In this chapter, the practices of the entrant filmmakers will be aligned with Csikszentmihalyi’s Systems Model of Creativity (1999) as they were behaving as individual agents within the creative system. Their engagement and interplay with The Shoot Out domain and the gatekeepers of the field will be analysed in-depth as it is argued that creative practice occurs at the intersection of the individual, domain and field (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Kerrigan, 2013).
Sixteen filmmakers were interviewed, each with their own unique ‘idiosyncratic background’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). They had all entered the event over multiple years and recognised as making creative contributions with at least two films selected by the preliminary judges as part of the Top Ten screening or winning category awards.
The interviews were filmed and are presented here in an edited video format so to highlight not just what was said, but their enthusiasm, passion, and emphasis within their responses. This, and their ability to outline the detailed minutia of their creative process that occurred more than 10 years prior to the interviews taking place, gives more depth and further insight to this analysis.
While the interviews with the filmmaker entrants have been used to inform the three research questions, this chapter will primarily address how the imposed structures of The Shoot Out enabled filmmakers to be creative (RQ2).
6.1 Extrinsic Motivation
Csikszentmihalyi argues that ‘motivational factors interact with the state of the domain and the field’ (2014, p. 115). Motivation determines what domain an agent will engage with and what they will do (Amabile, 2001) and an agent is required to learn the rules of that domain. As an extrinsic motivator, The Shoot Out encouraged participation by being a competition with winners (recognition), prizes (rewards or payment for effort) and a deadline (time pressure). Recognition and rewards as motivational factors are discussed later in this chapter in relation to field acceptance, but deadline and the associated time pressure are cited here as clear drivers for participation by the entrants.
The time pressure was a synergistic extrinsic motivator, adding positively to intrinsic motivation, creativity and innovation (Amabile, 1996; Amabile & Pratt, 2016). The Shoot Out became a catalyst for production. Shand recognises that ‘contests are one of the most successful stimuli to production within the amateur moviemaking sector’ (2014, p. 471). Likewise, the entrants found that The Shoot Out not only motivated participation but provided a structure in which they were able to act. The rules, including the deadline, enabled and motivated the entrants to make a film.
6.2 Structuration
The existence of structures, like the one imposed by The Shoot Out ‘enables people to act’ (Wolff, 1981, p. 265), giving the entrants agency, enabling them to create a film. Structuration (Bourdieu, 1993; Giddens, 1984; Haralambos & Holbern, 1995; Kerrigan et al., 2019; McIntyre, 2012a; Wolff, 1981) outlines the complex interaction, dependence and duality between structure and individual agency. The entrants, when reflecting on their experience, demonstrated profound knowledge and understanding of how their creativity was enabled by the challenge and constraint of the festival.
Apter states that people at times ‘seek out stimulation and challenge’ (1984, p. 266) and this was evident in the way the entrants almost revelled in the challenges presented and how they may be able to creatively overcome them. They proudly recognised the creative choices they made that were the result of the imposed constraints. Structuration is demonstrated here by the entrants’ embedded internalisation of the duality of structure and their creative agency.
The entrants were ‘always exceptionally aware of both the structures in which they work and the degrees of agency they hold’ (Newcomb, 2009, p. 269). The rules and conditions of The Shoot Out, rather than ‘determin[ing] actions and behaviours’ (McIntyre, 2012a, p. 43) so as to prescribe their choices, ‘may instead be the hallmark of liberty’ (McIntyre, 2012a, p. 49) where individual agency was profound. For some entrants, who already worked in the television industries, ‘creativity is never a process of total freedom’ (Newcomb & Alley, 1982, p. 88). The imposed structures of The Shoot Out offered these entrants some freedoms they had not experienced in an industry context.
Elements of improvisation or spontaneity are not often experienced in the commercial film and television industry but point to the skill of the filmmakers and their ability to rely on their tacit ability to deliver creatively in a more unprescribed environment. This freedom, although loosely attributed to fun by Wojcheich (see Video 6.2.2 Structuration-creative Freedom, 02:18:20), can be linked to the idea of paidia (Caillois, 1961), childlike play or a paratelic mode which is ‘characterized by its playfulness’ (Apter, 1984, p. 271).
6.3 Intrinsic Motivation
Mercier and Wilson’s study on participant motivation for the 48 Hour Film Festival lists fun as a major motivator for their filmmakers (Mercier & Wilson, 2013). On the surface, entrants of The Shoot Out also cited fun as a strong driver for participation, revealing a high level of intrinsic motivation. Fischer et al. found that rather than extrinsic and intrinsic motivators being distinct motivational systems, some extrinsic motivators could be ‘synergistic to intrinsic motivation’ (2019, p. 13). The entrants passionately described their experience as intrinsically motivated or an ‘autotelic activity… rewarding in and of itself, quite apart from its end product or any extrinsic good that might result from the activity’ (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 89).
