[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
For the record, I don't really have any issue with Andreas making the manifesto, I will say that like Verdi and Cheryl stated, for the manefisto to come out after soliciting video's etc, put me off. I would have liked to have known that before hand. The manifesto is to a degree trying to define vlogging, which again a lot of people don't like. And I don't see a different standard, people ask for links to be removed from blogs, vlogs, etc all the time. At the time I asked the question, Andreas did not make it clear if he would remove links, THAT was a big deal to me, because quite frankly I expected more from someone like Andreasbe that as it may.. regardless I am done with this and btw, yes you are right, by putting our work out in the public we have to expect and accept certain things, but we should never expect or accept to completely give up our wishes and choices all together. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/01/2008, at 3:53 PM, Heath wrote: Taken in context with what is being said before in the manifesto, why is it unreasonable to think that someone may read the manifesto and conclude that Andreas and Brittany are in charge of the videos or have been given the videos to be taken care of. In both cases that can imply consent of the participants. That is why the we along with no disclaimer was bothering me. I can't answer that for others but for myself simply because when I view the video page I see the names of the videomakers and links that clearly point to external urls. The issue of consent is more complicated, and what really is interesting here is that we seem to want to apply (I'm not saying this is right or wrong) a different standard to these video works than we would to, say, text. for example people run lots of reblog sites where content from blog A is republished, in its entirety, at blog B (you can download software to run such a site yourself, just Google reblog). Blog B contains a link back to Blog A and attribution. (Gavin Sade runs an extraordinary one at http://uber.tv/refeed/out/ ). Similarly we pull stuff out of blog posts and quote them (in and out of context) as a matter of course. This is partly curation and partly the sample remix thing that we all understand the web to be (and which we all happily use as we stick soundtracks to our videos that we don't have permission to use). I'm not getting into is it right or wrong here, but when we use artist Y's soundtrack under our video we seem to recognise that this does not mean that artist Y endorses our video (though i guess it does mean we endorse artist Y). Why are we being so concerned about the video works? (I think the answer is obvious - for as much as we want to use this sample/remix stuff we are perhaps not so comfortable with it when it happens to something of ours that we think is of value). But quite outside of the particular example of the lumiere project I am intrigued how reblogging appears to go unremarked, but try the same thing with video and all sorts of dilemmas seem to arise. cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Well, that is the issue, as Andreas has already stated to Cheryl that he wouldn't do that, that the only way would be for you to delete your video from your site... I find that troubling and to be honest, disturbing Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi Heath fair enough, I think there are some reasonable concerns in there. I guess it is one thing to more or less curate material that relates to the lumiere project, but there are issues if the curation is done automagically, as it were. On the other hand I have no doubt that Andreas and Brittany wouldn't have a problem with removing links to someone's work if they asked. personally I think curating material that relates to a theme is excellent, it is just manual tag clouding really :-) helps promote stuff too! On 16/01/2008, at 12:59 AM, Heath wrote: But Andreas has stated, that in addition to linking to a video if someone emails him, that if he or Brittany come accross a Lumiere they will then also link to it...But what if the person doesn't want to be linked to because they don't believe in this manifesto? Look, I know the web is a great big link fest, but in cases like this, I think it bears pondering that practice. Cheryl has already stated that she will no longer make Lumiere's because she doesn't want to be associated with the manifesto, I find that troubling. How many others feel that way? If Andreas were giving people the choice to be associated with the site he has, I wouldn't feel the way I do, but he doesn't always do that, and that is where my concern lies. Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
On Jan 16, 2008 10:02 PM, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adrian: To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The only solution Andreas has responded with is to delete the video. Delete it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or whatever storage location) and lose all links including those to other sites or discussions. Yeah I really couldn't believe that when I read it. I don't think we would have accepted such a solution from anyone outside the community - why should we be expected to here? This is more than a simple link. It's our video being actually played (without the context of our post with it) on another site. Further, we're called participants - and We/Our beliefs are listed in a manifesto we may not agree with. And the person doing this says if you don't like it delete your video from your site (and every other site that may have linked to it). Besides the fact that it's just simple courtesy to honor the wishes of members of this community who are asking that their creative works not be displayed in the context of the manifesto (rather than forcing their participation in something they don't feel their creative works are in line with) Its just wrong - we never would have accepted that 'solution' from anyone else. I'm really quite shocked at how its all being handled. - Dave -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Excellent points Mike, espeacially about Andreas solution to not wanting to be associated with his site What I find interesting in this discussion, is that Andreas said he wanted to create discussion and yet, for the most part he has not participated in this discussionthere are valid questions and concerns being raised and he and Brittany are silentI find that very telling Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have produced over 30 Lumiere videos that are linked on the site. When I started, there was no manifesto, just 6 simple rules/guidelines. I create Lumieres with the challenge of those six restrictions... 60 seconds max, Fixed camera, No audio, No zoom, No edit, No effects, and I enjoy it. To me, it's a fun vlogging challenge. With that said, I have a couple concerns. I was never asked about agreeing with the manifesto (that was added after I started creating Lumiere videos), but by the way it was written, it certainly seems like I've agreed to it with the usage of the word we throughout the document. I think it was mid-December when I really sat back and thought about the Lumieres that I created and felt that my work was contradictory to the Manifesto mainly (Quote from manifesto) We do not believe in artificially assembled scenes or scripted action.. I set up my camera and change a tire...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/25/lumiere-detire/ I set the tripod up and cut the grass...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/13/lumiere-lawn-boy/ My point is, I read the Manifesto and honestly felt that for me to post Lumieres, I had to agree with the manifesto. I was saddened by the manifesto and felt I couldn't continue as I wasn't sure I could abide by the added philosophical views of the manifesto, even though I was still within the 6 rules initially outlines. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm not a lawyer, University Professor or philosopher that is able to dig deep into the interpretations of the document, I just kept seeing we throughout the document and felt I was either in or out... no gray area. I'm just Joe vlogger that enjoyed the 6 challenges that were original setup and now felt there were more restrictions and beliefs that took the fun out of it. After reading through this thread, I was pissed at the way Roxie's oversight was responded by Andreas. We're all in the same world... brothers and sisters of one species. There was no reason for such anger and disdain and it certainly could have been responded to with better tact. Adrian: To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The only solution Andreas has responded with is to delete the video. Delete it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or whatever storage location) and lose all links including those to other sites or discussions. I don't want to remove my Lumieres. I will just debate within myself if I'll do more and if I do create others, will I share with the Lumiere site. It's too bad really... in my mind it was just suppose to be a creative video exercise that challenged me, not a viewpoint of video creation that I was suppose to agree with. Mike Vlogger and Lumiere creator. http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles adrian.miles@ wrote: hi Heath fair enough, I think there are some reasonable concerns in there. I guess it is one thing to more or less curate material that relates to the lumiere project, but there are issues if the curation is done automagically, as it were. On the other hand I have no doubt that Andreas and Brittany wouldn't have a problem with removing links to someone's work if they asked. personally I think curating material that relates to a theme is excellent, it is just manual tag clouding really :-) helps promote stuff too! On 16/01/2008, at 12:59 AM, Heath wrote: But Andreas has stated, that in addition to linking to a video if someone emails him, that if he or Brittany come accross a Lumiere they will then also link to it...But what if the person doesn't want to be linked to because they don't believe in this manifesto? Look, I know the web is a great big link fest, but in cases like this, I think it bears pondering that practice. Cheryl has already stated that she will no longer make Lumiere's because she doesn't want to be associated with the manifesto, I find that troubling. How many others feel that way? If Andreas were giving people the choice to be associated with the site he has, I wouldn't feel the way I do, but he doesn't always do that, and that is where my concern lies. Adrian Miles adrian.miles@ bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
I think I might have a few answers to your questions Andreas. 1) is proper acknowledgement not a fair request? It is a fair request IMO, however it is not an obligation unless I am using someone's content with the requirement in their copyright license. I did credit and link to you in my very original post on my site and in this thread. You pointed out to me that it was your opinion I should have also credited Brittany. I did not actually discover the lumiere page you and B created when I did my speedy late night research (I did not have time to follow all of the embedded links on the post on your personal site.); once I learned about it on the list, I immediately added a link to the lumiere page, added a mention of Brittany and a link to her site. Within 2 hours, I also visited B's site and left a comment with my apology as I could not find her email address. 2) Neither you nor Brittany have responded to me publicly or privately to acknowledge that I have addressed your concerns. Perhaps (I'm just sayin') if you had, this thread would have died a long time ago. In my experience, it is tricky territory to go making issues on behalf of someone else. B has chosen to leave the list and that is her choice. I still have NO IDEA what HER actual feelings and opinions are. And that is somewhat absurd as this whole thread revolves around my not crediting her in the first place. 3) You have not addressed the manner in which you posted your request, which many experienced as rude and not in the spirit of collaboration. Many of your contributions on the list Andreas are very legalistic - in that I mean you have a great mind for detail and nuance and are quick in many cases to point out flaws in others' reasoning and site laws of many nations. I think the situation here is confusing to people because you have built a case on sand (maybe because this is a Beach Walks issue he he) instead of your usual granite. Asking people to take down their videos rather than you removing their links? That is so not like you! And silly me, I thought you were grabbing them all by a tag or something automated, not linking each one by hand. That is indeed a labor of love. Thank you for taking the time to add the link to our episode BTW. 4) The Manifesto v participating in the lumiere collection issue. Again in light of your adeptness with the language, I am confused that you don't understand how the use of we extends from the Manifesto to the collection in many people's minds. This could easily be addressed by adding some disclaimers to the pages along the lines of: The Manifesto is authored by us, A B, and reflects our personal opinions. We have decided to link to others' work as our way of extending this art form and building a community of lumiere creators. Each artist has his/her own reasons for creating lumieres and therefore may or may not also support the Manifesto. We hope you enjoy these. Naturally, this is a quick brain dump and you will be able to craft something elegant yet still on point and in your own voices. So what do you think? Can we make some lemonade now out of these juicy lemons? Aloha, Rox On Jan 17, 2008 8:07 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not seeing any wish to discuss the contents of the manifesto in this thread. Mike is the only one who has come close, but pointing out that he has scripted a lumiere video (we all have) is not an opening for discussion. It's just a statement of fact. I have written some long e-mails in this thread, that have either not been read or ignored. Most e-mails in this thread have been repeats and I don't want to sit and type up the exact same reply again. As I've already pointed out Brittany left this list in early 2006. It would also help if you would address the original point of my participation in this thread (is proper acknowledgement not a fair request?) From the people in this thread I have seen - with a few welcome exceptions - only gripes about the manifesto somehow represents you and your work. I can't take responsibility when you choose such a ridiculous interpretation. The manifesto uses the pronoun we because there are two authors. It describes our reasoning for maintaining a curated list of videos that follow six simple rules. It says nothing about the intentions that each author has for creating his own lumiere videos. There, I repeated myself again. - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 08:23 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks%40msn.com : Excellent points Mike, espeacially about Andreas solution to not wanting to be associated with his site What I find interesting in this discussion, is that Andreas said he wanted to create discussion and yet, for the most part he has not participated in this discussionthere are valid questions and concerns being raised and he and Brittany are silentI find that very telling Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
I am not seeing any wish to discuss the contents of the manifesto in this thread. Mike is the only one who has come close, but pointing out that he has scripted a lumiere video (we all have) is not an opening for discussion. It's just a statement of fact. I have written some long e-mails in this thread, that have either not been read or ignored. Most e-mails in this thread have been repeats and I don't want to sit and type up the exact same reply again. As I've already pointed out Brittany left this list in early 2006. It would also help if you would address the original point of my participation in this thread (is proper acknowledgement not a fair request?) From the people in this thread I have seen - with a few welcome exceptions - only gripes about the manifesto somehow represents you and your work. I can't take responsibility when you choose such a ridiculous interpretation. The manifesto uses the pronoun we because there are two authors. It describes our reasoning for maintaining a curated list of videos that follow six simple rules. It says nothing about the intentions that each author has for creating his own lumiere videos. There, I repeated myself again. - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 08:23 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Excellent points Mike, espeacially about Andreas solution to not wanting to be associated with his site What I find interesting in this discussion, is that Andreas said he wanted to create discussion and yet, for the most part he has not participated in this discussionthere are valid questions and concerns being raised and he and Brittany are silentI find that very telling Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have produced over 30 Lumiere videos that are linked on the site. When I started, there was no manifesto, just 6 simple rules/guidelines. I create Lumieres with the challenge of those six restrictions... 60 seconds max, Fixed camera, No audio, No zoom, No edit, No effects, and I enjoy it. To me, it's a fun vlogging challenge. With that said, I have a couple concerns. I was never asked about agreeing with the manifesto (that was added after I started creating Lumiere videos), but by the way it was written, it certainly seems like I've agreed to it with the usage of the word we throughout the document. I think it was mid-December when I really sat back and thought about the Lumieres that I created and felt that my work was contradictory to the Manifesto mainly (Quote from manifesto) We do not believe in artificially assembled scenes or scripted action.. I set up my camera and change a tire...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/25/lumiere-detire/ I set the tripod up and cut the grass...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/13/lumiere-lawn-boy/ My point is, I read the Manifesto and honestly felt that for me to post Lumieres, I had to agree with the manifesto. I was saddened by the manifesto and felt I couldn't continue as I wasn't sure I could abide by the added philosophical views of the manifesto, even though I was still within the 6 rules initially outlines. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm not a lawyer, University Professor or philosopher that is able to dig deep into the interpretations of the document, I just kept seeing we throughout the document and felt I was either in or out... no gray area. I'm just Joe vlogger that enjoyed the 6 challenges that were original setup and now felt there were more restrictions and beliefs that took the fun out of it. After reading through this thread, I was pissed at the way Roxie's oversight was responded by Andreas. We're all in the same world... brothers and sisters of one species. There was no reason for such anger and disdain and it certainly could have been responded to with better tact. Adrian: To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The only solution Andreas has responded with is to delete the video. Delete it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or whatever storage location) and lose all links including those to other sites or discussions. I don't want to remove my Lumieres. I will just debate within myself if I'll do more and if I do create others, will I share with the Lumiere site. It's too bad really... in my mind it was just suppose to be a creative video exercise that challenged me, not a viewpoint of video creation that I was suppose to agree with. Mike Vlogger and Lumiere creator. http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles adrian.miles@ wrote: hi Heath fair enough, I think there are some reasonable concerns in there. I guess it is one thing to more or less curate material that relates to the lumiere project, but there are issues if the curation is done automagically, as it were. On the other hand I
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
So am I Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 16, 2008 10:02 PM, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adrian: To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The only solution Andreas has responded with is to delete the video. Delete it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or whatever storage location) and lose all links including those to other sites or discussions. Yeah I really couldn't believe that when I read it. I don't think we would have accepted such a solution from anyone outside the community - why should we be expected to here? This is more than a simple link. It's our video being actually played (without the context of our post with it) on another site. Further, we're called participants - and We/Our beliefs are listed in a manifesto we may not agree with. And the person doing this says if you don't like it delete your video from your site (and every other site that may have linked to it). Besides the fact that it's just simple courtesy to honor the wishes of members of this community who are asking that their creative works not be displayed in the context of the manifesto (rather than forcing their participation in something they don't feel their creative works are in line with) Its just wrong - we never would have accepted that 'solution' from anyone else. I'm really quite shocked at how its all being handled. - Dave -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
David, you can rest assured that people would have to stay on the lumiere site for over 3 hours before your video would be played. There is a clear link to the blogpost where the video came from right below it (same way iTunes handles videos). I have received no complaints from anyone over the videos being played on the site - I have however received positive feedback from people who think it is a very nice touch. No one has ever e-mailed me or Brittany with a request to remove a link from the site. Any speculation on whether or not the link would be removed would be just that, speculation. Please don't start making up issues that are not there. Are you are outraged on your own behalf or on the behalf of unknown strangers? Apart from the 3-4 very vocal people in this thread we have received many positive comments from people who have created lumiere videos. They have used the constraints to experiment with the way they produce videos. The most common feedback has been that using the lumiere rules have helped them see video in a new light and that they have helped them break free of the practices they were trapped in (but didn't realize). I will encourage anyone to experiment in such a way, either using the lumiere rules or a different set of constraints. I am partial to the lumiere rules because I think they are formulated in a way that makes creating lumiere videos very easy. I especially hope that Mike Moon who have created many memorable lumiere videos (my favourite is this one from November: http://moon.blogspot.com/2007/11/lumiere-falling.html ) is able to see that Brittany's and my intentions for maintaining the project does not need to match with his intentions for creating the videos and that he'll be creating more in the future. He and everyone else should get whatever out of creating lumiere videos they want, each has their own reasons for creating these small, reflective moments. - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 10:24 skrev David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 16, 2008 10:02 PM, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adrian: To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The only solution Andreas has responded with is to delete the video. Delete it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or whatever storage location) and lose all links including those to other sites or discussions. Yeah I really couldn't believe that when I read it. I don't think we would have accepted such a solution from anyone outside the community - why should we be expected to here? This is more than a simple link. It's our video being actually played (without the context of our post with it) on another site. Further, we're called participants - and We/Our beliefs are listed in a manifesto we may not agree with. And the person doing this says if you don't like it delete your video from your site (and every other site that may have linked to it). Besides the fact that it's just simple courtesy to honor the wishes of members of this community who are asking that their creative works not be displayed in the context of the manifesto (rather than forcing their participation in something they don't feel their creative works are in line with) Its just wrong - we never would have accepted that 'solution' from anyone else. I'm really quite shocked at how its all being handled. - Dave -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Well you did answer my concernt about the term 'participants' off-list,t hanks for that. I made one or two other points about the manifesto itself, which were not responded to, but they werent particularily good points so I dont mind. I will expand on my opniion that not being allowed any sound is a bit limiting. I can see why this clause would be desirable, the manifesto talks about some of the things it wants to avoid, and no audio makes it easy for people to avoid things liek monologues, voiceovers etc. My gripe is that many of the moments I could want to capture, would be so much nicer experiences if the ambient sound was present. And for xample I missed the sound of the sea in Rox's video, those waves seemed sort of impotent without their voice. The 'solution' to this is no doubt to come up with another name set of rules for something else that is similar but includes such audio. Its not really me to be into that sort of thing, if I want to make such vids in future I will probably just do it without giving them a name or trying to get others to make them to, but thats just me. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not seeing any wish to discuss the contents of the manifesto in this thread. Mike is the only one who has come close, but pointing out that he has scripted a lumiere video (we all have) is not an opening for discussion. It's just a statement of fact. I have written some long e-mails in this thread, that have either not been read or ignored. Most e-mails in this thread have been repeats and I don't want to sit and type up the exact same reply again. As I've already pointed out Brittany left this list in early 2006. It would also help if you would address the original point of my participation in this thread (is proper acknowledgement not a fair request?) From the people in this thread I have seen - with a few welcome exceptions - only gripes about the manifesto somehow represents you and your work. I can't take responsibility when you choose such a ridiculous interpretation. The manifesto uses the pronoun we because there are two authors. It describes our reasoning for maintaining a curated list of videos that follow six simple rules. It says nothing about the intentions that each author has for creating his own lumiere videos. There, I repeated myself again. - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 08:23 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Excellent points Mike, espeacially about Andreas solution to not wanting to be associated with his site What I find interesting in this discussion, is that Andreas said he wanted to create discussion and yet, for the most part he has not participated in this discussionthere are valid questions and concerns being raised and he and Brittany are silentI find that very telling Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Moon mgmoon@ wrote: I have produced over 30 Lumiere videos that are linked on the site. When I started, there was no manifesto, just 6 simple rules/guidelines. I create Lumieres with the challenge of those six restrictions... 60 seconds max, Fixed camera, No audio, No zoom, No edit, No effects, and I enjoy it. To me, it's a fun vlogging challenge. With that said, I have a couple concerns. I was never asked about agreeing with the manifesto (that was added after I started creating Lumiere videos), but by the way it was written, it certainly seems like I've agreed to it with the usage of the word we throughout the document. I think it was mid-December when I really sat back and thought about the Lumieres that I created and felt that my work was contradictory to the Manifesto mainly (Quote from manifesto) We do not believe in artificially assembled scenes or scripted action.. I set up my camera and change a tire...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/25/lumiere-detire/ I set the tripod up and cut the grass...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/13/lumiere-lawn-boy/ My point is, I read the Manifesto and honestly felt that for me to post Lumieres, I had to agree with the manifesto. I was saddened by the manifesto and felt I couldn't continue as I wasn't sure I could abide by the added philosophical views of the manifesto, even though I was still within the 6 rules initially outlines. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm not a lawyer, University Professor or philosopher that is able to dig deep into the interpretations of the document, I just kept seeing we throughout the document and felt I was either in or out... no gray area. I'm just Joe vlogger that enjoyed the 6 challenges that were original setup and now felt there were more restrictions and beliefs that took the fun out of it. After reading through this thread, I was
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
On Jan 17, 2008 1:07 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any speculation on whether or not the link would be removed would be just that, speculation. Please don't start making up issues that are not there. Andreas, I'm not making anything up. YOU said that if we didnt want to be included at your site we were free to delete our videos from blip/our site. YOU said (and I quote) If you want to have your videos removed simply delete them from your website. YOU continued on to expound about the link-oriented nature of the web and reaffirmed again in a second email that if we didn't want to be listed we should delete our hosted video. No one has ever e-mailed me or Brittany with a request to remove a link from the site. I never said they did. However there seems to be some concern here in this thread and YOU HAVE STATED that if they don't like they are free to delete their video. My concern is hardly speculative, and I'm certainly not making anything up. Please don't start putting word in my mouth. David, you can rest assured that people would have to stay on the lumiere site for over 3 hours before your video would be played. That's hardly the point, Andreas - and I suspect you know that. If it took 45 years for my video to show up on a site whose premise I disagreed with, I as the creator of the creative work should be able to request it not be displayed as participant. There is a clear link to the blogpost where the video came from right below it (same way iTunes handles videos). Except iTunes doesn't publish a manifesto stating my beliefs / inspirations as they relate to my creative works. Are you are outraged on your own behalf or on the behalf of unknown strangers? Apart from the 3-4 very vocal people in this thread we have received many positive comments from people who have created lumiere videos. I'm sure you have gotten good feedback as well. But what about those 3-4 people expressing concerns here? Are you going to honor their request to not be included, or are you sticking to your you're free to delete your video stance? The only thing I was outraged about was your insistent need to default to an insulting and combative tone with people who were just trying to be part of the community. I said I was shocked about your insistence that you would not honor requests for removal (see above where I remind you of what YOU said). - Dave -- http://www.DavidMeade.com Den 17.01.2008 kl. 10:24 skrev David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 16, 2008 10:02 PM, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adrian: To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The only solution Andreas has responded with is to delete the video. Delete it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or whatever storage location) and lose all links including those to other sites or discussions. Yeah I really couldn't believe that when I read it. I don't think we would have accepted such a solution from anyone outside the community - why should we be expected to here? This is more than a simple link. It's our video being actually played (without the context of our post with it) on another site. Further, we're called participants - and We/Our beliefs are listed in a manifesto we may not agree with. And the person doing this says if you don't like it delete your video from your site (and every other site that may have linked to it). Besides the fact that it's just simple courtesy to honor the wishes of members of this community who are asking that their creative works not be displayed in the context of the manifesto (rather than forcing their participation in something they don't feel their creative works are in line with) Its just wrong - we never would have accepted that 'solution' from anyone else. I'm really quite shocked at how its all being handled. - Dave -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
I can tell you that Aske Dam, who first introduced me to the rules creates his lumiere videos with one notable exception - he allows himself to break one of the rules. Most often this is the no audio rule for the same reasons you outline. I have found the 1 minute rule to be the one I most often would like to break. Like when I put up a video that's almost two minutes, but otherwise follows the rules: http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20071018-1325 (I don't add that video to the collection). In this case I even put up a 1 minute lumiere version (obviously breaking the no editing rule by trimming the original footage). Only a small subset of the lumiere videos adhere to the strictest interpretations of the rules. Video compression can easily be seen as a type of video effect, many people trim footage and almost as many add credit rolls or title cards (breaking the no edit rule). It is curious that you mention the no audio rule since it's my own personal favourite. Removing the audio makes the videos more universally accessible. There is no spoken language so you can watch and understand a person's video even if you do not speak his language. Futhermore the lack of audio forces the view to focus on the visuals 100%. Most importantly though it takes control away from the video creator and gives the viewer more control. This is one of the areas the lumiere videos excel at. You, the video creator, have less to say about what the video means and the viewers have more freedom to create their own meanings from the visual. We feel that these benefits (as far as our goals go anyway) outweigh whatever effect the audio has (don't tell me you didn't re-create the sound of waves in your head as you watched Rox' video, no audio track was needed :p) Aske has chided me last time we met for insisting on keeping all rules intact and as you can see he has not submitted any of his own videos (partly because he has no online prescence, partly because his videos all break one of the rules). We felt that insisting on all rules worked towards the various goals (more room for contemplation and viewer interpretations) and also stricter rules makes it easier to get involved and create a video (fewer variables means it's easier to record). - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 13:40 skrev Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well you did answer my concernt about the term 'participants' off-list,t hanks for that. I made one or two other points about the manifesto itself, which were not responded to, but they werent particularily good points so I dont mind. I will expand on my opniion that not being allowed any sound is a bit limiting. I can see why this clause would be desirable, the manifesto talks about some of the things it wants to avoid, and no audio makes it easy for people to avoid things liek monologues, voiceovers etc. My gripe is that many of the moments I could want to capture, would be so much nicer experiences if the ambient sound was present. And for xample I missed the sound of the sea in Rox's video, those waves seemed sort of impotent without their voice. The 'solution' to this is no doubt to come up with another name set of rules for something else that is similar but includes such audio. Its not really me to be into that sort of thing, if I want to make such vids in future I will probably just do it without giving them a name or trying to get others to make them to, but thats just me. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not seeing any wish to discuss the contents of the manifesto in this thread. Mike is the only one who has come close, but pointing out that he has scripted a lumiere video (we all have) is not an opening for discussion. It's just a statement of fact. I have written some long e-mails in this thread, that have either not been read or ignored. Most e-mails in this thread have been repeats and I don't want to sit and type up the exact same reply again. As I've already pointed out Brittany left this list in early 2006. It would also help if you would address the original point of my participation in this thread (is proper acknowledgement not a fair request?) From the people in this thread I have seen - with a few welcome exceptions - only gripes about the manifesto somehow represents you and your work. I can't take responsibility when you choose such a ridiculous interpretation. The manifesto uses the pronoun we because there are two authors. It describes our reasoning for maintaining a curated list of videos that follow six simple rules. It says nothing about the intentions that each author has for creating his own lumiere videos. There, I repeated myself again. - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 08:23 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Excellent points Mike, espeacially about
