Rupert's absolutely correct, of course. In addition, ever since the advent of the moving image, there have been "outsiders" making moving image art - from magic lantern producers in the 1800s to 16mm avant-garde filmmakers and 8mm home movie enthusiasts mid-century and video artists in the 1970s and 80s.
And these outsider (and underground) artists *paid* for their work to be seen - they invested in the materials of production, and often put up the funds to have their work screened in a venue. This is still the dominant model of independent and avant-garde filmmaking - you invest up front, *pay* a film festival to *consider* screening your film, and then, if you're in the tiniest minority, your film might get picked up for distribution or win a monetary award. Even Stan Brakhage, one of the most prolific, widely acclaimed, and accomplished of experimental filmmakers, never came close to earning a living from his work alone. He taught. So I guess my point regarding Information Dystopia is that as much as I'd like to see artists better compensated for their work, whether through public funding or individual donations, as requested in the video, the disconnect from this larger history makes the call for compensation feel more like hubris than a revolution. The situation we are in as artists on the web is nothing new in terms of trying to make money. To me, as Rupert has stated earlier, the greater revolution of the web is in the possibilities for removing our work from commodity culture - making the work free, accessible, open, and remixable. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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] >