The entrants’ strong connection to a sense of enjoyment is not surprising given that this research interviewed filmmakers who chose to re-enter the competition, reflecting their willingness to re-live a positive experience from previous years. Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi list ‘intrinsically rewarding’ (2002, p. 90) as a characteristic of being in the state of flow. Flow is an idyllic state where an individual operates at full capacity (Deci, 1975; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) and is ‘fully involved in the present moment’ (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 89).
The entrants articulated experiencing many of the feelings associated with flow in the context of the competition including, ‘[i]ntense and focused concentration … loss of reflexive self-consciousness … a sense that one can control one’s actions … distortion of temporal existence … [and an] experience of the activity as intrinsically rewarding’ (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 90).
The structure of the event allowed the entrants to focus on their filmmaking process and fully immerse themselves within the creative system with no distractions. This not only encouraged a state of flow but, according to Hennessey and Amabile, creativity can be enhanced ‘if individuals were protected from distractions and fragmentation under high time pressure’ (2010, p. 583). The entrants’ responses suggested that they were aware that by engaging with the festival, a state of flow was possible and referred to their experience almost with a sense of addiction, not wanting it to be over. The flow state in itself becomes ‘intrinsically rewarding and leads the individual to seek to replicate flow experiences’ (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 92) which is seen in the entrants’ actions – not only did they re-enter the competition but continued to make films outside those confines.
According to Csikszentmihalyi and Nakamura, a state of flow is achieved when there is ‘a balance between perceived action capacities and perceived action opportunities’ (2002, p. 90). The level of perceived challenge needs to stretch existing skills, not so much as to be unreachable, but to a level appropriate to capabilities. Philipsen, when talking about the scaffolding that a film school video festival can provide, states that it ‘produces the positive stress feeling that helps [the filmmaking students] stay focused and in flow’ (2009, p. 11). The level of challenge supplied by the structure of The Shoot Out was meeting and stretching the entrants’ skill levels enabling them to enter a state of flow. The entrants shared their perception of the challenge as not only fun, but as demanding and testing their ability.
The entrants were consciously aware that the challenge The Shoot Out provided made the filmmaking process fun and were motivated to engage with the risk of the challenge. The structure provided a challenge level that gave the entrants the opportunity to stretch their existing filmmaking skills, allowing them to enter a state of flow.
Sport similarly creates opportunities for challenge, positive stress, flow, adrenalin, competition and fun (Feezell, 2010; Jackson, 2000; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) and there have been clear links made between a film competition and sport (Mercier, 2014; Schirato, 2007). These notions were also present in The Shoot Out entrant interviews.
The entrants aligned the festival with the notions of a race, with rules to be adhered to, where they needed to work together as a team in a competitive environment. By definition, The Shoot Out was a competition and while there are discernible aligning factors with sport, for the entrants they were not only competing against each other but against the rules and conditions of the festival.
Entrants had a common goal, to create a film, and what was standing in their way was not the other competitors or opposing teams, but rather the challenge put in place by the festival. This created an environment that was at times collegial, where teams worked together against the obstacles to production. Being competitive in this environment was not as a result of ensuring your rival teams lost, but rather by exercising creative agency within the structure of the festival to create a novel film. To do this required entrants to be motivated to participate within the creative process of filmmaking and the creative system of the event. The Shoot Out festival directors actively promoted the event held in the city of Newcastle to entice participation.
6.4 Domain Participation
Entrants were motivated to participate in the domain and saw it as exhilarating rather than being a spectator to the process.
Redvall recognises that ‘some domains have a structure, which makes them hard to enter and renew’ (2016, p. 144). Film and media production at the time of the festival were seen as difficult domains to access. To some extent it was ‘the monopoly of a protective class or caste’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014, p. 109). Not only were there specific understandings of best practice, but access to the basic tools of the domain, that is, film making equipment, was cost prohibitive. Csikszentmihalyi states that the more barriers there are to domain access ‘the less likely it becomes that potentially creative individuals will be able to contribute to a domain’ (1999, p. 315). The Shoot Out festival directors in the festival’s design removed some of the barriers to production: entrants could use consumer level video cameras; they were not allowed to use editing facilities; and, by limiting the time for production reduced the achievable scale of production. This resulted in what the entrants termed ‘a level playing field’.
