
as other items of the ecosystem, several traditional and emergent forms of profes-
sional political documentaries by activists and filmmakers, encompassing long-​form
films, short documentaries, and the compilation films based on the collection and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Contrasted expressions or comparisons, 20, XVII.;
comparison, short, 21, 1;
so-that, rather-than, etc., 21, 2;
as, than, 21, 3;
first expression negative, the other affirmative, 21, 4.
Consequently, 9, IV.
Copy, definition of, 104.
Correction in proof to be disregarded, 109, IX.
Cousin, when to commence with a capital, 63, 2, 3; 90, 2; 96, 2.
Crooked words in proof, 110, XII.

D
Dagger, double dagger, uses of, 53, VI.
Dash, 34-38;
additional punctuation marks, 38, 1, 2.
Days of the month, 60, VI.;
spring, summer, etc., 61, Rem.
Dates, 22, Rem.
Deity, the, 63, X.;
difference among writers, 63, 1;
First Cause, etc., 64, 2;
King of kings, etc., 64, 3;
eternal, divine, etc., 64, 4;
pronouns, 64, 5; 65, 6;
god, goddess, deity, 65, 7.
Democrat, 60, V.
Dependent clauses, 6, II.;
definition of, 7, 1;
omission of comma, 7, 2.
Devil, 59, 3.
Diæresis, 50, 4.
Diphthongs, how indicated in proof, 110, XIV.
Direct question, 31, I.
Direct quotation. See Quotation.
Divine, 64, 4.
Division of words, 50, III.;
where to divide a word, 51, 1.
Divisions of sentences, 23, I.; 25, Gen. Rem.
Divisions of a statement, 69, XVII.;
how readily recognized, 70, 1;
usage of some writers, 70, 2;
sentences broken off to attract attention, 70, 3.

E
East, when to commence with a capital, 59, 1.
Ellipsis, marks of, 52, III.
Emotion, strong, 32, I.;
unusual degree, 32, Rem.
Emphasis, words repeated for, 17, 3;
use of the dash to give prominence, 37, Gen. Rem.; 35, 1.
Enumeration of particulars, 27, III.;
particulars preceded by a colon, 27, 1;
not introduced by thus, following, etc., 27, 2;
particulars preceded by a semicolon, 27, 3;
comma and dash sometimes used, 28, 4.
Envelopes, addressed, 77;
with special request, 78;
with stamp, 78.
Esq., 74, 3.
Eternal, referring to the Deity, 64, 4.
Example, punctuation of words preceding, 24, Rem.;
first word of, 66, 4.
Exclamation point, 32, 33;
inclosed within parenthetical marks, 40, 3.
Expressions, inverted, 12, VI.;
two brief, 19, 2;
contrasted, 20, XVII.;
complete in themselves, 23, II.; 28, Gen. Rem.;
series of, 24, III.;
negative and affirmative, 21, 4;
at the end of sentences, 22, XIX.;
equivalent to sentences, 57, 2.

F
Father, when to commence with a capital, 63, 2, 3.
Federalist, 60, V.
Figures omitted, 36, IV.;
Arabic, 22, XVIII.
Finally, 9, IV.
First Cause, First Principle, 64, 2;
Father of mercies, Father of spirits, 64, 3.
First word in a sentence, 57, I.;
in expressions numbered, 69, XVII.;
after a period, 57, 3.
Following, 27, III., 2.
Foreign words, 43, 2.
Forms of address, 78-82.
Friend, when to commence with a capital, 63, 3; 90, 2; 96, 2.

G
General remarks, 28, 37, 110.
God, 63, 64;
goddess, 65, 7;
God of hosts, 64, 3.
Gospel, 61, 3.
Greeting. See Introductory words.

