I don't purport to be an expert or deeply knowledgeable about YouTube. I am subscribed to many channels and love them all, but I wouldn't call myself an obsessive like I would about books. However I am fascinated with its inner workings. I've already discussed Becoming YouTube on this blog (it explains what Becoming YouTube is and saves me repeating myself here) and it is that has sparked my curiosity. I've finally decided to commit my incoherent thoughts into sort-or-coherent words as a response to the latest Culture Show programme which focused on YouTube and asked the question: "YouTube - The Future of TV?" (Not quite a question I know, but we'll get to that).
This has been a long time coming as the episode of Becoming YouTube presenter Jacques Peretti's cameo was in, of which we see the behind the scenes of in the programme, was put up at the end of May. Nevertheless, it was an interesting programme although despite his evident enthusiasm Peretti couldn't avoid the occasional patronising comment ("This is actually really funny"). It was very evident that the programme was from the perspective of a older generation of which YouTube is still perceived as a new thing that all the kids are into. I'm ready to admit my complete bias in my opinions about the site as I am clearly of the YouTube generation and at the age in which it was established early on in my life as an everyday thing. Nevertheless I genuinely think that YouTube is reaching the point, if it is not already, in which it can now be considered a medium in its own right.
That's right - alongside theatre, radio, television, literature and cinema, Youtube, I believe, can be considered just as much as an art form. Now before I explain how innovative YouTube is (as everyone constantly does) I want to mention how it arguably has roots in 'traditional media'. Communicating with your audience is the basis of phone in radio shows like 606 and is increasingly a key part to live television shows. Of course, reality shows literally leave the decisions up to audience, which was copied by some comedy and drama shows: a selection of endings were offered to the audience (usually with spoiler free titles such as Happy or Sad) who were then asked to pick one of them to be broadcast. Examples from my memory include CBBC show Jeopardy (a creepy Australian show) and BBC 3's Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps. Immediate response is also present in theatre - you literally know if the audience is enjoying it; the same applies to stand-up, musical performances or any other live performance. So those are just a handful of examples how YouTube actually fits in quite nicely with media and culture, so why such a fuss? What is so special about it?
Well, I'm not totally sure. As I say I'm not an expert or possess the journalistic skill of Benjamin Cook. but I'll have a go anyway. To be fair, it is not too far away to what Peretti was suggesting in The Culture Show special: there is something really inspiring about having such a blurred line between viewer and creator. Of course, all creators are viewers of some kind; there aren't many film directors or television stars, I imagine, that don't actually watch other films or television shows. However, that YouTube is on the Internet, where responses can be almost immediate (this very post being a prime example), means that it can be constantly on the ball, addressing the latest topic, covering recent events as they happen. The same can't be applied to other medium which generally require a longer creative process. With YouTube, a person can turn on their webcam, talk into it and then put it on YouTube within minutes. Just stop and appreciate how wonderful that is. The opportunities are endless and the sheer number of videos on YouTube prove that.
And this is why Becoming YouTube is so special. Because I genuinely consider it a work of art that will be long held up in the same regard as Shakespeare, Chaplin and the like. This sounds like hyperbole or exaggeration but that's because in comparison to other art forms, YouTube is in its infancy. And yet look how far it has come. I have laughed to tears, been incredibly moved, got shivers of excitement and reconsidered my views abut the world because of numerous YouTube videos. I have had similar reactions to theatrical productions, music concerts, books and films. It is clear to see that YouTube creators are constantly producing quality that is in the same league as those who work in those other mediums. Such that they now have it as a full-time job. And not all of them necessarily want to transfer their skills to television or film. YouTube is where they want to be and why the hell not? If it produces as good quality products, even better quality products, than shows on television or films in cinemas, why should they just abandon ship? Because right now its still not considered 'proper art'? Pretty much every art form has faced this scrutiny and overcome it. Why? Because it was popular and also bloody good. Theatre, cinema, television, radio, they've all been labelled as 'inferior' or 'the death of culture' at some point in history and are now part of the cultural bedrock. And, I believe, this is where YouTube will be soon.
Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if in years to come it will join literature, theatre, film, music etc. as a worthy subject for a university degree. What on earth that would be like I have no idea, but the idea is not unfeasible in my mind. So basically, to answer my own question and at the same time the one posed by The Culture Show, YouTube isn't the future of TV or any other media. It is perfectly comfortable being a media in its own right. It's on a trajectory now where people aren't just watching television and film on it. They're actually watching original content and realising that it might actually be better than what else is out there. I'm not suggesting that this means other mediums have to step up their game; from what I can tell they're doing alright for themselves. But they're facing serious competition for viewers with YouTube. They're bringing something new to the party and the audience are loving it. It is not the future of entertainment. YouTube is just the newest form its taken.
