and yes, I realise you might think this message sits awkwardly with my previous rant about it being a hobby. but it doesn't. it might be video art, but it's still something i do in my spare time and not for money.
On 6-Aug-08, at 11:41 AM, Rupert wrote: No, I agree with you Jim - and I too have supported myself and my family for the last year entirely on the side benefits of my videos. And Jeffrey, yes, I see that I misunderstood you and that we agree quite a lot. Wreck and Salvage should be at MOMA just as Rocketboom are at Sony. But that seems a long way off. I just took a drive into town and had a think about this. I like your word 'invade' more than I like your previous word 'invite'. You used the word failure, which I disputed. But actually, I do think that we have failed as a community to take ourselves and each other seriously enough as artists. I think - and have always thought - that the word 'videoblogging' is incredibly unhelpful. As were all the discussions about its definition. Michael Szpakowski from DVBlog, who recently featured one of my videos, told me I should be more 'up' myself about what I do. I've stripped that comment of context - but anyway, it got me thinking. There's a sort of false modesty at work. As I said, I prefer the work of the people I regularly watch online to the swathes of happily self-proclaimed 'video artists' working in conventional spaces in London... but I wonder how many of the people I subscribe to would be comfortable describing what they do as just "Art". What I do, for instance, is not as clearly 'video art' as, say, the beautiful work of the people I used to class as "Video Art & Experimenta" on my "Videoblogs I Subscribe To" page. But it is. That's what it is. It's not a shopping list or even a Show About Something. It's a creative selection and interpretation of my environment using certain tools. I do it because I love the creative act of doing it, and the community around it is an amazing part of that process. Describing it as 'videoblogging' does *not* do it any favours. I don't care if people say that it's just a description of the distribution technology I use. It's more than that. For most people outside of our tiny community - particularly in an area as precious as the art world - the words Videoblog and Vlog have unhelpful connotations of someone artlessly droning into a bad quality webcam. These words stop serious people taking our work seriously. It's almost like calling a video artist a 'TV person', though even *that* has better connotations than 'videoblogger'. So from now on, I no longer give a shit about whether it's pretentious to call myself an artist. Fuck that. And all the good video art I see around me, I'm going to stop worrying about how to describe it. As far as I'm concerned, most of the people I subscribe to are artists and filmmakers (and no, I don't care that we don't use Film) and I value them as such whether they're comfortable with it or not. We should all be more 'up ourselves'. Then we invade. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ On 6-Aug-08, at 9:55 AM, Jim Kukral wrote: I can't speak for "artists" as I am not one (I'm a marketer). But as a person who does videos I know that "making money from videos" isn't going to happen for hardly anyone on as publisher model. Even the people who get millions and millions of views don't make much jack. But me, I do very well from the side benefits of my videos. Consulting gigs, book offers, etc. Having videos is like being an author nowadays, it opens doors, assuming you try to market yourself and them at least a little bit. Of course, I may have missed the entire point of this conversation? Jim Kukral www.jimkukral.com From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Taylor Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:47 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Goes Underground With you and not with you on this one Rupert. We have not as a community engaged the artistic "powers that be" nearly as much as we have commerical interests. If we had, Wreck and Salvage would have a gig at MOMA similar to Rocketboom getting its gig at Sony. Many of what you state is sound about how videobloggers are viewed, but I cannot see people on this list or in my sphere of contacts relentlessly pursuing multiple outlets with the same relentlessness. There have been more failed attempts with corporations amongst the people on the list than there has been in the field of fine art. There has been small victories, though. List-members Loiez Deniel and Gabriel Soucheyre's Videoformes festival embraces online video, and I hope they will bring in more when I return to see it next year. I don't see me calling this a "fail" as a finger-wagging naughty children sort of thing. Where I'm coming from is more of a call to articulate ourselves better and to seek out new contacts. Perhaps I should have said this has been a fail...so far. And yes, the status quo in the art world sucks as much as things suck in the commercial world, but that's partly why we need to invade. And I wager that the artists change faster than the corporations will. 2008/8/6 Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org> > > I totally don't agree with this part of your argument, Jeffrey. > > I don't think that most of those "Galleries, museums, educational > institutions, foundations, event planning > organisations, collectives and others" have been ready, willing or > able to come "into the fold". > > I totally agree that "there people online works make video art I've > > seen in public art exhibitions with massive funding look like an > episode of > Sesame Street." - most video art in big galleries in London looks > tired and old and shit when compared to the best video art that's > going on in and around this community. > > But again and again when I've shown examples of great work by other > people to people in the art world, their reaction is the same as the > reaction of people in the commercial & TV world. They reject it as > of passing interest - the ephemeral work of hobbyists. They don't > get it. They don't *want* to get it. > > You make it sound like it's our fault that they haven't got