[videoblogging] Re: My two cents
around the 21/3/07 c rule mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: My two cents that: My point is that working online as a filmmaker has been incredible in terms of inspiration and opportunities...and meeting such a diverse group of people. My other point is that the stiff upper brow types are looking. They do look. And they are starting to acknowledge this form with validation. How can they not?! absolutely, and to summarise the various responses: having an online identity can promote/showcase your practice, while it is also valuable to recognise that videoblogging is not TV or cinema and so the sorts of work you might make, and why, can be quite different. Obviously if I have my heart on making 90 min cinema drama then online might not work for me, though it coudl certainly be a place where I show I have the ability -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My two cents
How to explain this concept to someone who's got a 5-second attention span and 30 minutes to pee, wash up and eat? My solution has been to offer :05 tasty snippets and hope it sinks in over time. I'm trying to reach the technical crew, few of whom seem much interested. Those who are initially interested get frightened that this kind of contentmaking will foul up their careers. They're scared shitless. But then, film sets increasingly operate with an undercurrent of fear, and it gets worse with every passing day. This movement supports part of the fear. Jan On 3/23/07, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: around the 21/3/07 c rule mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: My two cents that: My point is that working online as a filmmaker has been incredible in terms of inspiration and opportunities...and meeting such a diverse group of people. My other point is that the stiff upper brow types are looking. They do look. And they are starting to acknowledge this form with validation. How can they not?! absolutely, and to summarise the various responses: having an online identity can promote/showcase your practice, while it is also valuable to recognise that videoblogging is not TV or cinema and so the sorts of work you might make, and why, can be quite different. Obviously if I have my heart on making 90 min cinema drama then online might not work for me, though it coudl certainly be a place where I show I have the ability -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents
Yes, there are quite a few filmmakers putting video online - but many more professional filmmakers don't use the web to distribute their work. i think what adrian said is true - but their rejection of it is more through a lack of understanding of the web and lack of tech skills than because of any preciousness, i think. In my experience, it's mostly because they don't use the web to watch films themselves, so they don't know what the possibilities are, and maybe most significantly they see a web audience as an unattractive Other. They assume people who watch video online are weirdos, techies, teenagers or bored office workers. They see what's on YouTube - the football clips or talking heads and think that's what people watch online and assume that they won't reach an audience who will commit to their story or piece. Also, they see the comments on YouTube and think, I don't want to subject my work to that kind of audience - they won't like/understand it. Then there are those who think How MANY people actually watch things online - apart from the odd lonelygirl15 or geriatric1927 who get lots of views... is it worth prioritising a small audience over the bigger theatrical audience I could get if i spent my evenings working on that script/film instead of trying to learn a whole new set of skills. And thus it's as much perceived technological barrier as an attitude barrier which keeps them away. Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/ On 21 Mar 2007, at 03:05, Brook Hinton wrote: Delurking to point out just a FEW of the MANY Filmmaker/Video Artists who Videoblog or Videoblogged or use video in their blogs, some of whom are right here in the videoblogging group: Aaron Valdez Abe Linkoln Matt McCormick Jonas Mekas (OK, it's not free but still, one of the grandfathers of experimental film for pete's sake!) Jennifer Proctor Miranda July Caveh Zahedi Charlene Rule Joshua Kanies Duncan Speakman Me the list goes on and on. these are just the names that came immediately to mind (and I'm really sorry to any of my own filmmaker friends not listed above - brain is sleep deprived at present). And there are dozens if not more who post what are absolutely works of cinema for the web in many of their videoblog entries, including pionner vloggers like Jay Dedman and Ryanne Hodson and Mica Scalin and others who may or may not call themselves filmmakers as well as videobloggers. Yes, there are HUGE HUGE HUGE and very real issues about posting your work online, esp. work that is intended for other venues, but after 30 minutes of trying to compose a post about all of that I realized it's not a post, it's an article, and I at least wanted to point out in light of the previous comments that we do exist. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents
around the 21/3/07 Rupert mentioned about Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents that: Yes, there are quite a few filmmakers putting video online - but many more professional filmmakers don't use the web to distribute their work. i think what adrian said is true - but their rejection of it is more through a lack of understanding of the web and lack of tech skills than because of any preciousness, i think. sorry, I guess I did indicate it this didn't I :-) I should have said that once they are walked through most of the issues the next observation is usually: 1. ok, I'm up for it, or 2. OK, but no. I was on a panel about blogs and video in Sydney late last year for doco makers, and those who's history is in trad. media are interested, but really struggle to see the differences, so tend to see it as a way of promoting their 'real' project, rather than offering an alternative or other way of working. -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents
Yeah, I realised as soon as I sent it that, contrary to what i wrote, there *is* a good deal of preciousness at work. And also a good deal of the-traditional-route-works-for-me-why-would-i-want-to-muck- about-with-all-that? i was just reading a copy of the BBC in-house magazine Ariel, with the front page banner: GET WEB SAVVY OR DIE. Full of lots of good stuff about what the BBC's doing, and yet almost every explanation/ definition of Web 2.0 or the long tail was very inaccurate. Featured a presentation that the head of BBC worldwide had made in New York saying We're not trying to be Myspace or Bebo with our video offerings online - they're the Wal-marts of the web, while we're a high-class deli. I wondered whether he ever actually used the web himself. The first hurdle execs and filmmakers have to clear is not the creating of content for the web - but just surfing it, realising that it's not a gadget or a fad or something Technical, Unpleasant and Other, and committing enough time to understand how some of it works... then they might have some ideas from within about how to create stuff for it. Otherwise, it's almost like they're telling themselves that they're too old to learn anything new. That makes me sad, because it creates a terrible generation gap among filmmakers, which is unnecessary. Still, it's their own lookout. Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/ On 21 Mar 2007, at 11:02, Adrian Miles wrote: around the 21/3/07 Rupert mentioned about Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents that: Yes, there are quite a few filmmakers putting video online - but many more professional filmmakers don't use the web to distribute their work. i think what adrian said is true - but their rejection of it is more through a lack of understanding of the web and lack of tech skills than because of any preciousness, i think. sorry, I guess I did indicate it this didn't I :-) I should have said that once they are walked through most of the issues the next observation is usually: 1. ok, I'm up for it, or 2. OK, but no. I was on a panel about blogs and video in Sydney late last year for doco makers, and those who's history is in trad. media are interested, but really struggle to see the differences, so tend to see it as a way of promoting their 'real' project, rather than offering an alternative or other way of working. -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: my two cents
I echo all these points put forth by Adrian and Brook and Rupert. I'm often approached by filmmakers in my department (I'm a grad student in film) who are curious and interested in videoblogging, but lack the skills and time to devote to getting one up and running, and then maintaining it, especially while working on films for theatrical or festival release. I'm certainly neglecting my vlog while I finish a longer-form film. But there have certainly been some to make the leap--and I'll mention in particular one by fellow grad student Alexis Bravos here at the Univ. Of Iowa: http://www.postcardinwinter.blogspot.com/ Leighton Pierce, faculty in my department and a wonderful videomaker, has also created mobile versions of his work for iPod viewing on his website: http://leightonpierce.com (check these out!) But I'd like to add that for many filmmakers, especially of the experimental/fine art sort, the web still has an aura of lowbrow, opiate of the masses, low art type content, a space that television has occupied for a long time. As has been mentioned, I think many filmmakers fear losing respect or prestige or pride or whatever by placing in their work in the same venue as Jackass style YouTube videos and posts about kittens and puppies and whatnot (although I'm personally addicted to both). And there's always the concern that listing web video on your dossier simply doesn't hold the same weight as a festival screening or theatrical premiere. The professional/academic film worlds haven't quite caught up with the possibilities of the web, so festival and curated screenings generally still hold far more prestige than anything that can happen on the web. This is changing somewhat, now, but, like so many things outside of the web, the process is slow-going. That's my coupla cents. Jen --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, there are quite a few filmmakers putting video online - but many more professional filmmakers don't use the web to distribute their work. i think what adrian said is true - but their rejection of it is more through a lack of understanding of the web and lack of tech skills than because of any preciousness, i think. In my experience, it's mostly because they don't use the web to watch films themselves, so they don't know what the possibilities are, and maybe most significantly they see a web audience as an unattractive Other. They assume people who watch video online are weirdos, techies, teenagers or bored office workers. They see what's on YouTube - the football clips or talking heads and think that's what people watch online and assume that they won't reach an audience who will commit to their story or piece. Also, they see the comments on YouTube and think, I don't want to subject my work to that kind of audience - they won't like/understand it. Then there are those who think How MANY people actually watch things online - apart from the odd lonelygirl15 or geriatric1927 who get lots of views... is it worth prioritising a small audience over the bigger theatrical audience I could get if i spent my evenings working on that script/film instead of trying to learn a whole new set of skills. And thus it's as much perceived technological barrier as an attitude barrier which keeps them away. Rupert