Having been off-line for some time I missed all of this thread, and I
suppose it is far too long already, but here is my take.
Videoblogging is a medium, like paper. You can use the paper to write
your personal journal, or you can write constitutions for countries on
it. You can write with only the intended audience of yourself, or you
can write on it and put it in a bottle and place it on the ocean.
I like paper to be available to everyone. Someone will use it to draw
nasty pictures of headless torsos, others will write songs where they
hail Goebbels, others will write poems, or stories about imaginary
worlds, or letters to their loved ones. Like paper, videoblogging
should be available to all. Like paper, I don't think you should need
to pass a test of being entertaining, interesting or engaging to use
Reality check - there are all kinds of realities. My reality here in
Northern Norway is very different from your reality in Texas, USA.
Three guys make video for three different reasons. They have different
expectations, different intended audiences, and I must say I disagree
with the notion that "If you publish it online you Want as many people
to view it as possible". I didn't get in on the Wired story because I
didn't reply to the friendly journalist, and I feel happy about that.
But then just a few days ago a Norwegian site gave a link to my site
along with their review of vlogmap.org, and on came some of those lame
14-year olds and one went "This site is stupid; where are your
videos?". I didn't intend for dltq.blogs.com (and now dltq.org) to be
Too easily accessible. Yes, that is elitist thinking, and I am
improving from this condition of thinking. (But it does lead to less
vlog entries from me)
I guess I belong to both group 1) and 2) according to Kontras'
distinction. I am both experimenting with the medium and also I am
involved in trying to spread the word. I want my personal soapbox with
content for my 'ten friends', and I also want to give some general
statements meant for a wider audience.
Leslie brought up an important question, but as several people have
pointed out: Our material doesn't need to be seen as attempts of
making TV. Who is to say that our content is to be entertaining? Is
entertainment the highest we can get?
The flame war on this mailing list is unfortunate, and did leave a few
loose feathers, but personally I liked it. I hope people get past the
negativity and acknowledge that we do things for a lot of different
reasons. It was unfortunate that Adam saw this videoblogging list as a
group he doesn't want to like, but as he wrote here
sure managed to alienate himself. For those of you who feel bad about
him leaving as a result of this flame-war; he was planning that all
along, and he wanted to ruffle a few feathers first. Congratulations.
Let a thousand vlogospheres bloom. We don't need to be on one mailing
list all of us. Let's explore the opportunities, and see what we can
do with this fancy new paper of ours.
- goes and makes a paper airplane now and throws it over the Atlantic.
Dang, it falls short.
On 7/15/05, Steve Watkins <steve@...> wrote:
> He is on a journey. This group at one stage appeared to be a possible
> important road on this journey, but at some stage it became clear that
> some of the videoblogging ethos was totally counter to his personal
> journey. Its understandable that a professional entertainer seeking a
> suitable place in the world is going to see things differently to the
> grassroot massroots potential that many videobloggers get excited about.
> Some people can handle being in a group when their feelings are in the
> minority, some cant. E L Woody springs to mind as another person used
> to a career/pro divide, us and them, the watcher and the gifted
> creator, who didnt give or receive the best vibes here. Is this a