"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?"
Umm. the writing and presentation is funny, not boring like a poetry slam, that's why it's popular. All he did was stand in front of a camera? That's sour grapes I think. Sure, it's not "fair" that nobody gives a crap about poetry in the real world, but that's just the way it is. People want to be entertained, and Kent did that. The shit is funny, and yeah, the jump cut editing helps it be funnier. I'm finding the whining from the artists on this list to be annoying. You should be doing your art for the love of your art, not for money. I don't believe there is a cross intersection between art and marketing. It's one or the other. If you want to make money, go make stuff that people want to see/watch/listen to. Learn how to be a marketer. If you don't want to "sell out", then that's great. I'm glad for you. Just quit bitching about the people who are successful. Jim Kukral From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ractalfece Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:03 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground > 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] <mailto:john%40totalvom.com> - No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1601 - Release Date: 8/8/2008 9:02 AM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