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
People are free to delete any video and it won't show up. We have still not received any requests from anyone asking for their links to be removed. On the other hand we have received many requests to be included. If you want to contact the maintainers of the videoblogging.info website (that'd be Brittany and myself) the e-mail address is right there on the page. If anyone wants to discuss the actual content of the manifesto and why we think a reflexive process is important, you can also e-mail us there. - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 13:29 skrev David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 17, 2008 1:07 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any speculation on whether or not the link would be removed would be just that, speculation. Please don't start making up issues that are not there. Andreas, I'm not making anything up. YOU said that if we didnt want to be included at your site we were free to delete our videos from blip/our site. YOU said (and I quote) If you want to have your videos removed simply delete them from your website. YOU continued on to expound about the link-oriented nature of the web and reaffirmed again in a second email that if we didn't want to be listed we should delete our hosted video. No one has ever e-mailed me or Brittany with a request to remove a link from the site. I never said they did. However there seems to be some concern here in this thread and YOU HAVE STATED that if they don't like they are free to delete their video. My concern is hardly speculative, and I'm certainly not making anything up. Please don't start putting word in my mouth. David, you can rest assured that people would have to stay on the lumiere site for over 3 hours before your video would be played. That's hardly the point, Andreas - and I suspect you know that. If it took 45 years for my video to show up on a site whose premise I disagreed with, I as the creator of the creative work should be able to request it not be displayed as participant. There is a clear link to the blogpost where the video came from right below it (same way iTunes handles videos). Except iTunes doesn't publish a manifesto stating my beliefs / inspirations as they relate to my creative works. Are you are outraged on your own behalf or on the behalf of unknown strangers? Apart from the 3-4 very vocal people in this thread we have received many positive comments from people who have created lumiere videos. I'm sure you have gotten good feedback as well. But what about those 3-4 people expressing concerns here? Are you going to honor their request to not be included, or are you sticking to your you're free to delete your video stance? The only thing I was outraged about was your insistent need to default to an insulting and combative tone with people who were just trying to be part of the community. I said I was shocked about your insistence that you would not honor requests for removal (see above where I remind you of what YOU said). - Dave -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
is proper acknowledgment not a fair request? I'm surprised you think this is the issue. Of course it's a fair request. The problem Andreas is the way in which you requested the acknowledgment. An apology in order and you have yet to offer one or address the issue. That would have cut this thread short. It's that simple. On Jan 17, 2008 12:07 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not seeing any wish to discuss the contents of the manifesto in this thread. Mike is the only one who has come close, but pointing out that he has scripted a lumiere video (we all have) is not an opening for discussion. It's just a statement of fact. I have written some long e-mails in this thread, that have either not been read or ignored. Most e-mails in this thread have been repeats and I don't want to sit and type up the exact same reply again. As I've already pointed out Brittany left this list in early 2006. It would also help if you would address the original point of my participation in this thread (is proper acknowledgement not a fair request?) From the people in this thread I have seen - with a few welcome exceptions - only gripes about the manifesto somehow represents you and your work. I can't take responsibility when you choose such a ridiculous interpretation. The manifesto uses the pronoun we because there are two authors. It describes our reasoning for maintaining a curated list of videos that follow six simple rules. It says nothing about the intentions that each author has for creating his own lumiere videos. There, I repeated myself again. - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 08:23 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Excellent points Mike, espeacially about Andreas solution to not wanting to be associated with his site What I find interesting in this discussion, is that Andreas said he wanted to create discussion and yet, for the most part he has not participated in this discussionthere are valid questions and concerns being raised and he and Brittany are silentI find that very telling Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have produced over 30 Lumiere videos that are linked on the site. When I started, there was no manifesto, just 6 simple rules/guidelines. I create Lumieres with the challenge of those six restrictions... 60 seconds max, Fixed camera, No audio, No zoom, No edit, No effects, and I enjoy it. To me, it's a fun vlogging challenge. With that said, I have a couple concerns. I was never asked about agreeing with the manifesto (that was added after I started creating Lumiere videos), but by the way it was written, it certainly seems like I've agreed to it with the usage of the word we throughout the document. I think it was mid-December when I really sat back and thought about the Lumieres that I created and felt that my work was contradictory to the Manifesto mainly (Quote from manifesto) We do not believe in artificially assembled scenes or scripted action.. I set up my camera and change a tire...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/25/lumiere-detire/ I set the tripod up and cut the grass...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/13/lumiere-lawn-boy/ My point is, I read the Manifesto and honestly felt that for me to post Lumieres, I had to agree with the manifesto. I was saddened by the manifesto and felt I couldn't continue as I wasn't sure I could abide by the added philosophical views of the manifesto, even though I was still within the 6 rules initially outlines. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm not a lawyer, University Professor or philosopher that is able to dig deep into the interpretations of the document, I just kept seeing we throughout the document and felt I was either in or out... no gray area. I'm just Joe vlogger that enjoyed the 6 challenges that were original setup and now felt there were more restrictions and beliefs that took the fun out of it. After reading through this thread, I was pissed at the way Roxie's oversight was responded by Andreas. We're all in the same world... brothers and sisters of one species. There was no reason for such anger and disdain and it certainly could have been responded to with better tact. Adrian: To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The only solution Andreas has responded with is to delete the video. Delete it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or whatever storage location) and lose all links including those to other sites or discussions. I don't want to remove my Lumieres. I will just debate within myself if I'll do more and if I do create others, will I share with the Lumiere site. It's too bad really... in my
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Let me be the first then, to request that you (Andreas and Brittany) remove all links to my Lumiere videos from your site. Specifically, here are the links I would like you to remove: http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/06/27/partly-cloudy-lumiere-1/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/06/29/moon-lumiere-2/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/07/04/dylan-talking-lumiere-3/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/07/17/approaching-phoenix-lumiere-4/ - Verdi
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Or you could try enjoying video in a whole new way. at your local gay video dance bar. http://www.sfbadlands.com/ On Jan 17, 2008 3:19 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Den 17.01.2008 kl. 16:05 skrev Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So how about Lumish... stuff that is inspired by and deeply related to Lumiere, but may break a rule here or there. Go nuts. For something somewhat related that predates my own lumiere videos: http://blandlands.com/ -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Den 17.01.2008 kl. 16:05 skrev Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So how about Lumish... stuff that is inspired by and deeply related to Lumiere, but may break a rule here or there. Go nuts. For something somewhat related that predates my own lumiere videos: http://blandlands.com/ -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
In this response, you Rox, show why you Rock! Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I might have a few answers to your questions Andreas. 1) is proper acknowledgement not a fair request? It is a fair request IMO, however it is not an obligation unless I am using someone's content with the requirement in their copyright license. I did credit and link to you in my very original post on my site and in this thread. You pointed out to me that it was your opinion I should have also credited Brittany. I did not actually discover the lumiere page you and B created when I did my speedy late night research (I did not have time to follow all of the embedded links on the post on your personal site.); once I learned about it on the list, I immediately added a link to the lumiere page, added a mention of Brittany and a link to her site. Within 2 hours, I also visited B's site and left a comment with my apology as I could not find her email address. 2) Neither you nor Brittany have responded to me publicly or privately to acknowledge that I have addressed your concerns. Perhaps (I'm just sayin') if you had, this thread would have died a long time ago. In my experience, it is tricky territory to go making issues on behalf of someone else. B has chosen to leave the list and that is her choice. I still have NO IDEA what HER actual feelings and opinions are. And that is somewhat absurd as this whole thread revolves around my not crediting her in the first place. 3) You have not addressed the manner in which you posted your request, which many experienced as rude and not in the spirit of collaboration. Many of your contributions on the list Andreas are very legalistic - in that I mean you have a great mind for detail and nuance and are quick in many cases to point out flaws in others' reasoning and site laws of many nations. I think the situation here is confusing to people because you have built a case on sand (maybe because this is a Beach Walks issue he he) instead of your usual granite. Asking people to take down their videos rather than you removing their links? That is so not like you! And silly me, I thought you were grabbing them all by a tag or something automated, not linking each one by hand. That is indeed a labor of love. Thank you for taking the time to add the link to our episode BTW. 4) The Manifesto v participating in the lumiere collection issue. Again in light of your adeptness with the language, I am confused that you don't understand how the use of we extends from the Manifesto to the collection in many people's minds. This could easily be addressed by adding some disclaimers to the pages along the lines of: The Manifesto is authored by us, A B, and reflects our personal opinions. We have decided to link to others' work as our way of extending this art form and building a community of lumiere creators. Each artist has his/her own reasons for creating lumieres and therefore may or may not also support the Manifesto. We hope you enjoy these. Naturally, this is a quick brain dump and you will be able to craft something elegant yet still on point and in your own voices. So what do you think? Can we make some lemonade now out of these juicy lemons? Aloha, Rox On Jan 17, 2008 8:07 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not seeing any wish to discuss the contents of the manifesto in this thread. Mike is the only one who has come close, but pointing out that he has scripted a lumiere video (we all have) is not an opening for discussion. It's just a statement of fact. I have written some long e-mails in this thread, that have either not been read or ignored. Most e-mails in this thread have been repeats and I don't want to sit and type up the exact same reply again. As I've already pointed out Brittany left this list in early 2006. It would also help if you would address the original point of my participation in this thread (is proper acknowledgement not a fair request?) From the people in this thread I have seen - with a few welcome exceptions - only gripes about the manifesto somehow represents you and your work. I can't take responsibility when you choose such a ridiculous interpretation. The manifesto uses the pronoun we because there are two authors. It describes our reasoning for maintaining a curated list of videos that follow six simple rules. It says nothing about the intentions that each author has for creating his own lumiere videos. There, I repeated myself again. - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 08:23 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]heathparks% 40msn.com : Excellent points Mike, espeacially about Andreas solution to not wanting to be associated with his site What I find interesting in this discussion,
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Thanks for the response. Yeah I dont like the language barriers that seperate people, so I am a fan of no-audio in that sense. I guess when confronted with the rule, my brain leaped to all the things it would miss, the stuff that sounds (rather than human language) can add to art, work, play, communication, whatever it is. The non-verbal sounds that many humans make are also broadly universal I guess, a baby screaming, people laughing, crying, I would like that sometimes, in a format that would otherwise be Lumiere-like. But as I said before, Im not actually proposing that this specific rule should be changed for your manifesto. Rather I see the downsides as well as the upsides to the rules in general, and how tight to be with them. Although there appear to be a number of reasons why some people wish to dissasociate their work from your manifesto, for me it seems a tragedy if any of them are turned off the concept in general by your specific version of it. So how about Lumish... stuff that is inspired by and deeply related to Lumiere, but may break a rule here or there. Cheers, I done squawking for today. Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can tell you that Aske Dam, who first introduced me to the rules creates his lumiere videos with one notable exception - he allows himself to break one of the rules. Most often this is the no audio rule for the same reasons you outline. I have found the 1 minute rule to be the one I most often would like to break. Like when I put up a video that's almost two minutes, but otherwise follows the rules: http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20071018-1325 (I don't add that video to the collection). In this case I even put up a 1 minute lumiere version (obviously breaking the no editing rule by trimming the original footage). Only a small subset of the lumiere videos adhere to the strictest interpretations of the rules. Video compression can easily be seen as a type of video effect, many people trim footage and almost as many add credit rolls or title cards (breaking the no edit rule). It is curious that you mention the no audio rule since it's my own personal favourite. Removing the audio makes the videos more universally accessible. There is no spoken language so you can watch and understand a person's video even if you do not speak his language. Futhermore the lack of audio forces the view to focus on the visuals 100%. Most importantly though it takes control away from the video creator and gives the viewer more control. This is one of the areas the lumiere videos excel at. You, the video creator, have less to say about what the video means and the viewers have more freedom to create their own meanings from the visual. We feel that these benefits (as far as our goals go anyway) outweigh whatever effect the audio has (don't tell me you didn't re-create the sound of waves in your head as you watched Rox' video, no audio track was needed :p) Aske has chided me last time we met for insisting on keeping all rules intact and as you can see he has not submitted any of his own videos (partly because he has no online prescence, partly because his videos all break one of the rules). We felt that insisting on all rules worked towards the various goals (more room for contemplation and viewer interpretations) and also stricter rules makes it easier to get involved and create a video (fewer variables means it's easier to record). - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 13:40 skrev Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well you did answer my concernt about the term 'participants' off-list,t hanks for that. I made one or two other points about the manifesto itself, which were not responded to, but they werent particularily good points so I dont mind. I will expand on my opniion that not being allowed any sound is a bit limiting. I can see why this clause would be desirable, the manifesto talks about some of the things it wants to avoid, and no audio makes it easy for people to avoid things liek monologues, voiceovers etc. My gripe is that many of the moments I could want to capture, would be so much nicer experiences if the ambient sound was present. And for xample I missed the sound of the sea in Rox's video, those waves seemed sort of impotent without their voice. The 'solution' to this is no doubt to come up with another name set of rules for something else that is similar but includes such audio. Its not really me to be into that sort of thing, if I want to make such vids in future I will probably just do it without giving them a name or trying to get others to make them to, but thats just me. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: I am not seeing
