Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[schlomo rabinowitz]

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]  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 ,
> "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

[Rupert]

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]  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 ,
 > "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

[schlomo rabinowitz]

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] 
> >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]   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 
> >  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://ha

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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] 
 > >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]   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  40yahoogroups.com>,
 > > "schlomo rabinowitz"
 > >
 > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > > >
 > > > John from TotalVom, whose work has often discussed his role
 > within a
 > > world
 > > > of online content cre

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[David King]

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]>
>
> 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]  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]   40totalvom.com>  > 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 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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

[schlomo rabinowitz]

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

[Brook Hinton]

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

[schlomo rabinowitz]

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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

[Brook Hinton]

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Michael Verdi]

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[David King]

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]  -
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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

[Brook Hinton]

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Michael Verdi]

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Sull]

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]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[schlomo rabinowitz]

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"
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece  wrote:
>> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brook Hinton" 
> 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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Adam Quirk]

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  /
[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"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi"
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece  wrote:
> > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brook Hinton" 
> > 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 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Irina]

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  /
> [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"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com,
> "Michael Verdi"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece  wrote:
> > > > > > --- In 
> > > > > > videoblogging@yahoogroups.com,
> "Brook Hinton" 
> > > 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 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Michael Rosenblum]

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 r

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Jeffrey Taylor]

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 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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
> creat

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Jeffrey Taylor]

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] >
>
> > 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 

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Jim Kukral]

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 d

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Jeffrey Taylor]

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 ,
> 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

[Rupert]

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 ,
 > 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

[Jay dedman]

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

[Rupert]

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

[Jeffrey Taylor]

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 ,
> "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]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Jeffrey Taylor]

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 ,
>> "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

[Deirdre Straughan]

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

> 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]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Sull]

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 fo

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Jim Kukral]

"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 thin

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Adam Quirk]

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 sou

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Jim Kukral]

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 corpora

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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 $

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Jim Kukral]

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 t

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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 doi

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Jake Ludington]

> 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

[Jim Kukral]

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.
> 
&

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Adam Quirk]

>
> 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  /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / +1 551.208.4644 (m) / imbullemhead (aim)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Sull]

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 ,
> "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"  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" 
> > > 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"  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

[Sull]

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

[Rupert]

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"  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" 
 > > 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"  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

[Rupert]

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"  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" 
 > > 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"  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]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[Rupert]

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"  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"  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" 
 > > > 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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground

[trine bjørkmann berry]

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"  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