H
Handbills, use of capitals in, 62, 3.
Heading of letters, 83;
definition, 83;
punctuation, 84;
large cities, 85;
a small town or village, 86;
hotels, 86;
seminaries or colleges, 86;
position, 86.
Heaven and hell, 59, 3.
Heavenly, applied to the Deity, 64, 4.
Hers, 48, 3.
Hesitation, how indicated, 34, I.
His, Him, referring to the Deity, 64, 5.
His Excellency, 76, 5; 62, IX.;
address of envelope, 80.
Hon., 75, 4; 62, IX.
However, 9, IV.
Hyphen, the, 49-51;
connecting several words, 49, 2;
omitted, 49, 3;
doubt as to the use, 49, 5.
I
I, 68, XV.
If, 7, 1.
Indeed, 9, IV.
Independent clauses, 6, I.;
definition of, 6, 1;
comma omitted, 6, 2;
separation by a semicolon, 6, 3.
Infinite One, 64, 2.
In short, in fact, in reality, 9, IV.
Interjections, 32, II.;
exclamation point at the end of a sentence, 33, 1, 2.
Interrogation point, 31, I.;
inclosed in parenthetical marks, 40, 2.
Introductory words of letters, definition, 90;
punctuation, 91;
position, 91;
forms of salutation, 92;
salutations to young ladies, 93;
to married ladies, 94.
Introductory remarks, 5, 73.
Inverted expressions, 12, VI.;
explanation, 12, 1;
omission of comma, 12, 2.
Inverted letter in proof, 107, IV.
Italics, how indicated, 53, V.; 107, VI.;
words from a foreign language, 43, 2;
written with or without a capital, 60, Rem.
Its, 48, 3.
K
King of kings, 64, 3.

L
Leaders, 53, IV.
Letters or figures omitted, 36, IV.;
3-9 equivalent to, 37, Rem.
Letters omitted, 47, I.;
the apostrophe, 47, Rem.
Letters, care in writing, some facts, 73.
Letter-forms, 71-100.
List of abbreviations, 29, 30; 30, 7.
LL. D., 30, 5; 75, 3.
Logical subject, 19, XVI.;
definition of, 20, 1;
custom of some writers, 20, 2.
Long sentences, 25, I.
Lord of lords, 64, 3.

M
Madame, 93, 94.
Marks of parenthesis, 39, 40;
additional marks, 39, 1;
dashes, 37, V.;
comma, 40, 4.
Mark of attention in proof, 110, XV.
Members of sentences, 25, Gen. Rem.
Miscellaneous marks, 52, 53.
Miss, 74, 1; 93.
Months and days, names of, 60, VI.;
autumn, spring, etc., 61, Rem.
More—than, 21, 2.
Moreover, 9, IV.

N
Name, person’s, 16, 2, d.;
abbreviated, 30, 2; 74, 2; 96, Rem.
period used after name, 29, Rem.
See Signature.
Namely, 9, IV.; 35, 2.
Nations, names of, 59, IV.;
Italics and Italicized, 60, Rem.
Negative expressions, 21, 4.
Nevertheless, 9, IV.
Nor, 6, 1.
Not, contrasted expressions, 21, 4.
North, when to commence with a capital, 59, 1.
Nouns in apposition, 15, 16. See Words.
Numeral figures, 22, XVIII.;
dates, 22, Rem.

O
O, 68, XV.;
not followed by an exclamation point, 32, II.
Of which, 9, 3;
of course, 9, IV.
Omitted, letters or figures, 36, IV.; 47, I.
Omissions, how indicated, 52, II.;
in proof, 106, III.
Or, 6, 1; 18, 2.
Ours, 48, 3.

