I still think you are making some major assumptions about what everyone thinks the revolution is, what mediocre is.
For a start, isnt the fact that people can find it worthwhile making stuff even if they only have a tiny audience, a revolution in itself? If your revolution requires that what you deem to be garbage disappear, and people start creating content you deem to be quality, and masses start watching it, Im not convinced you'll ever see that revolution. For sure there is nothing like seeing a master storyteller, actor, director, musician etc, at work. But if the masses participating remains a central point of this whole net thing, I dont see how you can expect most work to reflect that sort of polished work. Humanity is not suddenly going to gain political insight, storytelling abilities, charisma, or whatever else your seeking to be reflected in video, en mass. Id rather hear a story told badly than only get to see the stuff thats been polished. The phrase 'keep it real' is certainly one of the things I find refreshing about watching vlogs, Im tired of overproduced tv that has had all the life crushed out of it long before it reached the screen. Most of what horrifies me when I see vlogs that I dont like, is what horrifies me about humanity and where our societies are at the moment. It will change when humanity changes. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Justin Kownacki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (Sorry in advance if my email mis-formats my response, as is > occasionally the case, but here goes:) > > In regards to the battle between mediocrity and its right to exist: > when Michael Verdi says: > > "What's crappy or mediocre to one person is pure gold to another. > There's room for it all on the internet. And that is the whole fucking > point! You don't have to be "good" to be on the Internet and nobody > can make you watch the stuff you don't want to watch." > > ... I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "rallying to the defense of > mediocrity" -- not BECAUSE Michael (I'm not singling him out -- he > simply made the last, most applicable comment) is a fan of mediocrity, > but because he believes in the power of the individual voice, > regardless of that voice's relative quality. > > As I said earlier, the individual voice is, by and large, not very > interesting to the great majority. For every interesting POV in the > world, there are hundreds or thousands that are merely regurgitating > overheard information. Not that that matters to a lot of us, who > believe web media is important primarily because it lets us all be > heard equally -- even if only by the 10 people who find us > interesting. > > However, when Michael then says: > > "Some of my favorite videos are the ones I've made of my family or ones > that my friends have made. I doesn't matter if they are considered > good or worthwhile. What matters is that they're there. THAT is the > revolution." > > ... that essentially makes the case that this revolution is merely a > gigantic holding tank for crap that appeals to 10 people each. Call > me a cynic, but that doesn't sound like much of a revolution; it > sounds like the preamble to one. > > Meanwhile, profit doesn't matter more than people, as Ron Watson > accuses Keen (possibly correctly) of believing. People always matter > more than profit -- and, without people, there can't BE profit. But > until those of us creating social media are creating media that people > actually WANT to see -- and by "people," I mean more than 10 -- > there's not much of a revolution to speak of; there's just a bunch of > people making mediocre videos and putting them online, believing that > their ability to do so somehow constitutes an paradigm shift in and of > itself. > > We can also each build a spacecraft, if we try, but that possibility > alone doesn't constitute an aerospace revolution. > > Please don't confuse the ability to create media with the > revolutionary act of creating media that MATTERS. Just because any of > us can pick up a camera (or a microphone, or a keyboard) and send our > voice out into the internet, that doesn't mean that WHAT we're saying > / doing / creating IS revolutionary. > > Yet. > > However, when the power of individual POVs (which, yes, DO matter) > combines with a worldwide upswing in relative quality -- i.e., when > people who have the ability to use this media actually use it to tell > compelling stories that transcend expected boundaries and appeal > beyond their initial target audience of 10 -- THEN we'll be well on > our way to a revolution. And then Andrew Keen will have a much bigger > monster to contend with than simply the possibility of one. > > Onward and upward. > > Justin Kownacki >