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Let me be the first to request that this thread ends now and any further communication concerning Andreas' eitquette or content linked on the Lumiere site be directed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Sull (the soapbox stomper) On Jan 17, 2008 3:53 PM, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me be the first then, to request that you (Andreas and Brittany) remove all links to my Lumiere videos from your site. Specifically, here are the links I would like you to remove: http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/06/27/partly-cloudy-lumiere-1/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/06/29/moon-lumiere-2/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/07/04/dylan-talking-lumiere-3/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/07/17/approaching-phoenix-lumiere-4/ - Verdi __._,_ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert - A Public Request
Posted: http://www.hummingcrow.com/2008/01/17/a-public-request/ Mailed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I hereby formally and publicly request that links to my Lumiere videos be removed from videoblogging.info/lumiere/, where they are listed as videos by hummingcrow. I do so for the following reasons: * I disagree with the Lumiere Manifesto published by Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen Brittany Shoot in August 2007 and do not wish to have my work associated with it by inclusion at videoblogging.info/lumiere/. While I acknowledge that I could force the exclusion of my work by deleting it entirely, I prefer to leave the work published as part of my body of work. I simply wish to disassociate my work from the videoblogging.info web site. I do not have any interest in engaging in a conversation or debate about the manifesto. * While I originally felt no need to request removal of work created prior to the manifesto's publication, I now wish to assist in removing any semblance of speculation from the ongoing discussion, as represented in this message and its quoted posts (http://tinyurl.com/yopy4s), over whether videos would be removed from videoblogging.info/lumiere/ if requested. Sincerely, Cheryl Colan --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People are free to delete any video and it won't show up. We have still not received any requests from anyone asking for their links to be removed. On the other hand we have received many requests to be included. If you want to contact the maintainers of the videoblogging.info website (that'd be Brittany and myself) the e-mail address is right there on the page. If anyone wants to discuss the actual content of the manifesto and why we think a reflexive process is important, you can also e-mail us there. - Andreas Den 17.01.2008 kl. 13:29 skrev David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 17, 2008 1:07 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any speculation on whether or not the link would be removed would be just that, speculation. Please don't start making up issues that are not there. Andreas, I'm not making anything up. YOU said that if we didnt want to be included at your site we were free to delete our videos from blip/our site. YOU said (and I quote) If you want to have your videos removed simply delete them from your website. YOU continued on to expound about the link-oriented nature of the web and reaffirmed again in a second email that if we didn't want to be listed we should delete our hosted video. No one has ever e-mailed me or Brittany with a request to remove a link from the site. I never said they did. However there seems to be some concern here in this thread and YOU HAVE STATED that if they don't like they are free to delete their video. My concern is hardly speculative, and I'm certainly not making anything up. Please don't start putting word in my mouth. David, you can rest assured that people would have to stay on the lumiere site for over 3 hours before your video would be played. That's hardly the point, Andreas - and I suspect you know that. If it took 45 years for my video to show up on a site whose premise I disagreed with, I as the creator of the creative work should be able to request it not be displayed as participant. There is a clear link to the blogpost where the video came from right below it (same way iTunes handles videos). Except iTunes doesn't publish a manifesto stating my beliefs / inspirations as they relate to my creative works. Are you are outraged on your own behalf or on the behalf of unknown strangers? Apart from the 3-4 very vocal people in this thread we have received many positive comments from people who have created lumiere videos. I'm sure you have gotten good feedback as well. But what about those 3-4 people expressing concerns here? Are you going to honor their request to not be included, or are you sticking to your you're free to delete your video stance? The only thing I was outraged about was your insistent need to default to an insulting and combative tone with people who were just trying to be part of the community. I said I was shocked about your insistence that you would not honor requests for removal (see above where I remind you of what YOU said). - Dave -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
On 18/01/2008, at 6:29 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: I can tell you that Aske Dam, who first introduced me to the rules creates his lumiere videos with one notable exception - he allows himself to break one of the rules. Most often this is the no audio rule for the same reasons you outline. hey Andreas pass on my belated hellos to Aske :-) I think a useful way to think about the 'manifesto' is in two ways. The first is, as Andreas has explained, it's a manifesto written by two people. I think that's pretty clear and straight forward. It raises some provocative points about video practice in relation to blogging, all of which are worth talking about. It also makes some claims about the relationship between technology, aesthetics and videoblogging as a practice. These are also worth discussing. Now there is nothing in that which means you to have to agree with them, but they are certainly worth talking about. :-) If you were to make a video that uses some or all of these then this does not mean allegiance to the manifesto (written by two people). It isn't like there's a dogma vow of chastity to be pledged or anything. I don't see this as much different to painting something that picks up some contemporary aesthetic things and then someone decides my work falls within a particular movement. This is what happens, this is the normal course of events in study, scholarship and knowledge creation. So the manifesto is about making an argument and each of the videos can be thought as part of the argument and so an idea. I am free to use your material, cited appropriately, to endorse, criticise etc. So for me the manifesto is making propositions and finding works that support the proposition. If you think that's not your intention in your work then I'm sorry, your intention actually doesn't count for a lot (there is a lot - and I mean a lot - of theoretical work that demonstrates the frailty of intention). This is the cost of putting your work (no matter what sort of work it is) out in public. The second way to think about the manifesto is that it offers people a series of formal constraints. This is why they're useful since the constraints help make things mean since they provide ready made patterns. This is why they're very useful to videoblogging. The constraints help give significance to what you're doing since one 1 minute silent clip of a cloud is, well, banal. But when it is contextualised around a whole practice then it reverberates with these other works and since there is so much the same (due to the constraints) the differences between let each of the works express. It is not much different to a musical variation, Oulipean writing or deciding to paint a still life. As constraints they are recipes to creatiing, and so linking to them helps because it is by virtue of the series that the individual works get more value. Now if I made a webpage that linked to all the projects out there that used, for example, the Oblique Strategies, it doesn't follow that the creators are Fluxus artists, subscribed to Fluxus ideas and so on. So, are we arguing about a manifesto, the use of some or all of the constraints, or someone linking to work on the basis of its use of some constraints? And if we are clear that the use of 'we' in the manifesto means the authors and not the creators of the videos, can someone state simply what remains a concern? (I mean that genuinely, at some point we need to recognise that our work, if out there in the public, will be reappropriated in varying ways, this is how we invent and create, so I'm trying to understand what the boundary issue is here.) Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Well, everyone's seemed to have a say when it comes to the Andreas and Brittany's Lumiere site and the later added Manifesto. As per my understanding, a Manifesto is a public declaration of policy and aims. As the manifesto was created after the initial collection of videos, some people may feel that they have been forced to agree with it by association with it. Now... lets move forward with a resolution that could possibly be a win-win conclusion. Andreas: Would you be willing to put a disclaimer at the top of the Manifesto that basically says the manifesto is the view of yours and Brittany and may not be agreed upon by everyone who's videos are listed? Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, that is the issue, as Andreas has already stated to Cheryl that he wouldn't do that, that the only way would be for you to delete your video from your site... I find that troubling and to be honest, disturbing Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles adrian.miles@ wrote: hi Heath fair enough, I think there are some reasonable concerns in there. I guess it is one thing to more or less curate material that relates to the lumiere project, but there are issues if the curation is done automagically, as it were. On the other hand I have no doubt that Andreas and Brittany wouldn't have a problem with removing links to someone's work if they asked. personally I think curating material that relates to a theme is excellent, it is just manual tag clouding really :-) helps promote stuff too! On 16/01/2008, at 12:59 AM, Heath wrote: But Andreas has stated, that in addition to linking to a video if someone emails him, that if he or Brittany come accross a Lumiere they will then also link to it...But what if the person doesn't want to be linked to because they don't believe in this manifesto? Look, I know the web is a great big link fest, but in cases like this, I think it bears pondering that practice. Cheryl has already stated that she will no longer make Lumiere's because she doesn't want to be associated with the manifesto, I find that troubling. How many others feel that way? If Andreas were giving people the choice to be associated with the site he has, I wouldn't feel the way I do, but he doesn't always do that, and that is where my concern lies. Adrian Miles adrian.miles@ bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
On Jan 17, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Charles HOPE wrote: Sull, please stop telling people to shut up. he did not say that. he made a request and a suggestion This is a very annoying habit of yours and at this point, it pretty much is your only contribution to this list. no friggen way charles. sull contributes in many ways Develop the discipline to avoid threads you don't like. come on, you know it's like heroin ;) Sull wrote: Let me be the first to request that this thread ends now and any further communication concerning Andreas' eitquette or content linked on the Lumiere site be directed to: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Hi Adrian, I understand and agree with what you just wrote and what Andreas wrote earlier about the manifesto. No arguments there from me. I think (at least it's the case with me) that what is bothering some of us is that when we first heard of this project it was simply an artistic exercise using some restrictions. As is often the case, people find those kinds of things challenging, fun and freeing. It was when we were later presented with this manifesto that seemed to wrap all of our videos (that we had submitted and/or tagged for inclusion on the website) in a context that many of didn't agree with. And what's more I think many, like myself, would have chosen to play some other game had we been presented with that manifesto before hand. Also what's bothering people is the incredibly rude (to put it politely) way in which Andreas jumped into this thread. It's something he seems to be doing a lot these days. - Verdi On Jan 17, 2008 5:51 PM, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/01/2008, at 6:29 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: I can tell you that Aske Dam, who first introduced me to the rules creates his lumiere videos with one notable exception - he allows himself to break one of the rules. Most often this is the no audio rule for the same reasons you outline. hey Andreas pass on my belated hellos to Aske :-) I think a useful way to think about the 'manifesto' is in two ways. The first is, as Andreas has explained, it's a manifesto written by two people. I think that's pretty clear and straight forward. It raises some provocative points about video practice in relation to blogging, all of which are worth talking about. It also makes some claims about the relationship between technology, aesthetics and videoblogging as a practice. These are also worth discussing. Now there is nothing in that which means you to have to agree with them, but they are certainly worth talking about. :-) If you were to make a video that uses some or all of these then this does not mean allegiance to the manifesto (written by two people). It isn't like there's a dogma vow of chastity to be pledged or anything. I don't see this as much different to painting something that picks up some contemporary aesthetic things and then someone decides my work falls within a particular movement. This is what happens, this is the normal course of events in study, scholarship and knowledge creation. So the manifesto is about making an argument and each of the videos can be thought as part of the argument and so an idea. I am free to use your material, cited appropriately, to endorse, criticise etc. So for me the manifesto is making propositions and finding works that support the proposition. If you think that's not your intention in your work then I'm sorry, your intention actually doesn't count for a lot (there is a lot - and I mean a lot - of theoretical work that demonstrates the frailty of intention). This is the cost of putting your work (no matter what sort of work it is) out in public. The second way to think about the manifesto is that it offers people a series of formal constraints. This is why they're useful since the constraints help make things mean since they provide ready made patterns. This is why they're very useful to videoblogging. The constraints help give significance to what you're doing since one 1 minute silent clip of a cloud is, well, banal. But when it is contextualised around a whole practice then it reverberates with these other works and since there is so much the same (due to the constraints) the differences between let each of the works express. It is not much different to a musical variation, Oulipean writing or deciding to paint a still life. As constraints they are recipes to creatiing, and so linking to them helps because it is by virtue of the series that the individual works get more value. Now if I made a webpage that linked to all the projects out there that used, for example, the Oblique Strategies, it doesn't follow that the creators are Fluxus artists, subscribed to Fluxus ideas and so on. So, are we arguing about a manifesto, the use of some or all of the constraints, or someone linking to work on the basis of its use of some constraints? And if we are clear that the use of 'we' in the manifesto means the authors and not the creators of the videos, can someone state simply what remains a concern? (I mean that genuinely, at some point we need to recognise that our work, if out there in the public, will be reappropriated in varying ways, this is how we invent and create, so I'm trying to understand what the boundary issue is here.) Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Sull, please stop telling people to shut up. This is a very annoying habit of yours and at this point, it pretty much is your only contribution to this list. Develop the discipline to avoid threads you don't like. Sull wrote: Let me be the first to request that this thread ends now and any further communication concerning Andreas' eitquette or content linked on the Lumiere site be directed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Sull (the soapbox stomper) On Jan 17, 2008 3:53 PM, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me be the first then, to request that you (Andreas and Brittany) remove all links to my Lumiere videos from your site. Specifically, here are the links I would like you to remove: http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/06/27/partly-cloudy-lumiere-1/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/06/29/moon-lumiere-2/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/07/04/dylan-talking-lumiere-3/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2007/07/17/approaching-phoenix-lumiere-4/ - Verdi __._,_ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
On 18/01/2008, at 11:39 AM, Michael Verdi wrote: I understand and agree with what you just wrote and what Andreas wrote earlier about the manifesto. No arguments there from me. I think (at least it's the case with me) that what is bothering some of us is that when we first heard of this project it was simply an artistic exercise using some restrictions. As is often the case, people find those kinds of things challenging, fun and freeing. It was when we were later presented with this manifesto that seemed to wrap all of our videos (that we had submitted and/or tagged for inclusion on the website) in a context that many of didn't agree with. And what's more I think many, like myself, would have chosen to play some other game had we been presented with that manifesto before hand. fair enough. I guess if it wasn't called a manifesto, or was otherwise labelled as a response to the works (so that the writing and its ideas arose as response to the works) the tension going on might be lessened. But that's by the by now. I also guess it is much like your work being curated as part of a collection but if you didn't want to be included (for whatever reason) then you would expect under existing moral rights regimes (not sure if this exists in the US, a summary of the Australian legislation is at URL: http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_IssuesandReviews_Moralrights ) that as owner of the work you could ask to be not included in the collection. cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
