permetaform | [viddish] Gattaca WIP, Connecting with audiences, and Other thinkyness

Current Mood: contemplative

[viddish] Gattaca WIP, Connecting with audiences, and Other thinkyness

lierdumoa and I knew that we shared scary scary vidding brain wherein we knew roughly 80% of what the other was thinking in regard to vid-like things and to test this out we vidded for a weekend with the same fandom and the same song.

It is of great amusement to both of us that we came up with entirely different vids; granted, part of the reason is because I was experimenting with a totally different style.

How Soon | 640x480 (.wmv, 30 Mb)
_{Source: 'Gattaca', owned by Columbia
Song: 'How Soon Is Now' by Love Spit Love
Summary: unabashed WIP}
Extras: Vidder process notes.

I don't think I ever would have the urge to rework this into something tighter, so I present the following to ya'll as a WIP (or is that a VIP? Vid In Progress?). It's a lot more loosely beatwhorish than my other vids, although it still makes me vaguely happy, probably because I can see in my head what the effects are supposed to look like. And the effects-only-I-can-see give me enough glee that I'm less compelled to actually render them in the vid, especially with new and shinier things on my to-vid plate.

Long story short, I'm still curious as to what ya'll think of this vid style, 'cause it's so different from my regular one. To be honest, I thought I'd get bored of watching it, but I don't, and I'm not sure why.

I'm also wondering if there's...how should I say it...disenfranchised viewers out there? ie. vid viewers who are disappointed by today's fanshionable vids because it doesn't connect to them somehow?

If so, what is missing in our current attempts to connect to the audience? Is it the fact that the song is not connecting? Are the clips moving at too fast a rate? Is it the fact that the vid is too ivory-tower avant-garde-ish? Are the songs too long?

The reason why I ask this is that my personal view on art is that its purpose is to connect with people. That's why it is perfectly reasonable for me to view entertainment as art, and it's facinating to me what captures people's attention and what doesn't.

How do I communicate with you?

Or rather,

How do I, as a vidder, communicate with you, as a viewer?

And specifically communicating to a viewer that is not part of the echo-chamber that is all too easy to fall into in all walks of life; how do I communicate with the Other, that does not already see eye-to-eye with me?

Is this communication even *possible*?

I'd like to believe that it is.

For instance,

poison_pagan has a totally different vid aesthetic than me, and to be totally honest I read

poison_pagan's reviews for the ones that she rates 6 or below, 'cause those vids I tend to like the best. It's simply a different aesthetic.

Question is: is it possible to vid to both aesthetics simultaneously?

Also: *should* it be a goal to vid to both aesthetics simultaneously?

[edit] addendum via thought from

laurashapiro: this is a false binary, but here for now for the sake of argument. There's multiple audiences, but can they be communicated with more than one at a time? [/edit]

To borrow

morgandawn and

laurashapiro's metaphor (god, I love how those ladies makes me think ::blows kisses::), one cannot and should not expect a person who likes PWPs to absolutely adore long angsty epics; they *might* also like it, but it's not a certainty.

And to be honest, fic-wise, I really usually love only the short stories. It's the rare long-fic that I am able to like/invest in. Why should it be different for vids and vid watching?

...

wow, that was rambly. Feel free to respond to any or all parts of the above. ::hugs flist:: Connecting with one's audience is such a fickle matter;

wickedwords tried to start a conversation about this last VVC (::gives major props::), but it got choked by the challenge vid-show. She is absolutely right, however, that this conversation should probably take place and I adore her brain for realizing this and bringing this realization to people's attention.

For reference,

laurashapiro's great Connecting With Audiences panel notes.

[edit] and her thoughts on vidding Farscape (aka. vidding for multiple levels of viewers)

[edit2] I don't want to be totally catering to the audience, but the fact is that you can't connect your piece with your audience unless you understand your audience enough to understand what they *don't* know, and be able to fill in those gaps. The step that takes them a bit beyond what they already know is, then, the second half of art; it's connecting them back to *you*. Full circle.

[edit3] OHHHH,

cathexys' comment, from

lierdumoa's made me realise that some of the flashier effects in vids actually *looked* more complicated than they actually are and thus get applauded more. ::headdesks:: This is what you get for being in an echo-chamber, I was totally confused as to why people were so ga-ga over the effects in the Oz version of "Chemicals Between Us".

