[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
One of the questions that we deal with all the time is do you want your work out there so people can see it, or are you content to make something and then let it sit in you computer? My wife is a novelist, and is toying with the idea of publishing one of her novels - one chapter at time, with the option of somebody paying to download the whole thing all at once. I have thought of bundling 90 minutes of my Real REZ pieces into a DVD to sell, or people can watch them one at a time for free. We don't want to be stopped by the gatekeepers from ever expressing ourselves. The reality is that somethings that are put out there are actually good, and deserve to be seen, and if you stop putting them out there, then the commercial forces have basically co-opted your creative urge - a terrible thing. Milt Lee
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Hi Milt! Statistics show that releasing a novel one chapter at a time does not harm sales when you finally bundle it to sell in full. In some cases it actually helps the sales. I was just on a panel called Digital Bundling for BEA (Book Expo America) and we discussed these topics specifically. I think selling a DVD of your accumulated material is good idea. Try it out and see how it goes! You can always make it for a limited time only in case it proves to be more trouble than it is worth. What might be interesting to try, and perhaps this is something I could bring up to the ADM (Association of Downloadable Media), is a list of quality content providers that are grouped according to target audience, genre and/or synopsis, then advertise those shows to ad agencies, video sites, out-of-home markets, etc. as package deals. Sell seasons, advertise for sponsors, etc. all in one area so people can go there and shop for shows. Or, perhaps there's something like that out there already and I don't know about it? For me, I would totally be up for paying for sponsorship or for a season of a good, quality show that has anything to do with books, comics, reading or literacy. I just don't know where to go to find those shows. But it would be great to have a new line up for my Reader's Entertainment TV site. Just typing out loud. ;-) Sheila --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Milt Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My wife is a novelist, and is toying with the idea of publishing one of her novels - one chapter at time, with the option of somebody paying to download the whole thing all at once. I have thought of bundling 90 minutes of my Real REZ pieces into a DVD to sell, or people can watch them one at a time for free. Milt Lee
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, taulpaulmpls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed Jon, The example I pointed out was vague terminology. The real conversation was much more specific when we asked the content creator what they were willing, and not willing to do. When that was agreed upon, the pricing was a separate issue. Another great point you made, and I agree with, is that every content creator has a different set of standards for partnerships with sponsors (advertisers), and each will be willing or not willing to do certain things. (i.e. endorsements may not be ok, but placement scripted into the video may be just fine) That gives the creator freedom to make that choice. I remember this guy who was doing videos when I first started in this group. He was hunting for Civil War relics on battlefields in the south. His videos showed him using a metal detector, how to look for these types of artifacts, and how to identify the artifacts. I had little interest in this type of hobby, but the content was consistent, and I could see the benefit for enthusiasts in this area. I believe this example went into the long tail, and I saw multiple opportunities for sponsorship, if he chose to go that direction. Dear Paul, How can you talk about multiple opportunities for sponsorship when you do not believe in the thing you are sponsoring? I am aware Civil War enthusiasm has turned into a cottage industry and the marketers are paying attention to us now. And while I appreciate your vulture advice, I hope you don't take this the wrong way when I tell you to buzz off. If I accepted sponsorships from outside of the historical community, it would change the very nature of what I am doing. No longer would I be serving this community, instead I would be serving the sponsors who quite frankly, I do not believe care one lick about the Civil War. Your statement that you have no interest in the hobby only reinforces this belief. I know you think sponsorships will help make my program more accessible. You believe accessibility and an expanded audience to be a good thing. But how far will it go? I have no doubt I could deliver millions of viral views if I showed my buttcrack while loading a musket. Paul! You do not understand this hobby! And you do not understand the importance of things! The small, yet enthusiastic, audience are the reason my consistent content exists in the first place. And I will not let your commercial schemes alienate them. Thank you, Buzz off, - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thanks for your feedback Jon, -Paul --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: Marketers and Advertisers are way behind on knowing how to work with online content creators. I've been in the community for 4 years, and sometimes I don't know where to start. Networks like Rev3 and NNN, have made it a bit easier to work with these shows, but most content creators will never work with them. There's just a shitload of content out there. I've approached a couple content creators about sponsorship. I've asked how much they charge. *cue crickets*. I'll explain why you're getting crickets. The word sponsorship summons up this glorious relationship where the sponsor gives money because they believe in the cause or the work. Take Where The Hell Is Matt? http://wherethehellismatt.com/ Scroll down to the bottom and in the left hand corner you'll see a tiny image for Stride. From the Where The Hell is Matt? FAQ: BEGIN FAQ Did they make you chew gum on your trip? They didn't make me do much of anything. They are very good people. Did they tell you where to go? Nope. They said, and I'm quoting here: We like what you're doing. We want to help you. We don't want to mess with you. These words charmed me, and they stayed true to them. Did they edit the video for you? Nope. I came home, put it together, sorted the music out, and slapped it up on the internet. That was pretty much it. Like I said: good people. Do you get lots of free gum? I get lots of free gum. How did you find them? They found me. END FAQ. That is real sponsorship. Now do you see how absurd it is to ask how much creators charge for sponsorship? It's like asking, how much would it cost me to give you money because I believe in what you're doing? It sounds like what you're really asking is, how much does it cost to put a commercial on your broadcast? Or maybe you're asking, how much for your endorsement? Or maybe you're asking how much does it cost to have endorsements made for my product and run on your broadcast? And that's fine. Just use the correct words and maybe it won't be so confusing for people. I've got a panel submission for SXSWi, on what marketers look for in a video content creator. We'll
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
For the record; Knut Hamsun (and his character in Hunger, incidentally) both had to 'deal with people'. The character in Hunger spends much of his time trying desperately to get paid, and - ironically perhaps - finds that when he does get paid, he can no longer work. Hamsun was a much admired author in Norway until he started meddling in politics and made himself incredibly unpopular. He even received the Nobel Price for literature, luckily, perhaps, before the aforementioned meddling in politics left him with fewer friends among the so-called norwegian cultural elite (contradiction in terms, I know... ;-)) Trine On 8/9/08, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] trine.blogs.com henrikisak.blogspot.com twitter.com/trine
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, trine bjørkmann berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the record; Knut Hamsun (and his character in Hunger, incidentally) both had to 'deal with people'. The character in Hunger spends much of his time trying desperately to get paid, and - ironically perhaps - finds that when he does get paid, he can no longer work. Yes. Hamsun and the character had to deal with people. But he wasn't getting millions of views of Hunger without compensation. There are many pitfalls of fame and power. Maybe those pitfalls are worse than fame and poverty, as Hamsun's political meddlings suggest. Hamsun was a much admired author in Norway until he started meddling in politics and made himself incredibly unpopular. He even received the Nobel Price for literature, luckily, perhaps, before the aforementioned meddling in politics left him with fewer friends among the so-called norwegian cultural elite (contradiction in terms, I know... ;-)) Trine On 8/9/08, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] trine.blogs.com henrikisak.blogspot.com twitter.com/trine
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Marketers and Advertisers are way behind on knowing how to work with online content creators. I've been in the community for 4 years, and sometimes I don't know where to start. Networks like Rev3 and NNN, have made it a bit easier to work with these shows, but most content creators will never work with them. There's just a shitload of content out there. I've approached a couple content creators about sponsorship. I've asked how much they charge. *cue crickets*. I'll explain why you're getting crickets. The word sponsorship summons up this glorious relationship where the sponsor gives money because they believe in the cause or the work. Take Where The Hell Is Matt? http://wherethehellismatt.com/ Scroll down to the bottom and in the left hand corner you'll see a tiny image for Stride. From the Where The Hell is Matt? FAQ: BEGIN FAQ Did they make you chew gum on your trip? They didn't make me do much of anything. They are very good people. Did they tell you where to go? Nope. They said, and I'm quoting here: We like what you're doing. We want to help you. We don't want to mess with you. These words charmed me, and they stayed true to them. Did they edit the video for you? Nope. I came home, put it together, sorted the music out, and slapped it up on the internet. That was pretty much it. Like I said: good people. Do you get lots of free gum? I get lots of free gum. How did you find them? They found me. END FAQ. That is real sponsorship. Now do you see how absurd it is to ask how much creators charge for sponsorship? It's like asking, how much would it cost me to give you money because I believe in what you're doing? It sounds like what you're really asking is, how much does it cost to put a commercial on your broadcast? Or maybe you're asking, how much for your endorsement? Or maybe you're asking how much does it cost to have endorsements made for my product and run on your broadcast? And that's fine. Just use the correct words and maybe it won't be so confusing for people. I've got a panel submission for SXSWi, on what marketers look for in a video content creator. We'll even talk niche, and long tail for people that don't get a bazillion views on youtube. http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/1979?return=%2Fideas%2Findex%2F3%2Fq%3Abolin It won't happen overnight. The way I see it, we're all marketers, we're just pushing different things. I've heard of the long tail of books and the long tail of DVDs and CDs and the long tail of online media. But maybe we're not talking about multiple tails. Maybe it's all one tail. You've got Amazon's most obscure products sitting out at the very tiniest tip of the Amazon tail and once you step off, you're on a new tail of stuff made just for the web with no hopes (or false hopes) of breaking into traditional (or subculture) media markets. And when you get to the edge of that tail, then you're stepping into communication. Videos about someone's wedding anniversary posted to youtube for friends and family. A myspace blog from a teenager chronicling teenager shit for her teenager friends. And then after that tail, you'll find private communication between individuals, email, phone calls, etc. When we talk about advertising this far out on the tail, it's creepy science fiction stuff. But I'm not worried about it. The market will correct itself, right? BURST! You disgusting web 2.0 bubble! BURST! - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Agreed Jon, The example I pointed out was vague terminology. The real conversation was much more specific when we asked the content creator what they were willing, and not willing to do. When that was agreed upon, the pricing was a separate issue. Another great point you made, and I agree with, is that every content creator has a different set of standards for partnerships with sponsors (advertisers), and each will be willing or not willing to do certain things. (i.e. endorsements may not be ok, but placement scripted into the video may be just fine) That gives the creator freedom to make that choice. I remember this guy who was doing videos when I first started in this group. He was hunting for Civil War relics on battlefields in the south. His videos showed him using a metal detector, how to look for these types of artifacts, and how to identify the artifacts. I had little interest in this type of hobby, but the content was consistent, and I could see the benefit for enthusiasts in this area. I believe this example went into the long tail, and I saw multiple opportunities for sponsorship, if he chose to go that direction. Thanks for your feedback Jon, -Paul --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marketers and Advertisers are way behind on knowing how to work with online content creators. I've been in the community for 4 years, and sometimes I don't know where to start. Networks like Rev3 and NNN, have made it a bit easier to work with these shows, but most content creators will never work with them. There's just a shitload of content out there. I've approached a couple content creators about sponsorship. I've asked how much they charge. *cue crickets*. I'll explain why you're getting crickets. The word sponsorship summons up this glorious relationship where the sponsor gives money because they believe in the cause or the work. Take Where The Hell Is Matt? http://wherethehellismatt.com/ Scroll down to the bottom and in the left hand corner you'll see a tiny image for Stride. From the Where The Hell is Matt? FAQ: BEGIN FAQ Did they make you chew gum on your trip? They didn't make me do much of anything. They are very good people. Did they tell you where to go? Nope. They said, and I'm quoting here: We like what you're doing. We want to help you. We don't want to mess with you. These words charmed me, and they stayed true to them. Did they edit the video for you? Nope. I came home, put it together, sorted the music out, and slapped it up on the internet. That was pretty much it. Like I said: good people. Do you get lots of free gum? I get lots of free gum. How did you find them? They found me. END FAQ. That is real sponsorship. Now do you see how absurd it is to ask how much creators charge for sponsorship? It's like asking, how much would it cost me to give you money because I believe in what you're doing? It sounds like what you're really asking is, how much does it cost to put a commercial on your broadcast? Or maybe you're asking, how much for your endorsement? Or maybe you're asking how much does it cost to have endorsements made for my product and run on your broadcast? And that's fine. Just use the correct words and maybe it won't be so confusing for people. I've got a panel submission for SXSWi, on what marketers look for in a video content creator. We'll even talk niche, and long tail for people that don't get a bazillion views on youtube. http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/1979?return=%2Fideas%2Findex%2F3%2Fq%3Abolin It won't happen overnight. The way I see it, we're all marketers, we're just pushing different things. I've heard of the long tail of books and the long tail of DVDs and CDs and the long tail of online media. But maybe we're not talking about multiple tails. Maybe it's all one tail. You've got Amazon's most obscure products sitting out at the very tiniest tip of the Amazon tail and once you step off, you're on a new tail of stuff made just for the web with no hopes (or false hopes) of breaking into traditional (or subculture) media markets. And when you get to the edge of that tail, then you're stepping into communication. Videos about someone's wedding anniversary posted to youtube for friends and family. A myspace blog from a teenager chronicling teenager shit for her teenager friends. And then after that tail, you'll find private communication between individuals, email, phone calls, etc. When we talk about advertising this far out on the tail, it's creepy science fiction stuff. But I'm not worried about it. The market will correct itself, right? BURST! You disgusting web 2.0 bubble! BURST! - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Hello all, Some of you know me. I'm one of those shit bag online marketing types, that strong arm the little helpless online content creator into giving my clients control over their weekly brain dump. Ironically, I've also been in this group since the end of 2004, did a couple appearances on Chasing Windmills, and met some of you guys even you Jon http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandandbutter/2077900021/in/set-72157603581578626/; at the Winnies last year. Yeah, I'm one of the assholes that's failed you guys. Jon wonders where this Revolution has gone. Statistically speaking, we're sitting in the middle of it right now. The problem doesn't sit solely in the content creator's hands. You look around, and wonder where the bags of money are being stashed? The problem is the decision making process for sponsorship is with the wrong people. They're looking at the wrong metrics, and they don't know who to work with, or how to do it? Study after study shows that people ignore banner ads, but where do online media buyers put their money? Yup, in banner ads. Why? Because if you show the client that for X ammount of dollars, you can send a bazillion people to a page on their website. It gets even worse. You can even track if a person has bought something, or filled out a form, or what ever conversion should happen. The funny thing is, that most don't do it. Ever. Why? Accountability. Clients start asking questions like, What was the ROI on this buy? Advertisers hate questions like this. Buying banners is also very easy, why do you think that pre-roll and post-roll video ad units were such a hit to advertisers? It's an almost identical buying system as banner ads. Wait, they are banner ads. Then they upped the ante with video overlay ad units, or floating banner ads on videos. Yup, it's the same ole shit repackaged. Marketers and Advertisers are way behind on knowing how to work with online content creators. I've been in the community for 4 years, and sometimes I don't know where to start. Networks like Rev3 and NNN, have made it a bit easier to work with these shows, but most content creators will never work with them. There's just a shitload of content out there. I've approached a couple content creators about sponsorship. I've asked how much they charge. *cue crickets*. Do you know how much your content is worth? How much would you ask for sponsorship for your content? Is it how many views you get that matters? Is it how many comments people leave for you on youtube, telling you how much you suck? What brands do you want to work with, or not work with? If you script a can of RC Cola into your video, and your audience hates you for taking the money, and promoting cola they think sucks, it's a risk you decide. In the end, it's your content, and you are the only one that can make that decision. I've got a panel submission for SXSWi, on what marketers look for in a video content creator. We'll even talk niche, and long tail for people that don't get a bazillion views on youtube. http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/1979?return=%2Fideas%2Findex%2F3%2Fq%3Abolin It won't happen overnight. The way I see it, we're all marketers, we're just pushing different things. -TaulPaul --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rupert, by writing to you, I realized there was some juice left in this thread. My opinion of Ze Frank. I love that you call me the evil Ze Frank. When I was making my videos sometimes I'd take a break in the afternoon and watch the Show and I'd just say, fuck it and scrap my video. He was so quick and he came up with so much in such short periods of time. When I first started watching his show I read about his background in neuroscience and I thought he was using tricks. I was relieved when I saw an episode containing a few extra words that could have been edited out to pack more of a punch. So he wasn't completely a master of brainwashing. Sometimes though, his squeaky clean image, the rubber duckies, the sports racers, left me wanting something more evil. And he wasn't a great story teller. I think my favorite video was the one where he talked about 9/11, when he broke down crying and a nurse hugged him. That was a good story. Good stories poke around in the dark places where the author might not want to go. And Ze built this story up by reading comments and making it appear as if he was being pushed into it. http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/09/090706.html According to this NewTeeVee article, Ze candidly admits he knows little about story telling. http://newteevee.com/2007/03/12/ze-frank-blip/ What he did very well was comment on things. And so I think he kind of embodies the best of what I'm starting to call the school of content creation. Fast. And immediate. The downside is that his show has no longevity. He ridiculed the Bush
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
TaulPaul, what i have found moves product, is actually using the products in the video content rather than just advertising it in a banner ad or overlay. To give an example, a simple video i made of myself just using and having fun with 3 different items, was instrumental in selling bucket loads of all 3 products for the manufacturers. One of them (a video camera manufacturer used the video as a feature on their web site and it's still there on the front page www.goprocamera.com (video is Another day in Paradise) they gave me 12 free cameras and continue to send new releases for me to trial. The other 2 products were a canoe and a paddle that i was using. The canoe people sold a container load of canoes ($350,000) in the next month and i now have a sponsorship arrangement with them and the paddle company doubled the sales of that particular item and gave me $3000 worth of product free and ongoing sponsorship. Getting back to the video itself, there was no blatant selling of any of the items in the content, other than logos displayed on clothing the canoe and paddle. The camera was the one used to shoot the video of me just enjoying myself on the ocean as the sun goes down. The video has 17,000 plays on BlipTV stats most of it coming from the camera website feature and my own Vblog. I'm a dummy when it comes to marketing and making video, but i guess people identified with what i was doing in the video and that was enough for them to want to purchase and for the sellers to want to continue sponsorship. I guess this is more endorsement than advertising, but it works. Cheers Rambo http://rambos-locker.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, taulpaulmpls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, Some of you know me. I'm one of those shit bag online marketing types, that strong arm the little helpless online content creator into giving my clients control over their weekly brain dump. Ironically, I've also been in this group since the end of 2004, did a couple appearances on Chasing Windmills, and met some of you guys even you Jon http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandandbutter/2077900021/in/set-72157603581578626/; at the Winnies last year. Yeah, I'm one of the assholes that's failed you guys. Jon wonders where this Revolution has gone. Statistically speaking, we're sitting in the middle of it right now. The problem doesn't sit solely in the content creator's hands. You look around, and wonder where the bags of money are being stashed? The problem is the decision making process for sponsorship is with the wrong people. They're looking at the wrong metrics, and they don't know who to work with, or how to do it? Study after study shows that people ignore banner ads, but where do online media buyers put their money? Yup, in banner ads. Why? Because if you show the client that for X ammount of dollars, you can send a bazillion people to a page on their website. It gets even worse. You can even track if a person has bought something, or filled out a form, or what ever conversion should happen. The funny thing is, that most don't do it. Ever. Why? Accountability. Clients start asking questions like, What was the ROI on this buy? Advertisers hate questions like this. Buying banners is also very easy, why do you think that pre-roll and post-roll video ad units were such a hit to advertisers? It's an almost identical buying system as banner ads. Wait, they are banner ads. Then they upped the ante with video overlay ad units, or floating banner ads on videos. Yup, it's the same ole shit repackaged. Marketers and Advertisers are way behind on knowing how to work with online content creators. I've been in the community for 4 years, and sometimes I don't know where to start. Networks like Rev3 and NNN, have made it a bit easier to work with these shows, but most content creators will never work with them. There's just a shitload of content out there. I've approached a couple content creators about sponsorship. I've asked how much they charge. *cue crickets*. Do you know how much your content is worth? How much would you ask for sponsorship for your content? Is it how many views you get that matters? Is it how many comments people leave for you on youtube, telling you how much you suck? What brands do you want to work with, or not work with? If you script a can of RC Cola into your video, and your audience hates you for taking the money, and promoting cola they think sucks, it's a risk you decide. In the end, it's your content, and you are the only one that can make that decision. I've got a panel submission for SXSWi, on what marketers look for in a video content creator. We'll even talk niche, and long tail for people that don't get a bazillion views on youtube. http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/1979?return=%2Fideas%2Findex%2F3%2Fq%3Abolin It won't happen overnight. The
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Rupert, by writing to you, I realized there was some juice left in this thread. My opinion of Ze Frank. I love that you call me the evil Ze Frank. When I was making my videos sometimes I'd take a break in the afternoon and watch the Show and I'd just say, fuck it and scrap my video. He was so quick and he came up with so much in such short periods of time. When I first started watching his show I read about his background in neuroscience and I thought he was using tricks. I was relieved when I saw an episode containing a few extra words that could have been edited out to pack more of a punch. So he wasn't completely a master of brainwashing. Sometimes though, his squeaky clean image, the rubber duckies, the sports racers, left me wanting something more evil. And he wasn't a great story teller. I think my favorite video was the one where he talked about 9/11, when he broke down crying and a nurse hugged him. That was a good story. Good stories poke around in the dark places where the author might not want to go. And Ze built this story up by reading comments and making it appear as if he was being pushed into it. http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/09/090706.html According to this NewTeeVee article, Ze candidly admits he knows little about story telling. http://newteevee.com/2007/03/12/ze-frank-blip/ What he did very well was comment on things. And so I think he kind of embodies the best of what I'm starting to call the school of content creation. Fast. And immediate. The downside is that his show has no longevity. He ridiculed the Bush administration. I think he was very smart to only do it for a year. Because how could he keep going when what he was making was sort of shallow on a narrative level and would just shrivel up at the pace of current events? Information Dystopia is an attempt to break away from the school of content creation. It's over ten times longer than your typical piece of content. It's not easily accessible, you have to use bittorrent. It also has pacing. I did try to boil it down to essentials, but speed wasn't my ultimate goal. I framed it as an epic struggle. It goes from my small petty rivalry with Nichols and blows it up into a battle for the future of the Internet. I used songs to slow things down and build suspense. Also, it's a one shot. Not part of a series. I am starting to feel like I'm getting material for a sequel. But anyway, it breaks with the content creation rule of publishing regularly. I finished recording about 97% of it in July. The graphics took about a month. So now maybe there's someone out there more arty-farty than myself who can give an unbiased review of Information Dystopia. Here's the torrent: http://www.detrimentalinformation.com/information_dystopia.mp4.torrent Over on Kent's blog post Is online video dead, Rick Rey commented that there's no place for critics in new media. I think we need to be more critical of each other's work. I used to belong to a fiction writing list where you'd post your writing and members would break it down line by line. Now I know it's hard to do with online video because we all have such different goals and purposes. But that's all the more reason to do it. We could learn ways of approaching online video that we never could have imagined. I still feel like a redneck when I talk about video art and film making. Maybe we need two video blogging lists, one for tech support and one for content support. As Loren Feldman would say, SUPPORT! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Rupert. Let's continue our pointy headed conversation in email. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: maybe he was addicted to it, couldn't help himself. i don't know quite what my point was. i think it was probably something to do with the fact that i like your stuff best when it's satirical and rather bukowski-like in its vigorous reaction to bullshit. that running away from the bullshit is running away from some great inspiration. to me, you're like Ze Frank's evil twin. don't take that the wrong way. i don't mean Evil and i don't mean you're like Ze Frank. but the way you take on people and things, and do it with drawings, animation, music. it seems to me that your creative reaction to YouTube is what's got you the views, and that that's what you could be charging access for. i can see how people would pay a dollar a throw to watch your videos. fuck it, post partial works on your blog and then sell your videos on Cruxy.com - that's what it's there for. Aren't they selling videos on iTunes yet? Ricky Gervais made something like £10m by selling his podcast for £1 per download a couple of years ago. Forget what I said before about people not paying for media anymore. Mix it up. Try it. Stop
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ -
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ -
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Bukowski hated dealing with people. He wrote a poem about murdering a young admirer who approached him at the race track. In his letters he constantly complained about people mailing him poetry and expecting him to read it. As soon as he had enough money to stop giving readings, he did. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - john@ - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ -
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I watched Henry Fool last night. First time in quite a while. It reminded me of this thread. Enjoyed the Internet references. Gets better over time. Always enjoyed Hal Hartley stuff. Bukowski is interesting to inject here. But only to the effect that he relentlessly submitted his works... So that he could make money at it and quit his shit job. Maybe he also wanted recognition but it was mostly about sustaining a life directed by himself. And the man liked to write. So the times evolved and caught up to his type, his style. That dirty old man would have his way in the end. After a long bitch of a beginnning. On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 6:02 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bukowski hated dealing with people. He wrote a poem about murdering a young admirer who approached him at the race track. In his letters he constantly complained about people mailing him poetry and expecting him to read it. As soon as he had enough money to stop giving readings, he did. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - john@ - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ - [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I think i'll watch Fay Grim tonight (roku, yo) http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2712011033/ On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I watched Henry Fool last night. First time in quite a while. It reminded me of this thread. Enjoyed the Internet references. Gets better over time. Always enjoyed Hal Hartley stuff. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
ha! maybe. he got more pestering after he became famous than before, for sure. but jd salinger he was not. if he hated people that much, he could have become a recluse, but he didn't. he kept living in hollywood, and the same crazies and outsiders peopled his life and work for the next 20 years after he stopped his drunken, highly entertaining readings. he was great at writing about how much he hated ugly humanity, but he recognised that this fed him. see If I taught creative writing: http://www.misanthropytoday.com/2008/07/29/if-i-taught-creative- writing-by-charles-bukowski/ versus the genius of the crowd http://plagiarist.com/poetry/4508/ Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 9-Aug-08, at 3:02 PM, ractalfece wrote: Bukowski hated dealing with people. He wrote a poem about murdering a young admirer who approached him at the race track. In his letters he constantly complained about people mailing him poetry and expecting him to read it. As soon as he had enough money to stop giving readings, he did. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - john@ - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ - [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Sorry, that was pretty far off-topic for a videoblogging list :) On 9-Aug-08, at 4:17 PM, Rupert wrote: ha! maybe. he got more pestering after he became famous than before, for sure. but jd salinger he was not. if he hated people that much, he could have become a recluse, but he didn't. he kept living in hollywood, and the same crazies and outsiders peopled his life and work for the next 20 years after he stopped his drunken, highly entertaining readings. he was great at writing about how much he hated ugly humanity, but he recognised that this fed him. see If I taught creative writing: http://www.misanthropytoday.com/2008/07/29/if-i-taught-creative- writing-by-charles-bukowski/ versus the genius of the crowd http://plagiarist.com/poetry/4508/ Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 9-Aug-08, at 3:02 PM, ractalfece wrote: Bukowski hated dealing with people. He wrote a poem about murdering a young admirer who approached him at the race track. In his letters he constantly complained about people mailing him poetry and expecting him to read it. As soon as he had enough money to stop giving readings, he did. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - john@ - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ - [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Yeah, way off topic. But I remember reading a letter or maybe a poem where he said JD Salinger knew what he was doing because he wrote one good book and quit. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, that was pretty far off-topic for a videoblogging list :) On 9-Aug-08, at 4:17 PM, Rupert wrote: ha! maybe. he got more pestering after he became famous than before, for sure. but jd salinger he was not. if he hated people that much, he could have become a recluse, but he didn't. he kept living in hollywood, and the same crazies and outsiders peopled his life and work for the next 20 years after he stopped his drunken, highly entertaining readings. he was great at writing about how much he hated ugly humanity, but he recognised that this fed him. see If I taught creative writing: http://www.misanthropytoday.com/2008/07/29/if-i-taught-creative- writing-by-charles-bukowski/ versus the genius of the crowd http://plagiarist.com/poetry/4508/ Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 9-Aug-08, at 3:02 PM, ractalfece wrote: Bukowski hated dealing with people. He wrote a poem about murdering a young admirer who approached him at the race track. In his letters he constantly complained about people mailing him poetry and expecting him to read it. As soon as he had enough money to stop giving readings, he did. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe rupert@ wrote: Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - john@ - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind of revolution or, ultimately, a viable solution. It's simply a philosophical disagreement - power to ya to do whatever is right for you. I just can't guarantee that I'll pay to watch your work. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. Jen, watch this video response I did to Mark Horowitz's 7 Days in a Sentra ad campaign. Mark Horriblewitz's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXE2Z58QI My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHFPsx_7id0 Then tell me about removing my work from commodity culture. - john@ - [Non-text portions of this
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
maybe he was addicted to it, couldn't help himself. i don't know quite what my point was. i think it was probably something to do with the fact that i like your stuff best when it's satirical and rather bukowski-like in its vigorous reaction to bullshit. that running away from the bullshit is running away from some great inspiration. to me, you're like Ze Frank's evil twin. don't take that the wrong way. i don't mean Evil and i don't mean you're like Ze Frank. but the way you take on people and things, and do it with drawings, animation, music. it seems to me that your creative reaction to YouTube is what's got you the views, and that that's what you could be charging access for. i can see how people would pay a dollar a throw to watch your videos. fuck it, post partial works on your blog and then sell your videos on Cruxy.com - that's what it's there for. Aren't they selling videos on iTunes yet? Ricky Gervais made something like £10m by selling his podcast for £1 per download a couple of years ago. Forget what I said before about people not paying for media anymore. Mix it up. Try it. Stop talking about it, and make a fucking funny brilliantly made video and sell it. Message all your fans. I don't know. I don't see why you couldn't do it right now. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 9-Aug-08, at 5:07 PM, ractalfece wrote: Yeah, way off topic. But I remember reading a letter or maybe a poem where he said JD Salinger knew what he was doing because he wrote one good book and quit. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, that was pretty far off-topic for a videoblogging list :) On 9-Aug-08, at 4:17 PM, Rupert wrote: ha! maybe. he got more pestering after he became famous than before, for sure. but jd salinger he was not. if he hated people that much, he could have become a recluse, but he didn't. he kept living in hollywood, and the same crazies and outsiders peopled his life and work for the next 20 years after he stopped his drunken, highly entertaining readings. he was great at writing about how much he hated ugly humanity, but he recognised that this fed him. see If I taught creative writing: http://www.misanthropytoday.com/2008/07/29/if-i-taught-creative- writing-by-charles-bukowski/ versus the genius of the crowd http://plagiarist.com/poetry/4508/ Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 9-Aug-08, at 3:02 PM, ractalfece wrote: Bukowski hated dealing with people. He wrote a poem about murdering a young admirer who approached him at the race track. In his letters he constantly complained about people mailing him poetry and expecting him to read it. As soon as he had enough money to stop giving readings, he did. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe rupert@ wrote: Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - john@ - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from commodity culture. That's not my argument - you should do whatever you feel is right for your work and your life, and I completely respect that. I just take issue with the notion that asking viewers to pay the individual maker for online video is any kind
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Thanks Rupert. Let's continue our pointy headed conversation in email. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe he was addicted to it, couldn't help himself. i don't know quite what my point was. i think it was probably something to do with the fact that i like your stuff best when it's satirical and rather bukowski-like in its vigorous reaction to bullshit. that running away from the bullshit is running away from some great inspiration. to me, you're like Ze Frank's evil twin. don't take that the wrong way. i don't mean Evil and i don't mean you're like Ze Frank. but the way you take on people and things, and do it with drawings, animation, music. it seems to me that your creative reaction to YouTube is what's got you the views, and that that's what you could be charging access for. i can see how people would pay a dollar a throw to watch your videos. fuck it, post partial works on your blog and then sell your videos on Cruxy.com - that's what it's there for. Aren't they selling videos on iTunes yet? Ricky Gervais made something like £10m by selling his podcast for £1 per download a couple of years ago. Forget what I said before about people not paying for media anymore. Mix it up. Try it. Stop talking about it, and make a fucking funny brilliantly made video and sell it. Message all your fans. I don't know. I don't see why you couldn't do it right now. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 9-Aug-08, at 5:07 PM, ractalfece wrote: Yeah, way off topic. But I remember reading a letter or maybe a poem where he said JD Salinger knew what he was doing because he wrote one good book and quit. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Sorry, that was pretty far off-topic for a videoblogging list :) On 9-Aug-08, at 4:17 PM, Rupert wrote: ha! maybe. he got more pestering after he became famous than before, for sure. but jd salinger he was not. if he hated people that much, he could have become a recluse, but he didn't. he kept living in hollywood, and the same crazies and outsiders peopled his life and work for the next 20 years after he stopped his drunken, highly entertaining readings. he was great at writing about how much he hated ugly humanity, but he recognised that this fed him. see If I taught creative writing: http://www.misanthropytoday.com/2008/07/29/if-i-taught-creative- writing-by-charles-bukowski/ versus the genius of the crowd http://plagiarist.com/poetry/4508/ Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 9-Aug-08, at 3:02 PM, ractalfece wrote: Bukowski hated dealing with people. He wrote a poem about murdering a young admirer who approached him at the race track. In his letters he constantly complained about people mailing him poetry and expecting him to read it. As soon as he had enough money to stop giving readings, he did. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ruperthowe rupert@ wrote: Your fellow LA poet Bukowski had to deal with a lot of crazy people too. And it took him quite a long time to make any money from his poems. People didn't tend to buy poetry in such large numbers. Eventually he started writing novels, a more commercial and accessible form, he got published because of his notoriety as a poet and the beauty of his writing, and the cash started coming in. He still wrote the poems and dealt with the crazy people, partly because he loved it, partly because it was just an integral part of the way he chose to live his life and make his art. The nine-to-five is one of the greatest atrocities sprung upon mankind. You give your life away to a function that doesn't interest you. This situation so repelled me that I was driven to drink, starvation, and mad females, simply as an alternative. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: I see the philosophical difference. I understand starving for art. Knut Hamsun's Hunger. Great book. But here's the difference between Knut and me. I'm starving and dealing with people. Why should I have to accept the hardships of fame without compensation? I don't. That's why I can't guarantee in the future you'll be able to see my work without paying. - john@ - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor proctorjen@ wrote: I'm sorry that you've had hard financial times. I could go into the financial straits my family and I have endured as well, but I don't think that's the point. I don't think the hardship of living out of a car is still any kind of justification that art is best served within commodity culture. I'm not saying that YOU should remove your work from
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
good references and truths. i dont know/follow kent. never watched the ninja thing except unavoidable clips. i know that their is this history, as you point out Rufus, of the clash of highly creative media and diluted processed media (mass media). net video creators exercised a freedom from corporate ties. some of them are actually talented. And some of those will get scooped up to be advertising puppets. some will cut better deals to maintain their creative freedom and receive fair returns from success (if any). Good for them. i think what may be disturbing to some is when net video producers/actors/creators play on an angle geared towards the indie creator revolution... and do so with an aggression that makes it inevitable for them to contradict themselves. it's not too different than politics where you have Obama, as an example, playing to an audience so that he can be propelled and then his tune changes a bit when he no longer fully depends on that initial audience. The same could be said about the starving artist of today seemingly being the independent new media creator/entertainer. The only point here is that some people will say and do anything to get crowd support... and they may even believe what they say... but success brings hard choices of reality which always comes down to money and the deals that are taken help to maintain the momentum (or illusion) of success with the assumption that people will understand the tough choices that must be made. Besides, it's 2008 now and you can't be revolutionary for too long. A new breed may be needed to follow those before them. Until the day that the dollar bill is flapped in their faces too and the decisions will be made once again. i believe that if art is what you are looking for, whatever art is to you you will have to sift and seek and filter. it cannot be expected out of this new crop of media creators. it may exist here and there... again, dependent on what you think is quality Art. so we cannot easily define it here in some thread on a mailing list. The key is not to expect it from independent media creators but hope that it seeps out now and again. befriending good people that you trust will help to find interesting things. Which is why Schlomo is on to something with the Tracker idea. On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7-Aug-08, at 7:35 PM, ractalfece wrote: This crisis is a wet dream for marketers. Media becomes all about the metrics. Just find the content with the highest hit count and cover it with ads. You no longer have to worry about quality. You just worry about the positioning of the clickable ad. In this new game, the perfect content is titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Get the web surfers in and make sure the ad is there for them when they get bored or when the two minutes is up. That's why it's now possible to make an easy $6000 by putting ads on top of promos. Ask Tim Street how it's done. - When our heroes fail us, they deserve our special scorn. - I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Rupert's absolutely correct, of course. In addition, ever since the advent of the moving image, there have been outsiders making moving image art - from magic lantern producers in the 1800s to 16mm avant-garde filmmakers and 8mm home movie enthusiasts mid-century and video artists in the 1970s and 80s. And these outsider (and underground) artists *paid* for their work to be seen - they invested in the materials of production, and often put up the funds to have their work screened in a venue. This is still the dominant model of independent and avant-garde filmmaking - you invest up front, *pay* a film festival to *consider* screening your film, and then, if you're in the tiniest minority, your film might get picked up for distribution or win a monetary award. Even Stan Brakhage, one of the most prolific, widely acclaimed, and accomplished of experimental filmmakers, never came close to earning a living from his work alone. He taught. So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7-Aug-08, at 7:35 PM, ractalfece wrote: This crisis is a wet dream for marketers. Media becomes all about the metrics. Just find the content with the highest hit count and cover it with ads. You no longer have to worry about quality. You just worry about the positioning of the clickable ad. In this new game, the perfect content is titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Get the web surfers in and make sure the ad is there for them when they get bored or when the two minutes is up. That's why it's now possible to make an easy $6000 by putting ads on top of promos. Ask Tim Street how it's done. - When our heroes fail us, they deserve our special scorn. - I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what will get viewed lots of times, and what advertisers will pay for. He can't change the public's mind. Attacking him for it is shooting the messenger. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv His script lacked certain elements that are necessary to make a movie successful What elements Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex and happy endings What about reality? The Player [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what will get viewed lots of times, and what advertisers will pay for. He can't change the public's mind. Attacking him for it is shooting the messenger. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv His script lacked certain elements that are necessary to make a movie successful What elements Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex and happy endings What about reality? The Player [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Rupert, you're right. My line about heroes failing us is a bit much. I should have saved it for when Obama is the president. I'll try to explain why I have both admiration and disdain for Ask a Ninja. Before 2006, I had no idea how the internet worked. I had spent a year farting around with a scanner and html to put my zines online. My traffic reports indicated that my website had gotten zero visitors. The 2006 article in Rolling Stone about the rise of the video blog was my entry point. I know, real good entry point. I think you might be able to see what was running through my little rat brain. No, wait. You can't. I have to keep explaining. I was performing in poetry slams and open mics, trying to charge $1 for my zine but usually just giving it away for free. So I read about the rise of the video blog. The article made it sound as if democracy was breaking lose. I immediately went on the internet and looked up all the shows mentioned. A lot of it didn't do anything for me, like Rocketboom. But I loved Steve Garfield's Vlog Soup. The way he was obsessed with people, he seemed like a strange, voyeuristic internet version of John Waters. He told some teenage girl on Myspace to change her background because he couldn't see anything! I loved it. I think you can see the influence in some of my videos. And Travis Poston's Good Word With the T-Bird. Pretty amazing stuff, reporting a coke dealer -Jenna Bush connection. But the one show that made me go, AH HA! I can do this too was called Ask a Ninja. All the guy did was stand in front of a video camera and talk for two or three minutes. How was that any different from what I was doing in poetry slams? The internet suddenly looked like one giant open mic. So now do you see what was running through my rat brain? I could become a cult fave like the ninja and get my fucking name mentioned in Rolling Stone! Yeehaw! Too bad Kent didn't have a blog back then- I would never have bought the camera. Would have just sent a disgusted letter to the editor. Kent is being true to himself, sure. But this is where I feel cheated. And it might not be Kent's fault. The Ninja was cast into the role of an outsider on the rise thanks to this video blog popular movement. But really, he was business from the beginning. But while I was struggling to become a cult fave like the ninja, I had failed to understand (and from reading Kent's blog, I'm not sure if he fully understands this either) that the ninja is one hell of a piece of marketing genius. Even now, I still
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
All the guy did was stand in front of a video camera and talk for two or three minutes. How was that any different from what I was doing in poetry slams? Umm. the writing and presentation is funny, not boring like a poetry slam, that's why it's popular. All he did was stand in front of a camera? That's sour grapes I think. Sure, it's not fair that nobody gives a crap about poetry in the real world, but that's just the way it is. People want to be entertained, and Kent did that. The shit is funny, and yeah, the jump cut editing helps it be funnier. I'm finding the whining from the artists on this list to be annoying. You should be doing your art for the love of your art, not for money. I don't believe there is a cross intersection between art and marketing. It's one or the other. If you want to make money, go make stuff that people want to see/watch/listen to. Learn how to be a marketer. If you don't want to sell out, then that's great. I'm glad for you. Just quit bitching about the people who are successful. Jim Kukral From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ractalfece Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:03 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what will get viewed lots of times, and what advertisers will pay for. He can't change the public's mind. Attacking him for it is shooting the messenger. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv His script lacked certain elements that are necessary to make a movie successful What elements Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex and happy endings What about reality? The Player [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Rupert, you're right. My line about heroes failing us is a bit much. I should have saved it for when Obama is the president. I'll try to explain why I have both admiration and disdain for Ask a Ninja. Before 2006, I had no idea how the internet worked. I had spent a year farting around with a scanner and html to put my zines online. My traffic reports indicated that my website had gotten zero visitors. The 2006 article in Rolling Stone about the rise of the video blog was my entry point. I know, real good entry point. I think you might be able to see what was running through my little rat brain. No, wait. You can't. I have to keep explaining. I was performing in poetry slams and open mics, trying to charge $1 for my zine but usually just giving it away for free. So I read about the rise of the video blog. The article made it sound as if democracy was breaking lose. I immediately went on the internet and looked up all the shows mentioned. A lot of it didn't do anything for me, like Rocketboom. But I loved Steve Garfield's Vlog Soup. The way he was obsessed with people, he seemed like a strange, voyeuristic internet version of John Waters. He told some teenage girl on Myspace to change her background because he couldn't see anything! I loved it. I think you can see the influence in some of my videos. And Travis Poston's
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Tons of artists make money from their art. There are tons of intersections between art and marketing. The header of your blog has a quote from Woody Allen, an artist who makes money from his art. On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Jim Kukral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the guy did was stand in front of a video camera and talk for two or three minutes. How was that any different from what I was doing in poetry slams? Umm. the writing and presentation is funny, not boring like a poetry slam, that's why it's popular. All he did was stand in front of a camera? That's sour grapes I think. Sure, it's not fair that nobody gives a crap about poetry in the real world, but that's just the way it is. People want to be entertained, and Kent did that. The shit is funny, and yeah, the jump cut editing helps it be funnier. I'm finding the whining from the artists on this list to be annoying. You should be doing your art for the love of your art, not for money. I don't believe there is a cross intersection between art and marketing. It's one or the other. If you want to make money, go make stuff that people want to see/watch/listen to. Learn how to be a marketer. If you don't want to sell out, then that's great. I'm glad for you. Just quit bitching about the people who are successful. Jim Kukral From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ractalfece Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:03 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what will get viewed lots of times, and what advertisers will pay for. He can't change the public's mind. Attacking him for it is shooting the messenger. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv His script lacked certain elements that are necessary to make a movie successful What elements Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex and happy endings What about reality? The Player [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Rupert, you're right. My line about heroes failing us is a bit much. I should have saved it for when Obama is the president. I'll try to explain why I have both admiration and disdain for Ask a Ninja. Before 2006, I had no idea how the internet worked. I had spent a year farting around with a scanner and html to put my zines online. My traffic reports indicated that my website had gotten zero visitors. The 2006 article in Rolling Stone about the rise of the video blog was my entry point. I know, real good entry point. I think you might be able to see what was running through my little rat brain. No, wait. You can't. I have to keep explaining. I was performing in poetry slams and open mics, trying to charge $1 for my zine but usually just giving it away for free. So I read about the rise of the video blog. The article made it sound as if democracy was breaking lose. I immediately went on the internet and looked up all the shows mentioned. A lot of it didn't do anything for me, like Rocketboom. But I loved Steve
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
You know what? You're right. I stand corrected. I'm not an artist and have never been one so I don't really get it. I was always under the assumption, and from this thread, that some artists consider other artists who get successful as sell outs or lucky. I think my point is that the point of true art is not about profit? Can I assume that most artists believe that? If so, and you're an artist at heart, why does it bother you seeing success from another artist? As a marketer, I just see things differently. I make stuff for the purpose of driving my brand and $$$. Not for art. Jim From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Quirk Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:42 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground Tons of artists make money from their art. There are tons of intersections between art and marketing. The header of your blog has a quote from Woody Allen, an artist who makes money from his art. On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Jim Kukral [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:jim%40jimkukral.com wrote: All the guy did was stand in front of a video camera and talk for two or three minutes. How was that any different from what I was doing in poetry slams? Umm. the writing and presentation is funny, not boring like a poetry slam, that's why it's popular. All he did was stand in front of a camera? That's sour grapes I think. Sure, it's not fair that nobody gives a crap about poetry in the real world, but that's just the way it is. People want to be entertained, and Kent did that. The shit is funny, and yeah, the jump cut editing helps it be funnier. I'm finding the whining from the artists on this list to be annoying. You should be doing your art for the love of your art, not for money. I don't believe there is a cross intersection between art and marketing. It's one or the other. If you want to make money, go make stuff that people want to see/watch/listen to. Learn how to be a marketer. If you don't want to sell out, then that's great. I'm glad for you. Just quit bitching about the people who are successful. Jim Kukral From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ractalfece Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:03 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what will get viewed lots of times, and what advertisers will pay for. He can't change the public's mind. Attacking him for it is shooting the messenger. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv His script lacked certain elements that are necessary to make a movie successful What elements Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex and happy endings What about reality? The Player [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Rupert, you're right. My line about heroes failing us is a bit much
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