For me, I did not say anything at all until Andreas responded to Cheryl. That rubbed me the wrong way. Not that I didn't think he was rude to Rox, which I thought he was as well, but I understood at least what he was saying, I may not have liked how he said it. But when he told Cheryl this PS. If you want to have your videos removed simply delete them from your website. We don't host any videos at all. We link to everything so you are 100% in control. I'm always sorry to see links go dead of course, but it's not my choice. That is where my issue really started...He never responed to Cheryl after she called him on this comment, he did not say, Hey I will remove the link, all you have to do is ask Instead he dissmissed everyone's comments and concerns, using very elegant language to belittle people. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Adrian, I understand and agree with what you just wrote and what Andreas wrote earlier about the manifesto. No arguments there from me. I think (at least it's the case with me) that what is bothering some of us is that when we first heard of this project it was simply an artistic exercise using some restrictions. As is often the case, people find those kinds of things challenging, fun and freeing. It was when we were later presented with this manifesto that seemed to wrap all of our videos (that we had submitted and/or tagged for inclusion on the website) in a context that many of didn't agree with. And what's more I think many, like myself, would have chosen to play some other game had we been presented with that manifesto before hand. Also what's bothering people is the incredibly rude (to put it politely) way in which Andreas jumped into this thread. It's something he seems to be doing a lot these days. - Verdi On Jan 17, 2008 5:51 PM, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/01/2008, at 6:29 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: I can tell you that Aske Dam, who first introduced me to the rules creates his lumiere videos with one notable exception - he allows himself to break one of the rules. Most often this is the no audio rule for the same reasons you outline. hey Andreas pass on my belated hellos to Aske :-) I think a useful way to think about the 'manifesto' is in two ways. The first is, as Andreas has explained, it's a manifesto written by two people. I think that's pretty clear and straight forward. It raises some provocative points about video practice in relation to blogging, all of which are worth talking about. It also makes some claims about the relationship between technology, aesthetics and videoblogging as a practice. These are also worth discussing. Now there is nothing in that which means you to have to agree with them, but they are certainly worth talking about. :-) If you were to make a video that uses some or all of these then this does not mean allegiance to the manifesto (written by two people). It isn't like there's a dogma vow of chastity to be pledged or anything. I don't see this as much different to painting something that picks up some contemporary aesthetic things and then someone decides my work falls within a particular movement. This is what happens, this is the normal course of events in study, scholarship and knowledge creation. So the manifesto is about making an argument and each of the videos can be thought as part of the argument and so an idea. I am free to use your material, cited appropriately, to endorse, criticise etc. So for me the manifesto is making propositions and finding works that support the proposition. If you think that's not your intention in your work then I'm sorry, your intention actually doesn't count for a lot (there is a lot - and I mean a lot - of theoretical work that demonstrates the frailty of intention). This is the cost of putting your work (no matter what sort of work it is) out in public. The second way to think about the manifesto is that it offers people a series of formal constraints. This is why they're useful since the constraints help make things mean since they provide ready made patterns. This is why they're very useful to videoblogging. The constraints help give significance to what you're doing since one 1 minute silent clip of a cloud is, well, banal. But when it is contextualised around a whole practice then it reverberates with these other works and since there is so much the same (due to the constraints) the differences between let each of the works express. It is not much different to a musical variation, Oulipean writing or deciding to paint a still life. As constraints they are recipes to creatiing, and so linking to them helps because it is by virtue of
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, are we arguing about a manifesto, the use of some or all of the constraints, or someone linking to work on the basis of its use of some constraints? And if we are clear that the use of 'we' in the manifesto means the authors and not the creators of the videos, can someone state simply what remains a concern? (I mean that genuinely, at some point we need to recognise that our work, if out there in the public, will be reappropriated in varying ways, this is how we invent and create, so I'm trying to understand what the boundary issue is here.) I know I may be dissmissed as being rediculous again, butEnglish is a funny langauge and how people percieve things is even funnier (not funny ha ha) Let me quote the ending of Andreas and Brittany's manifesto As such, we propose and curate, as inspired by media evangelist Aske Dam and the remoscope collective, a collection of personal videos that adhere to the following principles (arguably the natural limits of the original Lumieres): No zoom No edit No effects 60 seconds max. Fixed camera No audio Works that follow these principlesLumiere videos of todayare not intended to exist in competition with other film movements but seek to complement perspective film and observer documentary. There is no reason to repeat bad history. In some definitions curate means From the Latin curatus (compare Curator), a curate is a person who is invested with the care, or cure (cura), of souls of a parish. In this sense, it technically means a parish priest It can also mean To manage and maintain a collection. A curator is the person in charge of a museum, art collection, zoo, etc. So by definiton a curator is someone in charge or invested with the care of Taken in context with what is being said before in the manifesto, why is it unreasonable to think that someone may read the manifesto and conclude that Andreas and Brittany are in charge of the videos or have been given the videos to be taken care of. In both cases that can imply consent of the participants. That is why the we along with no disclaimer was bothering me. Now Andreas has said that he will remove links (which before he only suggested deleting the video from YOUR site), but at least he is willing to remove links. I will say that his complete dissmissal at people's concerns, is quite frankly counter productive. Andreas is obviously gifted but his people skills could use a lot of work Heath http://batmangeek.com Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
On 18/01/2008, at 3:53 PM, Heath wrote: Taken in context with what is being said before in the manifesto, why is it unreasonable to think that someone may read the manifesto and conclude that Andreas and Brittany are in charge of the videos or have been given the videos to be taken care of. In both cases that can imply consent of the participants. That is why the we along with no disclaimer was bothering me. I can't answer that for others but for myself simply because when I view the video page I see the names of the videomakers and links that clearly point to external urls. The issue of consent is more complicated, and what really is interesting here is that we seem to want to apply (I'm not saying this is right or wrong) a different standard to these video works than we would to, say, text. for example people run lots of reblog sites where content from blog A is republished, in its entirety, at blog B (you can download software to run such a site yourself, just Google reblog). Blog B contains a link back to Blog A and attribution. (Gavin Sade runs an extraordinary one at http://uber.tv/refeed/out/ ). Similarly we pull stuff out of blog posts and quote them (in and out of context) as a matter of course. This is partly curation and partly the sample remix thing that we all understand the web to be (and which we all happily use as we stick soundtracks to our videos that we don't have permission to use). I'm not getting into is it right or wrong here, but when we use artist Y's soundtrack under our video we seem to recognise that this does not mean that artist Y endorses our video (though i guess it does mean we endorse artist Y). Why are we being so concerned about the video works? (I think the answer is obvious - for as much as we want to use this sample/remix stuff we are perhaps not so comfortable with it when it happens to something of ours that we think is of value). But quite outside of the particular example of the lumiere project I am intrigued how reblogging appears to go unremarked, but try the same thing with video and all sorts of dilemmas seem to arise. cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert - A Public Request
Follow-up: I waited until I returned home from campus tonight to check whether links to my video had been removed. They have. But I received no confirmation response from Andreas or Brittany as to whether my request would be ignored or honored. I would like to thank both Andreas and Brittany for removing the links. Cheryl P.S. It looks as though Verdi's links have also been removed. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Posted: http://www.hummingcrow.com/2008/01/17/a-public-request/ Mailed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I hereby formally and publicly request that links to my Lumiere videos be removed from videoblogging.info/lumiere/, where they are listed as videos by hummingcrow. [snip - you didn't want to see all that quoted text!]
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Yes. Exactly. It felt like a bait and switch. I'm personally glad that Andreas and Brittany put so much thought into the Lumiere project, and chose to do something that would challenge preconceptions/status quo. And I love that it's not about business models/advertising/selling/marketing - we hear plenty about that stuff. But I disagree with the end result, and had I known the manifesto was coming, I would have chosen to spend my time differently. Cheryl --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think (at least it's the case with me) that what is bothering some of us is that when we first heard of this project it was simply an artistic exercise using some restrictions. As is often the case, people find those kinds of things challenging, fun and freeing. It was when we were later presented with this manifesto that seemed to wrap all of our videos (that we had submitted and/or tagged for inclusion on the website) in a context that many of didn't agree with. And what's more I think many, like myself, would have chosen to play some other game had we been presented with that manifesto before hand.
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
I have produced over 30 Lumiere videos that are linked on the site. When I started, there was no manifesto, just 6 simple rules/guidelines. I create Lumieres with the challenge of those six restrictions... 60 seconds max, Fixed camera, No audio, No zoom, No edit, No effects, and I enjoy it. To me, it's a fun vlogging challenge. With that said, I have a couple concerns. I was never asked about agreeing with the manifesto (that was added after I started creating Lumiere videos), but by the way it was written, it certainly seems like I've agreed to it with the usage of the word we throughout the document. I think it was mid-December when I really sat back and thought about the Lumieres that I created and felt that my work was contradictory to the Manifesto mainly (Quote from manifesto) We do not believe in artificially assembled scenes or scripted action.. I set up my camera and change a tire...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/25/lumiere-detire/ I set the tripod up and cut the grass...that's scripted. http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/13/lumiere-lawn-boy/ My point is, I read the Manifesto and honestly felt that for me to post Lumieres, I had to agree with the manifesto. I was saddened by the manifesto and felt I couldn't continue as I wasn't sure I could abide by the added philosophical views of the manifesto, even though I was still within the 6 rules initially outlines. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm not a lawyer, University Professor or philosopher that is able to dig deep into the interpretations of the document, I just kept seeing we throughout the document and felt I was either in or out... no gray area. I'm just Joe vlogger that enjoyed the 6 challenges that were original setup and now felt there were more restrictions and beliefs that took the fun out of it. After reading through this thread, I was pissed at the way Roxie's oversight was responded by Andreas. We're all in the same world... brothers and sisters of one species. There was no reason for such anger and disdain and it certainly could have been responded to with better tact. Adrian: To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The only solution Andreas has responded with is to delete the video. Delete it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or whatever storage location) and lose all links including those to other sites or discussions. I don't want to remove my Lumieres. I will just debate within myself if I'll do more and if I do create others, will I share with the Lumiere site. It's too bad really... in my mind it was just suppose to be a creative video exercise that challenged me, not a viewpoint of video creation that I was suppose to agree with. Mike Vlogger and Lumiere creator. http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi Heath fair enough, I think there are some reasonable concerns in there. I guess it is one thing to more or less curate material that relates to the lumiere project, but there are issues if the curation is done automagically, as it were. On the other hand I have no doubt that Andreas and Brittany wouldn't have a problem with removing links to someone's work if they asked. personally I think curating material that relates to a theme is excellent, it is just manual tag clouding really :-) helps promote stuff too! On 16/01/2008, at 12:59 AM, Heath wrote: But Andreas has stated, that in addition to linking to a video if someone emails him, that if he or Brittany come accross a Lumiere they will then also link to it...But what if the person doesn't want to be linked to because they don't believe in this manifesto? Look, I know the web is a great big link fest, but in cases like this, I think it bears pondering that practice. Cheryl has already stated that she will no longer make Lumiere's because she doesn't want to be associated with the manifesto, I find that troubling. How many others feel that way? If Andreas were giving people the choice to be associated with the site he has, I wouldn't feel the way I do, but he doesn't always do that, and that is where my concern lies. Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
I have nothing against the manifesto (mostly), I said as much in an eariler message, but I was simply asking questions, looking at it from a different perspective. What happens when vloggers no longer want to create Lumieres because they don't want to be associated with Andreas's and Brittany's manifesto? Heath I think you've got this the wrong way about. If I make a surrealist work am I also subject to Breton's surrealist manifesto? Why? How? Aside from that if I make a work that picks up some or all of the points of the manifesto then how aren't you associated with it? Whether positive or negative? I guess for me it is important to recognise that manifestos are intended to be probes and provocations and if they are treated as dogma (that's sort of a double entendre really) then they're not a manifesto. But Andreas has stated, that in addition to linking to a video if someone emails him, that if he or Brittany come accross a Lumiere they will then also link to it...But what if the person doesn't want to be linked to because they don't believe in this manifesto? Look, I know the web is a great big link fest, but in cases like this, I think it bears pondering that practice. Cheryl has already stated that she will no longer make Lumiere's because she doesn't want to be associated with the manifesto, I find that troubling. How many others feel that way? If Andreas were giving people the choice to be associated with the site he has, I wouldn't feel the way I do, but he doesn't always do that, and that is where my concern lies. Again, I know people link from all over the web, it's a part of what makes the web so great (I do it) and yes I realize that anyone can link to anything at any given time...but maybe just because we can doesn't mean we should Heath http://batmangeek.com Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
