NEA Tech Check: Archival Producers Alliance

This NEA interview series takes you on a journey across the nation to learn how leaders in the arts and cultural field are approaching the intersections of technology, culture, and society. Inspired by findings from the NEA arts and technology field scan conducted in partnership with Knight Foundation and Ford Foundation, we aim to increase public awareness of creative approaches to technology that engage local communities, explore ethical issues, and increase digital skills through the arts. Here is our conversation with Stephanie Jenkins of Archival Producers Alliance.

NEA: Tell us about your organization.

STEPHANIE JENKINS: We founded the Archival Producers Alliance (APA) in 2023 to provide a way for our field to come together, share collective knowledge, and to influence policy and effect change within the industry. The organization now includes hundreds of experienced producers and researchers across the country as well as internationally.

Archival producers have a unique role in the film industry, as they interface with many levels of production as well as many vendors outside of the production team. An archival producer researches, sources, and manages archival material including footage, photographs, audio, text, and ephemera for use in documentary films and series, feature films, museum exhibits, commercials, and more. This process may involve research online as well as on-site at various archives, including academic, commercial, and personal collections. Specifics of an archival producer’s workflow can vary greatly, but always involve professional archival record-keeping and expertise in using search engines, finding aids, and databases.

Archival producers, working in concert with a film’s director, producer, and editor, are an integral part of the story-telling team. They source unique and often never-before-seen materials that can drive the narrative and aesthetics of a project; work to verify the veracity and accuracy of primary source materials; and organize and manage archival assets to ease the editing and rights and clearances processes.

NEA: Tell us about a specific program you are involved in that supports artist-driven explorations of technology.

JENKINS: Our first initiative was to write and publish "Best Practices of GenAI in Documentaries," the first industry-wide standard within the field to address ethics of this emerging technology. The guidelines seek to reaffirm the journalistic values that the documentary community has long held. A guiding principle of our craft has been documentary film’s implicit promise to the audience that what is presented as real is in fact real—even though that reality will, no doubt, have a point of view. We believe there is inherent worth in preserving the fact-based nature of documentary so that it will continue to be a trusted cultural resource. Further, we contend that human creativity holds unique value, and that the act of humans “bearing witness” is an integral part of the documentary genre. The APA acknowledges and welcomes many of the opportunities that Machine Learning and Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) bring to filmmaking—and also realizes that this new technology comes with risks that need to be addressed.

NEA: Was there a specific interest or experience that led you to including technology in your work?

JENKINS: As archival producers, we spend our time researching and verifying historical audiovisual material. In the spring of 2023, we started seeing synthetic “historic” images and audio being brought into documentary productions. The images were extremely realistic and indistinguishable from actual historic images that we were bringing into projects. At that time, it was unclear to filmmakers whether they needed to be transparent about their use of the generative AI; there wasn’t any precedent so it was really the Wild West. This raised big questions and concerns for us about how documentary film would maintain the trust it has established with audiences, as well as its commitment to historical truth. So we gathered a group of archival producers and began meeting regularly to better understand how GenAI worked and how it might impact our projects as well as the historical record. The result was the creation of “Best Practices for the Use of Generative AI in Documentaries.” 

NEA: What are some of the ways in which you have experienced arts and technology activities contributing to the wellbeing of individuals and communities?

JENKINS: There are many good examples of documentary filmmakers using Generative AI to positively impact the communal well-being. A shining example of this is the work of Reuben Hamlyn and Sophie Compton, directors of Another Body. Their documentary uses GenAI with great intentionality to protect the identities of their participants, who were victims of deepfake pornography. The filmmakers are also active in the White House Task Force on AI, bringing their deep thinking to the national level to influence policy around this important issue. We also want to shout out David France who similarly used GenAI to great effect in his documentary Welcome to Chechnya.

NEA: What are ways the arts and cultural field can play a role in building the future with technology? 

JENKINS: We encourage arts organizations to take a breath when approaching emerging technology—and center their existing experience and standards when considering how to engage. We had success in drafting our Best Practices because we centered our conversations within a framework of broadly ethical standards and documentary history—and we encourage others to approach AI in much the same way.

As we began writing our Best Practices, we knew that questions raised by Generative AI were on a continuum with other discussions that have been happening in documentary film for as long as people have been making documentaries. This includes ever-evolving topics such as re-creations, as well as issues around subjectivity and bias. We asked ourselves: “What makes a documentary? Why are we attached to the things we’re attached to? What are the values that the community holds across the board, if there are any?” With these in mind, we asked ourselves where GenAI fits into these topics.

What emerged from these conversations was not only a written document, but a community! We wrote collaboratively with fifteen people in weekly meetings over the course of two months. Everyone pushed themselves to write and hone and clarify ideas. Through that, we also formed a tight bond. We hope that this method can provide a model to other arts organizations.

NEA: Has technology always been a core interest to your work or practice? Is there a specific experience or cross-sector arts and technology collaboration(s) that was largely influential?

JENKINS: Since we started our work looking at GenAI, others in the documentary field have been wondering why are archival producers talking about AI? As archival producers, we spend a lot of time researching and tracking down historical audiovisual material. Most of us are happiest in dusty archives and looking through old newspapers, not thinking about Large Language Models! A key part of our job, however, is confirming the veracity of primary sources. Once we saw that veracity itself could be questioned when “historical-looking” GenAI elements, which can be indistinguishable from primary sources, moved into documentaries, we knew we needed to stake a claim.

Doing this work has embedded us even deeper into our passion for primary sources and given us tools to understand why they are so essential for documentary storytelling. It also has pushed us to question assumptions about what the nature of “truth” even is.

NEA: How can small or mid-sized arts organizations get involved with this work, if coming to it for the first time? Why should they not feel intimidated, and how can they explore these tools/activities even on a modest budget or with more limited resources?

JENKINS: We believe that any assessment of a new technology should come from within the community that will be impacted by it. GenAI tools were not developed by artists or arts organizations— nor was their creation guided by their needs, values, or best interests. Decisions on how or if to use them need to come from the people who have put years into building the field.

You should never feel you need to be a tech expert to decide if or how you will use the technology. AI does not move at a human pace, but it is ok that we do. It is important to remember that we are all experts of our own jobs and our own lives—and can speak with authority on those. When our core values are at the center of the discussion, they can provide a lens through which to assess how or if to engage with the technology.

NEA: Please share some arts and technology-related tips, forums, online communities, or resources that you’d recommend for readers to check out. 

JENKINS: The extraordinary Starling Lab out of Stanford University has compiled a set of Standard Setting Bodies around AI policy. See if this can help! Knowing Machines does a fantastic job of compiling essential information about Generative AI in a very crowded media environment. We suggest reading their Synthetic Media Media and Generative AI Legal Explainer. For excellent and transparent uses of GenAI technology, we suggest watching Another Body and Welcome to Chechnya.

 Rachel Antell, Stephanie Jenkins and Jennifer Petrucelli are co-directors and co-founders of the Archival Producers Alliance.