News from The AV WORLD

RPS AV Distinctions Day

 

– April 2010

 

The last RPS Audio Visual Distinctions Assessment Day received no applications.  The RPS Council/Advisory Board are concerned about the lack of applicants for the April Distinctions Day.  Why are they surprised?

Mention of the day was noticeably absent from the last two RPS Journals.  If members don’t know about it they can’t apply.

But why would anyone want to apply when everything we hear from the RPS management seems to suggest that AV is not valued and that all we love and hold dear count for nothing.  In particular, the chances of success at Fellowship level would now seem to be very slim because, even if the Panel recommend an application it has to be referred to a committee, the “Fellowship Board”, where none of the members is an AV specialist.  The recently discontinued system for assessing Audio Visual Distinctions was widely regarded as a model of excellence, but has been discarded without any consultation with Panel members or the RPS AV Group.  This is why many of us think the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater:

(a)    They were held in locations in the North and South of England to be accessible to candidates from all over Britain.  To insist on all applications being heard in Bath can only be for the convenience of RPS staff and is to the disadvantage of candidates from the North and Scotland.

(b)   The assessments were totally open and above board, unlike the secrecy that surround the present system and the constant requests for “confidentiality”.  Members of the public could attend, see the applications, learn and be encouraged to go for Distinctions themselves.

(c)    Observers and family members would be charged an admission fee so the Days stood a good chance of covering their costs.  The Hilton does seem “over the top” in terms of expense.

(d)   The Panel retired to a room where full and frank deliberation took place, with every member of the Panel being given an opportunity to speak, followed by real discussion, not as seems to be the case at present, a series of statements, some quite prejudiced, and a straight vote.

(e)    One member of the Panel would be delegated to go out to the audience and having made notes of the debate, share with them the substance of the discussions, giving the decision of the Panel.

(f)     At the same time the applicant would meet with the Panel and receive full honest feedback, advice, and recommendations for further progress.  If they had not been successful they would be supported and encouraged to reapply.  This would be followed up by communication from the Chairman and the opportunity for further counsel and support.  The Chairman of the Fellowship Board has frequently highlighted the unsatisfactory nature of the current feedback regime.

(g)    The Panel was composed of experts in the field of Audio Visual, unlike recent assessment days which have been dominated (I do not mean numerically), by non-specialists with a single-issue agenda, i.e. the quality of the photography, and especially the presence of burnt-out highlights.  Many Panel members feel that the members of the DAB (Distinctions Advisory Board) who have been imposed on the Panel have had an influence out of all proportion to their qualifications to judge Audio Visual presentations.  At least one is on record as having been dismissive in their criticism of AV as a medium.

(h)    Audio Visual is much more than just good photography.  Each image has to interact with the preceding and succeeding ones.  AV involves skills in recording, mixing and creating soundtracks.  To be successful it also has to communicate ideas, messages and/or emotions to an audience.  A typical 20-minute Audio Visual Fellowship submission might have 300 images, many of which will have been created specifically for the presentation.  Compared with submitting 20 prints it is clearly much harder to achieve success on these grounds alone.

(i)      Applicants were advised to use their own equipment wherever possible.  Potential applicants are unlikely to want to present their work on a small screen, with inadequate projected image quality, and substandard sound.

If the RPS management are really serious about encouraging people to apply for distinctions in AV, these are some of the issues that need to be addressed.

Malcolm Imhoff FRPS

 

Comments