wrote:
> thanks to everyone for your responses so far on the topic of vlogs as
> art. some interesting thoughts on the matter are being raised.
> vlogging as art is a subject i have been hashing around for a while on
> my blog and in discussions with video artists.
>
> a good point was raised about what happens when the vlog post is
> viewed in a different context, ie: a show at an art gallery. does the
> video need to be seen in the context for which it was made in order
> for it to maintain it's "vloginess"? i think, perhaps, it does.
>
> i,too, enjoy the intimate size of the viewing window and the
> one-to-one feeling vlogs inspire. while many people may be viewing the
> same vlogs as i am, i am able to have a direct, one-to-one
> relationship with the video maker. i am able to respond to the video
> with a video of my own and link to the original piece. i am part of a
> dialogue. i retain my individuality in a way that a television
> audience does not.
>
> i wonder, as the structure of video on the internet continues to
> expand, if the tv model will become more prevelant and makers will
> scrap the blog model and use feedreaders and directories as a sole
> means of distributing their video. is it still a vlog if there is no
> link to a "home"? will the nature of vlogging change from
> intercommunication to spectatorship? when broadcasting networks make
> their own online video shows, will they be vlogs or will they be tv on
> the internet and does it matter?
They will be tv on the internet, no doubt. Vloginess is something you
get from interacting with your viewers. It's the 1-1 communication
that is so joyous, not the beaming into your brain of mass communication.
Ro
SPONSORED LINKS
| Individual | Fireant | Typepad |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