P
Pages, numbering of, 30, 4.
Paragraphs, quoted, 46, IV.;
sign of, 53, VI.;
in proof, 108, VIII.
Parallel lines, 53, VI.
Parenthesis, 39, I.;
additional marks, 39, 1, a, b, c;
comma and dash often preferred, 37, V.; 40, 4;
doubtful assertion, 40, 2;
irony or contempt, 40, 3.
Parenthetical words and phrases, 9, IV.;
definition of, 10, 1;
when commas are omitted, 10, 2;
parenthetical words and adverbs, 10, 3.
Parenthetical expressions, 11, V.;
distinction between parenthetical expressions and
parenthetical words, 11, 1, a, b;
when commas are omitted, 11, 2.
Parties, names of, 60, V.
See Sects.
Participial clauses, 14, IX.;
sign of, 14, Rem.
Perhaps, 9, IV.
Period, indicates what, 3;
uses of, 29, 30.
Persons and places, names of, 58, III.;
North, South, etc., 59, 1;
words derived from names of persons, 59, 2;
Satan, devil, 59, 3.
Person or thing addressed, 13, VIII.;
strong emotion, 14, Rem.
Personification, 67, XIV.
Phrases and clauses, 18, XV.;
definition of a phrase, 19, 1;
of a clause, 5;
when commas are omitted, 19, 2;
words and phrases in a series, 19, 3;
parenthetical phrases, 9, 10.
Poetry, first word of each line, 58, II.
Political parties, 60, V.
Possession, 47, II.;
singular of nouns, 47, 1;
plural of nouns, 48, 2;
ours, yours, etc., 48, 3.
Prefixes, 50, II.;
definition of, 50, 1;
vowel and consonant 50, 2;
vice-president, etc., 50, 3;
when to use the diæresis, 50, 4.
Prince of life, Prince of kings, 64, 3.
Projecting leads in proof, 110, XIII.
Pronouns referring to the Deity, 64, 5; 65, 6.
Proof-reading, 101-114;
its importance, 102;
preparation of manuscript, 102, 103;
copy, proof-sheet, revise, 104;
wrong letters and punctuation marks, 105, I.;
 wrong words, 106, II.;
omissions, 106, III.;
inverted letter, 107, IV.;
strike out, 107, V.;
capitals and italics, 107, VI.;
spacing, 108, VII.;
paragraphs, 108, VIII.;
correction to be disregarded, 109, IX.;
broken letters, 109, X.;
transpose, 109, XI.;
crooked words, 110, XII.;
projecting leads, 110, XIII.;
diphthongs, 110, XIV.;
mark of attention, 100, XV.;
Gen. Rem., 110.
Proof-sheet, definition of, 104;
specimen proof, 111, 112;
corrected proof, 113, 114.
Punctuation, its importance, iii., iv.;
how to teach it, iv., v.;
principal punctuation marks, 3;
other marks, 4;
punctuation marks, why used, 3, 4.

Q
Question, direct, 31, I.;
question and answer in the same paragraph, 36, 3.
Quotation, short, 12, VII.;
long, 13, 5; 26, II.; 27, 1;
expressions resembling a quotation, 13, 1;
introduced by that, 13, 2; 65, 1;
single words quoted, 13, 3; 65, 2; 66, 3;
quotation divided, 13, 4;
quotation in the middle of a sentence, 27, 2;
quotation within a quotation, 45, 1; 46, 2;
 parts of a quotation omitted, 46, IV., 2;
first word of a quotation, 65, XI.;
examples as illustrations, 24, Rem.; 66, 4.
Quotation marks, 43-46;
direct quotation, 43, I.;
exact words not given, 43, 1;
words from a foreign language, 43, 2;
quotation followed by a comma, semicolon, colon, period,
44, 4;
by an exclamation or interrogation point, 44, 5, 6;
titles of books, 44, II.;
quotation within a quotation, 45, III.;
paragraphs, 46, IV.
Quoted passage, 41, I.

