This essay, by folklorist Judi Hetrick, discusses the need for a more established system for gathering and archiving “home videos.”  Before we proceed, though, it is important to note that this term, “home videos,” is discussed at great length in this essay, and it is Hetrick’s feeling that instead of referring to amateur films as “home videos” we should instead refer to them as “community vernacular video.”  Trained as a folklorist, Hetrick feels that “community vernacular video” more accurately identifies what amateur videos truly are because it aptly suggests the local and often overlooked nature of these films.  With that said, this essay is a basic guide for video archivists in how to seek out “community vernacular videos,” and offers a defense of why this is an important task.  Hetrick believes that “community vernacular video” represent what she calls the “95 percent” – those who comprise the majority of the population – that are often not included in historical accounts.  From a folklorist’s perspective, it is essential that we begin to archive “community vernacular videos” in order to preserve local, regional, and often overlooked cultures so that we can get a more complete conception of a certain historical moment.  In order to accomplish this, Hetrick offers a number of suggestions on where to find “community vernacular videos,” how to label such material, and ways of analyzing this material.  This essay, then, is an attempt to define the need and methods for collecting “community vernacular videos.”
    Hetrick’s essay makes a perfectly valid argument for the historical significance of archiving “community vernacular videos.”  It is useful, then, for anyone interested in archival projects, developing local amateur film communities, and as a brief introduction to the interests and methodology of folklorists.  At the same time, however, this article is absolutely not useful for anyone interested in digital film and the rise of internet sites like YouTube.  This is odd considering the article was written in the spring of 2006, a period in which the distribution and collection of amateur film was reaching all-time highs.  Hetrick’s article focuses largely on the need to collect and preserve film that often goes overlooked, yet fails to discuss the technologies developing all around her that allow for the collection and preservation on scales unthinkable until very recently.  This seems like a major flaw in her essay, one that renders it almost hopelessly out of date.  While there certainly is a need to collect and archive videos that were not traditionally considered important, the fact that Hetrick does not discuss this in relation to digital technologies that would make this process far more prevalent and accessible seems unforgivable.  Still, read this essay if you are desperate to learn the basics of how folklorists approach an issue such as amateur video.
    While this essay is not closely aligned with what my project will focus on, it does provide an interesting set of criteria for discovering and judging “amateur” video.  I think this will be helpful in my own analysis of user generated videos.