I think what I'm still not quite getting - and what Rupert and Brook and Verdi have addressed - is why getting paid is such an important outcome? Is it compensation for dealing with the haters? Or is it to give the work some kind of palpable worth that it doesn't have otherwise? Certainly (street) performers have existed throughout the ages, playing for change, never making enough to live on, often doing it just for the love - is that all you want, some recompense - or are you talking about being able to live off this?
I have to say - as much as I did find much to respond to in Information Dystopia, especially the first portion, (spoiler alert!) the request for money at the end made me feel like I had just watched an ad. Like an infomercial almost. I was disappointed by the attachment of money to it, which seemed rather counter to the message in the rest of the video. But maybe I just need to watch it again. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "ractalfece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Verdi" > <michaelverdi@> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, ractalfece <john@> wrote: > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brook Hinton" <bhinton@> wrote: > > >> > > >> Thanks for the link, John, I will look forward to seeing it when.... > > >> if.... it ever finishes reaching my computer. > > >> > > >> "> But what's wrong with being an avant-guard artist?" > > >> > > >> What does making something difficult for people who aren't > immersed in > > >> the tech world to obtain have to do with being an avant-garde artist? > > >> Most avant-garde artists spend a lot of effort fighting to get their > > >> work seen, not hiding it. > > >> > > > > > > I don't claim to be an avant-garde artist. And I don't take the word > > > artist lightly. I was responding to Verdi's line: > > > > > > "It's a little like the poor avant-guard artist who complains that > > > nobody (i.e. the "mainstream") understands his work." > > > > > > I get what he's saying but that line doesn't have any sting to it. If > > > someone called me a poor avant-guard artist, I'd say thank you. > > > > > > > > > Okay, let me try it again. I guess it's my personal pet peeve when, > > for example, a person makes esoteric work and then complains that most > > people don't understand it. I was trying to relate (unsuccessfully) > > that idea to John's complaint about his audience. If you don't want to > > make mainstream stuff, fine but don't complain when the mainstream > > doesn't want to watch. The cool thing is that the things I do that > > might draw a couple of dozen people (if that) to a live event here in > > San Antonio can have an audience of thousands+ on the internet. I also > > think that, given a bit of time, your videos will get the "right" > > audience - the one you're making them for. I don't think there is a > > need to put up a barrier. > > > > > I agree about people who complain about not being mainstream. > > But when you are an underground artist and your stuff goes mainstream > and you're not getting paid for it. Well, then I think it's time to > start throwing your weight around. > > I know some would argue I'm not mainstream enough. Or maybe that I > never was an underground artist. Because it's true I naively bought > the "online video revolution" hype. The new video deals with how I > became disillusioned. And it offers a solution. > > But maybe it won't work out the way I want it to work out. That's > life. I've got some other ideas up my sleeve. Gotta check out the > legality first. > > I used to think I had to bend myself to become successful at the > business of online video. But maybe business can be approached like > an art form. You know, like Robin Marks at the carnival. > > - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - > > > > Now if the idea is riff on > > old-school-word-of-mouth-punk-rock-zine-diy-distribution and to > > promote bittorrent because you like it, then who am I to argue with > > that? In that context it's fun. > > > > Verdi > > >