http://www.fatgirlinohio.org http://www.crowdabout.us/fatgirlinohio/myshow/ On 21 Mar 2007, at 03:05, Brook Hinton wrote: Delurking to point out just a FEW of the MANY Filmmaker/Video Artists who Videoblog or Videoblogged or use video in their blogs, some of whom are right here in the videoblogging group: Aaron Valdez Abe Linkoln Matt McCormick Jonas Mekas (OK, it's not free but still, one of the grandfathers of experimental film for pete's sake!) Jennifer Proctor Miranda July Caveh Zahedi Charlene Rule Joshua Kanies Duncan Speakman Me the list goes on and on. these are just the names that came immediately to mind (and I'm really sorry to any of my own filmmaker friends not listed above - brain is sleep deprived at present). And there are dozens if not more who post what are absolutely works of cinema for the web in many of their videoblog entries, including pionner vloggers like Jay Dedman and Ryanne Hodson and Mica Scalin and others who may or may not call themselves filmmakers as well as videobloggers. Yes, there are HUGE HUGE HUGE and very real issues about posting your work online, esp. work that is intended for other venues, but after 30 minutes of trying to compose a post about all of that I realized it's not a post, it's an article, and I at least wanted to point out in light of the previous comments that we do exist. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text
[videoblogging] Re: my two cents
YES! These are all things I've heard from them. I would also add that a lot of filmmakers enjoy the scarcity of their medium. They aren't all that interested in everyone being able to do what they do- -some are horrified by the idea. They often (and I'm making generalities here) are elitists who don't think that everyone should make moving pictures or just ANYONE should have an equal chance to be seen. Some others are luddites who have a strong distaste for anything digital. And others are old technology fetishists who think that actual FILM is the greatest imaging technology ever invented and refuse to lower themselves to working in mere video. Yup. Thats pretty much the case. Not for all, but many of them. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com www.garagepunk.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: around the 20/3/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: my two cents that: --- In mailto:videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin jannie.jan@ wrote: Hell, I can't even get filmmakers to vlog. Or YouTube (as verb) either. Im fascinated by this sort of phenomenon, have you been able to delve into any of the reasons why this seems to be the case? Its certainly something that surprised me, I imagined some huge surge of thousands of people who are involved with other creative or arts stuff, , gettng excited about using internet video to showcase their work. It happens, but nowhere near ont he scale I pictured. film makers fetishise film (or video) and so are much like authors in 1995 when the web first came to attention (to them). So a film maker wants to a) maintain control over the viewer (my work is 22 minutes and you really should see the whole 22 minutes - what do you mean they might go somewhere else? what do you mean they might actually be able to rearrange *my* vision??) b) like the author regards publication (a book) as the top of their tree, film professwional sees TV broadcast, cinema or festival screening as same. c) like authors, real writing happens on white pages, serially ordered, between covers. You are special to get there. Real film makers produce real programs/shorts/features that are serially ordered between credits. You are special to have your work made/selected. On the net anyone can do it, therefore the lowest common denominator rules, and I am not part of that (I'm a film maker after all). d) I own your screen. I own all of it. On the net you own your screen. I couldn't possibly show my film at 320 x 240, or heck, even 640 x 480. e) the quality is too bad (this is result of bad compression but was an issue once upon a time). f) it might get stolen (of course if you don't put it online and you are lucky enough to get into a festival, your work might be screened once at the wrap party, once at your own premiere, and once at the festival...) There are other reasons but I find the easiest way to explain it to others (which I've done a few times in papers and conference presentations) is that if you think about how authors responded to the web in 1995 (you mean everyone can read my work? cool? hold on, links, you mean they can go elsewhere? and you mean my beautiful perfect structure should be granular with links inside, no way) is much the same problem confronting trad. professional video and film people right now. -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: my two cents
Thanks for all the great information everyone, I guess it is a complex pciure with many reasons, but also many more people than I realised joining in with online video. Its got me wondering just how many millions of hours of video is out there on tapes etc, that the public have never seen. I dont suppose anybody out there is doing anything crazy like trying to calculate how many hours of online video there are so far? Its kinda fun seing how much music I have in itunes in terms of days-worth of listening, so was just a wondering how many lifetims Id need to watch all the web video that exists already! Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YES! These are all things I've heard from them. I would also add that a lot of filmmakers enjoy the scarcity of their medium. They aren't all that interested in everyone being able to do what they do- -some are horrified by the idea. They often (and I'm making generalities here) are elitists who don't think that everyone should make moving pictures or just ANYONE should have an equal chance to be seen. Some others are luddites who have a strong distaste for anything digital. And others are old technology fetishists who think that actual FILM is the greatest imaging technology ever invented and refuse to lower themselves to working in mere video. Yup. Thats pretty much the case. Not for all, but many of them. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com www.garagepunk.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles adrian.miles@ wrote: around the 20/3/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: my two cents that: --- In mailto:videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin jannie.jan@ wrote: Hell, I can't even get filmmakers to vlog. Or YouTube (as verb) either. Im fascinated by this sort of phenomenon, have you been able to delve into any of the reasons why this seems to be the case? Its certainly something that surprised me, I imagined some huge surge of thousands of people who are involved with other creative or arts stuff, , gettng excited about using internet video to showcase their work. It happens, but nowhere near ont he scale I pictured. film makers fetishise film (or video) and so are much like authors in 1995 when the web first came to attention (to them). So a film maker wants to a) maintain control over the viewer (my work is 22 minutes and you really should see the whole 22 minutes - what do you mean they might go somewhere else? what do you mean they might actually be able to rearrange *my* vision??) b) like the author regards publication (a book) as the top of their tree, film professwional sees TV broadcast, cinema or festival screening as same. c) like authors, real writing happens on white pages, serially ordered, between covers. You are special to get there. Real film makers produce real programs/shorts/features that are serially ordered between credits. You are special to have your work made/selected. On the net anyone can do it, therefore the lowest common denominator rules, and I am not part of that (I'm a film maker after all). d) I own your screen. I own all of it. On the net you own your screen. I couldn't possibly show my film at 320 x 240, or heck, even 640 x 480. e) the quality is too bad (this is result of bad compression but was an issue once upon a time). f) it might get stolen (of course if you don't put it online and you are lucky enough to get into a festival, your work might be screened once at the wrap party, once at your own premiere, and once at the festival...) There are other reasons but I find the easiest way to explain it to others (which I've done a few times in papers and conference presentations) is that if you think about how authors responded to the web in 1995 (you mean everyone can read my work? cool? hold on, links, you mean they can go elsewhere? and you mean my beautiful perfect structure should be granular with links inside, no way) is much the same problem confronting trad. professional video and film people right now. -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents
I should have included Alexis, I was so happy (and surprised!) when she started her vlog. There are, to be fair, lots of compelling reasons NOT to distribute via the web. I make work FOR the web, but I don't usually put work intended for a big screen on the web - some of that is, yes, economics, but some of it is just that the work doesn't make any sense without a large screen presentation: that little person in the corner of the screen by the dumpster whose shift in position holds a large part of the meaning in a short I just finished isn't even VISIBLE at 320 x 240. Conversely, I've had the horrifying experience of showing some of my web work with pristine theatrical DLP projectors on umpty-foot-wide screens, and the presentation was equally inappropriate and damaging. But then there's work that does function across presentation methods as well. There is also work that really depends on a shared, public, physical setting for its impact. It is an insane world right now for filmmakers and video artists. Videoblog, or limited edition of 5 $5000 DVDs by that gallery that promises to advance your career and give you a shot at making a living full time with this? On-demand download of your latest feature, sell DVDs yourself so you can keep the money they make, or let IFC have the rights (and the money) in the interest of getting your work to a much wider audience and on the shelves of more video stores? In many cases, any one path closes the doors to the others. To make it worse, the audiences for the web, festivals, theaters, galleries/museums etc. don't have a lot of crossover. Most people find the milieu in which they get regular satisfaction as a viewer, and stay there. It used to be you just had to decide whether to show at a small festival now and forego the chance at Sundance, or wait for the Park City jury's verdict. But for filmmakers and video artists to ignore the web, and to ignore the fact that significant new cinema is being made there and shown there, is foolish at this stage. And I'm constantly railing to my colleagues that they are ignoring significant new developments in experimental cinema by refusing to pay attention to work on the web. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: My two cents
...Being a person who lives online and in the theatrical/tvland vortex. I gotta spill on this one. Since I started making work online, my time has been designated to making those pieces and I haven't had time to apply to festivals and so on. However, all of the gallery shows, theaters and festivals that I have had the pleasure of taking part in were brought to my attention because curators and programmers spotted my work online. How awesome is that! People push me to make various forms of films from my little pieces that are developed here. I would never have been able to meet as many folks or have these opportunities - in such a short time - unless it were here online. Especially since I work fulltime making other peoples' films by day. My point is that working online as a filmmaker has been incredible in terms of inspiration and opportunities...and meeting such a diverse group of people. My other point is that the stiff upper brow types are looking. They do look. And they are starting to acknowledge this form with validation. How can they not?! -- ___scr atc h http://www.scratchvideo.tv