This level playing field gave the entrants, or agents in the creative system, access to the domain. Access to the domain is required if agents are to be able to make creative contributions to that domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 2014; Redvall, 2016). The rules allowed filmmakers of varying skill level to enter The Shoot Out creative system, each with their own idiosyncratic background (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999) which Redvall refers to as a media producer’s ‘talent, training and track record’ (2016, p. 147).
6.5 Idiosyncratic Background
The Shoot Out attracted entrants from a range of different skill levels and these skill levels can be aligned to Kaufman and Beghetto’s (2009) Four C Model of Creativity. The under-18 teams and family groups could be considered mini-c creative as they were learning the process of filmmaking. A large majority of the entrants were little-c creative, described by Film Victoria as ‘early career practitioners … [with] some professional industry or production experience [or has] produced work but not in a professional format’ (2020, n.p.). Semi-professional filmmakers, or Pro-C creatives, with some professional experience aspiring to be recognised by the film festival were also represented. Each of the entrants interviewed for this research started from one of these three levels but, over time and various iterations of the festival, their skill level evolved with some reaching the status of Big-C creative as festival winners.
6.6 Challenge Versus Skill
Many people entering the festival came to the event with low skill level and very little knowledge of the filmmaking domain. Some of the entrants interviewed for this research also started with a low skill level and Dean Parr and Alexis Tarren started as under-18 filmmakers reflecting a status of mini-c creative. But even for entrants with more skill and knowledge of the larger filmmaking domain, the first time they entered they had very little knowledge of The Shoot Out domain and how to negotiate effectively around its unique rules and restrictions. This low-level skill is demonstrated through the entrants’ description of their pre-production planning coming into the event for the first time.
The entrants reflected that in their first experience of the event they were learning. For some that was learning how to make a film or gaining knowledge of the larger filmmaking domain and for others it was familiarising themselves with The Shoot Out domain with its specific ‘set of rules, procedures and instructions for actions’ (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2004, p. 33). It is noted that even though some entrants were very knowledgeable about the filmmaking domain and process, this did not automatically translate to knowledge of the specific domain criteria outlined by the festival’s rules and conditions. Either way, it is clear that the skill level and domain knowledge of first-time entrants was low.
The theory of flow explains that in order to enter the state of flow there needs to be a balance between the level of the perceived challenge and an individual’s perceived skill (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Entrants Margaret and Geoff Peel offered an interesting example of the interplay between challenge and skill. They categorised their skill level before entering the festival as ‘extremely novice’ (see Video 6.5.1 Idiosyncratic Background, 00:20:27) or mini-c creative (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009), where success is measured by the ability to deliver a product. Margaret revealed that rather than operating in flow, for her the event was ‘so stressful’ (see Video 6.6.2 Challenge Versus Skill – Increasing Skill Example, 0:03:12). Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi explain that when the level of challenge ‘exceed skills, one first becomes vigilant and then anxious’ (2002, p. 90). The level of challenge for the Peels greatly exceeded their perceived level of ability. ‘Flow research has emphasized the dynamic system composed of person and environment, as well as the phenomenology of person-environment interactions’ (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 90). This claim by Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi is apparent as Margaret and Geoff talked about increasing their skill level in preparation and also reducing the level of challenge by filming in one indoor location with no actors (see Video 6.6.2 Challenge Versus Skill – Increasing Skill Example) in an effort to find a balance between the challenge and their skill level.
As Margaret and Geoff Peel re-entered the festival, the iterative effect of their increase in skill level opened them up to engaging with higher level challenges such as using actors and musicians. After increasing their skill to the point of having two films reach the Top Ten, they decided to enter The Shoot Out in Geelong with little to no preparation. Even though this film in the Geelong festival was not validated by the judges as a creative contribution, ‘effectively engaging these challenges depends on the possession of relevant capacities for action’ (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 91), which they now had tacitly acquired.
Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi outline how flow allows for individual growth both in skills and goals: ‘The optimal level of challenge stretches existing skills resulting in a more complex set of capacities for action’ (2002, p. 92). Each year that the entrants participated in the festival their skill level rose, moving from the level of mini-c creative of achieving a completed film to being more focused on being competitive enough to be accepted into the Top Ten and recognised by the field. Over iterations of the festival, for the entrants to remain in a state of flow they needed to ‘identify and engage [in] progressively more complex challenges’ (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 92) in line with their developing skill level. This is evidenced in the way the entrants talked of ‘upping the ante’ (see Video 6.6.3 Challenge Versus Skill, 2:34:47, 2:40:32, 2:43:30) or ‘wanting to do better next year’ (see Video 6.6.3 Challenge Versus Skill, 1:32:33, 1:47:48) and the way their focus moved from completing a film to negotiating the rules to make a good film to competing against others for recognition.