[edit4]

sockkpuppett's brought up a really good point: how do we define an audience? Personally, after these discussions, I'm thinking that an audience is a group of people with a similar knowledge and/or aesthetic base.

The reason why this is important is because a vid that you plan to show a particular audience has to both fill in their gaps of knowledge AND recognize what is already common knowledge and shorthand that.

One of the most brilliant shorthanding's I've seen is shalott and melina's The Mountain vid, wherein they used one perfectly placed shot (of Boromir rubbing his sword handle while Aragorn watches, or was that the otherway around...) to summarize the Aragorn/Boromir relationship, which OMG, was more effective than a complete vid.

[edit5] by

elynross:To me, taking the audience into consideration is something that comes in, in part, during the beta process, and involves making sure that to the best of your ability, you've communicated what you want to communicate

[...]

What matters to me is the care and concern of the vidder involved, the intentionality, the skill and/or the signs of talent that can be hidden in the vid of a less-skilled vidder.

[edit6] by

musexmoirai: "I think the different expectations often arise from the fact that songs in comedic vids tend to be specific and removed from the fandom shown, so there's a sense of 'wow, that's clever,' when someone is able to find a particularly good match of song/image. Whereas more emotional, serious songs with slower beats tend to have more universal lyrics because of the emotions expressed. So I end up looking for interpretation and it gets a little boring when every kiss is a kiss."

[edit7] from this thread by

lierdumoa: "I think the vast majority of live action effects are designed to be subtle. You're not supposed to see them -- you're supposed to feel them. [...] I think anything that's put in to tie the vid together rather than break it apart is going to be harder to notice for someone who's not looking for it."

[edit8] discussion on clean aethetics

[edit9] by

hannahrorlove: "I think knowing the fandom is important to 'getting' a vid, but not completely necessary. If the vid-maker has a goal in mind and is able to communicate that - "this is a tragic love story," "this is just too silly to be believed" - then they succeeded in their goal. [...]

You cannot communicate with everyone who might see or interact with the vid, but you can try to reach out to most. This is probably done by just making the vid clear in terms of what its message is."

NOTE: these highlights are not comprehensive, nor complete

Your thoughts?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Posting anon. I hope this isn't a problem. I was directed to this discussion by several people on my friends' list and find it all so amusing. I think it's great you brought it up, permetaform, and the following is not directed at you but is just my general feelings on what I've seen in this thread.

How to connect with your audience? OK, this is such a very hard question, which is why there are so many Very Important Vidders throwing in their two cents, which amounts to a lot of ego stroking and the throwing around of Very Important Vidding Terms like "false binaries."

IMO, the best way to connect with the audience is to convince them that you're actually having fun with your vid, even if it kept you up nights and you wanted to send your monitor out the window. I really think it's that simple. The quickest way to turn me away from a vid is to find it in one of these self-proclaimed pretentious, elitist bitch cabal-type journals. (I'm sure the preceding terms came from some long-ago in-joke to which I'm not privy, but I just don't get it.) I'm not going to argue that quality is important, and it is great when vids attempt to go beyond the "pretty" and "shiny" and aim for the brain and higher emotions. That's great, man. I'm right there with you. But can't we just be honest about the whole thing? It ain't high art. It's a derivative medium. And I personally can't stand to read posts where the impression is that most of the commenters are taking it all too seriously. When that is the case, I as the audience disconnect. I as a vidder roll my eyes.

As Edina told the snooty shopgirl in Absolutely Fabulous, "You only work in a shop, you know. You can drop the attitude."

Is no problem, and frankly if posting anon is how to to stir up enough discussion on this topic, then is all good.

Here is an idea I'm throwing back at you:

This IS fun, for me. I analyze the SHIT out of my media and my source, and I get delighted by quality. By engaging my brain, I get a source of pleasure that is additional to even the visceral pleasure of a quality work.

Personally, I don't believe in high art. Art is art is art. Is Warhol art? He's completely derivative, with his own twist. Same for Woody Allen. Is Sin City art? Some say yes, some no; it's a complete derivation of a comic derivation of film noir which is a derivation of realism. Is 5th Element art, as opposed to Blade Runner? Both are derivations of cyberpunk, which is just pop art, not high art omg.

