oooops that should be "increase several times over". Not "nicerase". Though
I like how that looks as a word.
On 9/25/07, Brook Hinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Do independent video makers need to rely on advertising
> models....continuing the same relationship to a bloated middle man?"
>
> No, and many of us are not willing to anyway. I don't want consumer
> products I may not approve of appearing on the same screen as my own work.
> It implies approval.
>
> " Or will a different relationship develop between people watching and the
> people who make the stuff they want to watch?"
>
> I believe it will. I'm not sure it will be a pay-per-download model
> though. Probably more along the lines of what Issa (formerly Jane Siberry),
> Kristin Hersh (Throwing Muses/50 Foot Wave) and other indie music folks are
> starting to experiment with. Issa offers downloads free ("accept a gift from
> Issa") OR for purchase, with the customer setting the price. Hersh is about
> to introduce what sounds like a patronage/participation model of some kind.
>
> For those of us making non-mainstream video, it's a lot more confusing
> than it is for musicians, because there's no single model for existing
> value. My work is caught in a world where price ranges from nothing (giving
> it all away online, irresistible to those of us infected by punk rock roots)
> to limited availability through institutional rentals (it KILLS me that
> young adults don't see Sadie Benning videos unless they are lucky enough to
> have a class with a good budget and a teacher who will rent them - on VHS -
> from WMM for $75, but it would kill me more to think she didn't have at
> least a shot at making a living from her work), to the "edition of 5 DVDs,
> $5000 each" contemporary art world. (for many artists, that's possible quick
> income, but guaranteed obscurity in the long run). So how does, say, a
> filmmaker who maybe make s a few thousand at best every year from a handful
> of academic rentals navigate these waters?
>
> I'm launching something in the next month or so on my site, though I
> haven't arrived at a model yet. I have an immediate negative (knee jerk?)
> reaction to artificial exclusivity, borne of frustration at not being able
> to see the stuff I cared about when I was young and those aforementioned
> punkesque values, which is part of what makes me love the videblogging world
> so much. But I also believe that artists should be able to make a living
> from their work, and that when artists are prevented from devoting their
> working hours to it the work suffers, and so does the culture.
>
> There is also a danger to going totally DIY though: how do people FIND
> your work? I have a filmmaker friend who recently had a somewhat successful
> indie film, and made the decision to go with a known distributor and make
> far less (if any) money because it would mean the number of people who saw
> the film would nicerase several times over. People still look where they've
> been conditioned to look: whether its their favorite theater, PBS, the
> sundance channel, artforum, film threat... or you tube.
>
> I know a lot of this isn't relevant to many people here, but it is to
> some, and it all impacts the economics of it, whether you're posting
> abstract water studies made with a cel phone camera or french maid tv. And
> there's one more reality we can't avoid: I believe the idea of paying for
> something that exists as zeros and ones in cyberspace is, in the long run,
> doomed. Which is why I'm inspired by the steps taken by Hersh and
> Siberry/Issa.
>
> Insert usual apology for ranting with run on sentences here.
>
> (web references: Issa: www.sheeba.ca Kristin Hersh: www.throwingmusic.com
>
>
> Brook
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Brook Hinton
> film/video/audio art
> www.brookhinton.com
--
_______________________________________________________
Brook Hinton
film/video/audio art
www.brookhinton.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