with the > program and come "into the fold". I don't think that's right at all. > > Nor do I think that they would be any more constructive in the > organic development of personal video art than the commercial > interests have been. > > And I don't see this community as failed, particularly in this way. > This forum may be less active than it once was, but my individual > connections with vloggers and artists tell me that nothing has failed. > > What I am most concerned about is that access to all our work will > not be destroyed when the internet converges with home entertainment > systems and portable devices. It's not all going to be about desktop > computers and browsers for long. > > Commercial overlords will create interfaces to use with these devices > which will prioritise their own advertiser-friendly mass-market stuff > - devices which bring internet to your TV will have edited TV Guides > - the iPhone has a YouTube app on the main menu which pushes featured > content - they will take all the prime real estate. > > We need to create interfaces, apps, portals which will allow people > to easily find independent, non-commercial content. Or we'll be shut > out of easy access to all these devices and we'll lose the advantage > we have now of free, open distribution. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.tv/ > > > On 6-Aug-08, at 3:38 AM, Jeffrey Taylor wrote: > > A sad mistake of this community as it developed is that we did not > invite > the established artistic community in as effectively as we invited the > commercial interests in, but have continued as a "collapsed > community" that > has both artist and more commerically minded folk. This is probably the > greatest failure of this community. > > Galleries, museums, educational institutions, foundations, event > planning > organisations, collectives and others need to be brought into the > fold so > that web-based video artists can take their long-deserved place in that > world. They don't know us because we have not reached out to them, and I > find it rather sad. There are people whose online works make video > art I've > seen in public art exhibitions with massive funding look like an > episode of > Sesame Street. We need to rectify this. > > 2008/8/6 Adam Mercado <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:adam%40influxx.com> <adam%40influxx.com>> > > > I havent seen the video yet, waiting for the link to arrive. But > > I step > > up onto my pedestal and > > rant like a bastard, cuz a ranting bastard is what I am. > > > > RE: art for payment > > Good for John for trying to make a living from his art. Anyone > > decrying him > > for doing this would surely not decline payment for their works of > > art. And > > I'm not talking about corporate > > whoring paid to produce either. I'm talking about ART. Like the > > paintings > > you see in the > > gallery. Painted by painters. Or the novels in Barnes and fucking > > Nobel. > > Written by artists. > > Who are getting paid for their work. No one pays for media? Balls. > > Like > > Quirk, I pay for > > media, micro media, mass media, teeny tiny piss in the ocean media. > > If it > > has some value to > > me and I can afford it (yet to spend $2000 on that great gallery > > painting) > > I'll chip in and > > support a fellow artist. I pay for TWiT. I pay for Adelphia. I pay > > JunkieXL > > for his music, > > directly. I paid for The Big Issue. I'll spare a few pennies for > > John if I > > feel his work is worth > > supporting. > > > > RE: torrential distribution > > Who cares how this dude distributes his work. If you dont get it, > > dont get > > it. True if there > > are not enough seeds we wont see the true benefit of torrenting. > > But as a > > means of keeping > > off the beaten track, unsearchable, untrackable, it sounds cool. > > Another > > analogy; the M25 > > raves of the late 80's. You had to be in the know to know who where > > and > > when the party > > was going down. Take control. Talk about 'get your audience'. > > > > RE: tracker portal project > > As usual i am impressed with the ability of members of this group > > to just > > get things done. Visionaries and genius. I look forward to see what > > you > > create. > > > > RE: audience schmordience > > This thread has been a boot in the arse for me. Tried for the past > > 2 years > > to build an > > audience for my retarded 'daddy vlog' and random rantings, with zero > > fucking success I > > might add. Because you know, it was the thing to do. Keep up with the > > 'movement', get > > comments, be popular. Web2.0. New media, social media. Fuck it all. I > > personally cant wait > > for the next bubble to burst and all the social media poseurs move > > on to > > the next 'big' > > thing. Who knows, all the true artists will survive doing what they > > always > > did, what they do. > > All trading torrents, sharing their are free of comments and > > trackbacks. > > Like net beat poets. > > > > Me, however, I've been a corporate fucktard for too long i think I've > > forgotten how to be an > > artist. But this thread might be anathema to my artistic atrophy. I > > should > > quit trying to > > appeal to some idiotic notion of audience, to social fucking media, > > to you > > lot. Start doing > > shit for me again. And I wont ask for a penny. Until I'm popular. > > > > I know this thread, this forum is a public discussion and everyone is > > airing opinions and > > voicing feelings. But really, who gives a shit. Torrent? Who cares? > > Money? > > Who cares? There > > are bigger arguments to fight over than these. > > > > > > > > -- > Jeffrey Taylor > Mobile: +33625497654 > Fax: +33177722734 > Skype: thejeffreytaylor > Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:thejeffreytaylor%40gmail.com> <thejeffreytaylor%40gmail.com> > http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > -- Jeffrey Taylor Mobile: +33625497654 Fax: +33177722734 Skype: thejeffreytaylor Googlechat/Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:thejeffreytaylor%40gmail.com> http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1595 - Release Date: 8/6/2008 8:23 AM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