The internet is big. The internet has the capacity to accomodate a very big fringe, a very long tail. All the commercial and big media side of online video does not really prevent anybody from doing what they like as best I can tell. We get a network with a different agenda by creating one. I suspect that capitalism and commercialism do well because they know how to play the game, there is a fairly clear agenda with clear goals, the game has been played by a lot of humans for a long time. And there are pools of existing capital laying around waiting to be invested with the very clear aim of profit. Those who want to invent and play other games do not have it quite so easy. Even when there are no large external forces getting in the way, we get in the way ourselves. Whether it a lack of clear agenda, lack of common ground, lack of networking promotion, or being infinitely distracted by what games the mainstream are playing, what successes they are having, what threat they could pose to us, etc. Mainstream media can be expected to write stories about how the small players made it big, and dress the whole thing up in a way that makes it sound like one of the American dreams that 'anybody can be president'. There is nothing new about fresh stuff that has an air of authenticity about it, being used as a great marketing angle. There are a few UK bands/singers that the press talked about as if their myspace page and grassroots support were the entire reason for their success, which isnt usually the whole story at all. It would be easy to spend all our energy tearing each other to shreds about 'what is authentic'. I could bore on about how most cult classics were released through mainstream distribution methods, thus were playing the same old game. A game they lost at the time when measured in terms of huge mainstream success, but something about the work caused a significant minority to treasure it over time, eventually bringing them back to the game as marketable winners. That game doesnt interest me much. I prefer underground that stays underground, and the internet can accommodate such things quite easily. No new movement is required to achieve such things. A movement is required if you have a more specific goal, and I think thats the biggest problem really, Im not sure the goal is at all clear, or how much common ground exists between people contributing to this thread. What exactly is the problem that people are trying to solve? What do we need a new network for? What will the rules of the game be? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So here I am. Throwing it down. Defining the terms. And the direction I want to push online media. Sounds like a few people are with me. It feels great to get all of this out in the open. My therapist was right. Just kidding. I'm too broke to have a therapist. Also, Rupert, I share much of your cynicism toward TV. But in the US at least, broadcasting came out of an era when capital was more regulated. So radical (by today's standards) laws governing the public airwaves are still on the books. Of course they're rarely, if ever, enforced. But they're there. That's why we have cable access. I noticed a thread a while back. Someone from Myspace was asking us what we wanted from Myspace video. And Jay compared Myspace to public access. But he concluded maybe this isn't the role of a corporate social network to encourage a higher order. And I think he's exactly right. So what do we do now? How do we get networks with higher order? - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I love discussions like this. They get me thinking on my feet, my argument evolves. We have time to think. Yes, Quirk. It's true. Tons of artists make a living and there *is* a lot of money in art now. Investors have been piling out of other markets and into art.Look at the massive prices at auctions at the moment. And John, I don't think we 'get' networks with a higher order. I think we make them. We can now. But then how commercially successful they are depends on their accessibility and marketability, and how hard you work to bring them to people's attention amid all the noise. As Quirk points out, art can have commercial success. As Jen points out, Stan Brakhage never made a living from it. What he was interested in doing was not in that accessible middle ground. If you want to get rich from your art, make stuff with which you can aggressively pursue the public's (and the media's) attention. The reputation and value of much modern art is intertwined with the reputation and profile of the artist. The thing that the YBAs like Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin and Sam Taylor Wood discovered in the 90s was the selling of themselves as controversial, celebrity artists. They traded on sensation and beauty and controversy and their own reputations snowballed as a result. They used celebrity clients and newsworthy subjects and used mainstream news media to do this. Their breakthrough works were things like a shark in a tanks of formaldehyde, an unmade bed in a gallery, a portrait of Elton John. Now their work sells for millions. Obviously, there are many similar stories through the centuries. And often artists are just successful for being brilliant. But a lot of times, artists who are immediately commercially successful use either humour or controversy. Or both. As well as being brilliant. Hirst, Emin, Lynch, von Trier - all these people are shameless self- publicists. They have agents, dealers, PR. They make extreme works of art, say shocking things, come up with stunts, provoke controversy. They make themselves interesting to people who think they aren't educated or skilled enough to understand modern art. Even if those people then go to a dinner party and say The world's gone mad. A light turning on and off just won the Turner Prize. Kent is just telling you what these guys have been doing for years. Only Kent's just focussing on building and monetizing an online audience. These other artists are thinking about a wider, smarter public and media. Because the shows that go 'viral' from just being online are the ones that appeal to the blogger/geek/teen demographic. To reach a better audience who are going to value your work properly, you have to go out into traditional media and get their attention. You maniacs at Wreck and Salvage should be playing this game in the real world - your work is *ripe* for it. At the very least, you should be at the centre of media disussions about copyright and art. If you personally don't feel like making public appearances, that's fine - look at Banksy: for 10 years, nobody knew who he was - but then get someone else to put your work out there. Do shows, put yourselves in the news. Make appearances in welding masks. And John, your millions of views prove that your work is accessible - you battle with people in public, replying to YouTube videos, turning them into brilliant funny pieces of theatre. Even my wife liked that Christine Breese video. But when you get featured on YouTube, most of your audience is the Ask A Ninja target audience - hence the teenage trolls haters. When you post elsewhere, you reach people like me who see the work and creativity that goes into what you're doing. That's the audience you've got to work on. Be more 'up' yourself. You're an artist. Why not treat yourself as self-importantly as the video artists who get their work in galleries and get grants? Make some crazy controversial shit that rips up a big newsworthy figure like the YBAs did in the 90s. Then go out there, get attention from some content-hungry features editors by telling them that what you're doing is shocking and new and funny and a new kind of art. They love all this crazy internet bullshit. Give them an excuse to print it by staging a real life event using your video work. Hype yourself, or get your girlfriend to do it for you. I'm still not convinced that this will mean you can get Donations or successfully get people to Pay to download your videos online. The culture's too different online at the moment. But surely you can raise the value of your art, for sale and grants offline, if you're clever. Does that sound like turning it into a business, or selling out? I don't know. Hirst's shark sold a few years ago for $12m. And For the love of God, a diamond-encrusted platinum skull, sold last year for
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Well whether or not a person thinks of themselves as an artist, the process of creating is in many cases its own reward. I havent considered myself an artist to date, have just been trying to be creative sometimes because it feels good. But beyond that there are many things that people may be hoping for as a result of their creation. Recognition. Appreciation. Affirmation. Justification for their existence. Adoration Fame Wealth Longevity To make their mark To make others happy or thoughtful or ease suffering To influence others To contribute to humanity To find new friends or new works by others to enjoy None of the above Some of the above motivations may cause unconstructive competition for attention between artists, and artists can make harsh critics, or at the very least know what they like and dislike, and find it easier to express the latter. So I presume the world of the art gallery can be as vicious and superficial as any of the non-art mainstream production by numbers scenes that exist. The green eyed monster lurks, its eyes burning even brighter where fewer pots of gold, or hearts minds, are out there to be chased. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jim Kukral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was always under the assumption, and from this thread, that some artists consider other artists who get successful as sell outs or lucky. I think my point is that the point of true art is not about profit? Can I assume that most artists believe that? If so, and you're an artist at heart, why does it bother you seeing success from another artist? As a marketer, I just see things differently. I make stuff for the purpose of driving my brand and $$$. Not for art. Jim From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Quirk Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:42 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground Tons of artists make money from their art. There are tons of intersections between art and marketing. The header of your blog has a quote from Woody Allen, an artist who makes money from his art. On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Jim Kukral [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:jim%40jimkukral.com wrote: All the guy did was stand in front of a video camera and talk for two or three minutes. How was that any different from what I was doing in poetry slams? Umm. the writing and presentation is funny, not boring like a poetry slam, that's why it's popular. All he did was stand in front of a camera? That's sour grapes I think. Sure, it's not fair that nobody gives a crap about poetry in the real world, but that's just the way it is. People want to be entertained, and Kent did that. The shit is funny, and yeah, the jump cut editing helps it be funnier. I'm finding the whining from the artists on this list to be annoying. You should be doing your art for the love of your art, not for money. I don't believe there is a cross intersection between art and marketing. It's one or the other. If you want to make money, go make stuff that people want to see/watch/listen to. Learn how to be a marketer. If you don't want to sell out, then that's great. I'm glad for you. Just quit bitching about the people who are successful. Jim Kukral From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ractalfece Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:03 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Is this art, or marketing? http://www.onethousandpaintings.com/home/ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rupert Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:32 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I love discussions like this. They get me thinking on my feet, my argument evolves. We have time to think. Yes, Quirk. It's true. Tons of artists make a living and there *is* a lot of money in art now. Investors have been piling out of other markets and into art. Look at the massive prices at auctions at the moment. And John, I don't think we 'get' networks with a higher order. I think we make them. We can now. But then how commercially successful they are depends on their accessibility and marketability, and how hard you work to bring them to people's attention amid all the noise. As Quirk points out, art can have commercial success. As Jen points out, Stan Brakhage never made a living from it. What he was interested in doing was not in that accessible middle ground. If you want to get rich from your art, make stuff with which you can aggressively pursue the public's (and the media's) attention. The reputation and value of much modern art is intertwined with the reputation and profile of the artist. The thing that the YBAs like Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin and Sam Taylor Wood discovered in the 90s was the selling of themselves as controversial, celebrity artists. They traded on sensation and beauty and controversy and their own reputations snowballed as a result. They used celebrity clients and newsworthy subjects and used mainstream news media to do this. Their breakthrough works were things like a shark in a tanks of formaldehyde, an unmade bed in a gallery, a portrait of Elton John. Now their work sells for millions. Obviously, there are many similar stories through the centuries. And often artists are just successful for being brilliant. But a lot of times, artists who are immediately commercially successful use either humour or controversy. Or both. As well as being brilliant. Hirst, Emin, Lynch, von Trier - all these people are shameless self- publicists. They have agents, dealers, PR. They make extreme works of art, say shocking things, come up with stunts, provoke controversy. They make themselves interesting to people who think they aren't educated or skilled enough to understand modern art. Even if those people then go to a dinner party and say The world's gone mad. A light turning on and off just won the Turner Prize. Kent is just telling you what these guys have been doing for years. Only Kent's just focussing on building and monetizing an online audience. These other artists are thinking about a wider, smarter public and media. Because the shows that go 'viral' from just being online are the ones that appeal to the blogger/geek/teen demographic. To reach a better audience who are going to value your work properly, you have to go out into traditional media and get their attention. You maniacs at Wreck and Salvage should be playing this game in the real world - your work is *ripe* for it. At the very least, you should be at the centre of media disussions about copyright and art. If you personally don't feel like making public appearances, that's fine - look at Banksy: for 10 years, nobody knew who he was - but then get someone else to put your work out there. Do shows, put yourselves in the news. Make appearances in welding masks. And John, your millions of views prove that your work is accessible - you battle with people in public, replying to YouTube videos, turning them into brilliant funny pieces of theatre. Even my wife liked that Christine Breese video. But when you get featured on YouTube, most of your audience is the Ask A Ninja target audience - hence the teenage trolls haters. When you post elsewhere, you reach people like me who see the work and creativity that goes into what you're doing. That's the audience you've got to work on. Be more 'up' yourself. You're an artist. Why not treat yourself as self-importantly as the video artists who get their work in galleries and get grants? Make some crazy controversial shit that rips up a big newsworthy figure like the YBAs did in the 90s. Then go out there, get attention from some content-hungry features editors by telling them that what you're doing is shocking and new and funny and a new kind of art. They love all this crazy internet bullshit. Give them an excuse to print it by staging a real life event using your video work. Hype yourself, or get your girlfriend to do it for you. I'm still not convinced that this will mean you can get Donations or successfully get people to Pay to download your videos online. The culture's too different online at the moment. But surely you can raise the value of your art, for sale and grants offline, if you're clever. Does that sound like
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Both. And exclusivity or very limited availability is a very well used art selling technique. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jim Kukral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this art, or marketing? http://www.onethousandpaintings.com/home/ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rupert Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:32 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I love discussions like this. They get me thinking on my feet, my argument evolves. We have time to think. Yes, Quirk. It's true. Tons of artists make a living and there *is* a lot of money in art now. Investors have been piling out of other markets and into art. Look at the massive prices at auctions at the moment. And John, I don't think we 'get' networks with a higher order. I think we make them. We can now. But then how commercially successful they are depends on their accessibility and marketability, and how hard you work to bring them to people's attention amid all the noise. As Quirk points out, art can have commercial success. As Jen points out, Stan Brakhage never made a living from it. What he was interested in doing was not in that accessible middle ground. If you want to get rich from your art, make stuff with which you can aggressively pursue the public's (and the media's) attention. The reputation and value of much modern art is intertwined with the reputation and profile of the artist. The thing that the YBAs like Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin and Sam Taylor Wood discovered in the 90s was the selling of themselves as controversial, celebrity artists. They traded on sensation and beauty and controversy and their own reputations snowballed as a result. They used celebrity clients and newsworthy subjects and used mainstream news media to do this. Their breakthrough works were things like a shark in a tanks of formaldehyde, an unmade bed in a gallery, a portrait of Elton John. Now their work sells for millions. Obviously, there are many similar stories through the centuries. And often artists are just successful for being brilliant. But a lot of times, artists who are immediately commercially successful use either humour or controversy. Or both. As well as being brilliant. Hirst, Emin, Lynch, von Trier - all these people are shameless self- publicists. They have agents, dealers, PR. They make extreme works of art, say shocking things, come up with stunts, provoke controversy. They make themselves interesting to people who think they aren't educated or skilled enough to understand modern art. Even if those people then go to a dinner party and say The world's gone mad. A light turning on and off just won the Turner Prize. Kent is just telling you what these guys have been doing for years. Only Kent's just focussing on building and monetizing an online audience. These other artists are thinking about a wider, smarter public and media. Because the shows that go 'viral' from just being online are the ones that appeal to the blogger/geek/teen demographic. To reach a better audience who are going to value your work properly, you have to go out into traditional media and get their attention. You maniacs at Wreck and Salvage should be playing this game in the real world - your work is *ripe* for it. At the very least, you should be at the centre of media disussions about copyright and art. If you personally don't feel like making public appearances, that's fine - look at Banksy: for 10 years, nobody knew who he was - but then get someone else to put your work out there. Do shows, put yourselves in the news. Make appearances in welding masks. And John, your millions of views prove that your work is accessible - you battle with people in public, replying to YouTube videos, turning them into brilliant funny pieces of theatre. Even my wife liked that Christine Breese video. But when you get featured on YouTube, most of your audience is the Ask A Ninja target audience - hence the teenage trolls haters. When you post elsewhere, you reach people like me who see the work and creativity that goes into what you're doing. That's the audience you've got to work on. Be more 'up' yourself. You're an artist. Why not treat yourself as self-importantly as the video artists who get their work in galleries and get grants? Make some crazy controversial shit that rips up a big newsworthy figure like the YBAs did in the 90s. Then go out there, get attention from some content-hungry features editors by telling them that what you're doing is shocking and new and funny and a new kind of art. They love all this crazy internet bullshit. Give them an excuse to print it by staging a real life event using your video work. Hype yourself, or get your girlfriend to do it for you. I'm still not convinced
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
i don't think anybody would doubt that it's both then i guess there'd be those who'd debate its significance, value, meaning as art in relation to its context and the artist's other work. and those who'd debate its success, potential, significance as a business. and then there are those who'd think that both debates could be considered as part of its value as art. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 8-Aug-08, at 11:44 AM, Jim Kukral wrote: Is this art, or marketing? http://www.onethousandpaintings.com/home/ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rupert Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:32 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I love discussions like this. They get me thinking on my feet, my argument evolves. We have time to think. Yes, Quirk. It's true. Tons of artists make a living and there *is* a lot of money in art now. Investors have been piling out of other markets and into art. Look at the massive prices at auctions at the moment. And John, I don't think we 'get' networks with a higher order. I think we make them. We can now. But then how commercially successful they are depends on their accessibility and marketability, and how hard you work to bring them to people's attention amid all the noise. As Quirk points out, art can have commercial success. As Jen points out, Stan Brakhage never made a living from it. What he was interested in doing was not in that accessible middle ground. If you want to get rich from your art, make stuff with which you can aggressively pursue the public's (and the media's) attention. The reputation and value of much modern art is intertwined with the reputation and profile of the artist. The thing that the YBAs like Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin and Sam Taylor Wood discovered in the 90s was the selling of themselves as controversial, celebrity artists. They traded on sensation and beauty and controversy and their own reputations snowballed as a result. They used celebrity clients and newsworthy subjects and used mainstream news media to do this. Their breakthrough works were things like a shark in a tanks of formaldehyde, an unmade bed in a gallery, a portrait of Elton John. Now their work sells for millions. Obviously, there are many similar stories through the centuries. And often artists are just successful for being brilliant. But a lot of times, artists who are immediately commercially successful use either humour or controversy. Or both. As well as being brilliant. Hirst, Emin, Lynch, von Trier - all these people are shameless self- publicists. They have agents, dealers, PR. They make extreme works of art, say shocking things, come up with stunts, provoke controversy. They make themselves interesting to people who think they aren't educated or skilled enough to understand modern art. Even if those people then go to a dinner party and say The world's gone mad. A light turning on and off just won the Turner Prize. Kent is just telling you what these guys have been doing for years. Only Kent's just focussing on building and monetizing an online audience. These other artists are thinking about a wider, smarter public and media. Because the shows that go 'viral' from just being online are the ones that appeal to the blogger/geek/teen demographic. To reach a better audience who are going to value your work properly, you have to go out into traditional media and get their attention. You maniacs at Wreck and Salvage should be playing this game in the real world - your work is *ripe* for it. At the very least, you should be at the centre of media disussions about copyright and art. If you personally don't feel like making public appearances, that's fine - look at Banksy: for 10 years, nobody knew who he was - but then get someone else to put your work out there. Do shows, put yourselves in the news. Make appearances in welding masks. And John, your millions of views prove that your work is accessible - you battle with people in public, replying to YouTube videos, turning them into brilliant funny pieces of theatre. Even my wife liked that Christine Breese video. But when you get featured on YouTube, most of your audience is the Ask A Ninja target audience - hence the teenage trolls haters. When you post elsewhere, you reach people like me who see the work and creativity that goes into what you're doing. That's the audience you've got to work on. Be more 'up' yourself. You're an artist. Why not treat yourself as self-importantly as the video artists who get their work in galleries and get grants? Make some crazy controversial shit that rips up a big newsworthy figure like the YBAs did in the 90s. Then go out there, get attention from some content-hungry features editors by telling them that what you're doing is shocking and new and funny and a new kind of art. They love all this crazy internet bullshit. Give them an excuse to print it by staging a real life
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Both. And exclusivity or very limited availability is a very well used art selling technique. So is death of the artist, but I don't see that as a viable long-term strategy. ;) Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
So if the intent of creating a piece of art is to sell it in such a manner. is it still considered true art? Or is it marketing/creating a product? I'm not sure it can be both? If it can be both, then can it be argued that a website design or well written email can be art then too? Maybe I am an artist after all! Jim From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:55 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground Both. And exclusivity or very limited availability is a very well used art selling technique. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com , Jim Kukral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this art, or marketing? http://www.onethousandpaintings.com/home/ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Rupert Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:32 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I love discussions like this. They get me thinking on my feet, my argument evolves. We have time to think. Yes, Quirk. It's true. Tons of artists make a living and there *is* a lot of money in art now. Investors have been piling out of other markets and into art. Look at the massive prices at auctions at the moment. And John, I don't think we 'get' networks with a higher order. I think we make them. We can now. But then how commercially successful they are depends on their accessibility and marketability, and how hard you work to bring them to people's attention amid all the noise. As Quirk points out, art can have commercial success. As Jen points out, Stan Brakhage never made a living from it. What he was interested in doing was not in that accessible middle ground. If you want to get rich from your art, make stuff with which you can aggressively pursue the public's (and the media's) attention. The reputation and value of much modern art is intertwined with the reputation and profile of the artist. The thing that the YBAs like Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin and Sam Taylor Wood discovered in the 90s was the selling of themselves as controversial, celebrity artists. They traded on sensation and beauty and controversy and their own reputations snowballed as a result. They used celebrity clients and newsworthy subjects and used mainstream news media to do this. Their breakthrough works were things like a shark in a tanks of formaldehyde, an unmade bed in a gallery, a portrait of Elton John. Now their work sells for millions. Obviously, there are many similar stories through the centuries. And often artists are just successful for being brilliant. But a lot of times, artists who are immediately commercially successful use either humour or controversy. Or both. As well as being brilliant. Hirst, Emin, Lynch, von Trier - all these people are shameless self- publicists. They have agents, dealers, PR. They make extreme works of art, say shocking things, come up with stunts, provoke controversy. They make themselves interesting to people who think they aren't educated or skilled enough to understand modern art. Even if those people then go to a dinner party and say The world's gone mad. A light turning on and off just won the Turner Prize. Kent is just telling you what these guys have been doing for years. Only Kent's just focussing on building and monetizing an online audience. These other artists are thinking about a wider, smarter public and media. Because the shows that go 'viral' from just being online are the ones that appeal to the blogger/geek/teen demographic. To reach a better audience who are going to value your work properly, you have to go out into traditional media and get their attention. You maniacs at Wreck and Salvage should be playing this game in the real world - your work is *ripe* for it. At the very least, you should be at the centre of media disussions about copyright and art. If you personally don't feel like making public appearances, that's fine - look at Banksy: for 10 years, nobody knew who he was - but then get someone else to put your work out there. Do shows, put yourselves in the news. Make appearances in welding masks. And John, your millions of views prove that your work is accessible - you battle with people in public, replying to YouTube videos, turning them into brilliant funny pieces of theatre. Even my wife liked that Christine Breese video. But when you get featured on YouTube, most of your audience is the Ask A Ninja target audience - hence the teenage trolls haters. When you post elsewhere, you reach people like me who see the work and creativity that goes into what
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Well those are the sort of questions that can occupy some people for a very long time. There is obviously no clear answer. If a person decides to call something they've done art, and finds some people to agree, then it is art, at least to some people. Oh definitions and labels, how I would like to smother you with silly putty and bounce you into a blackhole, but then how would we communicate? Agreement creates value. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jim Kukral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So if the intent of creating a piece of art is to sell it in such a manner. is it still considered true art? Or is it marketing/creating a product? I'm not sure it can be both? If it can be both, then can it be argued that a website design or well written email can be art then too? Maybe I am an artist after all! Jim From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:55 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground Both. And exclusivity or very limited availability is a very well used art selling technique. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com , Jim Kukral jim@ wrote: Is this art, or marketing? http://www.onethousandpaintings.com/home/ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Rupert Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:32 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I love discussions like this. They get me thinking on my feet, my argument evolves. We have time to think. Yes, Quirk. It's true. Tons of artists make a living and there *is* a lot of money in art now. Investors have been piling out of other markets and into art. Look at the massive prices at auctions at the moment. And John, I don't think we 'get' networks with a higher order. I think we make them. We can now. But then how commercially successful they are depends on their accessibility and marketability, and how hard you work to bring them to people's attention amid all the noise. As Quirk points out, art can have commercial success. As Jen points out, Stan Brakhage never made a living from it. What he was interested in doing was not in that accessible middle ground. If you want to get rich from your art, make stuff with which you can aggressively pursue the public's (and the media's) attention. The reputation and value of much modern art is intertwined with the reputation and profile of the artist. The thing that the YBAs like Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin and Sam Taylor Wood discovered in the 90s was the selling of themselves as controversial, celebrity artists. They traded on sensation and beauty and controversy and their own reputations snowballed as a result. They used celebrity clients and newsworthy subjects and used mainstream news media to do this. Their breakthrough works were things like a shark in a tanks of formaldehyde, an unmade bed in a gallery, a portrait of Elton John. Now their work sells for millions. Obviously, there are many similar stories through the centuries. And often artists are just successful for being brilliant. But a lot of times, artists who are immediately commercially successful use either humour or controversy. Or both. As well as being brilliant. Hirst, Emin, Lynch, von Trier - all these people are shameless self- publicists. They have agents, dealers, PR. They make extreme works of art, say shocking things, come up with stunts, provoke controversy. They make themselves interesting to people who think they aren't educated or skilled enough to understand modern art. Even if those people then go to a dinner party and say The world's gone mad. A light turning on and off just won the Turner Prize. Kent is just telling you what these guys have been doing for years. Only Kent's just focussing on building and monetizing an online audience. These other artists are thinking about a wider, smarter public and media. Because the shows that go 'viral' from just being online are the ones that appeal to the blogger/geek/teen demographic. To reach a better audience who are going to value your work properly, you have to go out into traditional media and get their attention. You maniacs at Wreck and Salvage should be playing this game in the real world - your work is *ripe* for it. At the very least, you should be at the centre of media disussions about copyright and art. If you personally don't feel like making public appearances, that's fine - look at Banksy: for 10 years, nobody knew who he
