On 15/01/2008, at 7:57 AM, Heath wrote: > But Lumieres are already being associated with the manifesto, which > IMO is extremely problomatic. What happens if Andreas and Brittany's > manifesto for Lumieres become the top result in searches for > Lumieres?
Then lots of people have linked to this as something worth mentioning, or criticising. But that's all it means, unless all of a sudden being first in a search result implies epistemological or ontological things? :-) (ah, got to use those two words together on the videoblogging list. Cool.) > Would the Lumiere brothers or their family members (if any > are still living) be happy with their work being associated with this > manifesto? And that matters because? I'm not being angry or baiting. But no one can own an idea, legally, ethically and intellectually, and the manifesto is an expression of some ideas realised as a practice. That it is named afterr the lumieres is a very neat way to indicate a *lot* of knowledge very quickly. personally a really interesting discussion woudl be a second manifesto which, following the traditional conventions of cinema studies, woudl have to be the Melies manifesto, which lets face it has a much nice alliterative ring to it. Of course here we could use FX to our hearts content... > What happens when vloggers no longer want to create > Lumieres because they don't want to be associated with Andreas's and > Brittany's manifesto? Heath I think you've got this the wrong way about. If I make a surrealist work am I also subject to Breton's surrealist manifesto? Why? How? Aside from that if I make a work that picks up some or all of the points of the manifesto then how aren't you associated with it? Whether positive or negative? I guess for me it is important to recognise that manifestos are intended to be probes and provocations and if they are treated as dogma (that's sort of a double entendre really) then they're not a manifesto. > Those are real issues and concerns and it does > have a reflection upon Andrea's and Brittany, they are using the > Lumiere vidoe's to further their own "version" of videoblogging. So > they do bear responsability. > > You can say do all the research you want but perception does become > reality at some point and if the perception is that Lumieres are a > product or byproduct of someone else manifesto...that is a big deal > and something that needs to be considered by those involved.. why? I dont' get this anxiety at all. If there are enough works it might become a videoblogging movement. Perhaps the first. Like most movements it seems to be coalescing around some strange attractors, and it will create debate, argument, disagreement etc. Of course it represents a view on videoblogging, that's why it's a manifesto :-) but just because someone thinks videoblogging should really be more like x than y it doesn't make videoblogging x. Sorry if this sounds like I'm having a go at you Heath, I just picked yours to enter this debate. I like manifestos, I like this one as it brings together practice and theory in an informed way and provides a language and a language of practice which lets us discuss stuff in much more concrete ways than the perennial "when is a video blog a video blog (or not)". Of course I'm sympathetic to it, since I'm olk skool in relation to wanting videoblogging to be not the reinvention of community or even personal TV/cinema, but its a big church... Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