The argument can go around and around; but I'm going off on a tangent...

I know when I go off analyzing these things, it's from a sense of fun; it is fun to me to improve my skill in vidding. Call me a perfectionist or whatever, but it *is* fun. And it's fun to me to bring to bear analytic abilities I've gained elsewhere to better understand why things work, because it's fun, to me, to understand things.

Sure, a person can 'only' work in a shop; but why can't she do the best job she possibly can?

I'm sorry if it seems to you that we are being aloof and pretentious; I'm not sure how to change this, because all discussion is welcome, and I don't know if it's my phrasing or...what. I am not *trying* to be aloof, but if I don't know what it is I'm doing that might make me *seem* aloof, how can I ever change?

I'm really trying to speak as the audience, which is pretty much the only reason I responded in the first place. I avoid like the plague posts in which vidders discuss amongst themselves their approach to vidding since vidding is such a visual medium and it's very hard to translate that textually. And then there's the whole tone of exclusivity that can occur. I know those "in the audience" who find those posts very intimidating (which is the opposite of what I thought of this post when I started reading) and they end up not participating because they don't know WTF is being tossed about and don't want to appear newbie-ish.

So yeah, there is a good amount of pretension in vidding meta that makes me personally wary of what's being produced by said vidders, like if I don't get what they make I'm dim and lack perception. I suppose by doing so I'm being exclusive myself. And like you said, it can all go 'round and 'round from there.

I just wanted to give the point of view of those whom I know feel this way about BNFs in the vidding community and thus are maybe missing out on some cool vids--I guess it's all about preconception.

i have no idea if you're gonna read that since you commented anonymously, but as someone in the audience who also has very little clue beyond the oh, my two guys together in my favorite shots, i really wish you didn't try to "speak as the audience." There are always people who do not want to think about works of art just as there are always folks who do. Vidding is a community with its own terms, its own aesthetic principles, its own history and meta just like any other.

And while I am the first person to defend *any* type of writing (however bad or OOC *I* may find it) as long as it has an audience and creates enjotment, I want the same courtesy the other way around. To call concern for one's craft pretentious is like saying you can only enjoy writing that comes "from the soul" and hasn't been edited or about which the author has not thought. While such romantic notions (which, of course, is an utter misnomer since even the Romantics edited and revised and "metaed" like crazy) are still widespread, it would be a huge mistake to universalize them or to assume that all viewers just because they are not educated in the terminology of the field yet *don't* want to be.

I am about as newbie-ish as they come in terms of vidding, and I have had nothing but help, explanation, and support from pretty much total strangers. I don't run around telling them they shouldn't analyze their craft or put emphasis on what's important to them. But I do ask fairly stupid questions...and have yet to encounter someone getting nasty (even if I feedback them with a vid they didn't even make :-)

i really wish you didn't try to "speak as the audience."

Correction on my part. I'm just representing a very multifaceted audience, but one I hope you would agree exists beyond just myself.

To call concern for one's craft pretentious is like saying you can only enjoy writing that comes "from the soul" and hasn't been edited or about which the author has not thought.

The pretentious aspect of my comment comes from a lot of these vidders referring to themselves that way, in an annoyingly non-funny manner. But the proof is in the pudding, so who am I to argue?

I am about as newbie-ish as they come in terms of vidding, and I have had nothing but help, explanation, and support from pretty much total strangers. I don't run around telling them they shouldn't analyze their craft or put emphasis on what's important to them.

That's great for you. As a vidder I respect these people to a degree but can definitely live without their input. As one member of the audience, they just rub me the wrong way. Just one person's opinion is all.

As a vidder I respect these people to a degree but can definitely live without their input. As one member of the audience, they just rub me the wrong way.

...honestly tho, how are they forcing their input on you? Is there something specific where several people are literally forcing their ideas on other people? Is there something we can change in our communication to you?

Re: "Without the critical faculty, there is no artistic creation at all, worthy of the name."

(Anonymous) - 2005-04-13 04:28 (UTC) - Expand

Oh, you so rock, and I totally adore you at this moment! Not a vidder, never will be, and so *completely* not a member of the audience she's talking about.