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Friday, 6 September 2013
Friday, 1 February 2013
Becoming Youtube and becoming a person
There is a fascinating series on YouTube at the moment called Becoming Youtube, which allows relative newbies (such as myself) to get a brief catchup on the history of Youtube (and I mean very brief, it focuses on very specific areas, mostly due to who is available to intelligent and informative host and creator, Benjamin Cook) while also treating this influential website as an important cultural tool. By no means is it a cheerleader for the site though. Quite the contrary, it engages and challenges how its influence has grown and surpassed its original origins due to the huge growth in its audience. I'm going to be concerned with the latest episode, but every one so far has been fascinating, so here's a link to the first episode. They are fairly long but fascinating nevertheless.
The latest episode looked at fandom, with Nerdfighteria as the case study. I won't repeat the perfectly good summary in the episode (about 2.57) so just check that out and then we can continue.
You watched all of it didn't you? Don't blame you, after all I asked you to, although it was a long and lonely wait. So now we know what being a nerdfighter means we can move on.
Except.
That last sentence is wrong pretty much entirely. If you aren't a nerdfighter, surely you don't know what it is? Even if you think you do, if you were a part of it surely that definition would change. What you thought previously will be proved to be incorrect as you become more involved in the community. This is the problem that fandom has but is by no means unique - any group that encourages its participants to label themselves (fandoms are one example, as are political groups, religions, critical theorists and so on) automatically excludes themselves from those that aren't part of the group. I suppose that is the point of these groups, to find others who share your views and that aren't like everybody else. Until people who claim to be part of your group do things that act against everything that you thought the group stands for. You then have to justify your allegiance to the group to those who criticise it because of one individuals actions. Which can be quite difficult.
"Hi, I'm Kevin. I'm a big fan of the Batman films." Really? How big?
"Bit obsessive to be honest. Haha." Ha. What, like dressing up and stuff?
"Yeah, sometimes. But only when I'm out with my mates who love it as much as I do." So you're like that murderer in Colorado? Wasn't he dressed as the Joker or something?
"Oh, he's not like us." But he said he loves the films as well. He was just as big a fan as you.
"Well, not to me." So you're the representative of your group?
"Well no, there are others like me but they obviously have different views." Like the guy who killed all those people?
"Um..." Um....
Everyone is wrong aren't they? The critic is wrong to generalise a group because of an individual but the participant is similarly wrong to assume everyone in the group shares their view. Examples are evident in the documentary I mentioned above* as indeed there is in real life. And that's my problem with all these groups that encourage their fans to label themselves. They put them within a conflict that nobody wants to get involved in, but as I tried to demonstrate is automatic whenever being a fan of something appears. I'm sure many of us have experienced at some point. And probably from both sides.
Personally, I'm fond of many things and would consider myself a fan of a handful of them- Doctor Who (despite the recent increase of disappointment recently, the concept opens so many possible routes I can't abandon it), theatre and literature are the ones that dominate my life most. Both are capable of disappointing me or not doing things I like, but to me there is something about them that makes abandonment impossible. This doesn't mean you can't stop being a fan. Indeed, in some ways I would encourage it as it will generally cause less arguments. I used to be very passionate about football, but due to a gradual lack of interest and a feeling that if I said I supported Man. United I would be hated by many automatically. Similarly, I have no specific taste in music beyond being fond of certain bands (last night I went to a Two Door Cinema Club concert, who have yet to make a bad song and are incredible live. Check them out if you don't know them). The reason I like to be impartial in most of these areas is mostly because everyone is very proud and (obviously) committed to their opinions. As such, they will defend them to the bitter end, and as such can cause friendships, arguments and some parties to come to a similarly bitter end.
Obviously, being part of a group has many, many benefits which make these negative aspects somewhat bearable. I'm part of a drama society here at university, of which I'm proud of even if I don't know everyone. We all share a passion for performing and watching great shows, which triumphs over any tempestuous personal relations which arises naturally within large groups. What annoys me is those people who choose to use their group membership to be unnecessarily cruel to those who aren't part of their group and, unfortunately, other groups. Disagreement will always occur, but we can at least be respectful about it.
I have friends who like things I don't and vice versa, but crucially they are friends. If you're so committed to your group that friendships are unnecessary, then a reality check is in order. The feeling of fandom can come and go, at least in my experience. Building relationships with people outside that environment is more likely to be more rewarding and beneficial in your life - there are a significant minority of examples where that isn't the case. Even if you get successful through obsession of YouTube or Doctor Who or whatever, it won't be solely because of that. Involvement with the real world is the only way for you to actually do something, rather than just admire people who aren't just fans but able to actually do something (say running a political party or writing a script for a new TV show) that can potentially generate fandoms and group worship in the first place.
