You know what? You're right. I stand corrected. I'm not an artist and have never been one so I don't really get it.
I was always under the assumption, and from this thread, that some artists consider other artists who get successful as "sell outs" or "lucky". I think my point is that the point of true art is not about profit? Can I assume that most artists believe that? If so, and you're an artist at heart, why does it bother you seeing success from another artist? As a marketer, I just see things differently. I make stuff for the purpose of driving my brand and $$$. Not for art. Jim From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Quirk Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:42 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground Tons of artists make money from their art. There are tons of intersections between art and marketing. The header of your blog has a quote from Woody Allen, an artist who makes money from his art. On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Jim Kukral <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:jim%40jimkukral.com> > wrote: > "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:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> ] > On Behalf Of ractalfece > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:03 AM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.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> <mailto:john%40totalvom.com <john%2540totalvom.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] > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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]