hi Heath fair enough, I think there are some reasonable concerns in there. I guess it is one thing to more or less curate material that relates to the lumiere project, but there are issues if the curation is done automagically, as it were. On the other hand I have no doubt that Andreas and Brittany wouldn't have a problem with removing links to someone's work if they asked. personally I think curating material that relates to a theme is excellent, it is just manual tag clouding really :-) helps promote stuff too! On 16/01/2008, at 12:59 AM, Heath wrote: But Andreas has stated, that in addition to linking to a video if someone emails him, that if he or Brittany come accross a Lumiere they will then also link to it...But what if the person doesn't want to be linked to because they don't believe in this manifesto? Look, I know the web is a great big link fest, but in cases like this, I think it bears pondering that practice. Cheryl has already stated that she will no longer make Lumiere's because she doesn't want to be associated with the manifesto, I find that troubling. How many others feel that way? If Andreas were giving people the choice to be associated with the site he has, I wouldn't feel the way I do, but he doesn't always do that, and that is where my concern lies. Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Andreas - I am curious, did you let everyone know when you put out your Lumiere video manifesto? I know I made my Lumiere video (July 07) before this manifesto was put onto the site. I know at that time I learned about Lumiere video's through Verdi and I remember checking the site and just seeing links to videos, I remember reading the site and to be honest I don't remember Brittany's name being on the site, I remember your's. The reason I am curious about you letting everyone know about the manifesto is this, if you didn't let everyone know and I know I don't recall any mention of a manifesto, is that you and Brittany (and whomever else may have been involved) decieded to create this AFTER already having the site up and running under a defined set of rules. Did you give any thought that some may disagree? Did you give any thought that you had a responability to let people know what you were doing in case someone had an issue? Did you feel think that was the viewers or creator's responability? I view it as a change in a terms of service kind of thing, and I think you should have let pepole know, but that's just me. And yes I did read the manifesto and I agree with many things you stated, but I would have liked to know that before now, and would have liked the opportunity to remove my link if I did not agree. That simple courtesty would have been nice. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cheryl, it is fine that you have other issues with me, us or the manifesto, but I would like it if you could take a moment to reflect on what my issue is before jumping on to other things. First off Brittany doesn't participate in this group - she quit it before you started videoblogging. That is most likely the same reason why you have received any promotional materials or encouragement from her. I was on Twitter back when the lumieres started and I used that to promote the project. Brittany has pushed it in other circles. As I held your hand when you started she held others. You have read the manifesto: how could you think that we would write a manifesto together if we were not both working on the project? Is it surprising that I reacted? Would you not like it if those you work with make sure that you receive credit for what you do? That is my one issue: Give credit where credit is due. It takes no effort at all to look up a name, but it means everything to that person. You would not feel very good if you never received any acknowledgement for the work you've done on Show in a Box to grab one example. That is why I see a bio page coming on the SIAB website - so others know how to acknowledge. The fact that I'm closely involved in the lumiere videos means that it was a no-brainer for me to spot it this time, but it doesn't mean you can ignore my request. Is it not a fair request to receive proper acknowledgement for the work you do? As for everything else: I am happy that Rox made a lumiere, at the same time we can't write back to everyone who makes one of those anymore. We had to stop when we reached a couple of hundred videos because it was taking too much time. You must understand that 425 lumiere videos have been made since you posted your last one. It was also clear that Rox hadn't seen the website as she linked to one of my blogposts instead of videoblogging.info (and there is a clear link to vb.info from that blogpost). I can't and won't take full credit for the lumiere project and that's why I had to write back in the way I did. Regarding the manifesto: It's a manifesto for crying out loud! It's supposed to be strong and without compromise to grab your attention and make you think about what you are creating, for whom and with what purpose. The fact that you have not removed your videos makes me think we were being too nice in writing it. It's written as a reaction to the type of video and behaviour both of us were seeing and still are. It's an open disagreement and that's the whole point of writing a manifesto. To make the obvious comparison the dogme95 manifesto was a reaction towards filmmaking as it was taking place in the 90s, the lumiere manifesto is a reaction towards the general state of videoblogging. If you feel attacked by the manifesto, that's a good thing, you should. I feel attacked by it and I co-wrote it! It is unfortunate that you did not go anywhere with your frustrations - the goal was to make you reflect on your practices rather than sit with a stiff upper lip and not react because you don't agree. I personally don't have much patience with constant backpatting. There needs to be constant challenge or we can't evolve (that goes in general and in regards to videoblogging). Sitting around in a circle
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cheryl, it is fine that you have other issues with me, us or the manifesto, but I would like it if you could take a moment to reflect on what my issue is before jumping on to other things. First off Brittany doesn't participate in this group - she quit it before you started videoblogging. That is most likely the same reason why you have received any promotional materials or encouragement from her. I was on Twitter back when the lumieres started and I used that to promote the project. Brittany has pushed it in other circles. As I held your hand when you started she held others. You have read the manifesto: how could you think that we would write a manifesto together if we were not both working on the project? Is it surprising that I reacted? Would you not like it if those you work with make sure that you receive credit for what you do? You didn't hold my hand. You were friendly and encouraging. Not at all how you behaved toward Rox. That is my one issue: Give credit where credit is due. It takes no effort at all to look up a name, but it means everything to that person. You would not feel very good if you never received any acknowledgement for the work you've done on Show in a Box to grab one example. That is why I see a bio page coming on the SIAB website - so others know how to acknowledge. Actually, the bio page is there so that people can see who to ask for help, or who to hire if they need help beyond the scope of the email list. And, I don't do what I do for credit, and I don't care if someone mentions Show in a Box without mentioning my name. I work on it because I want to help people. a Is it not a fair request to receive proper acknowledgement for the work you do? Of course it's fair. But you don't need to do it in a negative way. You could do it in a way that's positive for everyone involved. I can't and won't take full credit for the lumiere project and that's why I had to write back in the way I did. You didn't have to write back the way you did. You chose to. You could have chosen to say, hey Rox, it's great you made a lumiere, and by the way Brittany developed this alongside me, here's the link, when you mention it in the future we'd appreciate dual credit. If you feel attacked by the manifesto, that's a good thing, you should. I feel attacked by it and I co-wrote it! It is unfortunate that you did not go anywhere with your frustrations - the goal was to make you reflect on your practices rather than sit with a stiff upper lip and not react because you don't agree. I don't feel attacked by it. I just don't agree with it. I reflect on my practices all the time. I don't need the false constructs of a manifesto to get me to be reflective. Go somewhere with my frustrations? In my assessment, it wasn't even worth my time. I personally don't have much patience with constant backpatting. Except when it comes to yourself and Brittany apparently. It is my responsibility and your responsibility to challenge the status quo. Been there, done that, pissed off EpicFU. It is curious to me that the comments stating strong disagreement with the manifesto (in the I don't want to participate anymore because the manifesto is criticizing things I like kind of way) have all happened on Twitter. They are spoken into a void using fragmented sentence in a room where it is impossible to carry a conversation (because all arguments are limited and each one is forgotten in a microsecond as it moves off the page). I disagree - I've had great conversations on Twitter that lasted an hour or more and then influenced my thought and actions long afterward. Regarding insults: I cannot choose not to be insulted when I read Rox's mail, just as you cannot choose not to be insulted when you read the lumiere manifesto. Of course you can. Of course I can, and did. I didn't get insulted by it. You and Brittany have every right to write manifestos. I read yours and dismissed it as irrelevant to me personally, and I moved on. Our actions have consequences and this time I chose to act on the consequence Rox's mail had on me. You chose not to react on the consequence the manifesto has on you (though I wish you had). I ceased participation. That IS my reaction. Sorry I couldn't accommodate you by getting more hot and bothered, but that just doesn't interest me. PS. If you want to have your videos removed simply delete them from your website. We don't host any videos at all. We link to everything so you are 100% in control. I'm always sorry to see links go dead of course, but it's not my choice. Delete part of my body of work from my own website? Just because YOU linked to my videos without asking if I wanted you to? I think not. I haven't asked my videos be removed and don't intend to. I
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
First question, (because I am in a zen state of mind): If a brouhaha happens on the weekend when I am not reading the list, does it really exist? OK, so yes, apparently it does. :-) I have only one lame excuse: we do an episode 5 days a week and since we are not paid for this it is a labor of love and available time. I typically edit between 10 pm and later. Our show is completely unscripted, on purpose. We have no research department so I link to whatever I can find in about 60 seconds of google searching. Again, lame, but it is what it is. I value link love and I value sleep. I would love to collaborate more with people here. If you are interested, please be in touch. The only requirement I have is that I go to the beach to de-stress, and that is the promise I make to my audience. So all topics are to end on a positive note of encouragement or inspiration some how some way. Thank you Andreas for educating me. I am lover of knowledge and can happily accept the new information you have provided; I also added an update to the lumiere post with links to the lumiere collection. http://www.beachwalks.tv/2008/01/11/beach-walk-567-first-lumiere-for-rupert/ I know and love Brittany and will contact her separately. I had her on Beach Walks last year and we did a very fun split screen (done in post) episode. http://www.beachwalks.tv/2006/08/26/beach-walk-185-bridging-with-brittany/ I guess I am glad I missed the whole thing on Twitter, though I do want to update my follow list! But I am glad to have this conversation here. Thank you and mahalo to all of you who noticed the absence of any malicious intentions on my part and spoke up. I am very touched. Love to all of you, even the cranky ones in our midst. Rox On Jan 14, 2008 6:15 AM, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally don't have much patience with constant backpatting. There needs to be constant challenge or we can't evolve (that goes in general and in regards to videoblogging). Sitting around in a circle congratulating ourselves on how great everything is moves us nowhere. It is my responsibility and your responsibility to challenge the status quo. This forces us to think about where we are, where we want to be and how we can get there. the atmosphere on this list has been anything but backpatting the past month, so you should be happy. At this rate, we're either going to keep making better video and more ambitious projects (while keeping ourselves honest) or tear ourselves apart. there's a strange dynamic among members lately that I find interesting to watch. Ultimately, we got to remember that we're here to help each other. I really like the work that Brittany and Andreas have done at http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/. I love beefy, nutty manifestos. Rox didnt mean to offend Brittany, just pump up the project. having worked on many projects, it's always a huge success when something i've helped create gets bigger than me. sometimes being forgotten just means your meme has really penetrated. anyway...ryanne posted this already, but i want to give an example of another positive example of this group. http://ryanedit.blogspot.com/2008/01/brighton-days-4-and-5-navlopomo.html videos made all over the world played on the southern coast of england. Most of the 40 attendees had never seen videoblogs except youtube. too many people to give credit toso ill name no one. praise god. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Professional: http://ryanishungry.com Personal: http://momentshowing.net Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
1. The manifesto is provocative and useful, Some of this aspect comes from material that isn't really directly connected to the conditions of the original Lumiere films, but that's just fine, and the Lumiere restrictions continue to be useful as well. It has inspired some of the best work in the videoblogging world so far. 2. Making Lumieres as exercises, finished works or aesthetic statements is as old as the hills. I've given Lumieres as assignments to my students for many years. and I'm hardly alone in this. That said, Andreas and Brittany deserve huge amounts of credit for calling attention to the practice and its potential in an online context. 3. The manifesto/project does become problematic in some respects in that making a Lumiere is now, at least in the videoblogging world, seen as connected with the Andreas and Brittany's project, even though the maker may have their own reasons for working in a form that dates back to the dawn of cinema. Cheryl should be able to make Lumieres if she chooses without it being seen as an endorsement of a manifesto she doesn't agree with, and she should be able to CALL them Lumieres, as the use of the term to denote work that is inspired by and works within limitations similar to that of the of the original Lumiere Brothers films predates videoblogging. let alone the manifesto. This is not, however, the fault of Andreas and Brittany, nor of any videoblogger at all. 4. It's good that Andreas is making sure Brittany gets her due - it's the right thing to do. It's too bad the tone was so needlessly combative and dismissive - imo, the wrong thing to do, as it is obvious no ill will was intended on Roxanne's part - quite the contrary. 5. Anyone who has not seen the original Lumiere films- do it! They are remarkable and inspiring. But try to find versions that have been transferred at the correct speed, and for heaven's sake turn down the sound they are invariably destroyed with. Brook __ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. The manifesto/project does become problematic in some respects in that making a Lumiere is now, at least in the videoblogging world, seen as connected with the Andreas and Brittany's project, even though the maker may have their own reasons for working in a form that dates back to the dawn of cinema. Cheryl should be able to make Lumieres if she chooses without it being seen as an endorsement of a manifesto she doesn't agree with, and she should be able to CALL them Lumieres, as the use of the term to denote work that is inspired by and works within limitations similar to that of the of the original Lumiere Brothers films predates videoblogging. let alone the manifesto. This is not, however, the fault of Andreas and Brittany, nor of any videoblogger at all. But Lumieres are already being associated with the manifesto, which IMO is extremely problomatic. What happens if Andreas and Brittany's manifesto for Lumieres become the top result in searches for Lumieres? Would the Lumiere brothers or their family members (if any are still living) be happy with their work being associated with this manifesto? What happens when vloggers no longer want to create Lumieres because they don't want to be associated with Andreas's and Brittany's manifesto? Those are real issues and concerns and it does have a reflection upon Andrea's and Brittany, they are using the Lumiere vidoe's to further their own version of videoblogging. So they do bear responsability. You can say do all the research you want but perception does become reality at some point and if the perception is that Lumieres are a product or byproduct of someone else manifesto...that is a big deal and something that needs to be considered by those involved.. Heath http:\\batmangeek.com __ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Heath, you are not understanding what the manifesto is or what the video collection is. We did not tell anyone about the manifesto. Those who found it did so due to their own curiosity. This was a conscious choice for us as we would rather have people discover it on their own. In time it was picked up by boing boing, letting the cat out of the proverbial bag. This is however irrelevant. If you read the manifesto you will notice that it does not prescribe a defined behaviour people must follow to be included (other than the six lumiere rules, naturally). Nor does it say that the videos in the collection are made by people who stand behind the manifesto. If you are reading that you must be deliberately misunderstanding what it says. The manifesto is quite clearly Brittany's and my reasoning to creating this video collection. We speak for ourselves and not for anyone else. It is right there at the bottom just above the six lumiere rules): As such, we propose and curate, as inspired by media evangelist Aske Dam and the remoscope collective, a collection of personal videos that adhere to the following principles (arguably the natural limits of the original Lumieres) The collection is proposed by us and it is a curated collection, managed by us. It is our names below the manifesto, not anyone else's. These are our reasons for collecting the lumiere videos that people are creating - it says *nothing* about why people are creating these videos. I am sure there are as many reasons as there are videos. As I have already pointed out to Cheryl, we gave it much thought that some people may disagree with what we wrote. As I have already pointed out this was one of our goals. We had no responsibility to let anyone know about it ahead of time as we are only speaking for ourselves, explaining why we are curating this collection of videos. There is no terms of service. We are not service providers for you. We are linking to works that we find interesting (namely works that follow the six lumiere rules). This is how the internet works. You make a webpage that contains inks to other webpages. When I write blog posts I do not ask for permission to mention other websites. I did not email Hillary Clinton, Jay Dedman or Wordpress.org's maintainer to ask permission to talk about them or link to them - just to take 3 examples from my last 4 blog posts. The idea that anyone will have to ask permission to link is silly. It's a curated collection of links, that's all it is. We get submissions through the site and we find lumiere videos in the wild that hasn't been specifically submitted and we add those too. This is how the internet works. The difference between the manifesto and an average blog is perhaps that we have stated our reasons clearly and that we use longer sentences. That is hardly something you can fault us for. - Andreas PS. As I said to Cheryl: If you don't want people to link to your videos, delete them. Den 14.01.2008 kl. 09:20 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Andreas - I am curious, did you let everyone know when you put out your Lumiere video manifesto? I know I made my Lumiere video (July 07) before this manifesto was put onto the site. I know at that time I learned about Lumiere video's through Verdi and I remember checking the site and just seeing links to videos, I remember reading the site and to be honest I don't remember Brittany's name being on the site, I remember your's. The reason I am curious about you letting everyone know about the manifesto is this, if you didn't let everyone know and I know I don't recall any mention of a manifesto, is that you and Brittany (and whomever else may have been involved) decieded to create this AFTER already having the site up and running under a defined set of rules. Did you give any thought that some may disagree? Did you give any thought that you had a responability to let people know what you were doing in case someone had an issue? Did you feel think that was the viewers or creator's responability? I view it as a change in a terms of service kind of thing, and I think you should have let pepole know, but that's just me. And yes I did read the manifesto and I agree with many things you stated, but I would have liked to know that before now, and would have liked the opportunity to remove my link if I did not agree. That simple courtesty would have been nice. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cheryl, it is fine that you have other issues with me, us or the manifesto, but I would like it if you could take a moment to reflect on what my issue is before jumping on to other things. First off Brittany doesn't participate in this group - she quit it before you started videoblogging. That is most likely the same reason why you have received any promotional materials or