The entrants were consciously aware that the challenge was increasing their skill level. Their identification that they could “up the ante”, increasing the challenge in line with their skill, points to the event’s ability to provide ‘a system of graded challenges, able to accommodate a person’s continued and deepening enjoyment as skills grow’ (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 92), which is outlined as a requirement for a flow activity. Just as educational scaffolding should be able to be ‘applied at different levels’ (Philipsen, 2009), The Shoot Out provided challenges that were scalable in line with the increasing skill level of the entrants over iterations of the event.
In subsequent years of entering the festival, entrants’ skill levels had increased as had their knowledge of The Shoot Out domain giving them the ability to take on higher levels of challenge. At the same time, their increased skill level meant they developed skills in pre-production which in turn allowed them to decrease the level of challenge, giving them more control in production.
The increase in the entrants’ knowledge of the rules, The Shoot Out domain and their growing skill level became part of their habitus (Bourdieu, 1993). This tacit knowledge is apparent in the way they described the pre-production planning that went into their films in subsequent years.
6.7 Disruption
The festival directors, too, were aware of the entrants’ growing tacit knowledge and skills and deliberately manipulated the parameters of the festival to increase the level of challenge, while still making the challenge achievable. The surprise or disruptive element of announcing the items on the Friday night was a changing challenge that the entrants had to negotiate, meaning that teams could not be totally planned and prepared. There was always an unforeseen or disruptive element that increased the level of challenge.
An artistic institution like The Shoot Out ‘formulates tasks, puts problems on the agenda, and rewards effective solutions’ (Bordwell, 1997, p. 151). Instability in the domain can create new problems to be solved, thus providing opportunity for creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; McIntyre et al., 2018). The entrants associated the disruption of the curve balls with this idea of creative problem solving. They talked of innovation evolving from the disruption and the divergent thinking required to solve the problems that were presented. Disruption to the tradition of the domain has been linked to innovation and the creation of novel and valued variations (Christensen, 2013; Kerrigan et al., 2019; Schumpeter, 1939).
As part of the field, the festival directors were continuing to stimulate creativity by disrupting the entrants’ process. The ability to constantly adapt and revise the rules in line with the increase in experience indicates that The Shoot Out was a non-static, complex and adaptive system (McIntyre et al., 2018; Waldrop & Gleick, 1992, p. 146). The agents, as part of this system, adapted and changed their process to negotiate the new requirements. With each iteration of the creative cycle, they were learning more about the domain and how to mitigate the creative risk, thereby reducing the level of challenge.
This level of planning to mitigate the challenges of filmmaking and those specific to the event illustrates not only the iterative increasing of skill but the entrants’ acquisition of increasing levels of domain knowledge. The entrants’ ‘feel for the game’ or habitus was becoming finely tuned and was ‘the result of a long process of inculcation’ (Johnson in Bourdieu, 1993, p. 5) over the years they continued to enter the event. Schön (1983) explains that knowledge that is built up over years can become tacit, disappearing from a practitioner’s conscious view.
Looking at filmmaking through a problem/solution framework does not rule out the possibility of unintended outcomes both happy and unhappy (Bordwell, 1997; Gombrich, 1961). The entrants passionately spoke of moments of serendipity in their filmmaking process. Even though they would attempt to plan every detail to reduce surprises and creative risk, unforeseen moments would still occur. The ability to turn these moments into positive opportunities could be seen to be because of the entrants’ tacit knowledge. By being prepared for the unknown, their skill level allowed them to embrace the new challenges of these unforeseen events and turn them into creative opportunities.
The entrants’ ability to ‘adjust to changing circumstances’ (Bailin, 1988, p. 94) required higher order judgements based on their skills and embedded knowledge of the rules of the discipline: ‘It is only through experiencing the iterative and recursive nature of practice … that practitioners learn to become resilient, adaptable and successful’ (Kerrigan et al., 2019). The entrants recalled their ability to be adaptable and see opportunities as they presented themselves, adjusting their process to capitalise on these opportunities to make a successful film.
6.8 Time Restraint
A film festival makes ‘a flow experience occur very fast’ (Philipsen, 2009, p. 11) and the time-limited nature of The Shoot Out required the entrants to be responsive in the moment. This responsiveness can be aligned to the state of flow where ‘experience seamlessly unfolds from moment to moment’ (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, p. 90).
