For me, I did not say anything at all until Andreas responded to Cheryl. That rubbed me the wrong way. Not that I didn't think he was rude to Rox, which I thought he was as well, but I understood at least what he was saying, I may not have liked "how" he said it. But when he told Cheryl this ....
"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." That is where my issue really started...He never responed to Cheryl after she called him on this comment, he did not say, "Hey I will remove the link, all you have to do is ask" Instead he dissmissed everyone's comments and concerns, using very elegant language to belittle people. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Adrian, > I understand and agree with what you just wrote and what Andreas wrote > earlier about the manifesto. No arguments there from me. I think (at > least it's the case with me) that what is bothering some of us is that > when we first heard of this project it was simply an artistic exercise > using some restrictions. As is often the case, people find those kinds > of things challenging, fun and freeing. It was when we were later > presented with this manifesto that seemed to wrap all of our videos > (that we had submitted and/or tagged for inclusion on the website) in > a context that many of didn't agree with. And what's more I think > many, like myself, would have chosen to play some other game had we > been presented with that manifesto before hand. > > Also what's bothering people is the incredibly rude (to put it > politely) way in which Andreas jumped into this thread. It's something > he seems to be doing a lot these days. > > - Verdi > > On Jan 17, 2008 5:51 PM, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18/01/2008, at 6:29 AM, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: > > > > > I can tell you that Aske Dam, who first introduced me to the rules > > > creates > > > his lumiere videos with one notable exception - he allows himself to > > > break > > > one of the rules. Most often this is the "no audio" rule for the same > > > reasons you outline. > > > > hey Andreas > > > > pass on my belated hellos to Aske :-) > > > > I think a useful way to think about the 'manifesto' is in two ways. > > > > The first is, as Andreas has explained, it's a manifesto written by > > two people. I think that's pretty clear and straight forward. It > > raises some provocative points about video practice in relation to > > blogging, all of which are worth talking about. It also makes some > > claims about the relationship between technology, aesthetics and > > videoblogging as a practice. These are also worth discussing. > > > > Now there is nothing in that which means you to have to agree with > > them, but they are certainly worth talking about. :-) If you were to > > make a video that uses some or all of these then this does not mean > > allegiance to the manifesto (written by two people). It isn't like > > there's a dogma vow of chastity to be pledged or anything. I don't see > > this as much different to painting something that picks up some > > contemporary aesthetic things and then someone decides my work falls > > within a particular movement. This is what happens, this is the normal > > course of events in study, scholarship and knowledge creation. So the > > manifesto is about making an argument and each of the videos can be > > thought as part of the argument and so an idea. I am free to use your > > material, cited appropriately, to endorse, criticise etc. So for me > > the manifesto is making propositions and finding works that support > > the proposition. If you think that's not your intention in your work > > then I'm sorry, your intention actually doesn't count for a lot (there > > is a lot - and I mean a lot - of theoretical work that demonstrates > > the frailty of intention). This is the cost of putting your work (no > > matter what sort of work it is) out in public. > > > > The second way to think about the manifesto is that it offers people a > > series of formal constraints. This is why they're useful since the > > constraints help make things mean since they provide ready made > > patterns. This is why they're very useful to videoblogging. The > > constraints help give significance to what you're doing since one 1 > > minute silent clip of a cloud is, well, banal. But when it is > > contextualised around a whole practice then it reverberates with these > > other works and since there is so much the same (due to the > > constraints) the differences between let each of the works express. It > > is not much different to a musical variation, Oulipean writing or > > deciding to paint a still life. > > > > As constraints they are recipes to creatiing, and so linking to them > > helps because it is by virtue of the series that the individual works > > get more value. Now if I made a webpage that linked to all the > > projects out there that used, for example, the Oblique Strategies, it > > doesn't follow that the creators are Fluxus artists, subscribed to > > Fluxus ideas and so on. > > > > So, are we arguing about a manifesto, the use of some or all of the > > constraints, or someone linking to work on the basis of its use of > > some constraints? And if we are clear that the use of 'we' in the > > manifesto means the authors and not the creators of the videos, can > > someone state simply what remains a concern? (I mean that genuinely, > > at some point we need to recognise that our work, if out there in the > > public, will be reappropriated in varying ways, this is how we invent > > and create, so I'm trying to understand what the boundary issue is > > here.) > > > > > > Adrian Miles > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > bachelor communication honours coordinator > > vogmae.net.au > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://michaelverdi.com > http://freevlog.org > http://nscape.tv >