Re: "Without the critical faculty, there is no artistic creation at all, worthy of the name."

cathexys.livejournal.com - 2005-04-13 09:37 (UTC) - Expand

...I thought about not commenting about this, but fuck it.

phrases like this:
Very Important Vidding Terms like "false binaries."

kinda raises my hackles. They do that because I am a geek and a nerd and frankly that undertone in your comment kinda hurts because those words *are* part of my vocabulary and I'm really tempted to lash out in reaction to that and pardon if any part of this comment does feel like it's lashing out at you, 'cause I want to, to be perfectly honest.

and this?

And I personally can't stand to read posts where the impression is that most of the commenters are taking it all too seriously. When that is the case, I as the audience disconnect. I as a vidder roll my eyes.

It's the same for me, when I see that the vidder doesn't seem to care and feel that intense love of vidding that I do, I'm not sure that I want to see their vid; why would I be interested in their product if they're so dismissive about the things I love?

You mentioned that the comment is not directed at me, but it feels like it was directed at me. I use that vocab, I adore vidding and take it seriously. How can I not feel somewhat hurt at this comment?

Granted, I'll get over it. I just wanted to let you know that that was the impression you gave me.

Being hurt is a perfectly valid response. I didn't think there was any way I could post my thoughts without hurting someone but it's just how I honestly felt.

I don't think you have to submerge yourself into the vidding lexicon to be a good vidder. Or then again, maybe you're right and if one loves vidding but doesn't eat, breathe, and sleep it, maybe their product will be defective. I don't know. I find vidding interesting but honestly can't define myself as passionate about it. Is that unfair to the audience? Can you connect to them without that kind of intensity. Hmm, good point.

In the end I think it's possible to just do it for kicks without all the soul searching and intensive discussion, and maybe yours (general "yours") will be the audience that flees from the scary vidding goddesses. It's all just conjecture on my part at this point. I really am sorry if I stepped on any toes.

Being hurt is a perfectly valid response. I didn't think there was any way I could post my thoughts without hurting someone but it's just how I honestly felt.

Granted. Realize, however, that the language used is provoking the EXACT response that you, in your other comments (if they are your comments and apologies if they're not), mentioned hating. The "Elitist Bitch" icons are an exact response to people shutting down vidding discussion; it's like people taking back the word 'fag' or 'nigger' from others who use the term in a derogatory manner.

You are *saying* that being hurt is a perfectly valid response; however, you're not processing what I mean by this, and what I mean is that the way you are posing your comment is provoking people turning away from your opinions, because the comments directly attack what is close to other's hearts.

I, myself, don't think that you have to submerge yourself in lingo to be a good vidder; but it helps with communication. It helps having a vocab instead of going "that swooshy thing over there", so that we can more precisely communicate and learn from each other.

I find vidding interesting but honestly can't define myself as passionate about it. Is that unfair to the audience? Can you connect to them without that kind of intensity.

It's unfair only to the extent that it won't communicate with a portion of the audience. For example, trying to sell a PWP to people who like long angsty epics, and vice versa.

In the end I think it's possible to just do it for kicks without all the soul searching and intensive discussion

to be honest, I think so too. What I'm highly confused about is why you think that *we* think that it's impossible to do it without the soul searching and discussion. Where do we demand this process for everyone? Mostly we're just saying what works for *us*.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "that swooshy thing over there," yet I see some who feel apologetic for not having the "right" vocabulary to convey their reactions. I'm certain it's not purposeful, but they end up feeling like their responses aren't as meaningful as those of someone who talks the talk. And others may just not comment at all for this same reason.

Now I've read yours and some of the other comments explaining the whole retarded elitist pretentious bitch cabal whatevah nonsense, and yes, I admire standing up to those who are trying to knock you off your feet by making the insult work for you. Maybe they're a badge of honor to some. To others who don't get the joke, though, they stand for separation of the wheat from the chaff.

It's unfair only to the extent that it won't communicate with a portion of the audience.

What I've really liked about this post is that you are concerned with the audience and how they can connect with vids. Of course there's nothing wrong with vidding for yourself but I think on some level one's always aware of the audience. As far as not communicating with a portion, also, as stated in the comments here, that's always a danger. It's the old please some of them some of the time, etc. cliche.