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
The What Is Art debate is as endless and ultimately unenlightening as the What Is Videoblogging debate. Is a light turning on and off art? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Creed It is if it is. Is there a God? Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 8-Aug-08, at 12:00 PM, Jim Kukral wrote: So if the intent of creating a piece of art is to sell it in such a manner. is it still considered true art? Or is it marketing/creating a product? I'm not sure it can be both? If it can be both, then can it be argued that a website design or well written email can be art then too? Maybe I am an artist after all! Jim From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:55 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground Both. And exclusivity or very limited availability is a very well used art selling technique. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com , Jim Kukral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this art, or marketing? http://www.onethousandpaintings.com/home/ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Rupert Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:32 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com mailto:videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I love discussions like this. They get me thinking on my feet, my argument evolves. We have time to think. Yes, Quirk. It's true. Tons of artists make a living and there *is* a lot of money in art now. Investors have been piling out of other markets and into art. Look at the massive prices at auctions at the moment. And John, I don't think we 'get' networks with a higher order. I think we make them. We can now. But then how commercially successful they are depends on their accessibility and marketability, and how hard you work to bring them to people's attention amid all the noise. As Quirk points out, art can have commercial success. As Jen points out, Stan Brakhage never made a living from it. What he was interested in doing was not in that accessible middle ground. If you want to get rich from your art, make stuff with which you can aggressively pursue the public's (and the media's) attention. The reputation and value of much modern art is intertwined with the reputation and profile of the artist. The thing that the YBAs like Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin and Sam Taylor Wood discovered in the 90s was the selling of themselves as controversial, celebrity artists. They traded on sensation and beauty and controversy and their own reputations snowballed as a result. They used celebrity clients and newsworthy subjects and used mainstream news media to do this. Their breakthrough works were things like a shark in a tanks of formaldehyde, an unmade bed in a gallery, a portrait of Elton John. Now their work sells for millions. Obviously, there are many similar stories through the centuries. And often artists are just successful for being brilliant. But a lot of times, artists who are immediately commercially successful use either humour or controversy. Or both. As well as being brilliant. Hirst, Emin, Lynch, von Trier - all these people are shameless self- publicists. They have agents, dealers, PR. They make extreme works of art, say shocking things, come up with stunts, provoke controversy. They make themselves interesting to people who think they aren't educated or skilled enough to understand modern art. Even if those people then go to a dinner party and say The world's gone mad. A light turning on and off just won the Turner Prize. Kent is just telling you what these guys have been doing for years. Only Kent's just focussing on building and monetizing an online audience. These other artists are thinking about a wider, smarter public and media. Because the shows that go 'viral' from just being online are the ones that appeal to the blogger/geek/teen demographic. To reach a better audience who are going to value your work properly, you have to go out into traditional media and get their attention. You maniacs at Wreck and Salvage should be playing this game in the real world - your work is *ripe* for it. At the very least, you should be at the centre of media disussions about copyright and art. If you personally don't feel like making public appearances, that's fine - look at Banksy: for 10 years, nobody knew who he was - but then get someone else to put your work out there. Do shows, put yourselves in the news. Make appearances in welding masks. And John, your millions of views prove that your work is accessible - you battle with people in public, replying to YouTube videos, turning them into brilliant funny pieces
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Is there a God? God is a monster with green hair, and he brushes it all day long. Here is an awesome piece of art, inspired by commerce, that also describes what art is. So meta! http://is.gd/1kc1 *Adam Quirk* / Wreck Salvage http://wreckandsalvage.com / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jim Kukral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the guy did was stand in front of a video camera and talk for two or three minutes. How was that any different from what I was doing in poetry slams? Umm. the writing and presentation is funny, not boring like a poetry slam, that's why it's popular. All he did was stand in front of a camera? That's sour grapes I think. Sure, it's not fair that nobody gives a crap about poetry in the real world, but that's just the way it is. People want to be entertained, and Kent did that. The shit is funny, and yeah, the jump cut editing helps it be funnier. This brings up another one of my fears. No marketer of the 90s would have dared called poetry boring. It was urban, it was hip. There was a massive poetry slam scene. But trendy things never stay trendy for long. So what happens when the youtube generation gets a little older. It seems to be assumed that user generated content and THE INTERNET itself are always going to be viewed favorably by the public. But popular movements often times die quick deaths when they're gobbled up by marketers. When the kids who are 2 now, grow into teenagers, what are they going to think of the cam whores of today? Are they going to give a shit when their new technological toys deliver them a crippled corporate internet? In other words, what will happen to net neutrality? - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I'm finding the whining from the artists on this list to be annoying. You should be doing your art for the love of your art, not for money. I don't believe there is a cross intersection between art and marketing. It's one or the other. If you want to make money, go make stuff that people want to see/watch/listen to. Learn how to be a marketer. If you don't want to sell out, then that's great. I'm glad for you. Just quit bitching about the people who are successful. Jim Kukral From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ractalfece Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:03 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what will get viewed lots of times, and what advertisers will pay for. He can't change the public's mind. Attacking him for it is shooting the messenger. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv His script lacked certain elements that are necessary to make a movie successful What elements Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex and happy endings What about reality? The Player [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Rupert, you're right. My line about heroes failing us is a bit much. I should have saved it for when Obama is the president. I'll try to explain why I have both admiration and disdain for Ask a Ninja. Before 2006, I had no idea how the internet worked. I had spent a year farting around with a scanner and html to put my zines online. My traffic reports
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well. Kathy Sierra's stalkertrolls called it art. That is all. Really good article on Trolls in the NYTimes magazine last week: http://bit.ly/2r7sUf Really good read. I know I've allowed trolls to painfully get to me before. Interesting how this one guy explains where he gets his power: Fortuny proceeded to demonstrate his personal cure for trolling, the Theory of the Green Hair. You have green hair, he told me. Did you know that? No, I said. Why not? I look in the mirror. I see my hair is black. That's uh, interesting. I guess you understand that you have green hair about as well as you understand that you're a terrible reporter. What do you mean? What did I do? That's a very interesting reaction, Fortuny said. Why didn't you get so defensive when I said you had green hair? If I were certain that I wasn't a terrible reporter, he explained, I would have laughed the suggestion off just as easily. The willingness of trolling victims to be hurt by words, he argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
The problem Jay, is that's it's NOT just about leaving comments that are mean or untruecalling someone and threathing them, making death threats, ruining your creditthose are things people just dont get over it Those are crimal acts. Words DO hurt, it's been proven time and time again, they have power and not just the power you allow them to have. And I know that you know that Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well. Kathy Sierra's stalkertrolls called it art. That is all. Really good article on Trolls in the NYTimes magazine last week: http://bit.ly/2r7sUf Really good read. I know I've allowed trolls to painfully get to me before. Interesting how this one guy explains where he gets his power: Fortuny proceeded to demonstrate his personal cure for trolling, the Theory of the Green Hair. You have green hair, he told me. Did you know that? No, I said. Why not? I look in the mirror. I see my hair is black. That's uh, interesting. I guess you understand that you have green hair about as well as you understand that you're a terrible reporter. What do you mean? What did I do? That's a very interesting reaction, Fortuny said. Why didn't you get so defensive when I said you had green hair? If I were certain that I wasn't a terrible reporter, he explained, I would have laughed the suggestion off just as easily. The willingness of trolling victims to be hurt by words, he argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I don't know. Discussing trolling in this thread makes it sound like John's a troll - and I don't think this video is trolling. It's an ad hominem polemic, sure - and one that steps way over the line that I would draw if I were making a video about something like this. And it started a discussion, in which he has been clear and reasoned in text. I hate trolling and flaming, but this is slightly different I think. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 7-Aug-08, at 12:42 PM, Heath wrote: The problem Jay, is that's it's NOT just about leaving comments that are mean or untruecalling someone and threathing them, making death threats, ruining your creditthose are things people just dont get over it Those are crimal acts. Words DO hurt, it's been proven time and time again, they have power and not just the power you allow them to have. And I know that you know that Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well. Kathy Sierra's stalkertrolls called it art. That is all. Really good article on Trolls in the NYTimes magazine last week: http://bit.ly/2r7sUf Really good read. I know I've allowed trolls to painfully get to me before. Interesting how this one guy explains where he gets his power: Fortuny proceeded to demonstrate his personal cure for trolling, the Theory of the Green Hair. You have green hair, he told me. Did you know that? No, I said. Why not? I look in the mirror. I see my hair is black. That's uh, interesting. I guess you understand that you have green hair about as well as you understand that you're a terrible reporter. What do you mean? What did I do? That's a very interesting reaction, Fortuny said. Why didn't you get so defensive when I said you had green hair? If I were certain that I wasn't a terrible reporter, he explained, I would have laughed the suggestion off just as easily. The willingness of trolling victims to be hurt by words, he argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
He's walking the fine line, imo. He was exhibiting extreme behaviour in order to elicit a violent response. In many jurisdiction, what he did would be seen as sexual assault. But I think even this response it too violent. 2008/8/7 Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't know. Discussing trolling in this thread makes it sound like John's a troll - and I don't think this video is trolling. It's an ad hominem polemic, sure - and one that steps way over the line that I would draw if I were making a video about something like this. And it started a discussion, in which he has been clear and reasoned in text. I hate trolling and flaming, but this is slightly different I think. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 7-Aug-08, at 12:42 PM, Heath wrote: The problem Jay, is that's it's NOT just about leaving comments that are mean or untruecalling someone and threathing them, making death threats, ruining your creditthose are things people just dont get over it Those are crimal acts. Words DO hurt, it's been proven time and time again, they have power and not just the power you allow them to have. And I know that you know that Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well. Kathy Sierra's stalkertrolls called it art. That is all. Really good article on Trolls in the NYTimes magazine last week: http://bit.ly/2r7sUf Really good read. I know I've allowed trolls to painfully get to me before. Interesting how this one guy explains where he gets his power: Fortuny proceeded to demonstrate his personal cure for trolling, the Theory of the Green Hair. You have green hair, he told me. Did you know that? No, I said. Why not? I look in the mirror. I see my hair is black. That's uh, interesting. I guess you understand that you have green hair about as well as you understand that you're a terrible reporter. What do you mean? What did I do? That's a very interesting reaction, Fortuny said. Why didn't you get so defensive when I said you had green hair? If I were certain that I wasn't a terrible reporter, he explained, I would have laughed the suggestion off just as easily. The willingness of trolling victims to be hurt by words, he argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Jeffrey Taylor Mobile: +33625497654 Fax: +33177722734 Skype: thejeffreytaylor Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I agree Rupert, but honestly I was just responding to Jay's post in the context of trolls, not about John...or his videojust to clairify Heath --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know. Discussing trolling in this thread makes it sound like John's a troll - and I don't think this video is trolling. It's an ad hominem polemic, sure - and one that steps way over the line that I would draw if I were making a video about something like this. And it started a discussion, in which he has been clear and reasoned in text. I hate trolling and flaming, but this is slightly different I think. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 7-Aug-08, at 12:42 PM, Heath wrote: The problem Jay, is that's it's NOT just about leaving comments that are mean or untruecalling someone and threathing them, making death threats, ruining your creditthose are things people just dont get over it Those are crimal acts. Words DO hurt, it's been proven time and time again, they have power and not just the power you allow them to have. And I know that you know that Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Jeffrey Taylor thejeffreytaylor@ wrote: Well. Kathy Sierra's stalkertrolls called it art. That is all. Really good article on Trolls in the NYTimes magazine last week: http://bit.ly/2r7sUf Really good read. I know I've allowed trolls to painfully get to me before. Interesting how this one guy explains where he gets his power: Fortuny proceeded to demonstrate his personal cure for trolling, the Theory of the Green Hair. You have green hair, he told me. Did you know that? No, I said. Why not? I look in the mirror. I see my hair is black. That's uh, interesting. I guess you understand that you have green hair about as well as you understand that you're a terrible reporter. What do you mean? What did I do? That's a very interesting reaction, Fortuny said. Why didn't you get so defensive when I said you had green hair? If I were certain that I wasn't a terrible reporter, he explained, I would have laughed the suggestion off just as easily. The willingness of trolling victims to be hurt by words, he argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
But I think even this response is* too violent. As much as I want to get this discussion out of our systems, I don't want to give it more attention than it deserves. The implications for web video makers as the culture shifts is far more important than any inflammatory content. Sorry about the typo. 2008/8/7 Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] He's walking the fine line, imo. He was exhibiting extreme behaviour in order to elicit a violent response. In many jurisdiction, what he did would be seen as sexual assault. But I think even this response it too violent. 2008/8/7 Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't know. Discussing trolling in this thread makes it sound like John's a troll - and I don't think this video is trolling. It's an ad hominem polemic, sure - and one that steps way over the line that I would draw if I were making a video about something like this. And it started a discussion, in which he has been clear and reasoned in text. I hate trolling and flaming, but this is slightly different I think. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 7-Aug-08, at 12:42 PM, Heath wrote: The problem Jay, is that's it's NOT just about leaving comments that are mean or untruecalling someone and threathing them, making death threats, ruining your creditthose are things people just dont get over it Those are crimal acts. Words DO hurt, it's been proven time and time again, they have power and not just the power you allow them to have. And I know that you know that Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well. Kathy Sierra's stalkertrolls called it art. That is all. Really good article on Trolls in the NYTimes magazine last week: http://bit.ly/2r7sUf Really good read. I know I've allowed trolls to painfully get to me before. Interesting how this one guy explains where he gets his power: Fortuny proceeded to demonstrate his personal cure for trolling, the Theory of the Green Hair. You have green hair, he told me. Did you know that? No, I said. Why not? I look in the mirror. I see my hair is black. That's uh, interesting. I guess you understand that you have green hair about as well as you understand that you're a terrible reporter. What do you mean? What did I do? That's a very interesting reaction, Fortuny said. Why didn't you get so defensive when I said you had green hair? If I were certain that I wasn't a terrible reporter, he explained, I would have laughed the suggestion off just as easily. The willingness of trolling victims to be hurt by words, he argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Jeffrey Taylor Mobile: +33625497654 Fax: +33177722734 Skype: thejeffreytaylor Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor -- Jeffrey Taylor Mobile: +33625497654 Fax: +33177722734 Skype: thejeffreytaylor Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Reminds me of my college year abroad which I shared with, among other people, a woman who was a performance artist and somewhat disdainful of anyone who wasn't... artistic. Her attitude about it was such that I never wanted to be classed as an artist, by her definition. After we'd been in India together for several months, she happened to see me doing fine embroidery one day and gasped: You never told me you were an artist. I'm not, I snapped. I'm an artisan. Art is in the eye of the beholder, or some such... As for me, I'm a sold-out corporate shill, and perfectly happy. ; ) And I love Rupert, whatever he calls himself. On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and yes, I realise you might think this message sits awkwardly with my previous rant about it being a hobby. but it doesn't. it might be video art, but it's still something i do in my spare time and not for money. On 6-Aug-08, at 11:41 AM, Rupert wrote: No, I agree with you Jim - and I too have supported myself and my family for the last year entirely on the side benefits of my videos. And Jeffrey, yes, I see that I misunderstood you and that we agree quite a lot. Wreck and Salvage should be at MOMA just as Rocketboom are at Sony. But that seems a long way off. I just took a drive into town and had a think about this. I like your word 'invade' more than I like your previous word 'invite'. You used the word failure, which I disputed. But actually, I do think that we have failed as a community to take ourselves and each other seriously enough as artists. I think - and have always thought - that the word 'videoblogging' is incredibly unhelpful. As were all the discussions about its definition. Michael Szpakowski from DVBlog, who recently featured one of my videos, told me I should be more 'up' myself about what I do. I've stripped that comment of context - but anyway, it got me thinking. There's a sort of false modesty at work. As I said, I prefer the work of the people I regularly watch online to the swathes of happily self-proclaimed 'video artists' working in conventional spaces in London... but I wonder how many of the people I subscribe to would be comfortable describing what they do as just Art. What I do, for instance, is not as clearly 'video art' as, say, the beautiful work of the people I used to class as Video Art Experimenta on my Videoblogs I Subscribe To page. But it is. That's what it is. It's not a shopping list or even a Show About Something. It's a creative selection and interpretation of my environment using certain tools. I do it because I love the creative act of doing it, and the community around it is an amazing part of that process. Describing it as 'videoblogging' does *not* do it any favours. I don't care if people say that it's just a description of the distribution technology I use. It's more than that. For most people outside of our tiny community - particularly in an area as precious as the art world - the words Videoblog and Vlog have unhelpful connotations of someone artlessly droning into a bad quality webcam. These words stop serious people taking our work seriously. It's almost like calling a video artist a 'TV person', though even *that* has better connotations than 'videoblogger'. So from now on, I no longer give a shit about whether it's pretentious to call myself an artist. Fuck that. And all the good video art I see around me, I'm going to stop worrying about how to describe it. As far as I'm concerned, most of the people I subscribe to are artists and filmmakers (and no, I don't care that we don't use Film) and I value them as such whether they're comfortable with it or not. We should all be more 'up ourselves'. Then we invade. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 6-Aug-08, at 9:55 AM, Jim Kukral wrote: I can't speak for artists as I am not one (I'm a marketer). But as a person who does videos I know that making money from videos isn't going to happen for hardly anyone on as publisher model. Even the people who get millions and millions of views don't make much jack. But me, I do very well from the side benefits of my videos. Consulting gigs, book offers, etc. Having videos is like being an author nowadays, it opens doors, assuming you try to market yourself and them at least a little bit. Of course, I may have missed the entire point of this conversation? Jim Kukral www.jimkukral.com From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Taylor Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:47 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground With you and not with you on this one Rupert. We have not as a community engaged the artistic powers that be nearly as much as we have commerical interests. If we had
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Steve, thanks for seeing the scandalous part as a comment on art. I truly didn't mean to insult your wife. I know that RTNDA thing was hard for her. The human potatoes kept pushing her into the role of a journalist. I know you guys know you're entertainers. Or entertainment journalists. Or something like that. And you don't want to replace real journalists. However, I believe the corporate interests would love to see that happen. I'll try to explain my thinking. An open internet makes it near impossible to charge money for media that can be represented digitally. No longer can huge media conglomerates count on being able to promote the hell out of their garbage and turn a profit. People will just download the hype for free. This is exciting. It appears as if the playing field has been leveled. Small timers who weren't making money in the first place can now compete with the media giants. A good idea will spread across the open web, at least that's the hope. But small timers aren't going to have an easy time monetizing their digital products either. It's a media crisis. Capitalists don't see crisis- they see opportunity. It's not about coming together and finding fair solutions for communities. It's about turning profit. This crisis is a wet dream for marketers. Media becomes all about the metrics. Just find the content with the highest hit count and cover it with ads. You no longer have to worry about quality. You just worry about the positioning of the clickable ad. In this new game, the perfect content is titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Get the web surfers in and make sure the ad is there for them when they get bored or when the two minutes is up. That's why it's now possible to make an easy $6000 by putting ads on top of promos. Ask Tim Street how it's done. Kent laid out some good advice for content creators during his keynote at Pixelodeon. Boil things down to the essential. Make it like a pill. Edit out the boring parts. Make it faster than you think you should. Produce consistently. Quick quick quick fast fast fast. But what might be good advice for content creators is horrible for artists and intellectuals and real journalists. Read Kent's blog post where he calls David Lynch a tool and tells him to make content that plays well on a 320 by 240 window. http://kentnichols.com/2008/01/05/david-lynch-is-a-tool/ Or watch as he tells Salman Rushdie that all scholarly resources should be on the web so the authors get a nickel (from an ad, I assume). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka1Y1BY19Vw Kent's success has put him in a leadership position. He gives the keynotes. He gets his show mentioned in articles about successful online video. He rubs shoulders with CEOs at the Google Zeitgeist conference and tells them what they should be doing in web 2.0. When our heroes fail us, they deserve our special scorn. @Kent, I ain't gonna hurt you or Douglas. Like I said in the video, I use words. But go ahead and get a restraining order. That'll make you look cool. And it certainly won't draw any attention to Information Dystopia. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Woolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey there - I finally had a chance to watch John's entire video and to read the responses from the group. It's a lot to digest. I'm still digesting. A little back story on John's video. Living in L.A. I see John at the occassional event and it's no secret that I've been a long-time admirer of his videos. The first time I met him at the Project Pedal party ages ago, I was really excited. There are a few people whose work I will always watch and follow and he is one of them. I'm not offended by anything John said or did in the video. What I saw was someone filled with anger and frustration, and more than a little bitterness, who turned to the medium they know best to express it. My opinion only. What I was bothered by is the message of divisiveness that pervades the video. Kent Nichols got the brunt of the criticism, and that might be because he puts the most information and opinion out there to be criticized. He's a big boy, I'm sure he can handle it. But the one thing that can sustain online video as it moves forward and gets more and more involved with the mainstream is content creators who can understand and *tolerate* each other's points of view. If I wanted to, I could choose to view John's masturbation scene, overlaid with my wife's name and followed by a video of her, as something that should warrant a physical confrontation. But instead I choose to view that scene in the symbolic way I believe John meant it to be, in the context of a video with a message about art and artists, and nothing more. If we were to go back and read posts on this group from 2005 and 2006 we would see an awful lot of people who have changed their points of view
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kent laid out some good advice for content creators during his keynote at Pixelodeon. Boil things down to the essential. Make it like a pill. Edit out the boring parts. Make it faster than you think you should. Produce consistently. Quick quick quick fast fast fast. But what might be good advice for content creators is horrible for artists and intellectuals and real journalists. Read Kent's blog post where he calls David Lynch a tool and tells him to make content that plays well on a 320 by 240 window. I don't write for artists and certainly not intellectuals. They have their own heroes and leaders, and I'm certainly not in either camp. I want to produce popular entertainment and I want to help others that are like minded. I do this for selfish reasons, I want to be delighted and entertained. And I want others in the field to raise the value of their efforts so that I can charge more for mine. I am a craftsman. I ply my trade, tell tiny little stories that people want to watch. No more no less. When our heroes fail us, they deserve our special scorn. This is what I've always been about. I've always been about wanting to break into showbiz and then telling other how to do so. How have I failed? I've been fairly consistent in word and deed ever since I've shown up. Is it because I have criticized noted artists and intellectuals? My critisms are valid. Just because I didn't drop trou and whack off in Lynch's face doesn't mean my arguments don't have merit. I dropped out of college for a reason. I'm anti-intellectual and pro-experiential learning. I was tired of the mental busywork required to get a BA. And I felt too much misplaced honor to cheat my way through. I was never more liberated than the day I left college. As in regards to my leadership, I take that role very seriously. I try to always stick up for the little guy on this list and in other places and speak truth to power by calling BS when I see it. That's why I spoke up to Mr. Rushdie in an environment that just wanted me to sit down and be quiet. I was terrified, but I had to speak up. Sorry my pro-open internet sentiments didn't jibe with your sensibilities. @Kent, I ain't gonna hurt you or Douglas. Like I said in the video, I use words. But go ahead and get a restraining order. That'll make you look cool. And it certainly won't draw any attention to Information Dystopia. Maybe that's true, time will tell. On the attention note, I've delinked you on my blog: http://kentnichols.com/2008/01/04/total-vom-show/ And this will be the last I write about you. Regards, -Kent, knows he should feed the trolls, but...
