Thanks for mentioning our "zany" tv show/performance art/theater
show/burlesque side show/independant film/video blog.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/thisorthat-video
Our show (for lack of any other all encompassing media term)
translates well into many different forms of media, because it brings
many of them together. The one element we are lacking on-line so far
is the intense audience interaction that we get in the theater.
Despite all the amazing interative possibilities on-line, I think
the 'audience' is still programed to see video as something they sit
back in the den and passively watch. By putting it on the computer
screen it gets a little easier to respond.
I am going to shoot a series of audience reactions to our show in the
theater, next time we do it live (August 26, Coney Island,
www.thisorthat.tv), but, I would like to intercut them with other
audience members watching on computers, tvs, PSPs, by whatever means.
Would you, or anyone else out there, like to post a video review or
response of any kind to our vlog? I'd like to start a dialogue where
our cast members would respond on camera to whatever video comments
were posted.
This would continue to move our 'entertainment' type tv show firmly
away from standard television fare and expand the vlog medium.
What do you think? Is any up for talking back to the TV?
--- In [email protected], Michael Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i have very little interest at this point in watching vlogs on a
television,
> regularly.
>
> if a vlog reaches a persons TV, yeah its still a vlog.
> if the vlog is scratched (blog post/media permalinks, RSS and
commenting)
> and instead their is just a video feed (RSS and Video stored on
server),
> then no, thats not a vlog.
> both of these can make it to a TV for viewing, but one is not a
vlog...
> their needs to be a blog+rss to be a vlog ;-)
> i think a blog must provide permalinks, which can be permalinks of
posts
> where media is referenced, or permalinks of the media itself, with
metadata
> and description etc...
>
> a videoblog is the site which houses the media and an RSS feed
(feed can be
> provided by 3rd party like feedburner).
> a videoblog doesnt necessarily need to have enclosures (my
opinion), but if
> it does, i tend to refer to that as a videoblog's vodcast.
>
> the video itself can be anything... it can be a personal video
diary or a
> zany show like http://thisorthat-video.blogspot.com/
>
> the medium that we use is obviously not restricted to video...
> audioblogs/podcasts and photoblogs and text blogs all can use the
same
> technologies.
>
> I also like to not forget about the logical approach of rich media
> blogging... where one blog contains mixed media.
> a term to descibe generalized multimedia in blogs has barely been
> discussed... but it is basically mediacasting or mediablogging.
> Clint was called a a podcast session that he captured on video as a
> hybridcast...
>
> TV doesnt change anything. TV set-top boxes will be able to grab
internet
> media using a variety of methods and technologies.
> videoblogs are one source.
>
> sull
>
> On 7/21/05, pomoartchick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
> >
> > anne
> > http://8bitme.blogspot.com
> > http://nopractice.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> sull
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> http://vlogdir.com -is- The Videoblog Directory
> http://interdigitate.com -is- my personal site
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.