What I'm highly confused about is why you think that *we* think that it's impossible to do it without the soul searching and discussion. Where do we demand this process for everyone? Mostly we're just saying what works for *us*.

You said in a previous comment: It's the same for me, when I see that the vidder doesn't seem to care and feel that intense love of vidding that I do, I'm not sure that I want to see their vid; why would I be interested in their product if they're so dismissive about the things I love?

How would you know if they don't care? Is it because they preface the vid with a bunch of LOLthis vid iz probly the sUXors but plz watch it anyways!!!!111! or because they don't write a thesis about the process they went through in the creation of it in that same post? Can you respect vidders who aren't as meta as you and others in this fictional cabal? More importantly, do the meta-lovin' vidders repect the opinions of those in the audience who give effusive albeit low-tech feedback? If the answers to these questions are yes (and I know you certainly can't answer for everyone), then hey, I'm happy.

(no subject)

permetaform - 2005-04-14 19:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2005-04-14 19:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

laurashapiro.livejournal.com - 2005-04-15 11:06 (UTC) - Expand

"...ego stroking and the throwing around of Very Important Vidding Terms like 'false binaries.'"

Pfff. A false binary is a fairly basic argument/rhetorical concept, not a vidding concept, "Very Important" or otherwise. Having a poor working vocabulary is nothing to be as proud of as you seem to be.

Perhaps that was a poor example. I was trying to make a point that the overall language used when discussing the vidding process can sometimes be a bit much for the average viewer or the newbie vidder. 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? It's a little off putting.

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?

The gist of all of this is that it seems like you are arguing that it is somehow unfair for the people who create vids to be more invested in them (emotionally, intellectually, etc) than those who just watch them. I don't really understand the logic behind this-- you are talking about a community of creative hobbyists. The amount of time and effort put into making something-- anything! is automatically going to mean that they're into the creative process, and especially more than someone who is just a casual connoiseur of the products that they create.

It's a little off putting.

Okay, I could (and probably should) have scrapped this whole post and just asked the simple question-- WHY is it off-putting? I'm definitely getting the vibe that you, and whoever you're speaking for, feel that all the meta-talk somehow interferes with simply viewing and enjoying the products of that meta. This is not something that makes sense to me. Would you mind explaining?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2005-04-13 04:36 (UTC) - Expand

Posting anon. I hope this isn't a problem. I was directed to this discussion by several people on my friends' list and find it all so amusing.

A problem, no, but it worries me that you feel the need. Do you think that if we were to know your identity you would somehow be blacklisted by all the, as you say, Very Important Vidders commenting in this post? I don't mean to presume, but your comment seems to imply that these are people you do not like. If that is the case, then you have no reason to care what these people think of you and should have the confidence to speak your opinions freely in front of them without hiding your identity.

How to connect with your audience? OK, this is such a very hard question, which is why there are so many Very Important Vidders throwing in their two cents, which amounts to a lot of ego stroking and the throwing around of Very Important Vidding Terms like "false binaries."

I didn't realize this discussion could be viewed as a bunch of, again, to use your words, Very Important Vidders stroking each other's egos. Since many of the people commenting in this post don't vid, I saw this as a group of people trying to have an intelligent conversation that brought in as many viewpoints as possible. At least, that is what I was trying to do here, and what I assumed everyone else was trying to do as well.

IMO, the best way to connect with the audience is to convince them that you're actually having fun with your vid, even if it kept you up nights and you wanted to send your monitor out the window. I really think it's that simple.

I, personally, always have fun with my vids. I love vidding, to the point that I actually want to do video editing for a living. However, everyone has different tastes, and I don't think just loving what I do is enough to make someone with different tastes than me like the vids I make. At the same time, I do want people to like my vids. I think anyone who puts a lot of work into a making something hopes that people other than themselves will enjoy the end product.

To me, this post was about asking people who watch vids and people who make vids what it is they want out of vids. Vidding, like every other creative activity, takes place in a social context -- in this case, fandom. I'm glad permetaform wrote this post, because I myself would like to know what people are thinking when they watch my vids, and sometimes the only way to find out is to ask.

But can't we just be honest about the whole thing? It ain't high art. It's a derivative medium. And I personally can't stand to read posts where the impression is that most of the commenters are taking it all too seriously.