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
On 7-Aug-08, at 7:35 PM, ractalfece wrote: This crisis is a wet dream for marketers. Media becomes all about the metrics. Just find the content with the highest hit count and cover it with ads. You no longer have to worry about quality. You just worry about the positioning of the clickable ad. In this new game, the perfect content is titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Get the web surfers in and make sure the ad is there for them when they get bored or when the two minutes is up. That's why it's now possible to make an easy $6000 by putting ads on top of promos. Ask Tim Street how it's done. - When our heroes fail us, they deserve our special scorn. - I can't believe that I actually have to say this... but this is *not* a new crisis, or a new problem for artists and journalists. This existed just as powerfully long before the web came along. You think TV and other media were better in the... 90s... 80s... 70s... 60s?? Media has *always* been about the metrics. It's *always* been about finding the content with the biggest hit count and covering it with adds. It's *never* been about quality, except when quality brings audience. Quality comedy writing, usually. The perfect content has *always* been about titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Ads on US TV are obnoxiously frequent, and there have been a lot of people making a lot of money out of making promos for a very long time. I don't know why Kent is a 'hero' who has failed us - he's just someone, as you say, whose success has put him in a leadership position so he tells people how to make money from online video. What he's telling us is not new. It's the same thing that commissioning editors at TV channels have been saying for decades - the same thing that 'quality' film and documentary producers have been complaining about for decades. What you're saying is the same thing Paddy Chayefsky so brilliantly observed in Network in 1976, James L Brooks so brilliantly observed in Broadcast News in the 1987 and Altman so brilliantly observed in The Player in 1992. And it goes back to things like His Girl Friday in 1940 and Sullivan's Travels in the 40s. And probably further. Almost every time someone tackles mediamaking, it comes down to the same thing - the artist versus what the producer and the public want. Is it really all about the evil corporate overlords restricting the quality of what's produced for so many years? Or is it about the public? Kent's just telling us what will get viewed lots of times, and what advertisers will pay for. He can't change the public's mind. Attacking him for it is shooting the messenger. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv His script lacked certain elements that are necessary to make a movie successful What elements Suspense, laughter, violence, hope, heart, nudity, sex and happy endings What about reality? The Player [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Hey there - I finally had a chance to watch John's entire video and to read the responses from the group. It's a lot to digest. I'm still digesting. A little back story on John's video. Living in L.A. I see John at the occassional event and it's no secret that I've been a long-time admirer of his videos. The first time I met him at the Project Pedal party ages ago, I was really excited. There are a few people whose work I will always watch and follow and he is one of them. I'm not offended by anything John said or did in the video. What I saw was someone filled with anger and frustration, and more than a little bitterness, who turned to the medium they know best to express it. My opinion only. What I was bothered by is the message of divisiveness that pervades the video. Kent Nichols got the brunt of the criticism, and that might be because he puts the most information and opinion out there to be criticized. He's a big boy, I'm sure he can handle it. But the one thing that can sustain online video as it moves forward and gets more and more involved with the mainstream is content creators who can understand and *tolerate* each other's points of view. If I wanted to, I could choose to view John's masturbation scene, overlaid with my wife's name and followed by a video of her, as something that should warrant a physical confrontation. But instead I choose to view that scene in the symbolic way I believe John meant it to be, in the context of a video with a message about art and artists, and nothing more. If we were to go back and read posts on this group from 2005 and 2006 we would see an awful lot of people who have changed their points of view and are singing a very different tune these days. And they have a right to do that. Some more back story on John's video. I actually *told* him to make it. I told him once that if he wanted to, he could be the conscience of online video content creators, and that every industry needs someone to call people on their bullshit. The method he used to make the video is of his own choosing, but I firmly stand by what I meant when I said it. If it happens to be me, that's what he thought needed calling out. But I see Kent, Doug, and Tim as people with different goals than John's, goals that I don't feel are bullshit. And I don't feel their behavior and words have been contrary to their actions. In that sense, I don't really feel they have been called on any bullshit, I feel that they have been singled out for having some success. That success has not come at the expense of other content creators, at least in my opinion. In fact, I think we have all done quite a lot to help elevate awareness for independent artists. I don't know, I'm straying from my point. I respect John tremendously as an artist. I disagree with the message in the video, but I still think it's a great video. Steve --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All right, you bastards, here it is. Videoblogging is my hobby. I'll never make any money out of it. When I lived in London, people used to hire me to make videos for their companies because I was one of the only people there who had a videoblog. But that's not the same thing. And now I live somewhere much cheaper, I don't have to do that anymore, and it's a relief. I can concentrate on my own stuff. Without worrying about how it's going to pay. The reason John's so pissed off is because he thought making videos was going to change something in his life, make him money, change the media landscape. And then he sat through that Keynote at Pixelodeon. So did I. Halfway through, the person sitting next to me turned their laptop screen black and wrote in large red letters I WANT TO DIE. The point is, if you want money, you have to ask yourself who's going to pay you. Follow The Money. Consumers haven't paid directly for media for a long time. No one pays for media. People don't pay for the movie when they see it at a theatre. They could wait and watch it on the telly or BitTorrent it. They pay for the EXPERIENCE of going out - huddling together in the dark to feast on sugary crap and distract themselves momentarily from the ever-present inevitability of their encroaching loneliness, senility and death. Just like you pay for Chinese food when you don't want to cook and the inside of your apartment is starting to feel like the Overlook. So - the only people who are going to pay you are advertisers. If your 'content' doesn't fit with what they want, then fuck you, you won't get paid. Fuck you? Fuck me. Fuck them. My 'content' is *never* going to fit with them. So I never ever expect to get paid. Unless I change what I do. Which I'm not going to. Almost all of the 60 or so videoblogs I subscribe to are produced for nothing. It doesn't cost anything to produce them. I'm producing
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I havent seen the video yet, waiting for the link to arrive. But I step up onto my pedestal and rant like a bastard, cuz a ranting bastard is what I am. RE: art for payment Good for John for trying to make a living from his art. Anyone decrying him for doing this would surely not decline payment for their works of art. And I'm not talking about corporate whoring paid to produce either. I'm talking about ART. Like the paintings you see in the gallery. Painted by painters. Or the novels in Barnes and fucking Nobel. Written by artists. Who are getting paid for their work. No one pays for media? Balls. Like Quirk, I pay for media, micro media, mass media, teeny tiny piss in the ocean media. If it has some value to me and I can afford it (yet to spend $2000 on that great gallery painting) I'll chip in and support a fellow artist. I pay for TWiT. I pay for Adelphia. I pay JunkieXL for his music, directly. I paid for The Big Issue. I'll spare a few pennies for John if I feel his work is worth supporting. RE: torrential distribution Who cares how this dude distributes his work. If you dont get it, dont get it. True if there are not enough seeds we wont see the true benefit of torrenting. But as a means of keeping off the beaten track, unsearchable, untrackable, it sounds cool. Another analogy; the M25 raves of the late 80's. You had to be in the know to know who where and when the party was going down. Take control. Talk about 'get your audience'. RE: tracker portal project As usual i am impressed with the ability of members of this group to just get things done. Visionaries and genius. I look forward to see what you create. RE: audience schmordience This thread has been a boot in the arse for me. Tried for the past 2 years to build an audience for my retarded 'daddy vlog' and random rantings, with zero fucking success I might add. Because you know, it was the thing to do. Keep up with the 'movement', get comments, be popular. Web2.0. New media, social media. Fuck it all. I personally cant wait for the next bubble to burst and all the social media poseurs move on to the next 'big' thing. Who knows, all the true artists will survive doing what they always did, what they do. All trading torrents, sharing their are free of comments and trackbacks. Like net beat poets. Me, however, I've been a corporate fucktard for too long i think I've forgotten how to be an artist. But this thread might be anathema to my artistic atrophy. I should quit trying to appeal to some idiotic notion of audience, to social fucking media, to you lot. Start doing shit for me again. And I wont ask for a penny. Until I'm popular. I know this thread, this forum is a public discussion and everyone is airing opinions and voicing feelings. But really, who gives a shit. Torrent? Who cares? Money? Who cares? There are bigger arguments to fight over than these.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Dear Rupert I am still looking for this one... can you send me the link? best Michael Rosenblum (the human potato...apparently) On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:41 PM, Rupert wrote: All right, you bastards, here it is. Videoblogging is my hobby. I'll never make any money out of it. When I lived in London, people used to hire me to make videos for their companies because I was one of the only people there who had a videoblog. But that's not the same thing. And now I live somewhere much cheaper, I don't have to do that anymore, and it's a relief. I can concentrate on my own stuff. Without worrying about how it's going to pay. The reason John's so pissed off is because he thought making videos was going to change something in his life, make him money, change the media landscape. And then he sat through that Keynote at Pixelodeon. So did I. Halfway through, the person sitting next to me turned their laptop screen black and wrote in large red letters I WANT TO DIE. The point is, if you want money, you have to ask yourself who's going to pay you. Follow The Money. Consumers haven't paid directly for media for a long time. No one pays for media. People don't pay for the movie when they see it at a theatre. They could wait and watch it on the telly or BitTorrent it. They pay for the EXPERIENCE of going out - huddling together in the dark to feast on sugary crap and distract themselves momentarily from the ever-present inevitability of their encroaching loneliness, senility and death. Just like you pay for Chinese food when you don't want to cook and the inside of your apartment is starting to feel like the Overlook. So - the only people who are going to pay you are advertisers. If your 'content' doesn't fit with what they want, then fuck you, you won't get paid. Fuck you? Fuck me. Fuck them. My 'content' is *never* going to fit with them. So I never ever expect to get paid. Unless I change what I do. Which I'm not going to. Almost all of the 60 or so videoblogs I subscribe to are produced for nothing. It doesn't cost anything to produce them. I'm producing my stuff for nothing, too. Except my time. Why on earth should anybody else pay me for my hobby time? You want a hobby that makes money? You picked the wrong one. There's too many cutthroat professionals making media that's tailor made to make money. Go learn how to carve arty dollshouse furniture. Too expensive to live in the city and make art/indulge your hobby? You have to spend all your time working? Move somewhere less expensive. Can't? Well - that's either your unavoidable circumstance that has nothing to do with web video, or it's your *choice* of priorities. Who said that advertisers should spend their money on something they have no interest in so that you can have it all? That MBP you just bought or want - that HD cam - are they really the basic tools for your art? Pissed off that 30 million people have watched French Maid TV and only 250,000 have watched yours? Who's wrong - the 29,750,000 people who chose not to watch you, or you? Want to be loved by those 29,750,000 people? Make French Maid TV. If I put a massive amount of effort and discipline and thought and resources into making a long film, then I'd think about whether I want to get something in return. And if I did, I would make some efforts to Follow The Money, to think about HOW to get something in return. But probably I'd just do it in my spare time, without expecting anything in return. So that I didn't have to Follow The Money. Because we can do that now. THAT'S the fucking revolution, people. That we don't HAVE to be paid. The making of the thing doesn't COST anything. When I started making 16mm films, they were seen by hardly any people at festivals and cost thousands of dollars to make in rental and processing costs. Now I make better stuff on my free-with-my- contract phone for hardly anything except time, and it's seen by thousands. Everything else is bullshit. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 5-Aug-08, at 3:53 AM, Rupert wrote: either: - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume - you've said all that needs to be said - all of the above brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Well. First and foremost, Steve W. has it right the key here is to be tolerant of each others' expression, which also includes people's beliefs when it comes to making money. As John's video clearly indicates, the world is tough enough to navigate without a nasty polemic that shuts down communication and has people leave the space. And for those who have been around long enough, we all know there have been many that sadly have left this space. What I don't see is this community pointing fingers at ourselves first when it comes to making our new media space a reality. People like myself have been saying over and over that time is of the essence. Two years ago, I said the marketers were discovering this space and were planning to commodify the living shit out of it in ways we can't imagine once the budgets are approved. That is exactly what has happened. In general, the marketers heard about it in '06 and the exploitation of the medium came into its own in '07, once the ledger-line planning that marketers had done the year before had been released. We had a limited time to come together and create a set of values before greater forces took over. In some ways we have succeeded (e.g. CC licenses, full disclosure) because there was agreement, and others we have failed because of varying opinions and degrees of conviction on certain issues. We need to own that as a group of individuals. The result is the result, and many ships have sailed. Regarding many issues, the complaints are useless now as the time of value and context creation on a greater scale has passed. Exposing crap such that people are looking at new ways of doing things is great, but complaining about crap through personal attacks does nothing but satisfy individuals. John's video, while technically brilliant, seems to barely even gloss over the fact that he made his own decisions here. We have all known from that the downside of YouTube's vast audience potential is scant revenue-sharing and horrific comments. We have known what models no matter how dreadful and degrading to our dreams of a new media landscape are doing well and how unfair and rather disgusting they are to some, if not most, people. I think it is rather unfair to hold others accountable for one's personal decisions or one's lack of viable options to showcase work. A sad mistake of this community as it developed is that we did not invite the established artistic community in as effectively as we invited the commercial interests in, but have continued as a collapsed community that has both artist and more commerically minded folk. This is probably the greatest failure of this community. Galleries, museums, educational institutions, foundations, event planning organisations, collectives and others need to be brought into the fold so that web-based video artists can take their long-deserved place in that world. They don't know us because we have not reached out to them, and I find it rather sad. There are people whose online works make video art I've seen in public art exhibitions with massive funding look like an episode of Sesame Street. We need to rectify this. 2008/8/6 Adam Mercado [EMAIL PROTECTED] I havent seen the video yet, waiting for the link to arrive. But I step up onto my pedestal and rant like a bastard, cuz a ranting bastard is what I am. RE: art for payment Good for John for trying to make a living from his art. Anyone decrying him for doing this would surely not decline payment for their works of art. And I'm not talking about corporate whoring paid to produce either. I'm talking about ART. Like the paintings you see in the gallery. Painted by painters. Or the novels in Barnes and fucking Nobel. Written by artists. Who are getting paid for their work. No one pays for media? Balls. Like Quirk, I pay for media, micro media, mass media, teeny tiny piss in the ocean media. If it has some value to me and I can afford it (yet to spend $2000 on that great gallery painting) I'll chip in and support a fellow artist. I pay for TWiT. I pay for Adelphia. I pay JunkieXL for his music, directly. I paid for The Big Issue. I'll spare a few pennies for John if I feel his work is worth supporting. RE: torrential distribution Who cares how this dude distributes his work. If you dont get it, dont get it. True if there are not enough seeds we wont see the true benefit of torrenting. But as a means of keeping off the beaten track, unsearchable, untrackable, it sounds cool. Another analogy; the M25 raves of the late 80's. You had to be in the know to know who where and when the party was going down. Take control. Talk about 'get your audience'. RE: tracker portal project As usual i am impressed with the ability of members of this group to just get things done. Visionaries and genius. I look forward to see what you create. RE: audience schmordience This thread has been a boot in the arse for me. Tried for the past 2 years to build
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Excellent points, Jeffrey. Agreed, across the board. Additionally, I've been saying for well over a year now that even IF the creation of online video becomes monetized, it's not going to be to the proper degree, because there is *NO*WAY* to prove demographics. If you can't prove demos, you can't tell an advertiser you're going to hit their target market to any degree where they should give you a lot of money for it. Without the money, you can't pay professionals or at least people who are GOOD at what they do to work on your project for the amount of time that it takes to make it good. People cut corners to make budgets (if there's a budget at all) and end up outputting slipshod work that doesn't inspire anyone with funding who technically understands what they're looking at to hire that person or group to represent THEIR interests on the internet. So it's a spiral, where the lack of production value makes companies NOT put money into online video, and because the money isn't here, there's no production value, because that requires the TIME of someone who knows what they're doing to concentrate on the work, which isn't affordable. Meanwhile, exactly what you've mentioned is what's been happening. Production teams are popping up out of nowhere with the exact same content that's been here in this group for ages, such as http://somethingtobedesired.com and http://galacticast.com and http://chasingmills.com, etc... except with the funding allocated to creating said content with production budgets AND advertising budgets. There's nothing wrong with that, but we need to realize that the landscape's drastically different now. Even if you look at YouTube, all of a sudden there are videos with little red flags in the corner, indicating some sort of advanced affiliation with YouTube. There's ALSO a check-box that allows you to filter YouTube results for ONLY THE VIDEOS with the little red flag in the corner. So, yes, everything's changing, and rapidly. The question has to be why are you posting videos online?. You might be posting for yourself or your friends or the audience of ten or to become popular or to advertise your business or to make money through revenue sharing or to become sponsored or bought out or hired to be the face of a show or to be the producer or editor on a show... Whatever it is, NOW is the time to figure out what your goals are and figure out how you're going to attempt to achieve that and how long you're willing to apply yourself to making that happen. Bill Cammack http://billcammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well. First and foremost, Steve W. has it right � the key here is to be tolerant of each others' expression, which also includes people's beliefs when it comes to making money. As John's video clearly indicates, the world is tough enough to navigate without a nasty polemic that shuts down communication and has people leave the space. And for those who have been around long enough, we all know there have been many that sadly have left this space. What I don't see is this community pointing fingers at ourselves first when it comes to making our new media space a reality. People like myself have been saying over and over that time is of the essence. Two years ago, I said the marketers were discovering this space and were planning to commodify the living shit out of it in ways we can't imagine once the budgets are approved. That is exactly what has happened. In general, the marketers heard about it in '06 and the exploitation of the medium came into its own in '07, once the ledger-line planning that marketers had done the year before had been released. We had a limited time to come together and create a set of values before greater forces took over. In some ways we have succeeded (e.g. CC licenses, full disclosure) because there was agreement, and others we have failed because of varying opinions and degrees of conviction on certain issues. We need to own that as a group of individuals. The result is the result, and many ships have sailed. Regarding many issues, the complaints are useless now as the time of value and context creation on a greater scale has passed. Exposing crap such that people are looking at new ways of doing things is great, but complaining about crap through personal attacks does nothing but satisfy individuals. John's video, while technically brilliant, seems to barely even gloss over the fact that he made his own decisions here. We have all known from that the downside of YouTube's vast audience potential is scant revenue-sharing and horrific comments. We have known what models � no matter how dreadful and degrading to our dreams of a new media landscape � are doing well and how unfair and rather disgusting they are to some, if not most, people. I think it is rather unfair to hold others accountable for one's personal decisions or one's lack of viable
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well. First and foremost, Steve W. has it right the key here is to be tolerant of each others' expression, which also includes people's beliefs when it comes to making money. As John's video clearly indicates, the world is tough enough to navigate without a nasty polemic that shuts down communication and has people leave the space. And for those who have been around long enough, we all know there have been many that sadly have left this space. What I don't see is this community pointing fingers at ourselves first when it comes to making our new media space a reality. People like myself have been saying over and over that time is of the essence. Two years ago, I said the marketers were discovering this space and were planning to commodify the living shit out of it in ways we can't imagine once the budgets are approved. That is exactly what has happened. In general, the marketers heard about it in '06 and the exploitation of the medium came into its own in '07, once the ledger-line planning that marketers had done the year before had been released. We had a limited time to come together and create a set of values before greater forces took over. In some ways we have succeeded (e.g. CC licenses, full disclosure) because there was agreement, and others we have failed because of varying opinions and degrees of conviction on certain issues. We need to own that as a group of individuals. The result is the result, and many ships have sailed. Regarding many issues, the complaints are useless now as the time of value and context creation on a greater scale has passed. Exposing crap such that people are looking at new ways of doing things is great, but complaining about crap through personal attacks does nothing but satisfy individuals. John's video, while technically brilliant, seems to barely even gloss over the fact that he made his own decisions here. We have all known from that the downside of YouTube's vast audience potential is scant revenue-sharing and horrific comments. We have known what models no matter how dreadful and degrading to our dreams of a new media landscape are doing well and how unfair and rather disgusting they are to some, if not most, people. I think it is rather unfair to hold others accountable for one's personal decisions or one's lack of viable options to showcase work. Alright, I'll point the finger at myself. Back in '06, when the marketers arrived and the press releases started flying about the online video revolution, I bought the hype and a video camera. It seems so naive now. The fall of corporate media being reported with glee in the corporate mainstream press? Why wasn't my bullshit detector working? I stopped making zines, stopped performing at open mics and poetry slams. It all seemed quaint compared to the future. New media revolution! The first few months, I hosted the videos on my own site. My stuff was out there for anybody to take and nobody wanted it except my friends and family. Okay so maybe the problem wasn't distribution. Maybe the problem was promotion. There was a site called YouTube where people were getting massive views just sitting in front of cameras talking about nothing. What the hell, give it a shot. And I started getting more views. In the triple digits. But it didn't feel right. Here I had taken my art form (spoken word or poetry or whatever you want to call it), a public art form and I had moved it into a private space. YouTube does a good job of pretending it's a public community. And I think many Youtubers believe it is. But I felt like I was promoting a nightmare. Here's a video that came out of that period: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBn56qMvziQ It's a video response to some house wife asking two questions, why are you on youtube? and why did you choose your user name?. The original video is gone now. I did many prank videos like this. Probably would have kept on doing it but things changed as soon as I got featured. Now I was no longer just a weirdo with a video camera. I was a youtube star. And my video responses would cause an avalanche of hate comments for the victim. It wasn't fun anymore. And kids were writing to me, telling me they wanted to be just like me. I never really thought about what would happen when I became successful. Even on a small scale. And at the same time it was becoming clear to me that the video revolution was just the hype of venture capitalists. It would be a brave new world where the content creators were hooked up directly to the advertisers. I feared this new model would make old school TV programming look like high art. Kent Nichols had called me a genius. Of course, I appreciated it but as I read more of his blog, it started to gross me out. I didn't want to go down with the content creators. Is this the school I'm from? Hell no, I'm
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a video response to some house wife asking two questions, why are you on youtube? and why did you choose your user name?. The original video is gone now. I did many prank videos like this. Probably would have kept on doing it but things changed as soon as I got featured. Now I was no longer just a weirdo with a video camera. I was a youtube star. And my video responses would cause an avalanche of hate comments for the victim. It wasn't fun anymore. And kids were writing to me, telling me they wanted to be just like me. I never really thought about what would happen when I became successful. Even on a small scale. Yeah, well, you know that speech from Pixelodeon that we gave, the one you excerpted, right after that one clip you used, we said it doesn't matter if you're doing it as a hobby or a business because people will treat you and you million views like you're suddenly wealthy overnight. And you're not. I'm still not not even wealthy. I can pay my bills with my videoblog -- a huge step that I never would have been able to do five years ago, but I still live in the same crappy apartment and drive the same car. That might change soon, but I'm not rich. Charlie Sheen makes $800k/episode for doing 2 1/2 Men, that's rich. You want to rail on something, rail on that. And at the same time it was becoming clear to me that the video revolution was just the hype of venture capitalists. It would be a brave new world where the content creators were hooked up directly to the advertisers. I feared this new model would make old school TV programming look like high art. The tools were created with profit in mind, but once Bubble 2.0 bursts they will still be around for the interesting people to use. We started with ourmedia.org a site designed for artists and weirdos and we'll return there if all the other flavor of the day sites disappear. Kent Nichols had called me a genius. Of course, I appreciated it but as I read more of his blog, it started to gross me out. I didn't want to go down with the content creators. Is this the school I'm from? Hell no, I'm not going to be associated with the web 2.0 bubble unless it's as someone who tried to pop it. I know I'm an asshole for liking your stuff. Well, you are associated with this time, this place, this movement. For all of your talk of going underground, you've still kept your YouTube and Blip Accounts out of either vanity, or a tiny semblance of business sense or your personal brand. A true undergrounder would have nuked those accounts (including your websites and email), created the vid and just emailed it to people totally anonymously. But you just half-assed it -- reminds me of someone else I know -- me. We don't post to YouTube because it doesn't make business sense right now, but we don't delete our account either for the same reason. But what you do exceedingly well is whip out your cock while chanting Amanda Congdon and Zadi's name while masturbating. Awesome. In some circles that's called sexual harassment. In some circles that's called a jerk. The oddest thing of this whole situation is that you gained notoriety for what you did -- you didn't need to alter your work to achieve a large audience. We also just did what we were doing and instead of freaking out and being emo about that exposure we did it again and again. We had sorta hoped and planned for that exposure, but still we were doing exactly the show we wanted to do. I'm still not sure if I need to be concerned for the physical safety of myself and Douglas after this video. You spoke of wanting to attack Douglas and you come off as less than stable. I keep imagining the courtroom after we've either been attacked or murdered by you and them playing this video. And my mom's reaction and her wondering why we didn't just go to the police when it came out. I'm all for dialog and my opinions are not the end all and be all, but I'm just trying to lay it out there so that other like minded people can find a livings as filmmakers in this online space. But this video was way, way, way over the top and full of ad hominem. So congrats on creeping me out and making me question why we've tried to be so open not only with our experiences, but with our open door party policies. -Kent, co-creator of AskANinja.com, part of the problem
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I totally don't agree with this part of your argument, Jeffrey. I don't think that most of those Galleries, museums, educational institutions, foundations, event planning organisations, collectives and others have been ready, willing or able to come into the fold. I totally agree that there people online works make video art I've seen in public art exhibitions with massive funding look like an episode of Sesame Street. - most video art in big galleries in London looks tired and old and shit when compared to the best video art that's going on in and around this community. But again and again when I've shown examples of great work by other people to people in the art world, their reaction is the same as the reaction of people in the commercial TV world. They reject it as of passing interest - the ephemeral work of hobbyists. They don't get it. They don't *want* to get it. You make it sound like it's our fault that they haven't got with the program and come into the fold. I don't think that's right at all. Nor do I think that they would be any more constructive in the organic development of personal video art than the commercial interests have been. And I don't see this community as failed, particularly in this way. This forum may be less active than it once was, but my individual connections with vloggers and artists tell me that nothing has failed. What I am most concerned about is that access to all our work will not be destroyed when the internet converges with home entertainment systems and portable devices. It's not all going to be about desktop computers and browsers for long. Commercial overlords will create interfaces to use with these devices which will prioritise their own advertiser-friendly mass-market stuff - devices which bring internet to your TV will have edited TV Guides - the iPhone has a YouTube app on the main menu which pushes featured content - they will take all the prime real estate. We need to create interfaces, apps, portals which will allow people to easily find independent, non-commercial content. Or we'll be shut out of easy access to all these devices and we'll lose the advantage we have now of free, open distribution. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 6-Aug-08, at 3:38 AM, Jeffrey Taylor wrote: A sad mistake of this community as it developed is that we did not invite the established artistic community in as effectively as we invited the commercial interests in, but have continued as a collapsed community that has both artist and more commerically minded folk. This is probably the greatest failure of this community. Galleries, museums, educational institutions, foundations, event planning organisations, collectives and others need to be brought into the fold so that web-based video artists can take their long-deserved place in that world. They don't know us because we have not reached out to them, and I find it rather sad. There are people whose online works make video art I've seen in public art exhibitions with massive funding look like an episode of Sesame Street. We need to rectify this. 2008/8/6 Adam Mercado [EMAIL PROTECTED] I havent seen the video yet, waiting for the link to arrive. But I step up onto my pedestal and rant like a bastard, cuz a ranting bastard is what I am. RE: art for payment Good for John for trying to make a living from his art. Anyone decrying him for doing this would surely not decline payment for their works of art. And I'm not talking about corporate whoring paid to produce either. I'm talking about ART. Like the paintings you see in the gallery. Painted by painters. Or the novels in Barnes and fucking Nobel. Written by artists. Who are getting paid for their work. No one pays for media? Balls. Like Quirk, I pay for media, micro media, mass media, teeny tiny piss in the ocean media. If it has some value to me and I can afford it (yet to spend $2000 on that great gallery painting) I'll chip in and support a fellow artist. I pay for TWiT. I pay for Adelphia. I pay JunkieXL for his music, directly. I paid for The Big Issue. I'll spare a few pennies for John if I feel his work is worth supporting. RE: torrential distribution Who cares how this dude distributes his work. If you dont get it, dont get it. True if there are not enough seeds we wont see the true benefit of torrenting. But as a means of keeping off the beaten track, unsearchable, untrackable, it sounds cool. Another analogy; the M25 raves of the late 80's. You had to be in the know to know who where and when the party was going down. Take control. Talk about 'get your audience'. RE: tracker portal project As usual i am impressed with the ability of members of this group to just get things done. Visionaries and genius. I look forward to see what you create. RE: audience schmordience This thread has been a boot in the