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
There are a couple of things that muddy those waters for me. Firstly there is this sentance at the end of the manifesto: 'Works that follow these principlesLumiere videos of todayare not intended to exist in competition with other film movements but seek to complement perspective film and observer documentary.' Can you really state the intention of videos you did not make? Then on the page with the list of videos, the word 'participants' is used, there is a link to submit videos, and an instruction about what to tag the videos with. Taken together, these things could be seen as implying that everyone whose videos are featured in the collection, has pro-actively chosen to participate. Explicitly stating otherwise is one solution. Believing it is unneccesary is another, but you'll just have to learn to live with the occasional criticism if thats your stance. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heath, you are not understanding what the manifesto is or what the video collection is. We did not tell anyone about the manifesto. Those who found it did so due to their own curiosity. This was a conscious choice for us as we would rather have people discover it on their own. In time it was picked up by boing boing, letting the cat out of the proverbial bag. This is however irrelevant. If you read the manifesto you will notice that it does not prescribe a defined behaviour people must follow to be included (other than the six lumiere rules, naturally). Nor does it say that the videos in the collection are made by people who stand behind the manifesto. If you are reading that you must be deliberately misunderstanding what it says. The manifesto is quite clearly Brittany's and my reasoning to creating this video collection. We speak for ourselves and not for anyone else. It is right there at the bottom just above the six lumiere rules): As such, we propose and curate, as inspired by media evangelist Aske Dam and the remoscope collective, a collection of personal videos that adhere to the following principles (arguably the natural limits of the original Lumieres) The collection is proposed by us and it is a curated collection, managed by us. It is our names below the manifesto, not anyone else's. These are our reasons for collecting the lumiere videos that people are creating - it says *nothing* about why people are creating these videos. I am sure there are as many reasons as there are videos. As I have already pointed out to Cheryl, we gave it much thought that some people may disagree with what we wrote. As I have already pointed out this was one of our goals. We had no responsibility to let anyone know about it ahead of time as we are only speaking for ourselves, explaining why we are curating this collection of videos. There is no terms of service. We are not service providers for you. We are linking to works that we find interesting (namely works that follow the six lumiere rules). This is how the internet works. You make a webpage that contains inks to other webpages. When I write blog posts I do not ask for permission to mention other websites. I did not email Hillary Clinton, Jay Dedman or Wordpress.org's maintainer to ask permission to talk about them or link to them - just to take 3 examples from my last 4 blog posts. The idea that anyone will have to ask permission to link is silly. It's a curated collection of links, that's all it is. We get submissions through the site and we find lumiere videos in the wild that hasn't been specifically submitted and we add those too. This is how the internet works. The difference between the manifesto and an average blog is perhaps that we have stated our reasons clearly and that we use longer sentences. That is hardly something you can fault us for. - Andreas PS. As I said to Cheryl: If you don't want people to link to your videos, delete them. Den 14.01.2008 kl. 09:20 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Andreas - I am curious, did you let everyone know when you put out your Lumiere video manifesto? I know I made my Lumiere video (July 07) before this manifesto was put onto the site. I know at that time I learned about Lumiere video's through Verdi and I remember checking the site and just seeing links to videos, I remember reading the site and to be honest I don't remember Brittany's name being on the site, I remember your's. The reason I am curious about you letting everyone know about the manifesto is this, if you didn't let everyone know and I know I don't recall any mention of a manifesto, is that you and Brittany (and whomever else may have been involved) decieded to create this AFTER already having the site up and running under a defined set of rules. Did you give any thought that some may disagree? Did
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Oh I spelt sentence wrong and it occured to me that you dont need to learn to live withcriticism, you already seem more than capable of handling it. Bad words of mine. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are a couple of things that muddy those waters for me. Firstly there is this sentance at the end of the manifesto: 'Works that follow these principlesLumiere videos of todayare not intended to exist in competition with other film movements but seek to complement perspective film and observer documentary.' Can you really state the intention of videos you did not make? Then on the page with the list of videos, the word 'participants' is used, there is a link to submit videos, and an instruction about what to tag the videos with. Taken together, these things could be seen as implying that everyone whose videos are featured in the collection, has pro-actively chosen to participate. Explicitly stating otherwise is one solution. Believing it is unneccesary is another, but you'll just have to learn to live with the occasional criticism if thats your stance. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: Heath, you are not understanding what the manifesto is or what the video collection is. We did not tell anyone about the manifesto. Those who found it did so due to their own curiosity. This was a conscious choice for us as we would rather have people discover it on their own. In time it was picked up by boing boing, letting the cat out of the proverbial bag. This is however irrelevant. If you read the manifesto you will notice that it does not prescribe a defined behaviour people must follow to be included (other than the six lumiere rules, naturally). Nor does it say that the videos in the collection are made by people who stand behind the manifesto. If you are reading that you must be deliberately misunderstanding what it says. The manifesto is quite clearly Brittany's and my reasoning to creating this video collection. We speak for ourselves and not for anyone else. It is right there at the bottom just above the six lumiere rules): As such, we propose and curate, as inspired by media evangelist Aske Dam and the remoscope collective, a collection of personal videos that adhere to the following principles (arguably the natural limits of the original Lumieres) The collection is proposed by us and it is a curated collection, managed by us. It is our names below the manifesto, not anyone else's. These are our reasons for collecting the lumiere videos that people are creating - it says *nothing* about why people are creating these videos. I am sure there are as many reasons as there are videos. As I have already pointed out to Cheryl, we gave it much thought that some people may disagree with what we wrote. As I have already pointed out this was one of our goals. We had no responsibility to let anyone know about it ahead of time as we are only speaking for ourselves, explaining why we are curating this collection of videos. There is no terms of service. We are not service providers for you. We are linking to works that we find interesting (namely works that follow the six lumiere rules). This is how the internet works. You make a webpage that contains inks to other webpages. When I write blog posts I do not ask for permission to mention other websites. I did not email Hillary Clinton, Jay Dedman or Wordpress.org's maintainer to ask permission to talk about them or link to them - just to take 3 examples from my last 4 blog posts. The idea that anyone will have to ask permission to link is silly. It's a curated collection of links, that's all it is. We get submissions through the site and we find lumiere videos in the wild that hasn't been specifically submitted and we add those too. This is how the internet works. The difference between the manifesto and an average blog is perhaps that we have stated our reasons clearly and that we use longer sentences. That is hardly something you can fault us for. - Andreas PS. As I said to Cheryl: If you don't want people to link to your videos, delete them. Den 14.01.2008 kl. 09:20 skrev Heath heathparks@: Andreas - I am curious, did you let everyone know when you put out your Lumiere video manifesto? I know I made my Lumiere video (July 07) before this manifesto was put onto the site. I know at that time I learned about Lumiere video's through Verdi and I remember checking the site and just seeing links to videos, I remember reading the site and to be honest I don't remember Brittany's name being on the site, I remember your's. The reason I am curious about you
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
On Jan 14, 2008 7:04 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: reading that you must be deliberately misunderstanding what it says. And you must be deliberately insulting. What an absurd thing to say to someone, Andreas! Supposing for a moment it was a misunderstanding ... you don't know it was deliberate! Why would heath go out of his way to misunderstand something ... If you're accusing him a liar - of deliberately misrepresenting the truth - then just say so ... If you're going to allow for the possibility of a misunderstanding ... then just do so. holy crap. -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Hey Heath, what's with all the Scoble taunting? Got a man crush on him? JC --- Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know what? Robert Scoble was right... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rox, I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due. Lumiere videos have been posted since May/June last year. Since the beginning it has been a two-person effort where Brittany and I have been collecting the videos, encouraging people to create the videos and writing our reasoning for pushing these types of videos. That's why both our names are on the front page of the website: http://videoblogging.info/ You may think this is a small mistake and in the amount of letters missing from your email and blogpost it is. At the same time not doing this very basic research and thus leaving out the name of half the people behind the project is extremely discouraging to those left out. Over the past 8 months Brittany and I have put in a large amount of work handling the lumiere videos and acknowledging my work, but not hers, is insulting to both of us. The collection of lumiere videos currently consists of 548 videos from 78 different people. You can jump straight to the videos at http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/ If I must say so myself it is an amazing repository of creativity. - Andreas Den 11.01.2008 kl. 05:17 skrev Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: A little public gushing here, I hope you all will indulge me. I learned about Lumiere from Rupert. I finally made one today, and I want to thank you publicly, Rupert, (and Andreas too) for illuminating me about this art form. http://www.beachwalks.tv/2008/01/11/beach-walk-567-first-lumiere- for-rupert/ Love, Rox -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Craic and Cocktails www.jchtv.com Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Back in the original emails, you said The constraints were are following were written down by a japanese art collective and the goal was to mimic the conditions under which the Lumiere Brothers created their first films in 1895. So what about some credit for the unnamed Japanese Art Collective? Bah Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was a mention. A discussion takes more than me mentioning it in half a sentence. :o) There were a couple of other emails back in the early summer, but yahoo search probably didn't let you go back that far. All of that is besides the point. - Andreas Den 12.01.2008 kl. 19:52 skrev Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 12, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due Andreas, it seems like you have a short memory http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/65677 and a short fuse, too :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
They are in the manifesto (named, it is the remoscope collective) along with Aske Dam's name (who first told me about them). Did you bother to read the website at all before commenting on it? - Andreas Den 13.01.2008 kl. 09:08 skrev Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Back in the original emails, you said The constraints were are following were written down by a japanese art collective and the goal was to mimic the conditions under which the Lumiere Brothers created their first films in 1895. So what about some credit for the unnamed Japanese Art Collective? Bah Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was a mention. A discussion takes more than me mentioning it in half a sentence. :o) There were a couple of other emails back in the early summer, but yahoo search probably didn't let you go back that far. All of that is besides the point. - Andreas Den 12.01.2008 kl. 19:52 skrev Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 12, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due Andreas, it seems like you have a short memory http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/65677 and a short fuse, too :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
I thought I had read it all, but I managed to miss that bit, apologies. Anyways I find the concept works created to be very interesting, but I wouldnt have expected such a fine thing to lead to conversations like these. Now I remember why I am turned off by pompous manifesto's and movements. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They are in the manifesto (named, it is the remoscope collective) along with Aske Dam's name (who first told me about them). Did you bother to read the website at all before commenting on it? - Andreas Den 13.01.2008 kl. 09:08 skrev Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Back in the original emails, you said The constraints were are following were written down by a japanese art collective and the goal was to mimic the conditions under which the Lumiere Brothers created their first films in 1895. So what about some credit for the unnamed Japanese Art Collective? Bah Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: That was a mention. A discussion takes more than me mentioning it in half a sentence. :o) There were a couple of other emails back in the early summer, but yahoo search probably didn't let you go back that far. All of that is besides the point. - Andreas Den 12.01.2008 kl. 19:52 skrev Markus Sandy markus.sandy@: On Jan 12, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due Andreas, it seems like you have a short memory http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/65677 and a short fuse, too :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