The inherent time pressure of the event established a meaningful urgency which meant that creativity was enhanced (Amabile, Hadley, & Kramer, 2002; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). The spontaneity and in-the-moment decision-making witnessed in these recollections were ‘made possible by the existence of [this] constraint’ (Rodriguez, 2008).
While working within the time restraint, for the entrants there was no separation between practical and logistical considerations and their creative choices. The time pressure enabled action where that action was to make choices both practical and creative to make a film. Creativity was not inhibited by this process but rather enabled (McIntyre et al., 2018) by the practical actions that allowed the films to be completed.
Flow is described as an autotelic experience (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) which is drawn from Apter’s Reversal Theory. Apter (1984) claims that in the process of creativity an individual will move seamlessly back and forth between the two modes of telic (focused, goal oriented and practical) and paratelic (playful and divergent). The entrants talked of how the time pressure required them at times to switch from paratelic and engage in a telic mode to get things done. Practical and timely decisions were preferred as debate and deliberation about creative choices wasted time. The entrants’ observable understanding and tacit knowledge of what moments required each mode is discernible in their reflections.
Although there was a sense of being ‘on the fly’ (see Video 6.8.1 Time Restraint, 03:15:14), or in paratelic mode, there was a discipline evident where rehearsal, precision and ‘getting it right’ (see Video 6.8.1 Time Restraint, 05:05:17) was seen as imperative. The time pressure meant that every decision, even those that traditionally would be left until the edit, were mission critical, as changing your mind later was not possible. Lewis and Hamilton’s debate (see Video 6.8.1 Time Restraint, 05:35:31) over the in-camera edit of their final sequence in the film FB (Lewis & Hamilton, 2005) showed their reliance on their habitus. They both were highly skilled and able to critically reflect in the moment; what Schön (1983) calls reflection-in-action. Hamilton was confident that they had the shot and no more time was needed to be spent on it, while Lewis was keen to take the risk of dropping another angle in.
The limited time pressure required entrants to maintain a state of heightened focus but attention is finite (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Tiredness and exhaustion can have an adverse effect on the ability to remain in flow.
The obstacle of negotiating through a filmmaking process tired and exhausted was also an aspect that the entrants mitigated for in their pre-production and planning.
6.9 Domain Acquisition
It is noticeable throughout the entrants’ discussions about navigating the time constraint that their process of film production for the event was informed by their internalisation of The Shoot Out creative system. This process and their creative practice had become automatic (Bond & Spurritt, 1999; Kerrigan, 2019). Bastick refers to this as intuition (1982) or conditioned agency an ‘internalized state of automatic decision-making’ (Kerrigan, 2013, p. 123). This internalisation is echoed by Csikszentmihalyi who states that ‘to function well within a creative system one must internalize the rules of the domain and the opinions of the field’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014, p. 121). The entrants’ internalised knowledge growth was further observable in their reflections of their filmmaking process for the event. The degree to which they were fully immersed and engaged in the creative system and the depth of learning achieved was evident in the level of detail these entrants recall and the enthusiasm they still exhibit on events that occurred more than 10 years prior to these interviews taking place. The intensity of the flow experience in each of these cases has stayed in their memory, indicating deep engagement and learning.
The knowledge acquisition covered all aspects of the filmmaking process including knowing the intricate details of their filmmaking tools or video cameras and how to get the most out of them using only in-camera editing. They referred to ‘tricks of the trade’ (see Video 6.9.1 Domain Acquisition, 07:42:13) or how they could adjust their process to utilise the technology to their advantage.
The entrants revealed that they would start their 24 hours with a planning session and how this process changed as they became more experienced. In the early years they talked of shooting as much as they could at night, but with the bulk of the film shot through the day. In subsequent years, there was a move toward planning their films so that they could be shot at night giving them more time to work on elaborate sound designs the following day. This trend is further supported when the entrants talked about how they incorporated music and sound design in their films.
The processes used to address sound in the films also changed over iterations of the festival indicating domain evolution. The internalised knowledge and skill of the entrants increased from using only live sound and instruments in early films, to pre-recorded sound tracks and voice overs added in a dubbing process, to full sound designs developed during the 24 hour period. This evolution is also apparent in the Chapter Seven textual analysis of the Top Ten films.
The domain for The Shoot Out was unique in that it encompassed the traditional domain of film and television and the specificities of The Shoot Out rules and conditions. Redvall recognises that ‘a screen idea does not come out of nowhere. It builds on or rebels against … existing tastes, trends and traditions for film and television’ (2016, p. 147). The entrants, when searching for inspiration for their films, looked to examples of best practice within the greater film and television domains.
