"is proper acknowledgment not a fair request?"
I'm surprised you think this is the issue. Of course it's a fair
request. The problem Andreas is the way in which you requested the
acknowledgment. An apology in order and you have yet to offer one or
address the issue. That would have cut this thread short. It's that
simple.
On Jan 17, 2008 12:07 PM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am not seeing any wish to discuss the contents of the manifesto in this
> thread. Mike is the only one who has come close, but pointing out that he
> has scripted a lumiere video (we all have) is not an opening for
> discussion. It's just a statement of fact.
>
> I have written some long e-mails in this thread, that have either not been
> read or ignored. Most e-mails in this thread have been repeats and I don't
> want to sit and type up the exact same reply again. As I've already
> pointed out Brittany left this list in early 2006. It would also help if
> you would address the original point of my participation in this thread
> ("is proper acknowledgement not a fair request?")
>
> From the people in this thread I have seen - with a few welcome exceptions
> - only gripes about the manifesto somehow represents you and your work. I
> can't take responsibility when you choose such a ridiculous
> interpretation. The manifesto uses the pronoun "we" because there are two
> authors. It describes our reasoning for maintaining a curated list of
> videos that follow six simple rules. It says nothing about the intentions
> that each author has for creating his own lumiere videos. There, I
> repeated myself again.
>
> - Andreas
>
> Den 17.01.2008 kl. 08:23 skrev Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > Excellent points Mike, espeacially about Andreas "solution" to not
> > wanting to be associated with his site....
> >
> > What I find interesting in this discussion, is that Andreas said he
> > wanted to create discussion and yet, for the most part he has not
> > participated in this discussion....there are valid questions and
> > concerns being raised and he and Brittany are silent....I find that
> > very telling....
> >
> > Heath
> > http://batmangeek.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Moon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have produced over 30 Lumiere videos that are linked on the site.
> >> When I started, there was no manifesto, just 6 simple
> >> rules/guidelines. I create Lumieres with the challenge of those six
> >> restrictions... 60 seconds max, Fixed camera, No audio, No zoom, No
> >> edit, No effects, and I enjoy it.
> >> To me, it's a fun vlogging challenge.
> >>
> >> With that said, I have a couple concerns.
> >>
> >> I was never asked about agreeing with the manifesto (that was added
> >> after I started creating Lumiere videos), but by the way it was
> >> written, it certainly seems like I've agreed to it with the usage of
> >> the word "we" throughout the document.
> >>
> >> I think it was mid-December when I really sat back and thought about
> >> the Lumieres that I created and felt that my work was contradictory
> > to
> >> the Manifesto.... mainly (Quote from manifesto) "We do not believe
> > in
> >> artificially assembled scenes or scripted action.".
> >> I set up my camera and change a tire...that's scripted.
> >> http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/25/lumiere-detire/
> >> I set the tripod up and cut the grass...that's scripted.
> >> http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2007/10/13/lumiere-lawn-boy/
> >> My point is, I read the Manifesto and honestly felt that for me to
> >> post Lumieres, I had to agree with the manifesto.
> >> I was saddened by the manifesto and felt I couldn't continue as I
> >> wasn't sure I could abide by the added philosophical views of the
> >> manifesto, even though I was still within the 6 rules initially
> > outlines.
> >> Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm not a lawyer, University Professor or
> >> philosopher that is able to dig deep into the interpretations of the
> >> document, I just kept seeing "we" throughout the document and felt I
> >> was either in or out... no gray area.
> >> I'm just Joe vlogger that enjoyed the 6 challenges that were
> > original
> >> setup and now felt there were more restrictions and beliefs that
> > took
> >> the fun out of it.
> >>
> >> After reading through this thread, I was pissed at the way Roxie's
> >> oversight was responded by Andreas. We're all in the same world...
> >> brothers and sisters of one species. There was no reason for such
> >> anger and disdain and it certainly could have been responded to with
> >> better tact.
> >>
> >> Adrian:
> >> To your Question about having video's removed from the list. The
> > only
> >> solution Andreas has responded with is to "delete the video". Delete
> >> it from it's original posted location... delete it from Blip (or
> >> whatever storage location) and lose all links including those to
> > other
> >> sites or discussions.
> >>
> >> I don't want to remove my Lumieres. I will just debate within myself
> >> if I'll do more and if I do create others, will I share with the
> >> Lumiere site.
> >>
> >> It's too bad really... in my mind it was just suppose to be a
> > creative
> >> video exercise that challenged me, not a viewpoint of video creation
> >> that I was suppose to agree with.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mike
> >> Vlogger and Lumiere creator.
> >> http://vlog.mikemoon.net
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > hi Heath
> >> >
> >> > fair enough, I think there are some reasonable concerns in there.
> > I
> >> > guess it is one thing to more or less curate material that
> > relates to
> >> > the lumiere project, but there are issues if the curation is
> > done
> >> > automagically, as it were.
> >> >
> >> > On the other hand I have no doubt that Andreas and Brittany
> > wouldn't
> >> > have a problem with removing links to someone's work if they
> > asked.
> >> >
> >> > personally I think curating material that relates to a theme is
> >> > excellent, it is just manual tag clouding really :-) helps
> > promote
> >> > stuff too!
> >> >
> >> > On 16/01/2008, at 12:59 AM, Heath wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > But Andreas has stated, that in addition to linking to a video
> > if
> >> > > someone emails him, that if he or Brittany come accross a
> > Lumiere
> >> > > they will then also link to it...But what if the person doesn't
> > want
> >> > > to be linked to because they don't believe in this manifesto?
> > Look,
> >> > > I know the web is a great big link fest, but in cases like
> > this, I
> >> > > think it bears pondering that practice. Cheryl has already
> > stated
> >> > > that she will no longer make Lumiere's because she doesn't want
> > to be
> >> > > associated with the manifesto, I find that troubling. How many
> >> > > others feel that way? If Andreas were giving people the choice
> > to be
> >> > > associated with the site he has, I wouldn't feel the way I do,
> > but he
> >> > > doesn't always do that, and that is where my concern lies.
> >> >
> >> > Adrian Miles
> >> > adrian.miles@
> >> > bachelor communication honours coordinator
> >> > vogmae.net.au
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
> http://www.solitude.dk/
>