Maybe editing is just a silly hobby. But then, so is writing poetry or doodling in a sketchbook. I think to argue that one type of art is less legitimate than another is just silly. If filmmakers thought editing was less legitimate than acting, they wouldn't give out academy awards for it. Any high art starts out as a silly hobby that someone one day decides to take seriously.

Clearly you don't want to take vidding seriously. That's your perogative. However, that's no reason for you to look down on those who do. Or maybe you think it is we who look down on you? If that is the case, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm sure no one meant to give you that impression.

If that is the case, then you have no reason to care what these people think of you and should have the confidence to speak your opinions freely in front of them without hiding your identity.

Well, no, I'm not the most confident person in the world and don't generally try to stir the shit. That's not the history of my LJ experience, but I felt like I had to throw in my two cents since I do feel strongly about this issue (i.e., how to relate to an audience that doesn't understand what goes on behind the scenes and just wants to enjoy well-made vids).

I saw this as a group of people trying to have an intelligent conversation that brought in as many viewpoints as possible. At least, that is what I was trying to do here, and what I assumed everyone else was trying to do as well.

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, not intimidated or overwhelmed. If I missed that aspect of the post (which I admit is entirely possible), please refer me to it.

I'm glad permetaform wrote this post, because I myself would like to know what people are thinking when they watch my vids, and sometimes the only way to find out is to ask.

I'm also glad she wrote it. I'm just trying to offer up another viewpoint.

Any high art starts out as a silly hobby that someone one day decides to take seriously.

Fair enough. I'm just representing those who think it's a bit odd to take this hobby that seriously.

However, that's no reason for you to look down on those who do.

It's not that I look down as much as it is I just don't get it. Why refer to oneself as "pretentious" and "elitist" in all these icons I see if you're not trying to put yourself (general "yourself") in a lofty position where you can look down at others? As I said, it's all probably a joke, but the joke itself is elitist. And when I see the same names pop up over and over in these types of discussions, I just lose interest and wonder why the cliques? and where's the fun? Just me.

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.

...

okay, I'm totally sensing a circular argument here. I'm not sure what you are arguing and I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. I'm sorry if we've made you passive agressive; but. please, re-read that statement...this is what I understand of your comment:

In my vidding meta post, in the vidding meta comments and discussion, you didn't read any comments that addresses audience that would not want to read the meta/notes/discussion of vidding.

o.0 buh? why would an audience that does not like vidding discussion want to participate in vidding discussion or even *read* a vidding discussion if they don't even like it?

That's a bit masochistic, isn't it? And sorta like the fan who dislikes slash that seeks it out to read it and give flames...

And true, perhaps our vidding or vid method is not to your taste, but isn't there a more productive way of addressing this issue?

And to address that paragraph as a whole:
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, not intimidated or overwhelmed. If I missed that aspect of the post (which I admit is entirely possible), please refer me to it.

So what I understand of this comment is that there are portions of the audience who don't want to read vidding discussion. These portions are somehow getting vidding discussion shoved into their faces and intimidated or overwhelmed? I...where has this been happening? I'm completely unaware that this has been occuring, how has this been happening and how can we change this?

Granted, I'm assuming that you're not just speaking about people posting vidding meta in their personal journals? Because 'omg they're persecuting newbies from the privacy of their own journals by posting vidding meta that should, goddammit, all be under lock and key and hidden away to avoid offending virgin eyes'?

I'm just representing those who think it's a bit odd to take this hobby that seriously.

POV of Outsider: Why DO you take slash fandom so seriously? Isn't it a bit odd to obsess so much over gay sex? Get OVER it already!

Why refer to oneself as "pretentious" and "elitist" in all these icons I see if you're not trying to put yourself (general "yourself") in a lofty position where you can look down at others? As I said, it's all probably a joke, but the joke itself is elitist. And when I see the same names pop up over and over in these types of discussions, I just lose interest and wonder why the cliques? and where's the fun? Just me.

Again, it's a direct reaction against being hurt by people who want them to shut up about vidding already 'cause OMG they're infringing on people's right to simply be entertained. It's taking back a derogatory term, owning the term instead of being hurt by it.

Why the cliques? There IS no cliques, and if there is, it's because people found other people who also enjoy vidding discussion, and they want to continue the vidding discussion with people who also enjoy vidding discussion. See how this works? People find people who like the same things they themselves do.