The entrants drew ‘on traditions and certain norms in their present time as the outset for creating something new’ (Bordwell in Redvall, 2012, p. 60). Even though the work of beginning filmmakers, aligned with mini-c creative (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009), could be seen as iterative, imitating or recreating existing film works, the entrants interviewed for this research moved beyond this level of personal creativity to the point where their work was validated by the field. As head of judging, and therefore a member of the field, Eggleton (see Video 6.9.3 Domain Knowledge-Film, 3:39:38) recognised that thinking of a creative work from a systems perspective accepts that it will be ‘influenced by the existing works and ideas of best practice in the domain’ (Redvall, 2012, p. 69). Further to this, Redvall explains that there are ‘specific understandings of best practice, like certain classical storytelling strategies, which one will be measured against when proposing a new variation’ (2016, p. 144).
It was not just the film and television domain that the entrants needed to internalise but the specificities of The Shoot Out domain. Sawyer states ‘it’s impossible to create anything without the shared conventions of a domain’ (2006, p. 265). The entrants were fully immersed in The Shoot Out domain and this included a deep understanding of ‘the opinions of the field’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014, p. 121) and extensive knowledge of the field of works or the structure and form of past works that have been validated by the field (Bourdieu, 1996).
Bourdieu aligns the field of works as ‘a set of possible uses’ (1996, p. 235) or examples of what could be achieved within the constraints of the domain. As such, knowledge of these works for the entrants gave them a starting point of what was possible and an understanding of what in the past was considered by the festival gatekeepers to be a creative contribution. This supports Redvall’s assessment that ‘existing works within the domain shape the understanding of the quality among the individuals wanting to create new variations as well as among the experts assessing their value’ (2016, p. 144).
6.10 Field Acceptance
The entrants’ knowledge of past works informed their creative choices as they seek validation from the gatekeepers and thereby acceptance of their work into the domain (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 2014; Kerrigan, 2013; McIntyre, Fulton, & Paton, 2016; Redvall, 2012). The value of the creative work is ‘linked to the outside recognition of the work produced’ (Redvall, 2012, p. 60). In the entrant responses, this desire for recognition, in having their film screened at the event, was a strong motivational factor for participation. Csikszentmihalyi recognizes that if a work is not accepted into the domain it ‘is likely to disappear from the record’ (2014, p. 120) and never thought of again. The entrants explicitly stated this is not what they wanted. They wanted the opportunity of validation from the field.
The field, or gatekeepers, of The Shoot Out domain started at the level of preliminary judging. It was the preliminary judging process that first determined if a film would be screened. The entrants then talked of the audience response as a form of validation and the motivational component of wanting to elicit a strong reaction. The audience, in this case, was made up of filmmaking entrant peers of varied levels, industry personnel, industry judges, family, friends and the general public. A large portion of this audience were insiders either as filmmakers themselves or as The Shoot Out entrants, representing domain intermediaries, connoisseurs and amateurs (Sawyer, 2006). The entrants’ desire for recognition from this insider group was not only because of field acceptance but their desire to increase their social capital. The entrants spoke of the camaraderie from their fellow competitors but also how their filmmaking network expanded and became invaluable to their future careers.
For the sample of entrants in this research, who had their films screened more than once at the event, The Shoot Out was a synergistic extrinsic motivator adding to intrinsic motivation and having a positive effect on creativity (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). The festival offered opportunity for recognition and screening of their creative work, adding to the entrants’ personal drive or intrinsic motivation to create novel contributions to the domain. The entrants’ ‘drive and ambition to create something new and worthwhile’ (Feist, 2010, p. 123) was apparent and required intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to be considered simultaneously (Fischer et al., 2019) as, in this case, both forms of motivation could be seen as interdependent (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).
Csikszentmihalyi (1997, 2014), while talking about individuals who are intrinsically motivated, points out that extrinsic motivations such as money and fame are beneficial to creativity. Although fame implies a crude desire to be famous, it could just as equally be applied to individuals wishing to be recognised for their skillful achievements. Some entrants had aspirations to elevate themselves to a level of Big-c creative, to be considered as making ‘clear-cut, eminent creative contributions’ (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 2) to The Shoot Out domain. The Shoot Out was also seen as a pathway to professional success in the greater filmmaking domain.
