<videovortex> buta response to... why don't video artists and filmmakers occupy YouTube?

[Seth Keen]

On 20/03/2007, at 5:55 AM, jane at janedapain.net wrote:

> but why don't video artists and filmmakers occupy YouTube?

In response to this question there has been some discussion in the  
Guardian online... 'Moving images stay in the dark - Why are video  
artists so reluctant to show their work on the internet?'
- http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/01/ 
moving_images_stay_in_the_dark.html

It is interesting to see that reputable institution like the Museum  
of Modern Art in New York has created a video channel on YouTube to  
publish video art trailers. Yet as the article points out there is  
not a lot of video art collections showing up online, instead most of  
the video art on YouTube is captured and posted by people attending  
exhibitions (via mobiles etc.) Although it is interesting to see what  
is happening with tank.tv - http://www.tank.tv/ in the UK via  
www.lux.org.uk and the luxonline project http://www.luxonline.org.uk/.

>
> Video artist and filmmakers do not occupy YouTube because it does not
> represent their work in the professional and artistic perspective the
> artist desires. YouTube is also the generic place for video, simple
> and low quality. It does not point the user to your site and your
> other art. And it is representative of low quality amateur work.
> Professional video artist and filmmakers are interested in marketing
> and branding their entire image, they do not want to appear amateur or
> sloppy. Plus the ugly watermark that ends up on their work is
> horrible, and the security is not guaranteed. Artist have a lot of
> options these days for displaying their own work and YouTube is not a
> place for the professional artist.

Back to the earlier Guardian article which discusses many of the  
points you raise here. Things like size restriction (working in the  
miniature), quality and of course the ability for the viewer to  
scroll back and forth. In terms of YouTube having frame size, file  
type and therefore compression quality control of your video uploads  
this does not leave much room for individual aesthetic input from the  
artist. I see this as setting publishing standards, a referral to old  
media like TV broadcasting. A video sharing site like blip.tv -  
http://blip.tv/ at least lets you chose some file types, determine  
frame size and choose a creative commons license. But this type of  
flexiability could be taken a lot further. I discuss the notion of  
standards in more detail here on my blog - http://www.sethkeen.net/ 
blog/2007/03/02/podcasting-video-to-ipods/ ...how apple also like  
YouTube aims to gain some form of control over the way content is  
distributed often in a manner that Nicholas Carr points out - http:// 
www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/01/steves_devices.php as being  
unsympathetic towards what the Internet offers as a networked  
environment.
>
> As a video artist, I would have to say that I like to have a minimum
> amount of video art on the web. I am concerned with copyright and
> quality issues. My work is much better delivered live and I have a
> much better reaction to my live work. YouTube would under-represent my
> work and make me look even more amateur than I already am. I would
> like to be considered some day as a professional video artist, and I
> think that keeping my work off YouTube and other mass-marketed sites
> will help establish my professional image. Especially if I continue to
> work on my own internet image and presence.

The question here is whether artists like YouTube or even Apple in  
video podcasts) should be thinking of the Internet as a place to  
reproduce video in a single-channel form (or in the way that it was  
originally designed for off the web, i.e live etc.)? This approach is  
emblematic of most television, cinema or even a lot of video art.  
Perhaps it is more about how video may be repurposed within this  
environment. I notice on the MOMA YouTube channel that the closest  
they can come to this, is a lame form of trailer, again a direct  
referral to cinema.

In this other Guardian article 'Bringing video art online' - http:// 
blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/01/share_and_share_to_like.html, video  
art as a commodity, along with copyright issues is seen as  
restricting factors. Although, the writer points out that painting  
and sculpture has got past this barrier quite some time ago.

>
> JdaP

sethkeen at internode.on.net
http://www.sethkeen.net/blog/
http://del.icio.us/videovortex


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/videovortex_listcultures.org/attachments/20070320/92787639/attachment.html>