And it's an open party; all you have to do to join the party is to jump in, ask some questions when you get confused and someone will be sure to answer you. And that's where the fun is, you ask and people answer and we all discuss and connect and share trade secrets and bond.

I think

permetaform took your comments really personally. I must admit I'm finding it difficult not to take them personally myself. I know you probably don't mean them to be, but some of your comments are coming across as very unnecessairily hurtful. Just so you know when you read this comment, I am trying to see your side of things.

Well, no, I'm not the most confident person in the world and don't generally try to stir the shit.

Do you think you would be trying to stir the shit if you posted with your LJ name? I guess I don't really understand. If you were to say something to stir the shit, and I'm not saying you would, it would affect the people you're addressing the same way whether or not they knew who you were.

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, not intimidated or overwhelmed. If I missed that aspect of the post (which I admit is entirely possible), please refer me to it.

Granted there weren't many, but people who don't like to read meta generally don't comment in posts that are about meta.

permetaform wrote this post with an open invitation for anyone who wanted to comment.

You might check out

hannahrorlove's thread in this post (see here). She doesn't vid, nor does she have any interest in learning about vidding, but like you she enjoys watching them.

In addition, a number of vidders discussed their experiences with a range of audiences, and though I won't read through them all, I'm sure if you did you'd see them mention the portion of their audience that watches vids for the same reasons you do.

I'm also glad she wrote it. I'm just trying to offer up another viewpoint.

Oh, I see. I think I must have gotten the mistaken impression earlier that didn't like what the post was about. I guess it was just the comments that bothered you then, and not the post itself.

Thanks for the link to that thread. And yes, the post I think was a great idea. And there were lots of posters who represented the audience. What I saw being discussed, as seen in

hannahrorlove's comments, was a little different than what I wanted to address. She was more concerned about viewers not knowing the fandom and the vidder's ability to reach the audience when there is said unfamiliarity, whereas I was trying (and admittedly maybe too venomously) to speak for the average viewer who likes to watch vids on a more casual basis.

(no subject)

lierdumoa.livejournal.com - 2005-04-13 10:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2005-04-14 19:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

rydra_wong - 2005-04-14 23:55 (UTC) - Expand

Fair enough. I'm just representing those who think it's a bit odd to take this hobby that seriously.

This is one of the comments that I must say made me feel a bit uneasy. You say that you are representing those who think this way. I can't tell if you really feel that there are many of these people and they need representation or if you are simply afraid to say directly that you in particular find this an odd hobby to take seriously. Are you worried that if you state your opinions as your own you will be attacked for having them? Perhaps I'm being overly suspicious.

In any case, I can understand where your coming from. I think most people find it odd to take a hobby seriously unless it is a hobby that they themselves take seriously.

It's not that I look down as much as it is I just don't get it. Why refer to oneself as "pretentious" and "elitist" in all these icons I see if you're not trying to put yourself (general "yourself") in a lofty position where you can look down at others?

I had a similar reaction to yours the first time I saw those icons. I was kind of uncomfortable how they were worded. I figured it was probably an in joke and so I asked one of the people who had them what they meant. I was pleasantly relieved to find that the women who had them were not really pretentious or elitiest or bitchy, at least no more than anyone else I'd met in fandom.

There are two kinds of in jokes -- the kind that grow out of a humorous situation, and the kind that grow out of a miserable situation that people are forced to find humor in. In this case, these women were told that discussing vids in a serious and intellectual manner automatically made them pretentious and elitist. They were still determined to have intellectual discussions. People will still do what they love to do even when they are ridiculed for doing it. So they made the icons as a bitter sort of joke. Eventually the bitterness faded, and we all see them as rather silly.

I'm sure they'd be surprised to find you took them this seriously. Frankly, I was surprised to see you taking them this seriously. We may choose our icons to represent us, but really all they are is little picture squares. Rarely could they tell you anything meaninful about the person who owns them.

And when I see the same names pop up over and over in these types of discussions, I just lose interest and wonder why the cliques? and where's the fun? Just me.

I'm not sure what you mean by cliques. There aren't a lot of people who enjoy really in-depth vid discussion. It's not surprising that when these people want to have in-depth vid discussion they end up, more often than not, having it with each other. I suppose you feel that it is impossible for you to take part in these discussions by their very nature. I hope you don't think that anyone is intentionally excluding you.