Re: [videoblogging] Re: My two cents
that's how i spotted you and invited you to participate in my festival ! gs Le 21 mars 07 à 21:09, c rule a écrit : ...Being a person who lives online and in the theatrical/tvland vortex. I gotta spill on this one. Since I started making work online, my time has been designated to making those pieces and I haven't had time to apply to festivals and so on. However, all of the gallery shows, theaters and festivals that I have had the pleasure of taking part in were brought to my attention because curators and programmers spotted my work online. How awesome is that! People push me to make various forms of films from my little pieces that are developed here. I would never have been able to meet as many folks or have these opportunities - in such a short time - unless it were here online. Especially since I work fulltime making other peoples' films by day. My point is that working online as a filmmaker has been incredible in terms of inspiration and opportunities...and meeting such a diverse group of people. My other point is that the stiff upper brow types are looking. They do look. And they are starting to acknowledge this form with validation. How can they not?! -- ___s c r a t c h http://www.scratchvideo.tv Gabriel Soucheyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Département Métiers du livre et éditions numériques Université Blaise Pascal 34, av Carnot BP 185 63006 Clermont-Ferrand cedex -- VIDEOFORMES vidéo et nouveaux médias dans l'art contemporain www.videoformes.com BP 50 -64, rue Lamartine 63002 CLERMONT-FERRAND Cedex 1 / France T + 33 (0) 473 17 02 17 Direction : Gabriel SOUCHEYRE + 33 (0) 612 59 27 53 Skype : callto:gabrielsoucheyre [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents
Good question. Is there anywone here who doesn't consider youtube
videoblogging?
I personally think that to not consider youtube videoblogging is
exactly like saying myspace is not blogging.
Youtube may not be considered video podcasting, but they do even have
RSS feeds. And remarkeable RSS feeds at that.
-Mike
On 3/20/07, jonny goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YouTube is a rich stew o' flavors and interactions. I'm a big fan. I
don't see why you couldn't call them vloggers too. It's all video on
the web w/comments.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, JOHNNIE WARNER
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
with all due respect to the indepedent video bloggers here .
(independent meaning on your own website or blog)
you tube has yet to let me down with it entertaining yet meaningful
videos- sometimes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHjIj3fpR8NR
its funny that people have no clue as to how big video on the net
(vlogging, videocasting etc. is, when in fact it has been proven how
interested people
are in others peoples lives such examples below...
-reality tv-
people court
real world
lost
(not to mention the first reality show) COPS!
-america's funniest home video
which i'm pretty sure that i've seen some of those same videos
highlighted being once aired on AFHV.
just my two cents. but i guess if i had three more thoughts i'd have
a nickel - huh
from the couple of vloggers that have identified their selves here,
1.where are the black vloggers,
2.where are the mexican vloggers
3.where are the asian vloggers
of this community - just my nickel worth of questions on the
diversity of this community that i take so much away from.
happy vlogging!
On Mar 20, 2007, at 5:54 AM, Gena wrote:
It's true according to Yahoo. I want a special award to the best of
the Shakira clones. The bigger the man belly the better.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_hi_te/youtube_awards
Gena
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
~--
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email
design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM
~-
Yahoo! Groups Links
http://www.oneinthehand.blogspot.com
The only Treo Training Video Cast in the World
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents
Let's also consider Daryl hannah, Quintin Terentino, Jack Black, and Peter jackson. Though I think for the most part Jan is talking a particular breed of film makers. They're probably well established... have busy day jobs... and maybe they just have an outlet for their film making and don't feel the need to blog. It is true that people with an established profession are much less likely to experiment with new media. I think you might well say that vlogging is a scrappy bunch of entreprenurial types. Also called, early adopters. :) -Mike On 3/20/07, Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Delurking to point out just a FEW of the MANY Filmmaker/Video Artists who Videoblog or Videoblogged or use video in their blogs, some of whom are right here in the videoblogging group: Aaron Valdez Abe Linkoln Matt McCormick Jonas Mekas (OK, it's not free but still, one of the grandfathers of experimental film for pete's sake!) Jennifer Proctor Miranda July Caveh Zahedi Charlene Rule Joshua Kanies Duncan Speakman Me the list goes on and on. these are just the names that came immediately to mind (and I'm really sorry to any of my own filmmaker friends not listed above - brain is sleep deprived at present). And there are dozens if not more who post what are absolutely works of cinema for the web in many of their videoblog entries, including pionner vloggers like Jay Dedman and Ryanne Hodson and Mica Scalin and others who may or may not call themselves filmmakers as well as videobloggers. Yes, there are HUGE HUGE HUGE and very real issues about posting your work online, esp. work that is intended for other venues, but after 30 minutes of trying to compose a post about all of that I realized it's not a post, it's an article, and I at least wanted to point out in light of the previous comments that we do exist. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents
around the 21/3/07 Mike Meiser mentioned about Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents that: Good question. Is there anywone here who doesn't consider youtube videoblogging? pokes head above parapet well, if I stick video in youtube and that's it. then no. If i use youtube to easily publish content into my blog, then perhaps. even maybe yes. /pokes head above parapet -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: my two cents
around the 21/3/07 Bill Streeter mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: my two cents that: YES! These are all things I've heard from them. I would also add that a lot of filmmakers enjoy the scarcity of their medium. They aren't all that interested in everyone being able to do what they do- -some are horrified by the idea. They often (and I'm making generalities here) are elitists who don't think that everyone should make moving pictures or just ANYONE should have an equal chance to be seen. Some others are luddites who have a strong distaste for anything digital. And others are old technology fetishists who think that actual FILM is the greatest imaging technology ever invented and refuse to lower themselves to working in mere video. good points Bill, and as mentioned earlier, you did get (and still do) very similar conversations with authors (sorry, novelists, they even have a special term!) and the web. Don't even get them started on blogging :-) -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: my two cents
YouTube is a rich stew o' flavors and interactions. I'm a big fan. I don't see why you couldn't call them vloggers too. It's all video on the web w/comments. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, JOHNNIE WARNER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: with all due respect to the indepedent video bloggers here . (independent meaning on your own website or blog) you tube has yet to let me down with it entertaining yet meaningful videos- sometimes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHjIj3fpR8NR its funny that people have no clue as to how big video on the net (vlogging, videocasting etc. is, when in fact it has been proven how interested people are in others peoples lives such examples below... -reality tv- people court real world lost (not to mention the first reality show) COPS! -america's funniest home video which i'm pretty sure that i've seen some of those same videos highlighted being once aired on AFHV. just my two cents. but i guess if i had three more thoughts i'd have a nickel - huh from the couple of vloggers that have identified their selves here, 1.where are the black vloggers, 2.where are the mexican vloggers 3.where are the asian vloggers of this community - just my nickel worth of questions on the diversity of this community that i take so much away from. happy vlogging! On Mar 20, 2007, at 5:54 AM, Gena wrote: It's true according to Yahoo. I want a special award to the best of the Shakira clones. The bigger the man belly the better. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_hi_te/youtube_awards Gena Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.oneinthehand.blogspot.com The only Treo Training Video Cast in the World [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents
.well you know johnny(which is a great name, spelled a little funny but still a great name) when i look at the videos and discuss with my circle of friends, vlogging seems to be used synonymously with youtube ie. Hey johnnie, did you youtube that new software for the treo or Johnnie, i've seen your youtube on creating and viewing your email on youtube.(i know it sound kinda ridicuoulous, but that is what videocasting/vlogging has been refered to outside of this group and those associated with it. Almost like .blackberry, being coined as the modern day smartphone/handheld or ipod being coined as mp3 player. Its nothing more than perception being ones reality, which bring me back to my original questions again which is a perceived reality in a sense for me. Where are the minority bloggers - is their a group, inner circle or clique kinda like the blogher movement??? just a questions So i guess that make this my 6cents now huh... thanks johnny for the reply On Mar 20, 2007, at 11:22 AM, jonny goldstein wrote: YouTube is a rich stew o' flavors and interactions. I'm a big fan. I don't see why you couldn't call them vloggers too. It's all video on the web w/comments. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, JOHNNIE WARNER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: with all due respect to the indepedent video bloggers here . (independent meaning on your own website or blog) you tube has yet to let me down with it entertaining yet meaningful videos- sometimes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHjIj3fpR8NR its funny that people have no clue as to how big video on the net (vlogging, videocasting etc. is, when in fact it has been proven how interested people are in others peoples lives such examples below... -reality tv- people court real world lost (not to mention the first reality show) COPS! -america's funniest home video which i'm pretty sure that i've seen some of those same videos highlighted being once aired on AFHV. just my two cents. but i guess if i had three more thoughts i'd have a nickel - huh from the couple of vloggers that have identified their selves here, 1.where are the black vloggers, 2.where are the mexican vloggers 3.where are the asian vloggers of this community - just my nickel worth of questions on the diversity of this community that i take so much away from. happy vlogging! On Mar 20, 2007, at 5:54 AM, Gena wrote: It's true according to Yahoo. I want a special award to the best of the Shakira clones. The bigger the man belly the better. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_hi_te/youtube_awards Gena Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.oneinthehand.blogspot.com The only Treo Training Video Cast in the World [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.oneinthehand.blogspot.com The only Treo Training Video Cast in the World [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents
Hell, I can't even get filmmakers to vlog. Or YouTube (as verb) either. There are minority vloggers here. Speak up! Not everybody is interested in this list, I'll say that. Lots of vloggers springing up who don't play here. I'm here 'cause I'm in the habit of being on this list. Jan On 3/20/07, JOHNNIE WARNER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .well you know johnny(which is a great name, spelled a little funny but still a great name) when i look at the videos and discuss with my circle of friends, vlogging seems to be used synonymously with youtube ie. Hey johnnie, did you youtube that new software for the treo or Johnnie, i've seen your youtube on creating and viewing your email on youtube.(i know it sound kinda ridicuoulous, but that is what videocasting/vlogging has been refered to outside of this group and those associated with it. Almost like .blackberry, being coined as the modern day smartphone/handheld or ipod being coined as mp3 player. Its nothing more than perception being ones reality, which bring me back to my original questions again which is a perceived reality in a sense for me. Where are the minority bloggers - is their a group, inner circle or clique kinda like the blogher movement??? just a questions So i guess that make this my 6cents now huh... thanks johnny for the reply On Mar 20, 2007, at 11:22 AM, jonny goldstein wrote: YouTube is a rich stew o' flavors and interactions. I'm a big fan. I don't see why you couldn't call them vloggers too. It's all video on the web w/comments. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, JOHNNIE WARNER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: with all due respect to the indepedent video bloggers here . (independent meaning on your own website or blog) you tube has yet to let me down with it entertaining yet meaningful videos- sometimes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHjIj3fpR8NR its funny that people have no clue as to how big video on the net (vlogging, videocasting etc. is, when in fact it has been proven how interested people are in others peoples lives such examples below... -reality tv- people court real world lost (not to mention the first reality show) COPS! -america's funniest home video which i'm pretty sure that i've seen some of those same videos highlighted being once aired on AFHV. just my two cents. but i guess if i had three more thoughts i'd have a nickel - huh from the couple of vloggers that have identified their selves here, 1.where are the black vloggers, 2.where are the mexican vloggers 3.where are the asian vloggers of this community - just my nickel worth of questions on the diversity of this community that i take so much away from. happy vlogging! On Mar 20, 2007, at 5:54 AM, Gena wrote: It's true according to Yahoo. I want a special award to the best of the Shakira clones. The bigger the man belly the better. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_hi_te/youtube_awards Gena Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.oneinthehand.blogspot.com The only Treo Training Video Cast in the World [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.oneinthehand.blogspot.com The only Treo Training Video Cast in the World [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: my two cents
around the 20/3/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: my two cents that: --- In mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hell, I can't even get filmmakers to vlog. Or YouTube (as verb) either. Im fascinated by this sort of phenomenon, have you been able to delve into any of the reasons why this seems to be the case? Its certainly something that surprised me, I imagined some huge surge of thousands of people who are involved with other creative or arts stuff, , gettng excited about using internet video to showcase their work. It happens, but nowhere near ont he scale I pictured. film makers fetishise film (or video) and so are much like authors in 1995 when the web first came to attention (to them). So a film maker wants to a) maintain control over the viewer (my work is 22 minutes and you really should see the whole 22 minutes - what do you mean they might go somewhere else? what do you mean they might actually be able to rearrange *my* vision??) b) like the author regards publication (a book) as the top of their tree, film professwional sees TV broadcast, cinema or festival screening as same. c) like authors, real writing happens on white pages, serially ordered, between covers. You are special to get there. Real film makers produce real programs/shorts/features that are serially ordered between credits. You are special to have your work made/selected. On the net anyone can do it, therefore the lowest common denominator rules, and I am not part of that (I'm a film maker after all). d) I own your screen. I own all of it. On the net you own your screen. I couldn't possibly show my film at 320 x 240, or heck, even 640 x 480. e) the quality is too bad (this is result of bad compression but was an issue once upon a time). f) it might get stolen (of course if you don't put it online and you are lucky enough to get into a festival, your work might be screened once at the wrap party, once at your own premiere, and once at the festival...) There are other reasons but I find the easiest way to explain it to others (which I've done a few times in papers and conference presentations) is that if you think about how authors responded to the web in 1995 (you mean everyone can read my work? cool? hold on, links, you mean they can go elsewhere? and you mean my beautiful perfect structure should be granular with links inside, no way) is much the same problem confronting trad. professional video and film people right now. -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: my two cents
