This may be a weird parallel to make, but here it is anyway. My father is a great fan of the history of the Church and the Middle Ages. That is to say he reads everything he can on the subject. What follows is mostly my understanding of history that's been funneled to me mostly second-hand through my father. So I may not be exactly correct on all points, but I believe the broad strokes to be accurate. If you're more knowledgeable on these subjects than I am please step in and correct me.
During the Middle Ages literacy itself, and writing in particular, was essentially an ecclesiastical monopoly. This is to say that only men of the cloth knew how to read and write. This is why the great works of this age were generally written by scribes who also happened to be members of holy orders. This monopoly was in place for a number of reasons, but perhaps the most interesting is that it suited the status quo and the powers that were at the time -- the Church. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this monopoly allowed the Church to tell peasants that the Bible said just about anything that suited them. There was no way to verify their accounts. You can find parallels in the American south of 150 years ago, I suppose. Anyway, back to the point: At some point reading and writing -- literacy, broadly defined -- was democratized. Gutenberg invented the printing press. So on and so forth. As an observer at that time you could have taken the view that a major revolution (reformation?) was under way and that the world of letters would never be the same. You could have observed these developments and believed that the masses would read and write, that one day anyone could write a book and get published, that the Church and the royals would no longer have a monopoly on information. On the other hand, it would have been perfectly reasonable for an observer at that time to take the view that the masses would never take to letters the way the clergy had. It would have been perfectly reasonable to assume that the ecclesiastical monopoly -- backed up such as it was by everything from the power of the State to the incredibly moneyed and all-powerful Church -- would manage to keep its stranglehold on information. You would be forgiven for believing that the invention of the printing press would lead only to dramatic downsizing at the various monasteries that employed legions of monkish scribes. We all know where this story actually ends up. My particular favorite ending for the story is Thomas Paine's Common Sense (which I wrote about on the Fourth of July at <http://blog.blip.tv/blog/2006/07/04/happy-independence-day/>). I don't believe that "Warner Independent" will dominate this new medium. I believe that the general trend of history is clear, and that as access to the means of production expands that independent voices (within an ever-broadening base) overwhelmingly succeed. Remember that once upon a time the great publishing houses of Europe were independent voices themselves insomuch as they were not of the previously lettered establishment. Idealistically yours, Mike blip.tv > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of khyrosfinalcut > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Al online viewing booms, the > amateurs give way to big media > > > I feel like some of the trends that have made new media > appealing thusfar, particularly the sort of "monitor as > mirror" effect I talked about in my response to Fred Graver > <http://focus.blip.tv/file/86145> where people can see > themselves in the show might be hard for "legacy" > media to embrace. > > OTOH, when you're making a play for the masses, how much does > "street cred" or lack thereof in a very fringey industry matter? > > If we draw another parallel to film, one wonders...are we > going to have fewer and fewer truly independent productions > and see more "Warner Independent" style Internet TV programs? > > I realize that the studio system is good at funneling > resources to and promoting talented people, but I think > there's a real case for the amateurs here due to: > > A) sheer numbers that have not been duplicated before in any > of the previous revolutions they describe > B) the continuing death of distance that continues to grow > niche markets. > > Thanks for posting this, I have been wondering in my head for > a little while, "What happens when what we're calling today > 'New Media' isn't really new anymore?" At the moment, places > like Network2 <http://network2.tv/> aren't carrying much > that doesn't come from people outside a studio, but we will > see how the pendulum swings. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