Again, I'm feeling somewhat uncomfortable with your comment here. You talk about such vidders as if we were all the same and as if we were one big exclusive group of friends. Again, perhaps I'm misinterpreting this. I know that I am not friends with all the other vidders in this discussion. Even my friends list isn't really a friends list at all, but a list of acquaintances who talk about the same things I like to talk about.

Where is the fun? I think in-depth vid discussion is fun. That's why I'm in this post in the first place. Do you feel you can't talk to vidders who have these kind of discussions because you don't care about vid meta? If you don't share this interest with them, I don't see why you would want to talk to them.

I think I can understand where your coming from. Livejournal is a public forum. We often forget that livejournal is, at it's core, a system for journaling. Honestly, how often do we actually think about who's going to read our posts when we write them? I know when I talk about vids on my journal, I just want somewhere to put my thoughts. I never think about who might be reading it and whether or not they will understand everything I say. If I did, I'd feel like a prisoner in my own journal.

A couple of years ago on the Nummy Treat site, someone pointed out that Premiere was a really good editing program. She did not say that people who were using Windows Movie Maker or iMovie were not good vidders - just that Premiere was a better tool.

Somebody else on the list took that as a snub against vidders who use cheaper software and referred to that person as an "elitist bitch." The original poster referred to this on her LJ with much eye-rolling. Others chimed in that if that's all it takes to be an elitist bitch, then they thought they were probably elitist bitches, too and the "Elitist Bitch Buffy Vidding Cabal" was born.

I'm a member in good standing in spite of the fact that I have done a requiem vid to a Pat Benatar song which should disqualify me from any definition of the word "elitist."

The Elitist Bitch Buffy Vidding Cabal is a much more forgiving group than the name would imply.

Thank God I don't have to tell this story again.

I vidded Spike to Gordon Lightfoot and I'll probably do it again!!

Re: Explaining the in-joke

jackiekjono.livejournal.com - 2005-04-14 11:43 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Explaining the in-joke

sisabet.livejournal.com - 2005-04-14 12:14 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Explaining the in-joke

lydiabell.livejournal.com - 2005-04-14 13:54 (UTC) - Expand

omygosh I'm so sorry that all this "thinking" offends you. How frightfully inconsiderate.

Hello anon,

I was just linked to this thread and had a few thoughts; I hope you don't mind. I speak as someone who has never strung more than fifteen seconds of clips together in Premiere, but enjoys being in the audience and watching what others can do. So, I am not a Very Important Vidder and I do not use Very Important Vidding Terms :)

I think that with any "field", whether in academia, RL entertainment, fandom, whatever, there are going to be people who are more involved and less. The more involved are going to spend more time on it, have more discussions on it, etc. They're also going to seek each other out, because you can't go up to someone in Starbucks and strike up a conversation on most of these things, whether it's Supreme Court jurisprudence or vidding-related "false binaries". You have to find the people like you. And once you find people who "get it", you're going to cluster.

Is there anything wrong with this picture so far? I hope not.

It's axiomatic that other people are going to get pleasure from and want to spend time on different things than you are. And if you're not one of the ones who "gets it", one of the people who understands why they are this particular level of enthusiastic about this particular thing, you are going to feel that they are taking it "all too seriously". But, how is that for you to judge? That's their call, isn't it? Who cares whether people are enthusiastic about a derivative medium vs. "high art"? (even assuming that a derivative medium is automatically barred from the status of high art) It makes sense to them. It's fun for them. Why does there need to be more than that? If it's too involved to be fun for you (as it often is for me, given that I'm not even a vidder), just back off and let the people who want to be that level of involved talk at that level.

Honestly, my first reaction to EBVs was, "Yeah, that's too involved, c'mon." But then I thought, who am I to judge? I daresay they'd think I'm "too involved" in 10000 other things that I really enjoy, too. I think "too seriously" is something that only the people doing it can judge. If it's right for them, then it's all good. And if they are too involved, who cares if their discussions are elitist? (not my opinion, but I'm responding to yours) Presumably they are discussing at a level you wouldn't even want to be involved at.

/redundant, but I'm in a rush

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only