1) Minority bloggers on this list can introduce themselves if they want. No surprise that the digital divide in technology and access to broadband is reflected in vloggers as in other parts of society. No doubt there are more white guys vlogging than women and people of color. That said, there are lots of vloggers of color and women vlogging. 2) To see vlogs from different parts of the world, check out vlogmap.org. You'll notice a lot more vlogs in North America and Europe than the rest of the world. Still, there's some cool stuff out there in the wider world. 3) Like with any mass of people there are many cliques, not in a bad way; that's just the way people socially organize. I think there can be a certain camaraderie among people who started vlogging around the same time. I've seen tons of people start vlogging and become active and influential in their own way. Seems pretty open to me. Some of the early people who started this list or were on it early like Jay Dedman, Michael Verdi, Zadi Diaz, and a bunch of other people have been very active in creating compelling work, writing books, speaking to conferences, teaching, etc. and remain very influential. But that doesn't mean they or anyone else control what's going on. It's too big for that. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, JOHNNIE WARNER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .well you know johnny(which is a great name, spelled a little funny but still a great name) when i look at the videos and discuss with my circle of friends, vlogging seems to be used synonymously with youtube ie. Hey johnnie, did you youtube that new software for the treo or Johnnie, i've seen your youtube on creating and viewing your email on youtube.(i know it sound kinda ridicuoulous, but that is what videocasting/vlogging has been refered to outside of this group and those associated with it. Almost like .blackberry, being coined as the modern day smartphone/handheld or ipod being coined as mp3 player. Its nothing more than perception being ones reality, which bring me back to my original questions again which is a perceived reality in a sense for me. Where are the minority bloggers - is their a group, inner circle or clique kinda like the blogher movement??? just a questions So i guess that make this my 6cents now huh... thanks johnny for the reply On Mar 20, 2007, at 11:22 AM, jonny goldstein wrote: YouTube is a rich stew o' flavors and interactions. I'm a big fan. I don't see why you couldn't call them vloggers too. It's all video on the web w/comments. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, JOHNNIE WARNER johnnie.warner@ wrote: with all due respect to the indepedent video bloggers here . (independent meaning on your own website or blog) you tube has yet to let me down with it entertaining yet meaningful videos- sometimes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzHjIj3fpR8NR its funny that people have no clue as to how big video on the net (vlogging, videocasting etc. is, when in fact it has been proven how interested people are in others peoples lives such examples below... -reality tv- people court real world lost (not to mention the first reality show) COPS! -america's funniest home video which i'm pretty sure that i've seen some of those same videos highlighted being once aired on AFHV. just my two cents. but i guess if i had three more thoughts i'd have a nickel - huh from the couple of vloggers that have identified their selves here, 1.where are the black vloggers, 2.where are the mexican vloggers 3.where are the asian vloggers of this community - just my nickel worth of questions on the diversity of this community that i take so much away from. happy vlogging! On Mar 20, 2007, at 5:54 AM, Gena wrote: It's true according to Yahoo. I want a special award to the best of the Shakira clones. The bigger the man belly the better. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_hi_te/youtube_awards Gena Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.oneinthehand.blogspot.com The only Treo Training Video Cast in the World [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links http://www.oneinthehand.blogspot.com The only Treo Training Video Cast in the World [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: my two cents
Delurking to point out just a FEW of the MANY Filmmaker/Video Artists who Videoblog or Videoblogged or use video in their blogs, some of whom are right here in the videoblogging group: Aaron Valdez Abe Linkoln Matt McCormick Jonas Mekas (OK, it's not free but still, one of the grandfathers of experimental film for pete's sake!) Jennifer Proctor Miranda July Caveh Zahedi Charlene Rule Joshua Kanies Duncan Speakman Me the list goes on and on. these are just the names that came immediately to mind (and I'm really sorry to any of my own filmmaker friends not listed above - brain is sleep deprived at present). And there are dozens if not more who post what are absolutely works of cinema for the web in many of their videoblog entries, including pionner vloggers like Jay Dedman and Ryanne Hodson and Mica Scalin and others who may or may not call themselves filmmakers as well as videobloggers. Yes, there are HUGE HUGE HUGE and very real issues about posting your work online, esp. work that is intended for other venues, but after 30 minutes of trying to compose a post about all of that I realized it's not a post, it's an article, and I at least wanted to point out in light of the previous comments that we do exist. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