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
With you and not with you on this one Rupert. We have not as a community engaged the artistic powers that be nearly as much as we have commerical interests. If we had, Wreck and Salvage would have a gig at MOMA similar to Rocketboom getting its gig at Sony. Many of what you state is sound about how videobloggers are viewed, but I cannot see people on this list or in my sphere of contacts relentlessly pursuing multiple outlets with the same relentlessness. There have been more failed attempts with corporations amongst the people on the list than there has been in the field of fine art. There has been small victories, though. List-members Loiez Deniel and Gabriel Soucheyre's Videoformes festival embraces online video, and I hope they will bring in more when I return to see it next year. I don't see me calling this a fail as a finger-wagging naughty children sort of thing. Where I'm coming from is more of a call to articulate ourselves better and to seek out new contacts. Perhaps I should have said this has been a fail...so far. And yes, the status quo in the art world sucks as much as things suck in the commercial world, but that's partly why we need to invade. And I wager that the artists change faster than the corporations will. 2008/8/6 Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] I totally don't agree with this part of your argument, Jeffrey. I don't think that most of those Galleries, museums, educational institutions, foundations, event planning organisations, collectives and others have been ready, willing or able to come into the fold. I totally agree that there people online works make video art I've seen in public art exhibitions with massive funding look like an episode of Sesame Street. - most video art in big galleries in London looks tired and old and shit when compared to the best video art that's going on in and around this community. But again and again when I've shown examples of great work by other people to people in the art world, their reaction is the same as the reaction of people in the commercial TV world. They reject it as of passing interest - the ephemeral work of hobbyists. They don't get it. They don't *want* to get it. You make it sound like it's our fault that they haven't got with the program and come into the fold. I don't think that's right at all. Nor do I think that they would be any more constructive in the organic development of personal video art than the commercial interests have been. And I don't see this community as failed, particularly in this way. This forum may be less active than it once was, but my individual connections with vloggers and artists tell me that nothing has failed. What I am most concerned about is that access to all our work will not be destroyed when the internet converges with home entertainment systems and portable devices. It's not all going to be about desktop computers and browsers for long. Commercial overlords will create interfaces to use with these devices which will prioritise their own advertiser-friendly mass-market stuff - devices which bring internet to your TV will have edited TV Guides - the iPhone has a YouTube app on the main menu which pushes featured content - they will take all the prime real estate. We need to create interfaces, apps, portals which will allow people to easily find independent, non-commercial content. Or we'll be shut out of easy access to all these devices and we'll lose the advantage we have now of free, open distribution. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 6-Aug-08, at 3:38 AM, Jeffrey Taylor wrote: A sad mistake of this community as it developed is that we did not invite the established artistic community in as effectively as we invited the commercial interests in, but have continued as a collapsed community that has both artist and more commerically minded folk. This is probably the greatest failure of this community. Galleries, museums, educational institutions, foundations, event planning organisations, collectives and others need to be brought into the fold so that web-based video artists can take their long-deserved place in that world. They don't know us because we have not reached out to them, and I find it rather sad. There are people whose online works make video art I've seen in public art exhibitions with massive funding look like an episode of Sesame Street. We need to rectify this. 2008/8/6 Adam Mercado [EMAIL PROTECTED] adam%40influxx.com I havent seen the video yet, waiting for the link to arrive. But I step up onto my pedestal and rant like a bastard, cuz a ranting bastard is what I am. RE: art for payment Good for John for trying to make a living from his art. Anyone decrying him for doing this would surely not decline payment for their works of art. And I'm not talking about corporate whoring paid to produce either. I'm talking about ART. Like the paintings you see in the gallery.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I can't speak for artists as I am not one (I'm a marketer). But as a person who does videos I know that making money from videos isn't going to happen for hardly anyone on as publisher model. Even the people who get millions and millions of views don't make much jack. But me, I do very well from the side benefits of my videos. Consulting gigs, book offers, etc. Having videos is like being an author nowadays, it opens doors, assuming you try to market yourself and them at least a little bit. Of course, I may have missed the entire point of this conversation? Jim Kukral www.jimkukral.com From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Taylor Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:47 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground With you and not with you on this one Rupert. We have not as a community engaged the artistic powers that be nearly as much as we have commerical interests. If we had, Wreck and Salvage would have a gig at MOMA similar to Rocketboom getting its gig at Sony. Many of what you state is sound about how videobloggers are viewed, but I cannot see people on this list or in my sphere of contacts relentlessly pursuing multiple outlets with the same relentlessness. There have been more failed attempts with corporations amongst the people on the list than there has been in the field of fine art. There has been small victories, though. List-members Loiez Deniel and Gabriel Soucheyre's Videoformes festival embraces online video, and I hope they will bring in more when I return to see it next year. I don't see me calling this a fail as a finger-wagging naughty children sort of thing. Where I'm coming from is more of a call to articulate ourselves better and to seek out new contacts. Perhaps I should have said this has been a fail...so far. And yes, the status quo in the art world sucks as much as things suck in the commercial world, but that's partly why we need to invade. And I wager that the artists change faster than the corporations will. 2008/8/6 Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org I totally don't agree with this part of your argument, Jeffrey. I don't think that most of those Galleries, museums, educational institutions, foundations, event planning organisations, collectives and others have been ready, willing or able to come into the fold. I totally agree that there people online works make video art I've seen in public art exhibitions with massive funding look like an episode of Sesame Street. - most video art in big galleries in London looks tired and old and shit when compared to the best video art that's going on in and around this community. But again and again when I've shown examples of great work by other people to people in the art world, their reaction is the same as the reaction of people in the commercial TV world. They reject it as of passing interest - the ephemeral work of hobbyists. They don't get it. They don't *want* to get it. You make it sound like it's our fault that they haven't got with the program and come into the fold. I don't think that's right at all. Nor do I think that they would be any more constructive in the organic development of personal video art than the commercial interests have been. And I don't see this community as failed, particularly in this way. This forum may be less active than it once was, but my individual connections with vloggers and artists tell me that nothing has failed. What I am most concerned about is that access to all our work will not be destroyed when the internet converges with home entertainment systems and portable devices. It's not all going to be about desktop computers and browsers for long. Commercial overlords will create interfaces to use with these devices which will prioritise their own advertiser-friendly mass-market stuff - devices which bring internet to your TV will have edited TV Guides - the iPhone has a YouTube app on the main menu which pushes featured content - they will take all the prime real estate. We need to create interfaces, apps, portals which will allow people to easily find independent, non-commercial content. Or we'll be shut out of easy access to all these devices and we'll lose the advantage we have now of free, open distribution. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 6-Aug-08, at 3:38 AM, Jeffrey Taylor wrote: A sad mistake of this community as it developed is that we did not invite the established artistic community in as effectively as we invited the commercial interests in, but have continued as a collapsed community that has both artist and more commerically minded folk. This is probably the greatest failure of this community. Galleries, museums, educational institutions, foundations, event planning organisations, collectives and others need to be brought into the fold so that web-based video artists can
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Yes. I like to pay for some stuff too. I spend quite a lot of money on itunes and on DVDs. I subscribe to a website that does regular podcasts, it costs about $10 a month. I subscribed to davidlynch,com for a while. I have no doubt that if there were some people who offered video that I wanted to watch, on a regular basis, then I would pay them a monthly subscription, if thats what it took. And Id probably get more into the concent and be sure to keep watching because I was paying. Its the same with music for me. If I buy an album, then I am more likely to invest my time in it and come to love it. I paid well over the odds for the 'free' radiohead album, I downloaded and enjoyed the NiN Ghosts part 1, so paid to get parts 2-4. I dislike paying for stuff that is DRM protected. I have a small amount of disposable income that I would spend on TV or movies if I actually liked TV or Movies that are made these days, but I dont, so that money is available to certain creatives doing it the indy way on the net. However the chances that what I want to watch is what someone wants to make, and lots of other people would also pay for, are perhaps slim. And as a longtime gloom-monger I dont like the way the economy is going, and I way always rather cynical about some of the money side of vlogging hype back in the day. Thats where I love Rupert's post, in a world where 'everyone can vlog cheaply' or even 'everyone is famous' or 'everyones a vlogger', then we are all equal, which is a great rush to the bottom in financial terms. There are all sorts of things being done that will not be monetized and that's probably a good thing. Advertising only fits certain content and its so easy to go wrong, either we dont like the advertiser, the advertiser doesnt like us, or the audience hates it, or the network/host isnt making enough money to be sustainable into the future. Promotion remains woeful overall, probably for a lot of reasons that I wont dwell on now as Im already talking too much again. I guess I prefer actual underground movements rather than the feeling of underground or exclusivity being used as a promotional tool, but hey why not, at least its something, and maybe those two are not so different really anyway. Gotta try something as its looking a tad stale out there these days, not in terms of the content but the way its promoted (or not promoted). I still think there is room for someone, or a collective, with big ideas and alternative vision to do some amazing stuff with net video and do a better job of experience and audience somehow. An equivalent of an indy creative label owned by its content contributors, rather than the vision of an 'internet tv network monopoly' might be a start. Personally Ive been off trying to improve my creative skills with more new software tools, as I am still not near to my goal of being able to produce the video's that Ive been thinking of for many years now. So I havent been paying full attention to this list or watching too many blogs recently, and my brief run of actually posting some videos to the web for once instead of talking here, didnt last too long ;) Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People pay for media every day through cable and satellite subscriptions, iTunes, and a hundred other outlets. I pay for HBO and love it. I also like paying for things that individual artists make. Etsy has proven that it's a very viable business model too. I set up a shop in Etsy to sell custom animations earlier this year, but it never got any traction. Probably because I didn't promote it anywhere. This isn't a new idea. It just hasn't been successfully done yet with new media indy video yet. I'm glad you're trying it. *Adam Quirk* / Wreck Salvage http://wreckandsalvage.com / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:22 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jen, let me tell you more about my personal life. I work a menial job that I love and don't make enough to live on (I know, I know move out of LA). I take care of an elderly man, helping him with daily living. His wife keeps on bothering me to get a raise. Get a raise. Call the agency and ask for a raise. So I finally did. Everybody in the office agreed I should get a raise. They said they'd look into it and see what they could do. I was shocked! Apparently nobody has ever asked for a raise? So I'm not making enough to live on doing my menial job. And I've got tons of buttholes (term of endearment) on the internet asking me to keep making videos. I just want to keep doing my thing. But it seems impossible. So find creative solutions. I'm not expecting this one video to fix my financial trouble. But maybe it will get the ball rolling in the right direction. Like Schlomo said, how could anyone predict it'd provide the inspiration for
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
No, I agree with you Jim - and I too have supported myself and my family for the last year entirely on the side benefits of my videos. And Jeffrey, yes, I see that I misunderstood you and that we agree quite a lot. Wreck and Salvage should be at MOMA just as Rocketboom are at Sony. But that seems a long way off. I just took a drive into town and had a think about this. I like your word 'invade' more than I like your previous word 'invite'. You used the word failure, which I disputed. But actually, I do think that we have failed as a community to take ourselves and each other seriously enough as artists. I think - and have always thought - that the word 'videoblogging' is incredibly unhelpful. As were all the discussions about its definition. Michael Szpakowski from DVBlog, who recently featured one of my videos, told me I should be more 'up' myself about what I do. I've stripped that comment of context - but anyway, it got me thinking. There's a sort of false modesty at work. As I said, I prefer the work of the people I regularly watch online to the swathes of happily self-proclaimed 'video artists' working in conventional spaces in London... but I wonder how many of the people I subscribe to would be comfortable describing what they do as just Art. What I do, for instance, is not as clearly 'video art' as, say, the beautiful work of the people I used to class as Video Art Experimenta on my Videoblogs I Subscribe To page. But it is. That's what it is. It's not a shopping list or even a Show About Something. It's a creative selection and interpretation of my environment using certain tools. I do it because I love the creative act of doing it, and the community around it is an amazing part of that process. Describing it as 'videoblogging' does *not* do it any favours. I don't care if people say that it's just a description of the distribution technology I use. It's more than that. For most people outside of our tiny community - particularly in an area as precious as the art world - the words Videoblog and Vlog have unhelpful connotations of someone artlessly droning into a bad quality webcam. These words stop serious people taking our work seriously. It's almost like calling a video artist a 'TV person', though even *that* has better connotations than 'videoblogger'. So from now on, I no longer give a shit about whether it's pretentious to call myself an artist. Fuck that. And all the good video art I see around me, I'm going to stop worrying about how to describe it. As far as I'm concerned, most of the people I subscribe to are artists and filmmakers (and no, I don't care that we don't use Film) and I value them as such whether they're comfortable with it or not. We should all be more 'up ourselves'. Then we invade. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 6-Aug-08, at 9:55 AM, Jim Kukral wrote: I can't speak for artists as I am not one (I'm a marketer). But as a person who does videos I know that making money from videos isn't going to happen for hardly anyone on as publisher model. Even the people who get millions and millions of views don't make much jack. But me, I do very well from the side benefits of my videos. Consulting gigs, book offers, etc. Having videos is like being an author nowadays, it opens doors, assuming you try to market yourself and them at least a little bit. Of course, I may have missed the entire point of this conversation? Jim Kukral www.jimkukral.com From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Taylor Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:47 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground With you and not with you on this one Rupert. We have not as a community engaged the artistic powers that be nearly as much as we have commerical interests. If we had, Wreck and Salvage would have a gig at MOMA similar to Rocketboom getting its gig at Sony. Many of what you state is sound about how videobloggers are viewed, but I cannot see people on this list or in my sphere of contacts relentlessly pursuing multiple outlets with the same relentlessness. There have been more failed attempts with corporations amongst the people on the list than there has been in the field of fine art. There has been small victories, though. List-members Loiez Deniel and Gabriel Soucheyre's Videoformes festival embraces online video, and I hope they will bring in more when I return to see it next year. I don't see me calling this a fail as a finger-wagging naughty children sort of thing. Where I'm coming from is more of a call to articulate ourselves better and to seek out new contacts. Perhaps I should have said this has been a fail...so far. And yes, the status quo in the art world sucks as much as things suck in the commercial world, but that's partly why we need to invade. And I wager that the artists
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
and yes, I realise you might think this message sits awkwardly with my previous rant about it being a hobby. but it doesn't. it might be video art, but it's still something i do in my spare time and not for money. On 6-Aug-08, at 11:41 AM, Rupert wrote: No, I agree with you Jim - and I too have supported myself and my family for the last year entirely on the side benefits of my videos. And Jeffrey, yes, I see that I misunderstood you and that we agree quite a lot. Wreck and Salvage should be at MOMA just as Rocketboom are at Sony. But that seems a long way off. I just took a drive into town and had a think about this. I like your word 'invade' more than I like your previous word 'invite'. You used the word failure, which I disputed. But actually, I do think that we have failed as a community to take ourselves and each other seriously enough as artists. I think - and have always thought - that the word 'videoblogging' is incredibly unhelpful. As were all the discussions about its definition. Michael Szpakowski from DVBlog, who recently featured one of my videos, told me I should be more 'up' myself about what I do. I've stripped that comment of context - but anyway, it got me thinking. There's a sort of false modesty at work. As I said, I prefer the work of the people I regularly watch online to the swathes of happily self-proclaimed 'video artists' working in conventional spaces in London... but I wonder how many of the people I subscribe to would be comfortable describing what they do as just Art. What I do, for instance, is not as clearly 'video art' as, say, the beautiful work of the people I used to class as Video Art Experimenta on my Videoblogs I Subscribe To page. But it is. That's what it is. It's not a shopping list or even a Show About Something. It's a creative selection and interpretation of my environment using certain tools. I do it because I love the creative act of doing it, and the community around it is an amazing part of that process. Describing it as 'videoblogging' does *not* do it any favours. I don't care if people say that it's just a description of the distribution technology I use. It's more than that. For most people outside of our tiny community - particularly in an area as precious as the art world - the words Videoblog and Vlog have unhelpful connotations of someone artlessly droning into a bad quality webcam. These words stop serious people taking our work seriously. It's almost like calling a video artist a 'TV person', though even *that* has better connotations than 'videoblogger'. So from now on, I no longer give a shit about whether it's pretentious to call myself an artist. Fuck that. And all the good video art I see around me, I'm going to stop worrying about how to describe it. As far as I'm concerned, most of the people I subscribe to are artists and filmmakers (and no, I don't care that we don't use Film) and I value them as such whether they're comfortable with it or not. We should all be more 'up ourselves'. Then we invade. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 6-Aug-08, at 9:55 AM, Jim Kukral wrote: I can't speak for artists as I am not one (I'm a marketer). But as a person who does videos I know that making money from videos isn't going to happen for hardly anyone on as publisher model. Even the people who get millions and millions of views don't make much jack. But me, I do very well from the side benefits of my videos. Consulting gigs, book offers, etc. Having videos is like being an author nowadays, it opens doors, assuming you try to market yourself and them at least a little bit. Of course, I may have missed the entire point of this conversation? Jim Kukral www.jimkukral.com From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Taylor Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:47 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground With you and not with you on this one Rupert. We have not as a community engaged the artistic powers that be nearly as much as we have commerical interests. If we had, Wreck and Salvage would have a gig at MOMA similar to Rocketboom getting its gig at Sony. Many of what you state is sound about how videobloggers are viewed, but I cannot see people on this list or in my sphere of contacts relentlessly pursuing multiple outlets with the same relentlessness. There have been more failed attempts with corporations amongst the people on the list than there has been in the field of fine art. There has been small victories, though. List-members Loiez Deniel and Gabriel Soucheyre's Videoformes festival embraces online video, and I hope they will bring in more when I return to see it next year. I don't see me calling this a fail as a finger-wagging naughty children sort of thing. Where I'm coming from is more of a call to articulate ourselves better and to seek out new contacts. Perhaps I should have said this has been a fail...so far. And yes
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
As an impartial observer, I could see that it was done in jest. But as I was watching it, I did think that if I were Kent, there'd be a nervous little part of me that wasn't totally sure. On 6-Aug-08, at 8:55 AM, Kent Nichols wrote: I'm still not sure if I need to be concerned for the physical safety of myself and Douglas after this video. You spoke of wanting to attack Douglas and you come off as less than stable. I keep imagining the courtroom after we've either been attacked or murdered by you and them playing this video. And my mom's reaction and her wondering why we didn't just go to the police when it came out. I'm all for dialog and my opinions are not the end all and be all, but I'm just trying to lay it out there so that other like minded people can find a livings as filmmakers in this online space. But this video was way, way, way over the top and full of ad hominem. So congrats on creeping me out and making me question why we've tried to be so open not only with our experiences, but with our open door party policies. -Kent, co-creator of AskANinja.com, part of the problem __ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Great post. Although the flood of marketers and the big boys and all that game came, I dont think it changed things as much a I thought it might. The web 2.0 side of things seems to be well on the way to disappearing up its own ass, leaving us at least free of the worst of the hype. Since this list began the TV networks other big media have obviously got better at using the new distribution methods, but in the youtube side of things I think the ways to actually make money and control the thing somewhat, have not progressed the way that investors would like. Maybe there will be another wave of bullshit, maybe all the advertising predictions will come to fruition, or maybe a wider economic poop will bring much of this side of the web to its knee's. Either way I think there is still a lot of space for interesting things to happen. Not many ships have sailed, because its still going to be possible to get either the masses or a particular niche interested in content, if the content seems good to them, for the forseeable future. What has sailed is many individuals, for many reasons, from this particular list at least, or maybe the label 'videoblogging'. Considering how diverse a range of people and opinions were attracted to vlogging, any progress was a triumph. To go further, I think further subsets would be required. For example if people who identified strongly with the idea that 'my work is art, and I dont like adverts' came together, they could possibly agree a common agenda and put all their effort into going in that direction. Instead all I remember was a lot of arguments about the definition of videoblogging. Instead of happily recognising our differences, and maybe subdividing, the concept of videoblogging as one movement that should be steered in a particular direction, caused much distraction, wailing, gnashing of teeth. In the meantime Im sure various groups of people did come together with common cause, put on events and suchlike, taken on big goals like making wordpress glorious for vlogging, formed small creative groups. But it would be nice to have another go at seeing if this list can birth a movement with specific aims? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well. First and foremost, Steve W. has it right the key here is to be tolerant of each others' expression, which also includes people's beliefs when it comes to making money. As John's video clearly indicates, the world is tough enough to navigate without a nasty polemic that shuts down communication and has people leave the space. And for those who have been around long enough, we all know there have been many that sadly have left this space. What I don't see is this community pointing fingers at ourselves first when it comes to making our new media space a reality. People like myself have been saying over and over that time is of the essence. Two years ago, I said the marketers were discovering this space and were planning to commodify the living shit out of it in ways we can't imagine once the budgets are approved. That is exactly what has happened. In general, the marketers heard about it in '06 and the exploitation of the medium came into its own in '07, once the ledger-line planning that marketers had done the year before had been released. We had a limited time to come together and create a set of values before greater forces took over. In some ways we have succeeded (e.g. CC licenses, full disclosure) because there was agreement, and others we have failed because of varying opinions and degrees of conviction on certain issues. We need to own that as a group of individuals. The result is the result, and many ships have sailed.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I thought you and Zadi would go apeshit when you saw it. I know Cheryl's video earlier in the year upset you guys, and it was a lot more of a reasoned 'call bullshit' (even if wrong) than this. If someone did this to me, I might respect their right to do it as an artist, but you can be pretty sure they wouldn't get such a calm, well-reasoned reply. I agree that your success hasn't come at the expense of other content creators. You *are* independent artists. Many, many times more independent than the 'independent' American filmmakers who get so much praise and glory. Even those fantastic 'independent' movies in the 'golden age' of the 1970s were mostly funded and distributed by subsidiaries of big scared Hollywood studios. My worry, as I said before, is that when internet video moves away from computers and onto other devices - couch-based home entertainment systems and portable devices - the interfaces will be designed by the corporate overlords to only feature commercial- friendly independent shows - and there'll be no easy way for users to find those of us who are less mainstream. That's something you popular kids can help with, I guess. And FU does, in the content of your show. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 5-Aug-08, at 11:48 PM, Steve Woolf wrote: If I wanted to, I could choose to view John's masturbation scene, overlaid with my wife's name and followed by a video of her, as something that should warrant a physical confrontation. That success has not come at the expense of other content creators, at least in my opinion. In fact, I think we have all done quite a lot to help elevate awareness for independent artists. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Its funny the online VJ community I was involved with always struggled somewhat to bridge the gap between themselves and the rest of the artistic world too. They were often using different tools, performing in different spaces, and quite detached from the commercial and academic art world, and most other sorts of creatives, even visual ones. Meanwhile a few may VJ at car shows with lots of commercial content, whilst others do collaborate with other artists, musicians etc. In the middle was a big group who just wanted to VJ, and were also anticipating things exploding, the prominence wealth of the VJ rising somewhat this century. This hasnt happened too much. And everywhere people were keen to notice what divides them. The VJ may not have a great relationship with the lighting people. People making interesting content dont think to give it to VJs to get a new audience interpretation. Someone can use similar tools to do similar things, but set it up as a video installation, and use a different label to describe what they do, and be treated totally differently by the rest of the world. Anyway there is still a good online VJ community, and various different groups persuing specific aims, but the overall sense of energy that people had at the beginning, that combined they would forge a new reality, has mostly departed. But as with this videoblogging community, the future is still wide open. Just because there have been some nightmares, shouldnt totally preclude the possibility of sweet dreaming again in future. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With you and not with you on this one Rupert. We have not as a community engaged the artistic powers that be nearly as much as we have commerical interests. If we had, Wreck and Salvage would have a gig at MOMA similar to Rocketboom getting its gig at Sony. Many of what you state is sound about how videobloggers are viewed, but I cannot see people on this list or in my sphere of contacts relentlessly pursuing multiple outlets with the same relentlessness. There have been more failed attempts with corporations amongst the people on the list than there has been in the field of fine art. There has been small victories, though. List-members Loiez Deniel and Gabriel Soucheyre's Videoformes festival embraces online video, and I hope they will bring in more when I return to see it next year. I don't see me calling this a fail as a finger-wagging naughty children sort of thing. Where I'm coming from is more of a call to articulate ourselves better and to seek out new contacts. Perhaps I should have said this has been a fail...so far. And yes, the status quo in the art world sucks as much as things suck in the commercial world, but that's partly why we need to invade. And I wager that the artists change faster than the corporations will. 2008/8/6 Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] I totally don't agree with this part of your argument, Jeffrey. I don't think that most of those Galleries, museums, educational institutions, foundations, event planning organisations, collectives and others have been ready, willing or able to come into the fold. I totally agree that there people online works make video art I've seen in public art exhibitions with massive funding look like an episode of Sesame Street. - most video art in big galleries in London looks tired and old and shit when compared to the best video art that's going on in and around this community. But again and again when I've shown examples of great work by other people to people in the art world, their reaction is the same as the reaction of people in the commercial TV world. They reject it as of passing interest - the ephemeral work of hobbyists. They don't get it. They don't *want* to get it. You make it sound like it's our fault that they haven't got with the program and come into the fold. I don't think that's right at all. Nor do I think that they would be any more constructive in the organic development of personal video art than the commercial interests have been. And I don't see this community as failed, particularly in this way. This forum may be less active than it once was, but my individual connections with vloggers and artists tell me that nothing has failed. What I am most concerned about is that access to all our work will not be destroyed when the internet converges with home entertainment systems and portable devices. It's not all going to be about desktop computers and browsers for long. Commercial overlords will create interfaces to use with these devices which will prioritise their own advertiser-friendly mass-market stuff - devices which bring internet to your TV will have edited TV Guides - the iPhone has a YouTube app on the main menu which pushes featured content - they will take all the prime real estate. We need to create
