Steve, thanks for seeing the scandalous part as a comment on art. I truly didn't mean to insult your wife. I know that RTNDA thing was hard for her. The "human potatoes" kept pushing her into the role of a journalist. I know you guys know you're entertainers. Or entertainment journalists. Or something like that. And you don't want to replace real journalists. However, I believe the corporate interests would love to see that happen.
I'll try to explain my thinking. An open internet makes it near impossible to charge money for media that can be represented digitally. No longer can huge media conglomerates count on being able to promote the hell out of their garbage and turn a profit. People will just download the hype for free. This is exciting. It appears as if the playing field has been leveled. Small timers who weren't making money in the first place can now compete with the media giants. A good idea will spread across the open web, at least that's the hope. But small timers aren't going to have an easy time monetizing their digital products either. It's a media crisis. Capitalists don't see crisis- they see opportunity. It's not about coming together and finding fair solutions for communities. It's about turning profit. This crisis is a wet dream for marketers. Media becomes all about the metrics. Just find the content with the highest hit count and cover it with ads. You no longer have to worry about quality. You just worry about the positioning of the clickable ad. In this new game, the perfect content is titillating and exciting but lacking in any real substance or depth. Get the web surfers in and make sure the ad is there for them when they get bored or when the two minutes is up. That's why it's now possible to make an easy $6000 by putting ads on top of promos. Ask Tim Street how it's done. Kent laid out some good advice for content creators during his keynote at Pixelodeon. Boil things down to the essential. Make it like a pill. Edit out the boring parts. Make it faster than you think you should. Produce consistently. "Quick quick quick fast fast fast". But what might be good advice for content creators is horrible for artists and intellectuals and real journalists. Read Kent's blog post where he calls David Lynch a tool and tells him to make content that plays well on a 320 by 240 window. http://kentnichols.com/2008/01/05/david-lynch-is-a-tool/ Or watch as he tells Salman Rushdie that all scholarly resources should be on the web so the authors get a nickel (from an ad, I assume). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka1Y1BY19Vw Kent's success has put him in a leadership position. He gives the keynotes. He gets his show mentioned in articles about successful online video. He rubs shoulders with CEOs at the Google Zeitgeist conference and tells them what they should be doing in web 2.0. When our heroes fail us, they deserve our special scorn. @Kent, I ain't gonna hurt you or Douglas. Like I said in the video, I use words. But go ahead and get a restraining order. That'll make you look cool. And it certainly won't draw any attention to Information Dystopia. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Woolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey there - > > I finally had a chance to watch John's entire video and to read the > responses from the group. It's a lot to digest. I'm still digesting. > > A little back story on John's video. Living in L.A. I see John at the > occassional event and it's no secret that I've been a long-time > admirer of his videos. The first time I met him at the Project Pedal > party ages ago, I was really excited. There are a few people whose > work I will always watch and follow and he is one of them. > > I'm not offended by anything John said or did in the video. What I > saw was someone filled with anger and frustration, and more than a > little bitterness, who turned to the medium they know best to express > it. My opinion only. > > What I was bothered by is the message of divisiveness that pervades > the video. Kent Nichols got the brunt of the criticism, and that > might be because he puts the most information and opinion out there to > be criticized. He's a big boy, I'm sure he can handle it. > > But the one thing that can sustain online video as it moves forward > and gets more and more involved with the mainstream is content > creators who can understand and *tolerate* each other's points of > view. If I wanted to, I could choose to view John's masturbation > scene, overlaid with my wife's name and followed by a video of her, as > something that should warrant a physical confrontation. But instead I > choose to view that scene in the symbolic way I believe John meant it > to be, in the context of a video with a message about art and artists, > and nothing more. > > If we were to go back and read posts on this group from 2005 and 2006 > we would see an awful lot of people who have changed their points of > view and are singing a very different tune these days. And they have > a right to do that. > > Some more back story on John's video. I actually *told* him to make > it. I told him once that if he wanted to, he could be the conscience > of online video content creators, and that every industry needs > someone to call people on their bullshit. The method he used to make > the video is of his own choosing, but I firmly stand by what I meant > when I said it. If it happens to be me, that's what he thought needed > calling out. > > But I see Kent, Doug, and Tim as people with different goals than > John's, goals that I don't feel are bullshit. And I don't feel