You have *got* to be kidding, Andreas. When you and Brittany started getting into lumieres, the only person I saw talk about them or promote them was you. It was you encouraging me to try doing them. You picked up the ones I made without tagging them properly, and gently taught me how to tag them if I wanted them to be picked up for the lumiere showcase site. If I choose to relate those facts of my personal experience, will I suddenly be a jerk for not looking up Brittany's involvement and finding some way to mention it, even though it's not what called my attention to lumiere video? Rox writes genuinely and lovingly about why she decided to try a lumiere, and you could have chosen to comment in a positive way to honor Brittany for her contributions and encourage Rox to continue to experiment with the form. Instead you choose to be insulted, and tell us that Brittany does, too (though surely she can speak for herself?). You choose to answer negatively instead of positively. I started with lumieres because it was *fun*, and because of your encouragement, and because some of Brittany's work was inspiring to me, though I didn't know at the time she was your collaborator. The second the manifesto appeared, I stopped, because it doesn't represent my thoughts or feelings and I don't want to be associated with it. I don't even want my work appearing on the same site with it! I didn't say so publicly or ask you to remove links to the lumieres I made because I didn't want to insult you and Brittany. I just decided to quietly stop producing lumieres and let my actions speak for themselves. But because you feel it necessary to treat Rox in this manner, I think it's time to tell you the manifesto *does* put people off, and suggest it as one possible reason lumiere video isn't getting a lot of discussion in the group. You manage to suck all the fun out of making them. If I've learned anything in the past 30 days, it's that I can't insult you, Brittany or anyone else. No one can. You have to choose to feel insulted. I recommend choosing something more fun to feel. Cheryl Colan --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rox, I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due. Lumiere videos have been posted since May/June last year. Since the beginning it has been a two-person effort where Brittany and I have been collecting the videos, encouraging people to create the videos and writing our reasoning for pushing these types of videos. That's why both our names are on the front page of the website: http://videoblogging.info/ You may think this is a small mistake and in the amount of letters missing from your email and blogpost it is. At the same time not doing this very basic research and thus leaving out the name of half the people behind the project is extremely discouraging to those left out. Over the past 8 months Brittany and I have put in a large amount of work handling the lumiere videos and acknowledging my work, but not hers, is insulting to both of us. The collection of lumiere videos currently consists of 548 videos from 78 different people. You can jump straight to the videos at http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/ If I must say so myself it is an amazing repository of creativity. - Andreas Den 11.01.2008 kl. 05:17 skrev Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: A little public gushing here, I hope you all will indulge me. I learned about Lumiere from Rupert. I finally made one today, and I want to thank you publicly, Rupert, (and Andreas too) for illuminating me about this art form. http://www.beachwalks.tv/2008/01/11/beach-walk-567-first-lumiere-for-rupert/ Love, Rox -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Cheryl, it is fine that you have other issues with me, us or the manifesto, but I would like it if you could take a moment to reflect on what my issue is before jumping on to other things. First off Brittany doesn't participate in this group - she quit it before you started videoblogging. That is most likely the same reason why you have received any promotional materials or encouragement from her. I was on Twitter back when the lumieres started and I used that to promote the project. Brittany has pushed it in other circles. As I held your hand when you started she held others. You have read the manifesto: how could you think that we would write a manifesto together if we were not both working on the project? Is it surprising that I reacted? Would you not like it if those you work with make sure that you receive credit for what you do? That is my one issue: Give credit where credit is due. It takes no effort at all to look up a name, but it means everything to that person. You would not feel very good if you never received any acknowledgement for the work you've done on Show in a Box to grab one example. That is why I see a bio page coming on the SIAB website - so others know how to acknowledge. The fact that I'm closely involved in the lumiere videos means that it was a no-brainer for me to spot it this time, but it doesn't mean you can ignore my request. Is it not a fair request to receive proper acknowledgement for the work you do? As for everything else: I am happy that Rox made a lumiere, at the same time we can't write back to everyone who makes one of those anymore. We had to stop when we reached a couple of hundred videos because it was taking too much time. You must understand that 425 lumiere videos have been made since you posted your last one. It was also clear that Rox hadn't seen the website as she linked to one of my blogposts instead of videoblogging.info (and there is a clear link to vb.info from that blogpost). I can't and won't take full credit for the lumiere project and that's why I had to write back in the way I did. Regarding the manifesto: It's a manifesto for crying out loud! It's supposed to be strong and without compromise to grab your attention and make you think about what you are creating, for whom and with what purpose. The fact that you have not removed your videos makes me think we were being too nice in writing it. It's written as a reaction to the type of video and behaviour both of us were seeing and still are. It's an open disagreement and that's the whole point of writing a manifesto. To make the obvious comparison the dogme95 manifesto was a reaction towards filmmaking as it was taking place in the 90s, the lumiere manifesto is a reaction towards the general state of videoblogging. If you feel attacked by the manifesto, that's a good thing, you should. I feel attacked by it and I co-wrote it! It is unfortunate that you did not go anywhere with your frustrations - the goal was to make you reflect on your practices rather than sit with a stiff upper lip and not react because you don't agree. I personally don't have much patience with constant backpatting. There needs to be constant challenge or we can't evolve (that goes in general and in regards to videoblogging). Sitting around in a circle congratulating ourselves on how great everything is moves us nowhere. It is my responsibility and your responsibility to challenge the status quo. This forces us to think about where we are, where we want to be and how we can get there. It is curious to me that the comments stating strong disagreement with the manifesto (in the I don't want to participate anymore because the manifesto is criticizing things I like kind of way) have all happened on Twitter. They are spoken into a void using fragmented sentence in a room where it is impossible to carry a conversation (because all arguments are limited and each one is forgotten in a microsecond as it moves off the page). At the same time those who have taken the manifesto as a manifesto and used it to look at themselves in a new way have all written e-mails (where it is possible to carry on a conversation). These people do not agree with everything we say (just as I don't always agree with everything we say), but they are doing something constructive. Sam from patalab is one who has been involved in countless conversations and had the following to say about the lumiere project just last week: ...the Lumiere project can be regarded as a beacon. It’s actual, progressive potential for liberating “sight” might not have been that apparent when the project started. It probably was conceived more out of conceptual concerns, as an inoffensive game to play. But it seems to be one of the very few projects on the net - that I am aware of – that might have the inherent potential of actually re-installing a gaze of
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Andreas, I think what we have here is a snowballing series of overreactions. I think a simple hey, you forgot to mention my collaborator Brittany would've served your purpose a lot better than the you insult me diatribe. I think it's time to maybe take a breath and calm down. People here are not out to piss you off. As most who responded have stated, they like what you guys are doing. It's a discussion group. If somebody - through fault of memory, not malice - omits a credit here and there, someone else is always free to jump in and correct them. Without unnecessary vitriol. Or with, I guess, if that's the way you roll. I'm just saying it doesn't do anybody any good to make this unintended slight a bigger deal than it is... Chris --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cheryl, it is fine that you have other issues with me, us or the manifesto, but I would like it if you could take a moment to reflect on what my issue is before jumping on to other things. First off Brittany doesn't participate in this group - she quit it before you started videoblogging. That is most likely the same reason why you have received any promotional materials or encouragement from her. I was on Twitter back when the lumieres started and I used that to promote the project. Brittany has pushed it in other circles. As I held your hand when you started she held others. You have read the manifesto: how could you think that we would write a manifesto together if we were not both working on the project? Is it surprising that I reacted? Would you not like it if those you work with make sure that you receive credit for what you do? That is my one issue: Give credit where credit is due. It takes no effort at all to look up a name, but it means everything to that person. You would not feel very good if you never received any acknowledgement for the work you've done on Show in a Box to grab one example. That is why I see a bio page coming on the SIAB website - so others know how to acknowledge. The fact that I'm closely involved in the lumiere videos means that it was a no-brainer for me to spot it this time, but it doesn't mean you can ignore my request. Is it not a fair request to receive proper acknowledgement for the work you do? As for everything else: I am happy that Rox made a lumiere, at the same time we can't write back to everyone who makes one of those anymore. We had to stop when we reached a couple of hundred videos because it was taking too much time. You must understand that 425 lumiere videos have been made since you posted your last one. It was also clear that Rox hadn't seen the website as she linked to one of my blogposts instead of videoblogging.info (and there is a clear link to vb.info from that blogpost). I can't and won't take full credit for the lumiere project and that's why I had to write back in the way I did. Regarding the manifesto: It's a manifesto for crying out loud! It's supposed to be strong and without compromise to grab your attention and make you think about what you are creating, for whom and with what purpose. The fact that you have not removed your videos makes me think we were being too nice in writing it. It's written as a reaction to the type of video and behaviour both of us were seeing and still are. It's an open disagreement and that's the whole point of writing a manifesto. To make the obvious comparison the dogme95 manifesto was a reaction towards filmmaking as it was taking place in the 90s, the lumiere manifesto is a reaction towards the general state of videoblogging. If you feel attacked by the manifesto, that's a good thing, you should. I feel attacked by it and I co-wrote it! It is unfortunate that you did not go anywhere with your frustrations - the goal was to make you reflect on your practices rather than sit with a stiff upper lip and not react because you don't agree. I personally don't have much patience with constant backpatting. There needs to be constant challenge or we can't evolve (that goes in general and in regards to videoblogging). Sitting around in a circle congratulating ourselves on how great everything is moves us nowhere. It is my responsibility and your responsibility to challenge the status quo. This forces us to think about where we are, where we want to be and how we can get there. It is curious to me that the comments stating strong disagreement with the manifesto (in the I don't want to participate anymore because the manifesto is criticizing things I like kind of way) have all happened on Twitter. They are spoken into a void using fragmented sentence in a room where it is impossible to carry a conversation (because all arguments are limited and each one is forgotten in a microsecond as it moves off the page). At the same time
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Well that was a pretty all-encompassing justification, defense explanation. I get pretty emotional about people getting the credit they deserve, though Im not sure how far Id take it. I certainly wouldnt expect everybody involved with SIAB to be credited every time someone uses it or makes reference to it. Its quite natural for someone to thank those that turned them on to something, rather than all those behind the movement. So can we have a conversation about the manifesto as it doesnt seem to have been discussed here much in the past, and you seem to welcome debate? Some of my urge to rip it apart is offset by your explanation that a manifesto is there to encourage debate and thought, and that you dont agree with all of it, but I'll have a go anyways. It certainly does seem like an interesting way to approach issues about people hopes and aspirations for vlogging, their disappointments with previous visual mediums. Its a topic that gets hot when people attempt to define what videoblogging should be, and what constitutes legitimate vlogging. I seem to recall accusing you of being elitist in the past withsome of your academic definitions about what vlogging is, so I suppose I shouldnt be surprised by new attempts to bring about freedom through rulemaking. I think lumiere stuff is a very interesting thing, with the potential to sometimes do some of the stuff the manifesto seeks to promote. Some of the rules may sometimes be at complete odds with the mission however, for example to blanket ban on audio is surely cutting off an important dimension of observation and 'collective conciousness'. Thrown baby out with the bathwater. Arbitrary rules and self-imposed constraints are certainly sometimes a useful personal tool, to enable you to get things done, by eliminating much of the noise and distraction, filtering the possibilities down to an extent that decisive action is possible. I just think it goes a bit wrong when mixed with other aims. The manifesto seems to tread an ueasy line between claiming not to be about competing with alternatives, but at the same time not missing many opportunities to diss all that has gone before. I am in conflict with myself because I have such an ambivalent attitude towards labels, definitions and rules. I complain that there are not enough different terms for various shades of vlogging, and that we will argue too much over attempts to constrain the definition of wider terms like vloging itself, leading to possible elitism or illegitimising of certain types of vlog. So maybe I want a thousand manifesto's that nobody quite believes in with enough zeal to do any real harm. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cheryl, it is fine that you have other issues with me, us or the manifesto, but I would like it if you could take a moment to reflect on what my issue is before jumping on to other things. First off Brittany doesn't participate in this group - she quit it before you started videoblogging. That is most likely the same reason why you have received any promotional materials or encouragement from her. I was on Twitter back when the lumieres started and I used that to promote the project. Brittany has pushed it in other circles. As I held your hand when you started she held others. You have read the manifesto: how could you think that we would write a manifesto together if we were not both working on the project? Is it surprising that I reacted? Would you not like it if those you work with make sure that you receive credit for what you do? That is my one issue: Give credit where credit is due. It takes no effort at all to look up a name, but it means everything to that person. You would not feel very good if you never received any acknowledgement for the work you've done on Show in a Box to grab one example. That is why I see a bio page coming on the SIAB website - so others know how to acknowledge. The fact that I'm closely involved in the lumiere videos means that it was a no-brainer for me to spot it this time, but it doesn't mean you can ignore my request. Is it not a fair request to receive proper acknowledgement for the work you do? As for everything else: I am happy that Rox made a lumiere, at the same time we can't write back to everyone who makes one of those anymore. We had to stop when we reached a couple of hundred videos because it was taking too much time. You must understand that 425 lumiere videos have been made since you posted your last one. It was also clear that Rox hadn't seen the website as she linked to one of my blogposts instead of videoblogging.info (and there is a clear link to vb.info from that blogpost). I can't and won't take full credit for the lumiere project and that's why I had to write back in the way I did.
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, John Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Heath, what's with all the Scoble taunting? Got a man crush on him? JC I wasn't taunting himand no. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know what? Robert Scoble was right... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: Rox, I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due. Lumiere videos have been posted since May/June last year. Since the beginning it has been a two-person effort where Brittany and I have been collecting the videos, encouraging people to create the videos and writing our reasoning for pushing these types of videos. That's why both our names are on the front page of the website: http://videoblogging.info/ You may think this is a small mistake and in the amount of letters missing from your email and blogpost it is. At the same time not doing this very basic research and thus leaving out the name of half the people behind the project is extremely discouraging to those left out. Over the past 8 months Brittany and I have put in a large amount of work handling the lumiere videos and acknowledging my work, but not hers, is insulting to both of us. The collection of lumiere videos currently consists of 548 videos from 78 different people. You can jump straight to the videos at http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/ If I must say so myself it is an amazing repository of creativity. - Andreas Den 11.01.2008 kl. 05:17 skrev Roxanne Darling okekai@: A little public gushing here, I hope you all will indulge me. I learned about Lumiere from Rupert. I finally made one today, and I want to thank you publicly, Rupert, (and Andreas too) for illuminating me about this art form. http://www.beachwalks.tv/2008/01/11/beach-walk-567-first-lumiere- for-rupert/ Love, Rox -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/ Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Craic and Cocktails www.jchtv.com __ __ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
Oh Rupert, You all sound like Stewie from Family Guy. lol Beardo's rule, lol
[videoblogging] Re: Rox Lumiere for Rupert
You know what? Robert Scoble was right... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rox, I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due. Lumiere videos have been posted since May/June last year. Since the beginning it has been a two-person effort where Brittany and I have been collecting the videos, encouraging people to create the videos and writing our reasoning for pushing these types of videos. That's why both our names are on the front page of the website: http://videoblogging.info/ You may think this is a small mistake and in the amount of letters missing from your email and blogpost it is. At the same time not doing this very basic research and thus leaving out the name of half the people behind the project is extremely discouraging to those left out. Over the past 8 months Brittany and I have put in a large amount of work handling the lumiere videos and acknowledging my work, but not hers, is insulting to both of us. The collection of lumiere videos currently consists of 548 videos from 78 different people. You can jump straight to the videos at http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/ If I must say so myself it is an amazing repository of creativity. - Andreas Den 11.01.2008 kl. 05:17 skrev Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: A little public gushing here, I hope you all will indulge me. I learned about Lumiere from Rupert. I finally made one today, and I want to thank you publicly, Rupert, (and Andreas too) for illuminating me about this art form. http://www.beachwalks.tv/2008/01/11/beach-walk-567-first-lumiere- for-rupert/ Love, Rox -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