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
And I'm not sure I would call it art(shrug) Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought you and Zadi would go apeshit when you saw it. I know Cheryl's video earlier in the year upset you guys, and it was a lot more of a reasoned 'call bullshit' (even if wrong) than this. If someone did this to me, I might respect their right to do it as an artist, but you can be pretty sure they wouldn't get such a calm, well-reasoned reply. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 5-Aug-08, at 11:48 PM, Steve Woolf wrote: If I wanted to, I could choose to view John's masturbation scene, overlaid with my wife's name and followed by a video of her, as something that should warrant a physical confrontation. That success has not come at the expense of other content creators, at least in my opinion. In fact, I think we have all done quite a lot to help elevate awareness for independent artists. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Well. Kathy Sierra's stalkertrolls called it art. That is all. 2008/8/7 Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] And I'm not sure I would call it art(shrug) Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought you and Zadi would go apeshit when you saw it. I know Cheryl's video earlier in the year upset you guys, and it was a lot more of a reasoned 'call bullshit' (even if wrong) than this. If someone did this to me, I might respect their right to do it as an artist, but you can be pretty sure they wouldn't get such a calm, well-reasoned reply. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 5-Aug-08, at 11:48 PM, Steve Woolf wrote: If I wanted to, I could choose to view John's masturbation scene, overlaid with my wife's name and followed by a video of her, as something that should warrant a physical confrontation. That success has not come at the expense of other content creators, at least in my opinion. In fact, I think we have all done quite a lot to help elevate awareness for independent artists. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Jeffrey Taylor Mobile: +33625497654 Fax: +33177722734 Skype: thejeffreytaylor Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Zeooowww On 6-Aug-08, at 4:31 PM, Jeffrey Taylor wrote: Well. Kathy Sierra's stalkertrolls called it art. That is all. 2008/8/7 Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] And I'm not sure I would call it art(shrug) Heath http://batmangeek.com http://heathparks.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought you and Zadi would go apeshit when you saw it. I know Cheryl's video earlier in the year upset you guys, and it was a lot more of a reasoned 'call bullshit' (even if wrong) than this. If someone did this to me, I might respect their right to do it as an artist, but you can be pretty sure they wouldn't get such a calm, well-reasoned reply. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 5-Aug-08, at 11:48 PM, Steve Woolf wrote: If I wanted to, I could choose to view John's masturbation scene, overlaid with my wife's name and followed by a video of her, as something that should warrant a physical confrontation. That success has not come at the expense of other content creators, at least in my opinion. In fact, I think we have all done quite a lot to help elevate awareness for independent artists. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Jeffrey Taylor Mobile: +33625497654 Fax: +33177722734 Skype: thejeffreytaylor Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
either: - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume - you've said all that needs to be said - all of the above brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I think its more on the point that many dont bittorrent as opposed to not wanting to talk about the content of the video. Even friends who I personally sent the torrent to before I posted it here have just got around to see it. On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: either: - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume - you've said all that needs to be said - all of the above brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
The only people I know who torrent are some people on this list and on twitter who have said they do, a tiny fraction of my students, and some friends who work in tech and who have towers at home that stay on all the time. Also, many ppl I know who are biased toward things underground and obscure not only aren't online enough to bother with a torrent but have to really be pushed to investigate online video in the first place, though once they see the good stuff they go back to it. When I was doing Trace Garden I had more people who wanted me to email them every time there was a new video than I had subscribers - I couldn't even get them to bother with the automatic RSS-email approach. Even RSS was too techy-geeky for them, and these were people who would have been happy to watch a new episode every day. My STUDENTS - mostly late teens and twenties and a few early thirties - don't use RSS and very few use torrents - and when they do, it's to get software. For them social media means facebook, except that they stay on myspace for info on their favorite bands, online video means youtube, and finding out about cool new things happens via text messages. Those who are more in the know on this stuff are the ones in their thirties. This may be an inaccurate sample - these are art students (though they are primarily media arts majors, including a sizable number of net art people). I think we get a distorted picture of how many potential viewers inhabit the web the same way we do. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I'm in total agreement with you, Brook. The idea behind Moneythong is not too neccesarily have gazillions of people downloading, but really I'm thinking of it as a video store on the corner of your block ( like Lost Weekend or Mondo Video) where you can hopefully find recommended torrents/videos you may have not heard about. Like that store filled with VHS tapes that never made it to DVD. Once you try out a couple vids, you may come back for likeminded art. On 8/5/08, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only people I know who torrent are some people on this list and on twitter who have said they do, a tiny fraction of my students, and some friends who work in tech and who have towers at home that stay on all the time. Also, many ppl I know who are biased toward things underground and obscure not only aren't online enough to bother with a torrent but have to really be pushed to investigate online video in the first place, though once they see the good stuff they go back to it. When I was doing Trace Garden I had more people who wanted me to email them every time there was a new video than I had subscribers - I couldn't even get them to bother with the automatic RSS-email approach. Even RSS was too techy-geeky for them, and these were people who would have been happy to watch a new episode every day. My STUDENTS - mostly late teens and twenties and a few early thirties - don't use RSS and very few use torrents - and when they do, it's to get software. For them social media means facebook, except that they stay on myspace for info on their favorite bands, online video means youtube, and finding out about cool new things happens via text messages. Those who are more in the know on this stuff are the ones in their thirties. This may be an inaccurate sample - these are art students (though they are primarily media arts majors, including a sizable number of net art people). I think we get a distorted picture of how many potential viewers inhabit the web the same way we do. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Hello Brook, my experience has been that if you treat your audience like they're a bunch of youtube using babies who can't figure anything out, then that's the audience you get. To get a quality audience you need to make demands of them. My latest video is a 39 minute, 700 meg monster. I made a promo on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxyOO200ho As a result, I've sent over 200 emails in the past week. And the video has been downloaded over 100 times. It may seem a little disappointing, considering the promo has received over one thousand views. But responding to people individually has given me a concept of scale. 100 people is a crowd. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email address. Anybody else who wants it can write [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think underground video has the potential to become a wild beast. A longer format. More like an album. Hope you enjoy it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only people I know who torrent are some people on this list and on twitter who have said they do, a tiny fraction of my students, and some friends who work in tech and who have towers at home that stay on all the time. Also, many ppl I know who are biased toward things underground and obscure not only aren't online enough to bother with a torrent but have to really be pushed to investigate online video in the first place, though once they see the good stuff they go back to it. When I was doing Trace Garden I had more people who wanted me to email them every time there was a new video than I had subscribers - I couldn't even get them to bother with the automatic RSS-email approach. Even RSS was too techy-geeky for them, and these were people who would have been happy to watch a new episode every day. My STUDENTS - mostly late teens and twenties and a few early thirties - don't use RSS and very few use torrents - and when they do, it's to get software. For them social media means facebook, except that they stay on myspace for info on their favorite bands, online video means youtube, and finding out about cool new things happens via text messages. Those who are more in the know on this stuff are the ones in their thirties. This may be an inaccurate sample - these are art students (though they are primarily media arts majors, including a sizable number of net art people). I think we get a distorted picture of how many potential viewers inhabit the web the same way we do. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
All right, you bastards, here it is. Videoblogging is my hobby. I'll never make any money out of it. When I lived in London, people used to hire me to make videos for their companies because I was one of the only people there who had a videoblog. But that's not the same thing. And now I live somewhere much cheaper, I don't have to do that anymore, and it's a relief. I can concentrate on my own stuff. Without worrying about how it's going to pay. The reason John's so pissed off is because he thought making videos was going to change something in his life, make him money, change the media landscape. And then he sat through that Keynote at Pixelodeon. So did I. Halfway through, the person sitting next to me turned their laptop screen black and wrote in large red letters I WANT TO DIE. The point is, if you want money, you have to ask yourself who's going to pay you. Follow The Money. Consumers haven't paid directly for media for a long time. No one pays for media. People don't pay for the movie when they see it at a theatre. They could wait and watch it on the telly or BitTorrent it. They pay for the EXPERIENCE of going out - huddling together in the dark to feast on sugary crap and distract themselves momentarily from the ever-present inevitability of their encroaching loneliness, senility and death. Just like you pay for Chinese food when you don't want to cook and the inside of your apartment is starting to feel like the Overlook. So - the only people who are going to pay you are advertisers. If your 'content' doesn't fit with what they want, then fuck you, you won't get paid. Fuck you? Fuck me. Fuck them. My 'content' is *never* going to fit with them. So I never ever expect to get paid. Unless I change what I do. Which I'm not going to. Almost all of the 60 or so videoblogs I subscribe to are produced for nothing. It doesn't cost anything to produce them. I'm producing my stuff for nothing, too. Except my time. Why on earth should anybody else pay me for my hobby time? You want a hobby that makes money? You picked the wrong one. There's too many cutthroat professionals making media that's tailor made to make money. Go learn how to carve arty dollshouse furniture. Too expensive to live in the city and make art/indulge your hobby? You have to spend all your time working? Move somewhere less expensive. Can't? Well - that's either your unavoidable circumstance that has nothing to do with web video, or it's your *choice* of priorities. Who said that advertisers should spend their money on something they have no interest in so that you can have it all? That MBP you just bought or want - that HD cam - are they really the basic tools for your art? Pissed off that 30 million people have watched French Maid TV and only 250,000 have watched yours? Who's wrong - the 29,750,000 people who chose not to watch you, or you? Want to be loved by those 29,750,000 people? Make French Maid TV. If I put a massive amount of effort and discipline and thought and resources into making a long film, then I'd think about whether I want to get something in return. And if I did, I would make some efforts to Follow The Money, to think about HOW to get something in return. But probably I'd just do it in my spare time, without expecting anything in return. So that I didn't have to Follow The Money. Because we can do that now. THAT'S the fucking revolution, people. That we don't HAVE to be paid. The making of the thing doesn't COST anything. When I started making 16mm films, they were seen by hardly any people at festivals and cost thousands of dollars to make in rental and processing costs. Now I make better stuff on my free-with-my- contract phone for hardly anything except time, and it's seen by thousands. Everything else is bullshit. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 5-Aug-08, at 3:53 AM, Rupert wrote: either: - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume - you've said all that needs to be said - all of the above brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
This from Rupert pretty much nails it, not just about vidoeblogging but about media - commercial, fine art, indie, ALL OF IT - in the new landscape: No one pays for media. People don't pay for the movie when they see it at a theatre. They could wait and watch it on the telly or BitTorrent it. They pay for the EXPERIENCE of going out - huddling together in the dark to feast on sugary crap and distract themselves momentarily from the ever-present inevitability of their encroaching loneliness, senility and death. Just like you pay for Chinese food when you don't want to cook and the inside of your apartment is starting to feel like the Overlook. I'm not quite as pessimistic on the rest of it, even as a dyed in the wool anti-advertising anti-product-placement worshipper at Rev. Billy's Church of Stop Shopping, but as an analysis of where it all stands now that post is as spot on as anything I've read. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Yeah, the only way I got my friends and family to watch my personal videos was by subscribing them via RSS-email myself, and telling them to click on the link to confirm. Now that I've done it, they're quite happy. Unless the video doesn't play inside the email, in which case they mostly can't be bothered to click on the link to watch on the site. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Is there any value in forcing your video under the noses of people who say they're interested but can't actually be bothered to? The best you can do is provide a BitTorrent explanation for novices - and even then, most people will balk at having to download an app to do it. But fuck it - that's what keeps it underground, right? Otherwise, you might as well put it on Facebook or YouTube. Personally, I'm excited by what you've done. It never occurred to me to make longer form content available via BitTorrent. It opens up all sorts of possibilities that didn't exist in the ADHD world of traditional vlog and blog viewing. It's maybe like the video version of authors releasing e-book novels and stories. Something about it demands more attention than if it were dumped up on a blog entry. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Brook, my experience has been that if you treat your audience like they're a bunch of youtube using babies who can't figure anything out, then that's the audience you get. To get a quality audience you need to make demands of them. My latest video is a 39 minute, 700 meg monster. I made a promo on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxyOO200ho As a result, I've sent over 200 emails in the past week. And the video has been downloaded over 100 times. It may seem a little disappointing, considering the promo has received over one thousand views. But responding to people individually has given me a concept of scale. 100 people is a crowd. I'm forwarding the torrent to your email address. Anybody else who wants it can write [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think underground video has the potential to become a wild beast. A longer format. More like an album. Hope you enjoy it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: The only people I know who torrent are some people on this list and on twitter who have said they do, a tiny fraction of my students, and some friends who work in tech and who have towers at home that stay on all the time. Also, many ppl I know who are biased toward things underground and obscure not only aren't online enough to bother with a torrent but have to really be pushed to investigate online video in the first place, though once they see the good stuff they go back to it. When I was doing Trace Garden I had more people who wanted me to email them every time there was a new video than I had subscribers - I couldn't even get them to bother with the automatic RSS-email approach. Even RSS was too techy-geeky for them, and these were people who would have been happy to watch a new episode every day. My STUDENTS - mostly late teens and twenties and a few early thirties - don't use RSS and very few use torrents - and when they do, it's to get software. For them social media means facebook, except that they stay on myspace for info on their favorite bands, online video means youtube, and finding out about cool new things happens via text messages. Those who are more in the know on this stuff are the ones in their thirties. This may be an inaccurate sample - these are art students (though they are primarily media arts majors, including a sizable number of net art people). I think we get a distorted picture of how many potential viewers inhabit the web the same way we do. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: either: - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume - you've said all that needs to be said - all of the above brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. I don't get this locking your videos up in bittorrent thing. Sure offer that as yet another way to get your videos (especially long one) but why make it hard for people. It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. Either be happy with the audience you have or go get fucking get the audience you want. And yeah, I kinda talked about this 2 years ago too - http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/07/20/the-yang-of-vlogging/ Verdi
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Haha. That's good. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? Before online videos, I was making zines and performing at poetry slams and open mics. I believed in starving for my art. Something changed though. It was after I got featured on youtube. Now I had an audience. Not a large audience by some standards. But huge for me. And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it. I felt burned out and I stopped making videos. And after about two months I figured out the problem. I was still starving for my art but now I was also dealing with the hardships of fame. And as much as I tried to ignore my tiny piece of fame, it still had an effect on me. Why am I making videos? Do I want to attract advertisers? Is it because I'm hoping for some sort of immortality years down the road, as a pioneer in this medium? Even if I had such dreams, who's to say videoblogging isn't a fad? I have no faith web 2.0 is going to last. And that what's coming next is going to be better. The radical idea in Information Dystopia is this: The audience should pay the performer. Otherwise, the performer is going to pack it up and do something else. I'm thinking about writing novels that have slim chances of ever getting published. Why should I have to deal with people and fame and starvation? I'm emailing you the torrent, Verdi. Or you can just grab it off the link someone else posted. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I don't get this locking your videos up in bittorrent thing. Sure offer that as yet another way to get your videos (especially long one) but why make it hard for people. It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. Either be happy with the audience you have or go get fucking get the audience you want. And yeah, I kinda talked about this 2 years ago too - http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/07/20/the-yang-of-vlogging/ Verdi
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
YOu said: And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it... I felt burned out and I stopped making videos. I think that's the problem. What do you want to do? Make money? Then by all means, try appeasing the masses and make the videos THEY want you to make. Or are you making videos because it's your hobby/your art/your punk-rock-statement? Then you are making videos for YOU. IF others watch, well then - that's dandy. But the enjoyment is in the MAKING - not in the money. And that's my goal - to have fun (which I am). David King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haha. That's good. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? Before online videos, I was making zines and performing at poetry slams and open mics. I believed in starving for my art. Something changed though. It was after I got featured on youtube. Now I had an audience. Not a large audience by some standards. But huge for me. And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it. I felt burned out and I stopped making videos. And after about two months I figured out the problem. I was still starving for my art but now I was also dealing with the hardships of fame. And as much as I tried to ignore my tiny piece of fame, it still had an effect on me. Why am I making videos? Do I want to attract advertisers? Is it because I'm hoping for some sort of immortality years down the road, as a pioneer in this medium? Even if I had such dreams, who's to say videoblogging isn't a fad? I have no faith web 2.0 is going to last. And that what's coming next is going to be better. The radical idea in Information Dystopia is this: The audience should pay the performer. Otherwise, the performer is going to pack it up and do something else. I'm thinking about writing novels that have slim chances of ever getting published. Why should I have to deal with people and fame and starvation? I'm emailing you the torrent, Verdi. Or you can just grab it off the link someone else posted. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] john%40totalvom.com - I don't get this locking your videos up in bittorrent thing. Sure offer that as yet another way to get your videos (especially long one) but why make it hard for people. It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. Either be happy with the audience you have or go get fucking get the audience you want. And yeah, I kinda talked about this 2 years ago too - http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/07/20/the-yang-of-vlogging/ Verdi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it. So let 'em stop watching. How does this prevent you from continuing? Why does exclusive distribution through bit torrent change the fact that they said these things? Sounds like what you actually want is a safer context in which to show your work. That's pretty much the opposite of avant-garde. It's preaching to the converted. The radical idea in Information Dystopia is this: The audience should pay the performer. Otherwise, the performer is going to pack it up and do something else. I'm thinking about writing novels that have slim chances of ever getting published. Why should I have to deal with people and fame and starvation? OK, you're saying the audience should pay the performer or he'll pack it up and do something where there are slim chances that the performer (ok, different medium) will be paid. I don't get it. Pay me or I'll do something where you probably won't pay me? You seem to be arguing with yourself here. Maybe it will be clearer in the video. Brook -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it. So let 'em stop watching. How does this prevent you from continuing? Why does exclusive distribution through bit torrent change the fact that they said these things? Sounds like what you actually want is a safer context in which to show your work. That's pretty much the opposite of avant-garde. It's preaching to the converted. The radical idea in Information Dystopia is this: The audience should pay the performer. Otherwise, the performer is going to pack it up and do something else. I'm thinking about writing novels that have slim chances of ever getting published. Why should I have to deal with people and fame and starvation? OK, you're saying the audience should pay the performer or he'll pack it up and do something where there are slim chances that the performer (ok, different medium) will be paid. I don't get it. Pay me or I'll do something where you probably won't pay me? You seem to be arguing with yourself here. Maybe it will be clearer in the video. I think it will be clearer. Right now I'm pretty much arguing why I chose to use bittorrent instead of making it easily accessible. This isn't what the video is about. Bittorrent is technology I want to push. That's really all there is to it. I also wanted to give my audience the thrill of getting something that wasn't easy to get. Like back in the day when you had to send well concealed cash to a punk rock record distributer and then wait for the magic to arrive. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Brook -- ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YOu said: And they had demands. They wanted me to make videos like my old videos. They wanted me to make videos like my new videos. They were saying I had lost it... I felt burned out and I stopped making videos. I think that's the problem. What do you want to do? Make money? Then by all means, try appeasing the masses and make the videos THEY want you to make. Or are you making videos because it's your hobby/your art/your punk-rock-statement? Then you are making videos for YOU. IF others watch, well then - that's dandy. But the enjoyment is in the MAKING - not in the money. And that's my goal - to have fun (which I am). David King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog David, it's great to have fun. My first year of online video, I was doing it for an audience that grew from 30 to about 200. But then my audience suddenly swelled (thanks to youtube feature) and my inbox was filled with hate mail and love letters. I was no longer doing it for a small cozy circle of people who were with it. It felt like I was on a big stage. And this rowdy bunch was very vocal about exactly what they wanted. What's the fun in that? What could I do? I could try to go backwards and get rid of my audience. Or I could find an alternative narrative. Define my own terms. And that's what I'm doing with this new video. And I know I am arguing with myself here. I'm explaining the personal circumstances that led up to the creation of Information Dystopia. The video is really about something bigger. I'll forward it to you. But you can just use the link someone posted. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. Okay, let me try it again. I guess it's my personal pet peeve when, for example, a person makes esoteric work and then complains that most people don't understand it. I was trying to relate (unsuccessfully) that idea to John's complaint about his audience. If you don't want to make mainstream stuff, fine but don't complain when the mainstream doesn't want to watch. The cool thing is that the things I do that might draw a couple of dozen people (if that) to a live event here in San Antonio can have an audience of thousands+ on the internet. I also think that, given a bit of time, your videos will get the right audience - the one you're making them for. I don't think there is a need to put up a barrier. Now if the idea is riff on old-school-word-of-mouth-punk-rock-zine-diy-distribution and to promote bittorrent because you like it, then who am I to argue with that? In that context it's fun. Verdi
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. Okay, let me try it again. I guess it's my personal pet peeve when, for example, a person makes esoteric work and then complains that most people don't understand it. I was trying to relate (unsuccessfully) that idea to John's complaint about his audience. If you don't want to make mainstream stuff, fine but don't complain when the mainstream doesn't want to watch. The cool thing is that the things I do that might draw a couple of dozen people (if that) to a live event here in San Antonio can have an audience of thousands+ on the internet. I also think that, given a bit of time, your videos will get the right audience - the one you're making them for. I don't think there is a need to put up a barrier. I agree about people who complain about not being mainstream. But when you are an underground artist and your stuff goes mainstream and you're not getting paid for it. Well, then I think it's time to start throwing your weight around. I know some would argue I'm not mainstream enough. Or maybe that I never was an underground artist. Because it's true I naively bought the online video revolution hype. The new video deals with how I became disillusioned. And it offers a solution. But maybe it won't work out the way I want it to work out. That's life. I've got some other ideas up my sleeve. Gotta check out the legality first. I used to think I had to bend myself to become successful at the business of online video. But maybe business can be approached like an art form. You know, like Robin Marks at the carnival. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Now if the idea is riff on old-school-word-of-mouth-punk-rock-zine-diy-distribution and to promote bittorrent because you like it, then who am I to argue with that? In that context it's fun. Verdi
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
intimacy anti-hype uncommercialized art tech open good thread. it's cool to promote BT but i dont think it is usefukl unless you have a decent sized subsciber base who are all willing to seed your video. other underground file sharing tech/concepts can be used to avoid the mainstream/trolls and mesh with a more intimate audience. reminds me a little of what brought about http://forthoseof.us john, email me as well. thanks. sull On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... ... ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
I think what I'm still not quite getting - and what Rupert and Brook and Verdi have addressed - is why getting paid is such an important outcome? Is it compensation for dealing with the haters? Or is it to give the work some kind of palpable worth that it doesn't have otherwise? Certainly (street) performers have existed throughout the ages, playing for change, never making enough to live on, often doing it just for the love - is that all you want, some recompense - or are you talking about being able to live off this? I have to say - as much as I did find much to respond to in Information Dystopia, especially the first portion, (spoiler alert!) the request for money at the end made me feel like I had just watched an ad. Like an infomercial almost. I was disappointed by the attachment of money to it, which seemed rather counter to the message in the rest of the video. But maybe I just need to watch it again. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. Okay, let me try it again. I guess it's my personal pet peeve when, for example, a person makes esoteric work and then complains that most people don't understand it. I was trying to relate (unsuccessfully) that idea to John's complaint about his audience. If you don't want to make mainstream stuff, fine but don't complain when the mainstream doesn't want to watch. The cool thing is that the things I do that might draw a couple of dozen people (if that) to a live event here in San Antonio can have an audience of thousands+ on the internet. I also think that, given a bit of time, your videos will get the right audience - the one you're making them for. I don't think there is a need to put up a barrier. I agree about people who complain about not being mainstream. But when you are an underground artist and your stuff goes mainstream and you're not getting paid for it. Well, then I think it's time to start throwing your weight around. I know some would argue I'm not mainstream enough. Or maybe that I never was an underground artist. Because it's true I naively bought the online video revolution hype. The new video deals with how I became disillusioned. And it offers a solution. But maybe it won't work out the way I want it to work out. That's life. I've got some other ideas up my sleeve. Gotta check out the legality first. I used to think I had to bend myself to become successful at the business of online video. But maybe business can be approached like an art form. You know, like Robin Marks at the carnival. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Now if the idea is riff on old-school-word-of-mouth-punk-rock-zine-diy-distribution and to promote bittorrent because you like it, then who am I to argue with that? In that context it's fun. Verdi
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