Interestingly, while 12 of the 16 entrants interviewed for this research received one of the category or first place awards, these awards were not recalled with the same detail or passion as being screened as a Top Ten film. Only two of the entrants cited the prize of a filmmaking package to make a short film using celluloid as being a motivational factor. The prize represented a valuable opportunity to use professional level equipment and facilities as a steppingstone to industry. Malik, Butt and Choi state that ‘extrinsic rewards only promote the creative performance of employees who value these rewards’ (2015, p. 36). The two entrants who saw this as a valuable and achievable opportunity were arguably from two of the best performing teams during the festival’s lifetime and therefore best placed to take advantage of what the prize offered. It was not surprising that other entrants with lower skill did not see the prize as a strong motivator.
Both Martin and Van Genderan started their experience of The Shoot Out as mini-c, embracing the personal creativity of completing a film or the challenge of basic filmmaking structures. Their challenge grew to include the challenge of the festival which, once mastered, saw them competing against not just their own skill but other entrants to reach the Top Ten. At this pro-c level, they were then focused on the challenge of winning where the prize was an extrinsic motivator.
6.11 Rules and Rule Breaking
Csikszentmihalyi states that for someone to introduce a creative variation they ‘must have access to a domain, and want to learn to perform according to its rules’ (2014, p. 115). Bailin’s work supports this notion arguing that ‘an innovation is meaningful only because the innovator continues to operate within the context of rules which are substantially unchanged’ (1988, p. 89). The entrants were very aware that to break the rules would mean their films would be disqualified and thereby not deemed successful.
Adherence to the rules was seen by the entrants as imperative. They went to great lengths to not only ensure the rules were not broken but that they could verify to the festival organisers that this was the case. To submit a creative contribution, the entrants had to ‘master the skills required by the domain’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014, p. 117), including how to work with and adhere to the rules, otherwise their work would not receive the opportunity for inclusion in the Top Ten. The entrants’ responses support Mercier’s claim that ‘prowess [was] demonstrated through mastery of skills in relation to [the] constraints (2014, p. 197).
While the rule of including items in the films was absolute in that a specific number had to appear in the film, the way in which this was achieved had more flexibility. The entrants’ responses indicated domain evolution where the initial approach, used by the under-18 filmmakers, was to let the items influence the storyline. In subsequent years, there was a move toward planning to add the items incidentally to the story, which over time was referred to as an ‘easy way out’ (8.11.2 Rules – Domain Iteration, 01:34:30). After several iterations of the festival, entrants moved toward integrating the items into the filmic action in a meaningful way, which they regarded as a more creative or valid approach. This supports the findings of the Top Ten film textual analysis in Chapters Seven and Eight.
The entrants’ reflections on the use of photos also demonstrated domain evolution. At first using photos was seen as cheating but was soon accepted by the domain as a novel variation and an accepted method of including the items. The Shoot Out was ‘a stable cultural domain that will preserve and transmit the selected new ideas of forms to the following generations’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, p. 325). Using photos became a tradition where entrants replicated this technique in subsequent iterations as an accepted way to include the required items. These creative choices were ‘marked by the work already produced as well as by the different types of constraints surrounding the process’ (Redvall, 2016, p. 143). Over iterations of the festival, however, repetition of this technique went out of favour, described by the entrants as ‘lazy’ (see Video 6.11.2 Rules-Domain Iteration, 11:14:05), thus reflecting the tastes and trends of the domain (Redvall, 2012) and the agents’ interplay with accepted traditions. What was once considered a novel creative contribution became, through repetition, a commonplace technique no longer considered to be novel.
Domain ‘evolution occurs when an individual produces a variation which is selected by the environment and transmitted to the next generation’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014, p. 104). This variation occurs at the individual level and means that to make a creative contribution the entrants must not only have the ability but the ‘inclination to introduce novelty in the domain’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014, p. 117). This inclination or desire to do something novel or different is observable in the entrants’ reflections.
6.12 Challenge - Going Beyond
Redvall explains that individuals ‘propose new, original variations in a constant interplay with the idea of quality and appropriateness in the domain and the field’ (2016, p. 147). To be considered creative, a proposed variation must be deemed valuable or useful (Bailin, 1988; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010; McIntyre et al., 2018; Negus & Pickering, 2004). The entrants were looking for ways to build on the existing traditions of The Shoot Out domain, to propose new variations, in the hope that this creativity was recognised and deemed valuable or useful by the field, thereby have an impact on the domain.
