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]