their > behavior and words have been contrary to their actions. In that > sense, I don't really feel they have been called on any bullshit, I > feel that they have been singled out for having some success. That > success has not come at the expense of other content creators, at > least in my opinion. In fact, I think we have all done quite a lot to > help elevate awareness for independent artists. > > I don't know, I'm straying from my point. I respect John tremendously > as an artist. I disagree with the message in the video, but I still > think it's a great video. > > Steve > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > All right, you bastards, here it is. > > > > Videoblogging is my hobby. I'll never make any money out of it. > > > > When I lived in London, people used to hire me to make videos for > > their companies because I was one of the only people there who had a > > videoblog. But that's not the same thing. > > > > And now I live somewhere much cheaper, I don't have to do that > > anymore, and it's a relief. I can concentrate on my own stuff. > > Without worrying about how it's going to pay. > > > > The reason John's so pissed off is because he thought making videos > > was going to change something in his life, make him money, change the > > media landscape. And then he sat through that Keynote at > > Pixelodeon. So did I. Halfway through, the person sitting next to > > me turned their laptop screen black and wrote in large red letters I > > WANT TO DIE. > > > > The point is, if you want money, you have to ask yourself who's going > > to pay you. Follow The Money. Consumers haven't paid directly for > > media for a long time. > > > > No one pays for media. People don't pay for the movie when they see > > it at a theatre. They could wait and watch it on the telly or > > BitTorrent it. They pay for the EXPERIENCE of going out - huddling > > together in the dark to feast on sugary crap and distract themselves > > momentarily from the ever-present inevitability of their encroaching > > loneliness, senility and death. > > > > Just like you pay for Chinese food when you don't want to cook and > > the inside of your apartment is starting to feel like the Overlook. > > > > So - the only people who are going to pay you are advertisers. If > > your 'content' doesn't fit with what they want, then fuck you, you > > won't get paid. > > > > Fuck you? Fuck me. Fuck them. My 'content' is *never* going to fit > > with them. So I never ever expect to get paid. Unless I change what > > I do. Which I'm not going to. > > > > Almost all of the 60 or so videoblogs I subscribe to are produced for > > nothing. It doesn't cost anything to produce them. I'm producing > > my stuff for nothing, too. Except my time. Why on earth should > > anybody else pay me for my hobby time? You want a hobby that makes > > money? You picked the wrong one. There's too many cutthroat > > professionals making media that's tailor made to make money. Go > > learn how to carve arty dollshouse furniture. > > > > Too expensive to live in the city and make art/indulge your hobby? > > You have to spend all your time working? Move somewhere less > > expensive. Can't? Well - that's either your unavoidable > > circumstance that has nothing to do with web video, or it's your > > *choice* of priorities. Who said that advertisers should spend their > > money on something they have no interest in so that you can have it > > all? That MBP you just bought or want - that HD cam - are they > > really the basic tools for your art? > > > > Pissed off that 30 million people have watched French Maid TV and > > only 250,000 have watched yours? Who's wrong - the 29,750,000 people > > who chose not to watch you, or you? Want to be loved by those > > 29,750,000 people? Make French Maid TV. > > > > If I put a massive amount of effort and discipline and thought and > > resources into making a long film, then I'd think about whether I > > want to get something in return. And if I did, I would make some > > efforts to Follow The Money, to think about HOW to get something in > > return. > > > > But probably I'd just do it in my spare time, without expecting > > anything in return. So that I didn't have to Follow The Money. > > Because we can do that now. > > > > THAT'S the fucking revolution, people. That we don't HAVE to be > > paid. The making of the thing doesn't COST anything. > > > > When I started making 16mm films, they were seen by hardly any people > > at festivals and cost thousands of dollars to make in rental and > > processing costs. Now I make better stuff on my free-with-my- > > contract phone for hardly anything except time, and it's seen by > > thousands. > > > > Everything else is bullshit. > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.tv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5-Aug-08, at 3:53 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > either: > > - hardly anyone who still reads this list has watched it > > - this list has lost its edge as well as its volume > > - you've said all that needs to be said > > - all of the above > > > > brilliant, funny, excoriating, ballsy > > are you the only one out there with a polemical revolutionary streak? > > > > On 1-Aug-08, at 4:43 PM, ractalfece wrote: > > > > This new video is a scorcher. I call out some of the corporate > > content creators. Epic-Fu, Ask A Ninja, French Maid. I think I > > called Michael Rosenblum a human potato. > > > > Anybody else notice how about every six months, shit hits the fan on > > this list? > > > > It's that time again. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
