Cheryl, it is fine that you have other issues with me, us or the manifesto, but I would like it if you could take a moment to reflect on what my issue is before jumping on to other things. First off Brittany doesn't participate in this group - she quit it before you started videoblogging. That is most likely the same reason why you have received any promotional materials or encouragement from her. I was on Twitter back when the lumieres started and I used that to promote the project. Brittany has pushed it in other circles. As I held your hand when you started she held others. You have read the manifesto: how could you think that we would write a manifesto together if we were not both working on the project? Is it surprising that I reacted? Would you not like it if those you work with make sure that you receive credit for what you do?
That is my one issue: Give credit where credit is due. It takes no effort at all to look up a name, but it means everything to that person. You would not feel very good if you never received any acknowledgement for the work you've done on Show in a Box to grab one example. That is why I see a "bio" page coming on the SIAB website - so others know how to acknowledge. The fact that I'm closely involved in the lumiere videos means that it was a no-brainer for me to spot it this time, but it doesn't mean you can ignore my request. Is it not a fair request to receive proper acknowledgement for the work you do? As for everything else: I am happy that Rox made a lumiere, at the same time we can't write back to everyone who makes one of those anymore. We had to stop when we reached a couple of hundred videos because it was taking too much time. You must understand that 425 lumiere videos have been made since you posted your last one. It was also clear that Rox hadn't seen the website as she linked to one of my blogposts instead of videoblogging.info (and there is a clear link to vb.info from that blogpost). I can't and won't take full credit for the lumiere project and that's why I had to write back in the way I did. Regarding the manifesto: It's a manifesto for crying out loud! It's supposed to be strong and without compromise to grab your attention and make you think about what you are creating, for whom and with what purpose. The fact that you have not removed your videos makes me think we were being too nice in writing it. It's written as a reaction to the type of video and behaviour both of us were seeing and still are. It's an open disagreement and that's the whole point of writing a manifesto. To make the obvious comparison the dogme95 manifesto was a reaction towards filmmaking as it was taking place in the 90s, the lumiere manifesto is a reaction towards the general state of videoblogging. If you feel attacked by the manifesto, that's a good thing, you should. I feel attacked by it and I co-wrote it! It is unfortunate that you did not go anywhere with your frustrations - the goal was to make you reflect on your practices rather than sit with a stiff upper lip and not react because you don't agree. I personally don't have much patience with constant backpatting. There needs to be constant challenge or we can't evolve (that goes in general and in regards to videoblogging). Sitting around in a circle congratulating ourselves on how great everything is moves us nowhere. It is my responsibility and your responsibility to challenge the status quo. This forces us to think about where we are, where we want to be and how we can get there. It is curious to me that the comments stating strong disagreement with the manifesto (in the "I don't want to participate anymore because the manifesto is criticizing things I like" kind of way) have all happened on Twitter. They are spoken into a void using fragmented sentence in a room where it is impossible to carry a conversation (because all arguments are limited and each one is forgotten in a microsecond as it moves off the page). At the same time those who have taken the manifesto as a manifesto and used it to look at themselves in a new way have all written e-mails (where it is possible to carry on a conversation). These people do not agree with everything we say (just as I don't always agree with everything we say), but they are doing something constructive. Sam from patalab is one who has been involved in countless conversations and had the following to say about the lumiere project just last week: "...the Lumiere project can be regarded as a beacon. It’s actual, progressive potential for liberating “sight” might not have been that apparent when the project started. It probably was conceived more out of conceptual concerns, as an inoffensive game to play. But it seems to be one of the very few projects on the net - that I am aware of – that might have the inherent potential of actually re-installing a gaze of freedom." Regarding insults: I cannot choose not to be insulted when I read Rox's mail, just as you cannot choose not to be insulted when you read the lumiere manifesto. Our actions have consequences and this time I chose to act on the consequence Rox's mail had on me. You chose not to react on the consequence the manifesto has on you (though I wish you had). - Andreas PS. If you want to have your videos removed simply delete them from your website. We don't host any videos at all. We link to everything so you are 100% in control. I'm always sorry to see links go dead of course, but it's not my choice. Den 13.01.2008 kl. 11:49 skrev Cheryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You have *got* to be kidding, Andreas. > > When you and Brittany started getting into lumieres, the only person I > saw talk about them or promote them was you. It was you encouraging me > to try doing them. You picked up the ones I made without tagging them > properly, and gently taught me how to tag them if I wanted them to be > picked up for the lumiere showcase site. If I choose to relate those > facts of my personal experience, will I suddenly be a jerk for not > looking up Brittany's involvement and finding some way to mention it, > even though it's not what called my attention to lumiere video? > > Rox writes genuinely and lovingly about why she decided to try a > lumiere, and you could have chosen to comment in a positive way to > honor Brittany for her contributions and encourage Rox to continue to > experiment with the form. Instead you choose to be insulted, and tell > us that Brittany does, too (though surely she can speak for herself?). > You choose to answer negatively instead of positively. > > I started with lumieres because it was *fun*, and because of your > encouragement, and because some of Brittany's work was inspiring to > me, though I didn't know at the time she was your collaborator. The > second the manifesto appeared, I stopped, because it doesn't represent > my thoughts or feelings and I don't want to be associated with it. I > don't even want my work appearing on the same site with it! I didn't > say so publicly or ask you to remove links to the lumieres I made > because I didn't want to insult you and Brittany. I just decided to > quietly stop producing lumieres and let my actions speak for > themselves. But because you feel it necessary to treat Rox in this > manner, I think it's time to tell you the manifesto *does* put people > off, and suggest it as one possible reason lumiere video isn't getting > a lot of discussion in the group. You manage to suck all the fun out > of making them. > > If I've learned anything in the past 30 days, it's that I can't insult > you, Brittany or anyone else. No one can. You have to choose to feel > insulted. I recommend choosing something more fun to feel. > > Cheryl Colan > > > --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Rox, >> >> I know the lumiere videos have not been discussed in this group (they >> don't have ads and there's no web 2.0 start-up involved, I guess), but >> it's still not very nice not to give credit where credit is due. > Lumiere >> videos have been posted since May/June last year. Since the > beginning it >> has been a two-person effort where Brittany and I have been > collecting the >> videos, encouraging people to create the videos and writing our > reasoning >> for pushing these types of videos. That's why both our names are on > the >> front page of the website: http://videoblogging.info/ >> >> You may think this is a small mistake and in the amount of letters > missing >> from your email and blogpost it is. At the same time not doing this > very >> basic research and thus leaving out the name of half the people > behind the >> project is extremely discouraging to those left out. Over the past 8 >> months Brittany and I have put in a large amount of work handling the >> lumiere videos and acknowledging my work, but not hers, is insulting > to >> both of us. >> >> The collection of lumiere videos currently consists of 548 videos > from 78 >> different people. You can jump straight to the videos at >> http://videoblogging.info/lumiere/ If I must say so myself it is an >> amazing repository of creativity. >> >> - Andreas >> >> Den 11.01.2008 kl. 05:17 skrev Roxanne Darling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > A little public gushing here, I hope you all will indulge me. I > learned >> > about Lumiere from Rupert. >> > I finally made one today, and I want to thank you publicly, > Rupert, (and >> > Andreas too) for illuminating me about this art form. >> > >> > > http://www.beachwalks.tv/2008/01/11/beach-walk-567-first-lumiere-for-rupert/ >> > >> > Love, >> > >> > Rox >> >> >> >> -- >> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen >> http://www.solitude.dk/ >> > > -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen http://www.solitude.dk/