As ever, there are others out there who can summarise my posts into a one-liner and the trend continues today. In the latest episode of Becoming YouTube, Jack Howard says, "If people are Nerdfighters, then fine. Just don't be a prick about it."
Just because you are part of a group doesn't mean you are automatically a good or a bad person - you're just a person who likes something more than most people do. It's not an excuse or a justification for anything that is in and of itself morally repugnant and evil.
*I find I have to defend myself for referring to Becoming Youtube as a documentary. as it's on YouTube, associated with people falling over and funny animals, but the documentary is worthy of being shown on TV** but by being on YouTube, it feels more relevant / focused.
**which people think is somehow a better media than the Internet despite also showing people falling over and funny animals, clips of which are then put on YouTube - it's a vicious cycle the media.
The latest episode looked at fandom, with Nerdfighteria as the case study. I won't repeat the perfectly good summary in the episode (about 2.57) so just check that out and then we can continue.
You watched all of it didn't you? Don't blame you, after all I asked you to, although it was a long and lonely wait. So now we know what being a nerdfighter means we can move on.
Except.
That last sentence is wrong pretty much entirely. If you aren't a nerdfighter, surely you don't know what it is? Even if you think you do, if you were a part of it surely that definition would change. What you thought previously will be proved to be incorrect as you become more involved in the community. This is the problem that fandom has but is by no means unique - any group that encourages its participants to label themselves (fandoms are one example, as are political groups, religions, critical theorists and so on) automatically excludes themselves from those that aren't part of the group. I suppose that is the point of these groups, to find others who share your views and that aren't like everybody else. Until people who claim to be part of your group do things that act against everything that you thought the group stands for. You then have to justify your allegiance to the group to those who criticise it because of one individuals actions. Which can be quite difficult.
"Hi, I'm Kevin. I'm a big fan of the Batman films." Really? How big?
"Bit obsessive to be honest. Haha." Ha. What, like dressing up and stuff?
"Yeah, sometimes. But only when I'm out with my mates who love it as much as I do." So you're like that murderer in Colorado? Wasn't he dressed as the Joker or something?
"Oh, he's not like us." But he said he loves the films as well. He was just as big a fan as you.
"Well, not to me." So you're the representative of your group?
"Well no, there are others like me but they obviously have different views." Like the guy who killed all those people?
"Um..." Um....
Everyone is wrong aren't they? The critic is wrong to generalise a group because of an individual but the participant is similarly wrong to assume everyone in the group shares their view. Examples are evident in the documentary I mentioned above* as indeed there is in real life. And that's my problem with all these groups that encourage their fans to label themselves. They put them within a conflict that nobody wants to get involved in, but as I tried to demonstrate is automatic whenever being a fan of something appears. I'm sure many of us have experienced at some point. And probably from both sides.
Personally, I'm fond of many things and would consider myself a fan of a handful of them- Doctor Who (despite the recent increase of disappointment recently, the concept opens so many possible routes I can't abandon it), theatre and literature are the ones that dominate my life most. Both are capable of disappointing me or not doing things I like, but to me there is something about them that makes abandonment impossible. This doesn't mean you can't stop being a fan. Indeed, in some ways I would encourage it as it will generally cause less arguments. I used to be very passionate about football, but due to a gradual lack of interest and a feeling that if I said I supported Man. United I would be hated by many automatically. Similarly, I have no specific taste in music beyond being fond of certain bands (last night I went to a Two Door Cinema Club concert, who have yet to make a bad song and are incredible live. Check them out if you don't know them). The reason I like to be impartial in most of these areas is mostly because everyone is very proud and (obviously) committed to their opinions. As such, they will defend them to the bitter end, and as such can cause friendships, arguments and some parties to come to a similarly bitter end.
Obviously, being part of a group has many, many benefits which make these negative aspects somewhat bearable. I'm part of a drama society here at university, of which I'm proud of even if I don't know everyone. We all share a passion for performing and watching great shows, which triumphs over any tempestuous personal relations which arises naturally within large groups. What annoys me is those people who choose to use their group membership to be unnecessarily cruel to those who aren't part of their group and, unfortunately, other groups. Disagreement will always occur, but we can at least be respectful about it.
I have friends who like things I don't and vice versa, but crucially they are friends. If you're so committed to your group that friendships are unnecessary, then a reality check is in order. The feeling of fandom can come and go, at least in my experience. Building relationships with people outside that environment is more likely to be more rewarding and beneficial in your life - there are a significant minority of examples where that isn't the case. Even if you get successful through obsession of YouTube or Doctor Who or whatever, it won't be solely because of that. Involvement with the real world is the only way for you to actually do something, rather than just admire people who aren't just fans but able to actually do something (say running a political party or writing a script for a new TV show) that can potentially generate fandoms and group worship in the first place.
As ever, there are others out there who can summarise my posts into a one-liner and the trend continues today. In the latest episode of Becoming YouTube, Jack Howard says, "If people are Nerdfighters, then fine. Just don't be a prick about it."
Just because you are part of a group doesn't mean you are automatically a good or a bad person - you're just a person who likes something more than most people do. It's not an excuse or a justification for anything that is in and of itself morally repugnant and evil.
*I find I have to defend myself for referring to Becoming Youtube as a documentary. as it's on YouTube, associated with people falling over and funny animals, but the documentary is worthy of being shown on TV** but by being on YouTube, it feels more relevant / focused.
**which people think is somehow a better media than the Internet despite also showing people falling over and funny animals, clips of which are then put on YouTube - it's a vicious cycle the media.
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Maddrim Media (An endless stream of imagination)
It is unusual to talk about a YouTube channel as a source of fantastic short films but this is a very unique channel. Unusually incorporating an ensemble cast and crew present in nearly every video, Maddrim are full of enthusiastic youths with ambitious ideas. With their small scale abilities, naturally these don't all work and their more quirky attempts border on irritating and cringe worthy.
Their best work is when, as the best creative minds do, they use their lack of resources to the best possible advantage. Simple shots of images tell a very powerful story, best seen in 'The Note'. It's best if you go in knowing nothing, but you can perhaps guess the subject from the title. Interestingly enough, these attempts are when their work is their most serious. 'Masks' is their calling card video, recommended by notable film critic Mark Kermode, after the company showed some of their films at the Shetland Film Festival he runs. An incredibly powerful piece of work, masks are used in the most alienating possible way that leaves you breathless. Yet their creativity does come through in their comedy also. Pork n Beans is innocuous fare but with a brilliant use of live-stop-motion.
They are also spot on in their parodies, whether it is superheroes (Stallion Head), soap operas (Autumn Leaves) or documentaries (Crystal Math) While the videos are obviously amateurish, there is enough enthusiasm and energy from everyone to keep you interested and faithful. Every video is entertaining in their own way, and their ideas are always imaginative and take basic premises to creative conclusions.
While I want them to be more artistic and exploit their creativity with their limitations, every time I see a video that is more obviously amateurish, I appreciate their other works all the more. Furthermore I'm become more reassured that in the future they will be fantastic film makers - I for one can't wait.
Personal favourites:
Their best work is when, as the best creative minds do, they use their lack of resources to the best possible advantage. Simple shots of images tell a very powerful story, best seen in 'The Note'. It's best if you go in knowing nothing, but you can perhaps guess the subject from the title. Interestingly enough, these attempts are when their work is their most serious. 'Masks' is their calling card video, recommended by notable film critic Mark Kermode, after the company showed some of their films at the Shetland Film Festival he runs. An incredibly powerful piece of work, masks are used in the most alienating possible way that leaves you breathless. Yet their creativity does come through in their comedy also. Pork n Beans is innocuous fare but with a brilliant use of live-stop-motion.
They are also spot on in their parodies, whether it is superheroes (Stallion Head), soap operas (Autumn Leaves) or documentaries (Crystal Math) While the videos are obviously amateurish, there is enough enthusiasm and energy from everyone to keep you interested and faithful. Every video is entertaining in their own way, and their ideas are always imaginative and take basic premises to creative conclusions.
While I want them to be more artistic and exploit their creativity with their limitations, every time I see a video that is more obviously amateurish, I appreciate their other works all the more. Furthermore I'm become more reassured that in the future they will be fantastic film makers - I for one can't wait.
Personal favourites:
- Masks - first film and by far one of their very best
- Pork n Beans - a lot of fun crammed into a very short running time
- The Note - simple but extraordinary
- The Doomsday Device - extremely powerful on a subject often mocked
- Sugar Bricks - artistic but no showing-off anywhere, very emotive
- Saw: The Franchise Edition - If you can't stand even thinking about watching the Saw films, you'll love this
- Tea and Jaffacakes - very moving piece
- Under the Moon of Love - very funny twist with some entertaining literal street dancing
- Crystal Math
- Maddrim: Behind the Headlines - these last two are brilliant parodies of two different types of documentary
- Picture Perfect - fantastic images and a shocking ending
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)