only this list can have a thread started about me being inspired by the distribution of a video because be wants the video to not be easily attained and digested, into a discussion about making money. Maybe I should have just asked for a group hug!:) But Rupert, Jackson, and I really are making your new favorite tracker: moneythong.com Thanks to John for the inspiration. On 8/5/08, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what I'm still not quite getting - and what Rupert and Brook and Verdi have addressed - is why getting paid is such an important outcome? Is it compensation for dealing with the haters? Or is it to give the work some kind of palpable worth that it doesn't have otherwise? Certainly (street) performers have existed throughout the ages, playing for change, never making enough to live on, often doing it just for the love - is that all you want, some recompense - or are you talking about being able to live off this? I have to say - as much as I did find much to respond to in Information Dystopia, especially the first portion, (spoiler alert!) the request for money at the end made me feel like I had just watched an ad. Like an infomercial almost. I was disappointed by the attachment of money to it, which seemed rather counter to the message in the rest of the video. But maybe I just need to watch it again. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. Okay, let me try it again. I guess it's my personal pet peeve when, for example, a person makes esoteric work and then complains that most people don't understand it. I was trying to relate (unsuccessfully) that idea to John's complaint about his audience. If you don't want to make mainstream stuff, fine but don't complain when the mainstream doesn't want to watch. The cool thing is that the things I do that might draw a couple of dozen people (if that) to a live event here in San Antonio can have an audience of thousands+ on the internet. I also think that, given a bit of time, your videos will get the right audience - the one you're making them for. I don't think there is a need to put up a barrier. I agree about people who complain about not being mainstream. But when you are an underground artist and your stuff goes mainstream and you're not getting paid for it. Well, then I think it's time to start throwing your weight around. I know some would argue I'm not mainstream enough. Or maybe that I never was an underground artist. Because it's true I naively bought the online video revolution hype. The new video deals with how I became disillusioned. And it offers a solution. But maybe it won't work out the way I want it to work out. That's life. I've got some other ideas up my sleeve. Gotta check out the legality first. I used to think I had to bend myself to become successful at the business of online video. But maybe business can be approached like an art form. You know, like Robin Marks at the carnival. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Now if the idea is riff on old-school-word-of-mouth-punk-rock-zine-diy-distribution and to promote bittorrent because you like it, then who am I to argue with that? In that context it's fun. Verdi -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Jen, let me tell you more about my personal life. I work a menial job that I love and don't make enough to live on (I know, I know move out of LA). I take care of an elderly man, helping him with daily living. His wife keeps on bothering me to get a raise. Get a raise. Call the agency and ask for a raise. So I finally did. Everybody in the office agreed I should get a raise. They said they'd look into it and see what they could do. I was shocked! Apparently nobody has ever asked for a raise? So I'm not making enough to live on doing my menial job. And I've got tons of buttholes (term of endearment) on the internet asking me to keep making videos. I just want to keep doing my thing. But it seems impossible. So find creative solutions. I'm not expecting this one video to fix my financial trouble. But maybe it will get the ball rolling in the right direction. Like Schlomo said, how could anyone predict it'd provide the inspiration for moneythong? Also it's part of the message. I mean, I want to get people acclimated to the idea of paying. If nobody pays, the market forces are there and the creatives will create with hopes of luring advertisers. And I used the word tax for a reason. I don't know much about grants, only that I've been denied. But I like the idea of funding arts publicly to make art publicly available. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what I'm still not quite getting - and what Rupert and Brook and Verdi have addressed - is why getting paid is such an important outcome? Is it compensation for dealing with the haters? Or is it to give the work some kind of palpable worth that it doesn't have otherwise? Certainly (street) performers have existed throughout the ages, playing for change, never making enough to live on, often doing it just for the love - is that all you want, some recompense - or are you talking about being able to live off this? I have to say - as much as I did find much to respond to in Information Dystopia, especially the first portion, (spoiler alert!) the request for money at the end made me feel like I had just watched an ad. Like an infomercial almost. I was disappointed by the attachment of money to it, which seemed rather counter to the message in the rest of the video. But maybe I just need to watch it again. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. Okay, let me try it again. I guess it's my personal pet peeve when, for example, a person makes esoteric work and then complains that most people don't understand it. I was trying to relate (unsuccessfully) that idea to John's complaint about his audience. If you don't want to make mainstream stuff, fine but don't complain when the mainstream doesn't want to watch. The cool thing is that the things I do that might draw a couple of dozen people (if that) to a live event here in San Antonio can have an audience of thousands+ on the internet. I also think that, given a bit of time, your videos will get the right audience - the one you're making them for. I don't think there is a need to put up a barrier. I agree about people who complain about not being mainstream. But when you are an underground artist and your stuff goes mainstream and you're not getting paid for it. Well, then I think it's time to start throwing your weight around. I know some would argue I'm not mainstream enough. Or maybe that I never was an underground artist. Because it's true I naively bought the online video revolution hype. The new video deals with how I became disillusioned. And it offers a solution. But maybe it won't work out the way I want it to work out. That's life. I've got some other ideas up my sleeve. Gotta check out the legality first.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
People pay for media every day through cable and satellite subscriptions, iTunes, and a hundred other outlets. I pay for HBO and love it. I also like paying for things that individual artists make. Etsy has proven that it's a very viable business model too. I set up a shop in Etsy to sell custom animations earlier this year, but it never got any traction. Probably because I didn't promote it anywhere. This isn't a new idea. It just hasn't been successfully done yet with new media indy video yet. I'm glad you're trying it. *Adam Quirk* / Wreck Salvage http://wreckandsalvage.com / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:22 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jen, let me tell you more about my personal life. I work a menial job that I love and don't make enough to live on (I know, I know move out of LA). I take care of an elderly man, helping him with daily living. His wife keeps on bothering me to get a raise. Get a raise. Call the agency and ask for a raise. So I finally did. Everybody in the office agreed I should get a raise. They said they'd look into it and see what they could do. I was shocked! Apparently nobody has ever asked for a raise? So I'm not making enough to live on doing my menial job. And I've got tons of buttholes (term of endearment) on the internet asking me to keep making videos. I just want to keep doing my thing. But it seems impossible. So find creative solutions. I'm not expecting this one video to fix my financial trouble. But maybe it will get the ball rolling in the right direction. Like Schlomo said, how could anyone predict it'd provide the inspiration for moneythong? Also it's part of the message. I mean, I want to get people acclimated to the idea of paying. If nobody pays, the market forces are there and the creatives will create with hopes of luring advertisers. And I used the word tax for a reason. I don't know much about grants, only that I've been denied. But I like the idea of funding arts publicly to make art publicly available. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what I'm still not quite getting - and what Rupert and Brook and Verdi have addressed - is why getting paid is such an important outcome? Is it compensation for dealing with the haters? Or is it to give the work some kind of palpable worth that it doesn't have otherwise? Certainly (street) performers have existed throughout the ages, playing for change, never making enough to live on, often doing it just for the love - is that all you want, some recompense - or are you talking about being able to live off this? I have to say - as much as I did find much to respond to in Information Dystopia, especially the first portion, (spoiler alert!) the request for money at the end made me feel like I had just watched an ad. Like an infomercial almost. I was disappointed by the attachment of money to it, which seemed rather counter to the message in the rest of the video. But maybe I just need to watch it again. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. Okay, let me try it again. I guess it's my personal pet peeve when, for example, a person makes esoteric work and then complains that most people don't understand it. I was trying to relate (unsuccessfully) that idea to John's complaint about his audience. If you don't want to make mainstream stuff, fine but don't complain when the mainstream doesn't want to watch. The cool thing is that the things I do that might draw a couple of dozen people (if that) to a live event here in San Antonio can have an audience of thousands+ on the internet. I also think that, given a bit of time, your videos
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
oh hey adam the custom animations thing -- i went to zinefest last year and this girl was selling custom comic books about any event -- they were awsome! she made a business out of it i was going to make one about my father but totally forgot because i only think aobut myself most of the time but now u remind me! On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Adam Quirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: People pay for media every day through cable and satellite subscriptions, iTunes, and a hundred other outlets. I pay for HBO and love it. I also like paying for things that individual artists make. Etsy has proven that it's a very viable business model too. I set up a shop in Etsy to sell custom animations earlier this year, but it never got any traction. Probably because I didn't promote it anywhere. This isn't a new idea. It just hasn't been successfully done yet with new media indy video yet. I'm glad you're trying it. *Adam Quirk* / Wreck Salvage http://wreckandsalvage.com / [EMAIL PROTECTED] quirk%40wreckandsalvage.com / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim) On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:22 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED]john%40totalvom.com wrote: Jen, let me tell you more about my personal life. I work a menial job that I love and don't make enough to live on (I know, I know move out of LA). I take care of an elderly man, helping him with daily living. His wife keeps on bothering me to get a raise. Get a raise. Call the agency and ask for a raise. So I finally did. Everybody in the office agreed I should get a raise. They said they'd look into it and see what they could do. I was shocked! Apparently nobody has ever asked for a raise? So I'm not making enough to live on doing my menial job. And I've got tons of buttholes (term of endearment) on the internet asking me to keep making videos. I just want to keep doing my thing. But it seems impossible. So find creative solutions. I'm not expecting this one video to fix my financial trouble. But maybe it will get the ball rolling in the right direction. Like Schlomo said, how could anyone predict it'd provide the inspiration for moneythong? Also it's part of the message. I mean, I want to get people acclimated to the idea of paying. If nobody pays, the market forces are there and the creatives will create with hopes of luring advertisers. And I used the word tax for a reason. I don't know much about grants, only that I've been denied. But I like the idea of funding arts publicly to make art publicly available. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] john%40totalvom.com - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jen Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what I'm still not quite getting - and what Rupert and Brook and Verdi have addressed - is why getting paid is such an important outcome? Is it compensation for dealing with the haters? Or is it to give the work some kind of palpable worth that it doesn't have otherwise? Certainly (street) performers have existed throughout the ages, playing for change, never making enough to live on, often doing it just for the love - is that all you want, some recompense - or are you talking about being able to live off this? I have to say - as much as I did find much to respond to in Information Dystopia, especially the first portion, (spoiler alert!) the request for money at the end made me feel like I had just watched an ad. Like an infomercial almost. I was disappointed by the attachment of money to it, which seemed rather counter to the message in the rest of the video. But maybe I just need to watch it again. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece john@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton bhinton@ wrote: Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when if it ever finishes reaching my computer. But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist? What does making something difficult for people who aren't immersed in the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their work seen, not hiding it. I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that nobody (i.e. the mainstream) understands his work. I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
When I get back to SF this week, I'll start to figure out how to make a tracker for moneythong.com I see it as a tracker for underground/independent visual work. Figured if the Internets didn't have one of these yet, where people can go through lists of artistic torrents, then now is the time!!! Maybe, like Jackson mentioned, we put up Broadcast Machine to help people figure out and use bittorrents. (we teach and entertain!) I just need to find someone who knows how to create and maintain a tracker that can teach me the ropes. Should be able to find that somebody -- if you know anyone, send em my way! On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Schlomo, that would be awesome if you created a tracker for underground video. This latest video was my first attempt at ever putting anything on bittorrent. The public tracker I used seemed to conk out after about 12 hours. I asked one of my sixteen year old fans what I should do. Put it on Demonoid. So I did and it started working again. Only problem, now it's searchable. I wanted it to be underground, distributed via email and bittorrent. You'd have to know somebody who knows somebody to get it. So far nobody has blabbed that it's public. So my youtube fans are still sending me emails. It's such a relief to be in contact with them. I'm learning my audience isn't exclusively moron. I've got faculty. I've got art students. I've got Europeans. Shutins. Life strugglers. I feel much more connected. I email the torrent out and I see another leecher sucking it off my computer. It feels great not to be hosted anywhere. So if anybody wants my new online video you can do it the fun way and send me an email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] John%40totalvom.com Or you can just search for Information Dystopia and grab it off Demonoid. This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -john%40totalvom.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John from TotalVom, whose work has often discussed his role within a world of online content creators (as well as comment on them), has had enough of the youtube comments and decides to go BitTorrent only. I can see a whole slew of bittorrents by small artists that dont need the ubiquitous nature of posting content everywhere and just put out a torrent that you send to friends. http://totalvom.blip.tv/file/1127884/ I envision a bittorrent tracker only for original longish form video content; people friending each other in Vuse to share the workload (does anyone actually friend each other in their trackers? I dont, seems weird). Awesome and easy to set up, where creators create to dialog with each other without the need/care of Views and Comments. I own moneythong.com, sounds like a good name for an Underground Video Bittorrent tracker site. Does someone know how to make one of these? And yes, I'm inspired and serious. -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] . -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
You can use uTorrent to set up your own private tracker at your own domain name or IP address. I'd be happy to help if you need it, but it should be super easy. Details here: http://filesharefreak.com/tutorials/utorrent-make-your-own-bittorrent- tracker/ When people create a torrent file, they would create it with the Tracker URL: http://moneythong.com/yourport#/announce This covers the tracker part of the process, but not the index/ sharing of the torrent files. You can then share the torrent files privately by email, or create an index that's either public or accessible only to members, or use something like Pownce. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 4-Aug-08, at 10:34 AM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: When I get back to SF this week, I'll start to figure out how to make a tracker for moneythong.com I see it as a tracker for underground/independent visual work. Figured if the Internets didn't have one of these yet, where people can go through lists of artistic torrents, then now is the time!!! Maybe, like Jackson mentioned, we put up Broadcast Machine to help people figure out and use bittorrents. (we teach and entertain!) I just need to find someone who knows how to create and maintain a tracker that can teach me the ropes. Should be able to find that somebody -- if you know anyone, send em my way! On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Schlomo, that would be awesome if you created a tracker for underground video. This latest video was my first attempt at ever putting anything on bittorrent. The public tracker I used seemed to conk out after about 12 hours. I asked one of my sixteen year old fans what I should do. Put it on Demonoid. So I did and it started working again. Only problem, now it's searchable. I wanted it to be underground, distributed via email and bittorrent. You'd have to know somebody who knows somebody to get it. So far nobody has blabbed that it's public. So my youtube fans are still sending me emails. It's such a relief to be in contact with them. I'm learning my audience isn't exclusively moron. I've got faculty. I've got art students. I've got Europeans. Shutins. Life strugglers. I feel much more connected. I email the torrent out and I see another leecher sucking it off my computer. It feels great not to be hosted anywhere. So if anybody wants my new online video you can do it the fun way and send me an email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] John%40totalvom.com Or you can just search for Information Dystopia and grab it off Demonoid. This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -john%40totalvom.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John from TotalVom, whose work has often discussed his role within a world of online content creators (as well as comment on them), has had enough of the youtube comments and decides to go BitTorrent only. I can see a whole slew of bittorrents by small artists that dont need the ubiquitous nature of posting content everywhere and just put out a torrent that you send to friends. http://totalvom.blip.tv/file/1127884/ I envision a bittorrent tracker only for original longish form video content; people friending each other in Vuse to share the workload (does anyone actually friend each other in their trackers? I dont, seems weird). Awesome and easy to set up, where creators create to dialog with each other without the need/care of Views and Comments. I own moneythong.com, sounds like a good name for an Underground Video Bittorrent tracker site. Does someone know how to make one of these? And yes, I'm inspired and serious. -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] . -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Great info, Rupert. I guess this wont be hard to use; what I want to try to figure out is how to make the torrent pages pretty/accessible so it doesnt feel so l33t. I used to be very confused with trackers because of their l33t layouts. I want screenshots of vids, and easy learning curve for the newbie. Everyone is saying that bittorrent is getting more and more use, then lets have an underground vid tracker that displays works in a way that is inviting and helps push something different than just More Shows. Fuck Shows, Make Art On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can use uTorrent to set up your own private tracker at your own domain name or IP address. I'd be happy to help if you need it, but it should be super easy. Details here: http://filesharefreak.com/tutorials/utorrent-make-your-own-bittorrent- tracker/ When people create a torrent file, they would create it with the Tracker URL: http://moneythong.com/yourport#/announce This covers the tracker part of the process, but not the index/ sharing of the torrent files. You can then share the torrent files privately by email, or create an index that's either public or accessible only to members, or use something like Pownce. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 4-Aug-08, at 10:34 AM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: When I get back to SF this week, I'll start to figure out how to make a tracker for moneythong.com I see it as a tracker for underground/independent visual work. Figured if the Internets didn't have one of these yet, where people can go through lists of artistic torrents, then now is the time!!! Maybe, like Jackson mentioned, we put up Broadcast Machine to help people figure out and use bittorrents. (we teach and entertain!) I just need to find someone who knows how to create and maintain a tracker that can teach me the ropes. Should be able to find that somebody -- if you know anyone, send em my way! On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] john%40detrimentalinformation.com wrote: Schlomo, that would be awesome if you created a tracker for underground video. This latest video was my first attempt at ever putting anything on bittorrent. The public tracker I used seemed to conk out after about 12 hours. I asked one of my sixteen year old fans what I should do. Put it on Demonoid. So I did and it started working again. Only problem, now it's searchable. I wanted it to be underground, distributed via email and bittorrent. You'd have to know somebody who knows somebody to get it. So far nobody has blabbed that it's public. So my youtube fans are still sending me emails. It's such a relief to be in contact with them. I'm learning my audience isn't exclusively moron. I've got faculty. I've got art students. I've got Europeans. Shutins. Life strugglers. I feel much more connected. I email the torrent out and I see another leecher sucking it off my computer. It feels great not to be hosted anywhere. So if anybody wants my new online video you can do it the fun way and send me an email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] John%40totalvom.com John% 40totalvom.com Or you can just search for Information Dystopia and grab it off Demonoid. This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -john%40totalvom.com -john%40totalvom.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John from TotalVom, whose work has often discussed his role within a world of online content creators (as well as comment on them), has had enough of the youtube comments and decides to go BitTorrent only. I can see a whole slew of bittorrents by small artists that dont need the ubiquitous nature of posting content everywhere and just put out a torrent that you send to friends. http://totalvom.blip.tv/file/1127884/ I envision a bittorrent tracker only for original longish form video content; people friending each other in Vuse to share the workload (does anyone actually friend each other in their trackers? I dont, seems weird). Awesome and easy to set up, where creators create to dialog with each other without the need/care of Views and Comments. I own moneythong.com, sounds like a good name for an Underground Video Bittorrent tracker site. Does someone know how to make one of these? And yes, I'm inspired and serious. -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] . -- Schlomo
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
If it were me, I'd build it on Wordpress. There's a catalog/ directory tool for Wordpress called Scriblio. http://about.scriblio.net/ It was designed by a team of librarians to be an open source OPAC - Open Public Access Catalog for libraries. But if you look at it, it basically turns Wordpress into an editable catalog with pictures/screenshots and all sorts of other data. It'd be searchable, cataloguable. It's free and it's supported by grants and used by a few libraries, so chances are it'll be well-supported as Wordpress gets upgraded. And Wordpress, obviously, has the benefit of so many developers and plugins - it keeps getting better. You can allow people to register as Contributors and upload their own files. Set different levels of permissions. And you'd have a variety of feed options - Wordpress makes a main feed and one for each category. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 4-Aug-08, at 11:11 AM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: Great info, Rupert. I guess this wont be hard to use; what I want to try to figure out is how to make the torrent pages pretty/accessible so it doesnt feel so l33t. I used to be very confused with trackers because of their l33t layouts. I want screenshots of vids, and easy learning curve for the newbie. Everyone is saying that bittorrent is getting more and more use, then lets have an underground vid tracker that displays works in a way that is inviting and helps push something different than just More Shows. Fuck Shows, Make Art On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can use uTorrent to set up your own private tracker at your own domain name or IP address. I'd be happy to help if you need it, but it should be super easy. Details here: http://filesharefreak.com/tutorials/utorrent-make-your-own- bittorrent- tracker/ When people create a torrent file, they would create it with the Tracker URL: http://moneythong.com/yourport#/announce This covers the tracker part of the process, but not the index/ sharing of the torrent files. You can then share the torrent files privately by email, or create an index that's either public or accessible only to members, or use something like Pownce. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 4-Aug-08, at 10:34 AM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: When I get back to SF this week, I'll start to figure out how to make a tracker for moneythong.com I see it as a tracker for underground/independent visual work. Figured if the Internets didn't have one of these yet, where people can go through lists of artistic torrents, then now is the time!!! Maybe, like Jackson mentioned, we put up Broadcast Machine to help people figure out and use bittorrents. (we teach and entertain!) I just need to find someone who knows how to create and maintain a tracker that can teach me the ropes. Should be able to find that somebody -- if you know anyone, send em my way! On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] john%40detrimentalinformation.com wrote: Schlomo, that would be awesome if you created a tracker for underground video. This latest video was my first attempt at ever putting anything on bittorrent. The public tracker I used seemed to conk out after about 12 hours. I asked one of my sixteen year old fans what I should do. Put it on Demonoid. So I did and it started working again. Only problem, now it's searchable. I wanted it to be underground, distributed via email and bittorrent. You'd have to know somebody who knows somebody to get it. So far nobody has blabbed that it's public. So my youtube fans are still sending me emails. It's such a relief to be in contact with them. I'm learning my audience isn't exclusively moron. I've got faculty. I've got art students. I've got Europeans. Shutins. Life strugglers. I feel much more connected. I email the torrent out and I see another leecher sucking it off my computer. It feels great not to be hosted anywhere. So if anybody wants my new online video you can do it the fun way and send me an email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] John%40totalvom.com John% 40totalvom.com Or you can just search for Information Dystopia and grab it off Demonoid. This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -john%40totalvom.com -john%40totalvom.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John from TotalVom, whose work has often discussed his role within a world of online content creators (as well as comment on them), has
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
AHH! Worlds colliding! I know the guys that make scriblio - it's pretty cool (and the creators are too). Interesting to see a library dealie turn up in this list - cool. David King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it were me, I'd build it on Wordpress. There's a catalog/ directory tool for Wordpress called Scriblio. http://about.scriblio.net/ It was designed by a team of librarians to be an open source OPAC - Open Public Access Catalog for libraries. But if you look at it, it basically turns Wordpress into an editable catalog with pictures/screenshots and all sorts of other data. It'd be searchable, cataloguable. It's free and it's supported by grants and used by a few libraries, so chances are it'll be well-supported as Wordpress gets upgraded. And Wordpress, obviously, has the benefit of so many developers and plugins - it keeps getting better. You can allow people to register as Contributors and upload their own files. Set different levels of permissions. And you'd have a variety of feed options - Wordpress makes a main feed and one for each category. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 4-Aug-08, at 11:11 AM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: Great info, Rupert. I guess this wont be hard to use; what I want to try to figure out is how to make the torrent pages pretty/accessible so it doesnt feel so l33t. I used to be very confused with trackers because of their l33t layouts. I want screenshots of vids, and easy learning curve for the newbie. Everyone is saying that bittorrent is getting more and more use, then lets have an underground vid tracker that displays works in a way that is inviting and helps push something different than just More Shows. Fuck Shows, Make Art On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org wrote: You can use uTorrent to set up your own private tracker at your own domain name or IP address. I'd be happy to help if you need it, but it should be super easy. Details here: http://filesharefreak.com/tutorials/utorrent-make-your-own- bittorrent- tracker/ When people create a torrent file, they would create it with the Tracker URL: http://moneythong.com/yourport#/announce This covers the tracker part of the process, but not the index/ sharing of the torrent files. You can then share the torrent files privately by email, or create an index that's either public or accessible only to members, or use something like Pownce. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 4-Aug-08, at 10:34 AM, schlomo rabinowitz wrote: When I get back to SF this week, I'll start to figure out how to make a tracker for moneythong.com I see it as a tracker for underground/independent visual work. Figured if the Internets didn't have one of these yet, where people can go through lists of artistic torrents, then now is the time!!! Maybe, like Jackson mentioned, we put up Broadcast Machine to help people figure out and use bittorrents. (we teach and entertain!) I just need to find someone who knows how to create and maintain a tracker that can teach me the ropes. Should be able to find that somebody -- if you know anyone, send em my way! On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM, ractalfece [EMAIL PROTECTED] john%40detrimentalinformation.comjohn% 40detrimentalinformation.com wrote: Schlomo, that would be awesome if you created a tracker for underground video. This latest video was my first attempt at ever putting anything on bittorrent. The public tracker I used seemed to conk out after about 12 hours. I asked one of my sixteen year old fans what I should do. Put it on Demonoid. So I did and it started working again. Only problem, now it's searchable. I wanted it to be underground, distributed via email and bittorrent. You'd have to know somebody who knows somebody to get it. So far nobody has blabbed that it's public. So my youtube fans are still sending me emails. It's such a relief to be in contact with them. I'm learning my audience isn't exclusively moron. I've got faculty. I've got art students. I've got Europeans. Shutins. Life strugglers. I feel much more connected. I email the torrent out and I see another leecher sucking it off my computer. It feels great not to be hosted anywhere. So if anybody wants my new online video you can do it the fun way and send me an email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] John%40totalvom.com John% 40totalvom.com John% 40totalvom.com Or you can just search for Information Dystopia and grab it off Demonoid. This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's
[videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground
Schlomo, that would be awesome if you created a tracker for underground video. This latest video was my first attempt at ever putting anything on bittorrent. The public tracker I used seemed to conk out after about 12 hours. I asked one of my sixteen year old fans what I should do. Put it on Demonoid. So I did and it started working again. Only problem, now it's searchable. I wanted it to be underground, distributed via email and bittorrent. You'd have to know somebody who knows somebody to get it. So far nobody has blabbed that it's public. So my youtube fans are still sending me emails. It's such a relief to be in contact with them. I'm learning my audience isn't exclusively moron. I've got faculty. I've got art students. I've got Europeans. Shutins. Life strugglers. I feel much more connected. I email the torrent out and I see another leecher sucking it off my computer. It feels great not to be hosted anywhere. So if anybody wants my new online video you can do it the fun way and send me an email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or you can just search for Information Dystopia and grab it off Demonoid. This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on this list? It's that time again. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John from TotalVom, whose work has often discussed his role within a world of online content creators (as well as comment on them), has had enough of the youtube comments and decides to go BitTorrent only. I can see a whole slew of bittorrents by small artists that dont need the ubiquitous nature of posting content everywhere and just put out a torrent that you send to friends. http://totalvom.blip.tv/file/1127884/ I envision a bittorrent tracker only for original longish form video content; people friending each other in Vuse to share the workload (does anyone actually friend each other in their trackers? I dont, seems weird). Awesome and easy to set up, where creators create to dialog with each other without the need/care of Views and Comments. I own moneythong.com, sounds like a good name for an Underground Video Bittorrent tracker site. Does someone know how to make one of these? And yes, I'm inspired and serious. -- Schlomo Rabinowitz http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net AIM:schlomochat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