To do this, the entrants were taking on more complex challenges in an effort to ‘seek out stimulation and challenge’ (Apter, 1984, p. 266). They had mastered the skills of the domain and were motivated to increase the challenge in line with their growing skill level. In the case of the entrants who had continued success, they had outgrown the rules and conditions of the festival and started implementing additional rules and constraints on their process. Formulating or changing the framework of a problem takes true originality (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Einstein & Infeld, 1938). In this case, the entrants were formulating new, more complex problems. The Shoot Out creative system, through the interaction of the agents, was scalable and dynamic, adjusting to the interplay of its components in action.
The most extreme examples of this were displayed by producers Van Genderen, and Martin and Fallon. Van Genderen’s team made two films in 24 hours in the Geelong festival in 2007 and made a clay animation in Newcastle in 2005. Also in 2005, Martin and Fallon’s team, rather than using video, shot on film, filming it backwards in one shot, on location in Canberra to be delivered to Newcastle within 24 hours.
These entrants are just a few that were Big-c creative, considered historically as making ‘clear-cut, eminent creative contributions’ (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009, p. 2) and remembered as significant players, contributing to and changing The Shoot Out domain.
These higher level challenges not only indicate a high level of skill but also a willingness to take creative risks ‘which is where creativity and innovation is thought to lie’ (Tahirsylaj, 2012, p. 269). Fallon, Martin, Roy and Van Genderen were found to be highly creative with their films not only being in the Top Ten but winning Best Film and Best Director awards. Runco and Prizker describe creativity as inherently risky (2020) and these entrants were embracing the risk, disrupting, challenging and changing the traditions of The Shoot Out domain.
6.13 Summary
The Shoot Out as a creative system facilitated the complex interaction between the domain, the field or gatekeepers to that domain, and the creative filmmaking agents. Through interviews with entrants of The Shoot Out 24 Hour Filmmaking Festival, this chapter explored the agent within the creative system. Csikzentmihalyi states that:
To function well within the creative system, one must internalise the rules of the domain and the opinions of the field, so that one can choose the most promising ideas to work on, and do so in a way that will be acceptable to one’s peers. (1999, p. 332)
The Shoot Out entrants interviewed in this research reflected passionately and in great detail of their internalised knowledge of the rules of the domain and preferences of the field and the intricacies of how they went about creating their films. Their retention and depth of knowledge is indicative of the high level to which they were immersed in the creative system and the heightened experience of being in flow (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) during the process of making a film for The Shoot Out.
Entrants identified that the festivals 24-hour time limit provided them a ‘meaningful urgency’ (Amabile, Hadley & Kramar, 2002). They were removed from other aspects of their life, giving the entrants the opportunity to focus on their creative filmmaking.
Entrants engaged with the challenge of the event, consciously aware that they were building skills to meet the challenge. They were intrinsically motivated to maintain and replicate the flow experiences (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) made possible by the event. To do this required the challenge to increase in line with their growing skill level. Complex adaptive systems ‘are constantly revising and rearranging their building blocks as they gain experience’ (Waldrop & Gleick, 1992, p. 146). In the same way, The Shoot Out adapted some rules to increase the challenge level and to stop creative complacency.
The entrants were also motivated to take risks, push boundaries and challenge the traditions of The Shoot Out to increase their challenge in the creative process: ‘Innovation often springs from an artist’s urge to be different, to compete with others, to savor the exercise of skill, or to seek new challenges’ (Gombrich in Bordwell, 1997, p. 150). This level of innovation and disruption changed the domain itself which, according to Csikszentmihalyi (2014), is one of the places where creativity occurs.
The entrants were consciously aware that engagement with the challenge and adhering to its rules was forcing them to be creative. They were strongly motivated to not only meet the challenge but to increase the challenge level for themselves and propose novel responses that would be accepted by the field. Their desire to be selected into the Top Ten and receive a favourable audience response, meaning their creative contribution was accepted into the domain, is clear in their interview responses. In this case, the interaction of the agent within the creative system was changing the scale of the challenge inherent in The Shoot Out filmmaking experience. The scalability of the creative system was impacted by not only the directors of the festival but the entrants themselves. The dynamic relationship between the field, agent and domain was ever-changing. The agents were developing high levels of domain knowledge, actively pushing the boundaries of the rules, while effectively maintaining the required traditions of the system in order to produce the most unique or novel variations that would be accepted by the field.
The entrants’ interviews not only provide evidence of this dynamic relationship but clearly outline the depth of intrinsic understanding the entrants had within their engagement with the system. They were motivated to participate and work within the system as they tacitly knew that it would enable their creativity and that the creative system with each iteration was scalable to their growing skill level. This supports McIntyre et. al.’s assertion that ‘creativity becomes an emergent property of a scalable, interactive, multi-factorial and dynamic system at work’ (2018, p. 86).