I can only imagine the hours of discussion that were logged by our elected board on this topic. That said, I don't need to imagine too hard. I have been through a couple department renamings. They were difficult and ended up as compromises–but altogether necessary ones (goodbye Telecommunications). I don't really have issues with the words "film" and "video" but I do agree that they are technological means to our ends, and those ends are what we'd rather be presenting to the world as a group.
I think it is important to acknowledge our history as an organization and the connections to filmmaking, but we can be a much bigger tent in this day and age with a more inclusive name for our new members who may not be coming from film backgrounds.
The F and V in our name do set our group apart, but I don't think that is always a good thing. As an example, I have a colleague going up for tenure in the fall and at my behest she has the UFVA guidelines in her dossier to help non-media faculty gauge the academic merit of her work. However, we are treading a fine line because what she does is more often classified as "digital storytelling" (whatever that means) not film or video.
I disagree with my colleague who suggested that cinema/cinematic doesn't have much meaning to the average person (let's give people some credit), it is not a particularly esoteric concept.
In the end, UCMA or UCMAA is a flawed, compromise of a name but I trust that this was thoroughly discussed by our board and the thought of the entire membership chiming in on this and offering alternative suggestions is enervating. I realize that to some this seems sudden but this re-brand has been kicked around for the 10 years I have been a member and probably long before that as well.
I appreciate this board finally putting something in motion. Let's vote.
Last edited Monday, August 5, 2019