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 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]