R
Republican, Radical, 60, V.
Rather—than, 21, 2.
Reference marks, 53, VI.
References, 68, XVI.;
volume and chapter, 69, 1;
to the Bible, 69, 3;
volume and page sufficient, 69, 2.
Relative clauses, 7, III.;
commas when used, 7, III., 1;
when omitted, 7, III., 2;
introduced by who, etc., 8, 1;
exceptions, 8, 2, 3.
Reporter, remarks by, 41, 2.
Resolutions, 66, XII.;
Resolved and That, 66, Rem.
Revise, definition of, 104.
S
Salutations. See Introductory words.
Scriptures, sacred writings, 61, 3.
Sects, names of, 60, V.;
Republican, etc., 60, 1, 2;
Church, 60, 3.
Section mark, 53, VI.
Semicolon, 23-25;
indicates distant relationship, 3, 4;
often preferred to a colon, 28;
semicolon and comma, 25.
Sentence, definition of, 5; 57, 1;
long sentences, 23, I.;
members of, 23, II.; 25, Gen. Rem.; 28, Gen. Rem.;
complete sentences, 29, I.;
broken sentences, 34, I.;
first word of, 57, I.;
expressions equivalent to a sentence, 57, 2;
word following a period, 57, 3;
word following an interrogation or an exclamation, 58, 4.
Series of words, 17, XIV.;
commas, when not used, 17, XIV., 1;
when used, 18, XIV., 2, 3;
last word preceding a single word, 18, 1;
two words connected by or, 18, 2;
series of phrases and clauses, 18, XV.;
of expressions, 24, III.
Short quotations. See Quotations.
Signatures, 29, Rem.; 97, 98.
Since, 7, 1.
Sister, when to commence with a capital, 63, 2; 90, 2; 96, 2.
Sir, 63, 3.
Son of man, 64, 3.
So—that, so—as, 21, 2.
South, 59, 1.
Spacing in proof, 108, VII.
Specimen proof, 111, 112.
Special words, capitalization of, 66, 67.
Spring, summer, 61, Rem.
Stamp, 78.
Star, reference mark, 53, VI.
Strike out in proof, 107, V.
Strong emotion, 32, I.;
unusual emotion, 32, Rem.
Subject, logical, 19, XVI.;
definition of, 20, 1;
subject of statement or quotation, 35, III.;
definition of, 36, 1;
author, 36, 2;
question and answer, 36, 3;
as, thus, etc., 36, 4.
Summary of letter-forms, 98-100.
Supreme Being, 64, 2;
Son of man, 64, 3.

T
Titles, annexed, 16, 3;
of essays, orations, etc., 29, Rem.; 61, 2;
of books, 44, II.; 61, VII.;
of magazines, 45, 1, 2;
of persons, 62, IX.;
sacred writings, 61, 3.
Title-pages, 62, VIII.;
first word of a chapter, 62, 2;
handbills and advertisements, 62, 3.
Than, 21, 3.
That, 8, 1; 13, 2;
quotation introduced by that, 65, 1;
in resolutions, 66, Rem.
That is, 35, 2.
Theirs, 48, 3.
Therefore, 9, IV.
Thus, this, these, 27, III.; 27, 2; 36, 4.
To-day, to-night, to-morrow, 49, 4.
Too, 10, 3.
Transpose in proof, 109, XI.

U
Until, 7, 1.
Unconnected words, 16, XIII.,
comma, when used, 17, 1, 3;
when not used, 17, 2.
Uncle, when to commence with a capital, 63, 2, 3; 90, 2; 96, 2.

V
Verb omitted, 15, X.;
main clauses separated by a semicolon, 15, 1;
comma omitted, 15, 2.
Vice-president, 50, 3.

W
What, 8, 1.
When, 7, 1.
Words, parenthetical, 9, IV.;
in apposition, 15, XI.;
unconnected, 16, XIII.;
series of, 17, XIV.;
repeated for emphasis, 17, 3; 35, 3;
two connected by or, 18, 2;
words and phrases in a series, 19, 3;
from a foreign language, 43, 2;
compound, 49, I.;
division of, 50, III.;
repeated, 52, I.;
special, 66, XIII.
Words personified, 67, XIV.;
caution, 68, Rem.
Wrong letters and punctuation marks in proof, 105, I.;
wrong words, 106, II.

Y
Yours, 48, 3.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HAND-BOOK
OF PUNCTUATION ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.