> 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]
>
Rupert, you're right. My line about "heroes failing us" is a bit
much. I should have saved it for when Obama is the president.
I'll try to explain why I have both admiration and disdain for Ask a
Ninja.
Before 2006, I had no idea how the internet worked. I had spent a
year farting around with a scanner and html to put my zines online.
My traffic reports indicated that my website had gotten zero visitors.
The 2006 article in Rolling Stone about the rise of the video blog was
my entry point. I know, real good entry point.
I think you might be able to see what was running through my little
rat brain. No, wait. You can't. I have to keep explaining.
I was performing in poetry slams and open mics, trying to charge $1
for my zine but usually just giving it away for free.
So I read about the rise of the video blog. The article made it sound
as if democracy was breaking lose. I immediately went on the internet
and looked up all the shows mentioned. A lot of it didn't do anything
for me, like Rocketboom. But I loved Steve Garfield's "Vlog Soup".
The way he was obsessed with people, he seemed like a strange,
voyeuristic internet version of John Waters. He told some teenage
girl on Myspace to change her background because he couldn't see
anything! I loved it. I think you can see the influence in some of
my videos.
And Travis Poston's "Good Word With the T-Bird". Pretty amazing
stuff, reporting a coke dealer -Jenna Bush connection.
But the one show that made me go, "AH HA! I can do this too" was
called Ask a Ninja. All the guy did was stand in front of a video
camera and talk for two or three minutes. How was that any different
from what I was doing in poetry slams? The internet suddenly looked
like one giant open mic.
So now do you see what was running through my rat brain? I could
become a "cult fave" like the ninja and get my fucking name mentioned
in Rolling Stone! Yeehaw!
Too bad Kent didn't have a blog back then- I would never have bought
the camera. Would have just sent a disgusted letter to the editor.
Kent is being true to himself, sure. But this is where I feel
cheated. And it might not be Kent's fault. The Ninja was cast into
the role of an outsider on the rise thanks to this video blog popular
movement. But really, he was business from the beginning.
But while I was struggling to become a cult fave like the ninja, I had
failed to understand (and from reading Kent's blog, I'm not sure if he
fully understands this either) that the ninja is one hell of a piece
of marketing genius.
Even now, I still have to hand it to Doug and Kent. Ninjas are
incredibly geeky and therefore incredibly popular among nerds. Well,
who's online? And the cut throat, "look forward to killing you soon"
must touch something deep for office workers in a corporate culture.
And military culture, too.
Earlier this year, I figured the kind of people who gave me victories
in poetry slams and read my zines just weren't embracing online
technology. And should they be? No fucking way. What does this
commercialized "vlogging" medium have to offer them? What does it
have to offer me?
So I threw in the towel and stopped making videos. My last video was
called "Shadow Rows". It's a boring animation showing a lone fuckface
(my brother's name for the character in his drawings) playing with a
projector and his shadow on the wall. That's how I felt about online
video.
But wait a second. I still have a voice. Why can't I cut ties with
my online mentors and go my own way? See, I never cared much for the
writing in Ask a Ninja. And I don't remember ever laughing at any of
the jokes. But the technical side. What he was doing with jump cuts.
That mesmerized me. I wanted to learn how to do that. I had big
plans of using them like poetic line breaks. But then it didn't
really work out. Because really, jump cuts just make you look
schlocky and commercial.
So here I am. Throwing it down. Defining the terms. And the
direction I want to push online media. Sounds like a few people are
with me.
It feels great to get all of this out in the open. My therapist was
right. Just kidding. I'm too broke to have a therapist.
Also, Rupert, I share much of your cynicism toward TV. But in the US
at least, broadcasting came out of an era when capital was more
regulated. So radical (by today's standards) laws governing "the
public airwaves" are still on the books. Of course they're rarely, if
ever, enforced. But they're there. That's why we have cable access.
I noticed a thread a while back. Someone from Myspace was asking us
what we wanted from Myspace video. And Jay compared Myspace to
public access. But he concluded "maybe this isn't the role of a
corporate social network to encourage a higher order". And I think
he's exactly right. So what do we do now? How do we get networks
with higher order?
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -