So I've been reading your replies in this thread, and hey! You appear to have dropped the whole Using Capitalizations To Achieve A Nasty Effect tack! Hurray!
Anyway:
1.) "But can't we just be honest about the whole thing? It ain't high art."
You seem to be implying, in this, that taking vidding seriously (or intellectualizing it) is dishonest-- that the meta-talk and analysis that you're complaining about isn't simple arrogance but actual pretension in the strictest definition of the term, e.g. the "Very Important Vidders" are faking all of this for some suspect reason that probably has something to do with making people think they are smarter than those who don't engage in the kind of discursive analysis that they do. I think that this is a misconception and a sad one-- as permetaform said, the meta-talk really is a huge amount of fun for the people who participate in it. This is their hobby-- if it weren't fun, they wouldn't be doing it. (Also, keep in mind that this particular vidding community has a very high fandom content, and fandom tends to have a ton of overlap with academia-- people who do this sort of thing for fun are basically endemic, and, no, they're not faking it-- they're nerds, in an internet nerd community. They really do do this for fun.)
2.) "What are viewers supposed to think when they want to watch a vid but feel like they have to read a primer on basic vidding techniques and concepts, not to mention pages of notes, in order to understand them?
Erm, well, I would say that if they just want to watch vids and have fun with it, they certainly shouldn't feel that they have to understand technique etc, nor should they feel that this lack of information precludes giving feedback. However, if you're asking if "viewers" and "newbies" should have a basic grasp of technique if they want to participate in analytical discourse, then I would say, certainly so. When dealing with people who create things-- and want to talk about the creative process with them-- it's probably a good idea to know what you're talking about. This is just the way creative communities work.
3.) "I would agree the conversation was intelligent, but I didn't read any comments that addressed those in the audience who might not want to read the meta, the notes, and the general discourse of vidding. They just want to be entertained..."
Permetaform already addressed this at length, but I have to say, it puzzles me as much as it does her. You seem to be asking, essentially, why nobody bothered to tailor this discussion to people who, as a rule, don't want to read this kind of discussion anyway. The implication of this is that you, speaking for the "viewing" portion of the vidding community, expect the creative component of the community to direct /all/ aspects of their vidding presence to further your entertainment-- i.e. "it's unfair and mean for you to be talking about stuff I don't enjoy reading!"-- but that's such an unbelievably selfish and churlish attitude that I think it would be beyond impolite to accuse you of harboring it. So, assuming that this is /not/ what you meant by your observation that there were no "comments that addressed those members of the audience who might not want to read the... discourse of vidding", what did you mean? Do you think that the creative community is prohibitively technical and should be making more efforts to integrate those who are unfamiliar with terminology into their discussions-- that they should be helping n00bs and "the average viewer" to catch up, but aren't, and are therefore being elitist creeps? That would be a valid complaint, but I'm pretty sure that the community of veteran vidders has been trying to address this-- people are working on making such a primer, and I believe there's a wiki in the works. Is that what you meant?
no subject
Anyway:
1.) "But can't we just be honest about the whole thing? It ain't high art."
You seem to be implying, in this, that taking vidding seriously (or intellectualizing it) is dishonest-- that the meta-talk and analysis that you're complaining about isn't simple arrogance but actual pretension in the strictest definition of the term, e.g. the "Very Important Vidders" are faking all of this for some suspect reason that probably has something to do with making people think they are smarter than those who don't engage in the kind of discursive analysis that they do. I think that this is a misconception and a sad one-- as permetaform said, the meta-talk really is a huge amount of fun for the people who participate in it. This is their hobby-- if it weren't fun, they wouldn't be doing it. (Also, keep in mind that this particular vidding community has a very high fandom content, and fandom tends to have a ton of overlap with academia-- people who do this sort of thing for fun are basically endemic, and, no, they're not faking it-- they're nerds, in an internet nerd community. They really do do this for fun.)
2.) "What are viewers supposed to think when they want to watch a vid but feel like they have to read a primer on basic vidding techniques and concepts, not to mention pages of notes, in order to understand them?
Erm, well, I would say that if they just want to watch vids and have fun with it, they certainly shouldn't feel that they have to understand technique etc, nor should they feel that this lack of information precludes giving feedback. However, if you're asking if "viewers" and "newbies" should have a basic grasp of technique if they want to participate in analytical discourse, then I would say, certainly so. When dealing with people who create things-- and want to talk about the creative process with them-- it's probably a good idea to know what you're talking about. This is just the way creative communities work.
3.) "I would agree the conversation was intelligent, but I didn't read any comments that addressed those in the audience who might not want to read the meta, the notes, and the general discourse of vidding. They just want to be entertained..."
Permetaform already addressed this at length, but I have to say, it puzzles me as much as it does her. You seem to be asking, essentially, why nobody bothered to tailor this discussion to people who, as a rule, don't want to read this kind of discussion anyway. The implication of this is that you, speaking for the "viewing" portion of the vidding community, expect the creative component of the community to direct /all/ aspects of their vidding presence to further your entertainment-- i.e. "it's unfair and mean for you to be talking about stuff I don't enjoy reading!"-- but that's such an unbelievably selfish and churlish attitude that I think it would be beyond impolite to accuse you of harboring it. So, assuming that this is /not/ what you meant by your observation that there were no "comments that addressed those members of the audience who might not want to read the... discourse of vidding", what did you mean? Do you think that the creative community is prohibitively technical and should be making more efforts to integrate those who are unfamiliar with terminology into their discussions-- that they should be helping n00bs and "the average viewer" to catch up, but aren't, and are therefore being elitist creeps? That would be a valid complaint, but I'm pretty sure that the community of veteran vidders has been trying to address this-- people are working on making such a primer, and I believe there's a wiki in the works. Is that what you meant?