J.D. Lasica points to a New York Times
article in which the author continually accuses videoblogging of being trapped in a television metaphor — despite
all evidence to the contrary she dishes out during the piece. Sarah Boxer talks about the mundanity of the vlog pieces,
and directs this as a criticism — yet claims videoblogs are simultaneously borrowing too much from television. But — TV
is known for its over-the-top, blockbuster-level presentations — how does that reconcile with the mundane? She also
claims: "Some vlogs even share television's worries, chief among them the burden of coming up with fresh programming on
a regular basis." It's difficult to see how this is a problem exclusive to television — all facets of the art of
storytelling, or regular performance, share this.
The piece strikes me as confused because it draws the opposite conclusion from its argument. The Steve and Carol show
"offer[s] up the tedium of their daily lives," yet it "wants to sell out, but who would buy?" That's just it — it
doesn't want to sell out. It "borrows" as much from TV as it borrows from any other culturally relevant experience,
though mostly from regular old mundane life. That's exactly why it's relevant — not because it wants to sell us on a
blockbuster lifestyle, but because it simply wants to share with us a lifestyle we all know and can relate to — the
mundane lifestyle. Weeding the flower bed on the front lawn is not the stuff of American Idol. It's the stuff of Steve
and Carol, and — despite its lack of blockbuster production quality — it's curiously compelling, and it's something
that I'll wager more people could relate to than whatever tripe "reality TV" is coming up with these days.
NYTimes takes on videoblogging… and misses.
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. "nobody wants to watch people doing what we already do."
well, that's an assumption. i actually really enjoy it -- and was surprised to find out that i did. this is exactly what i find compelling about videoblogging in the first place -- it's not people producing content; it's just people being people, and sharing their experiences. you get a window into their lives that, to me, is a rare opportunity.
is everyone going to find the inner workings of strangers' lives compelling? no -- especially as mass society is very trained not to pay any attention to the ordinary/mundane. but fairly universally, everyone has an interest in keeping up with the inner workings of their friends' and families' lives. that is where the real power of this medium is going to take off. you could shoot your home movies of the kids, burn dvds and send them to everyone -- but that's time, expense, and a physical product that can't be directly commented on/replied to. putting video online is an obvious extension of putting text, images, and audio online -- that's all.
none of which is to say that videoblogging merely concerns itself with people's private lives -- there are (and will be more) videos that are interviews, news footage, and instructional content, the latter of which is often best suited to video format. but don't mistake the current state of videoblogging for all it is and will ever be.
Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by barb dybwad
3. when will someone and/or organization with available resources, finally realize that it is time to start a purely vlogtv network ?
Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by David Kane
1. several things:
nobody wants to watch people doing what we already do. wasn't that the argument about blogging? yeah, and where are all of the blogs about daily lives? on livejournal. that's right.
ps: true story: 2 vloggers get together, and the other 3 vloggers tape the interaction. in literary criticism this is called self-referential writing (or performance, for the dancers and theatre geeks). in real life, we call it masturbatory.
the vloggers are so convinced that they're on the bleeding edge of something that they feel they have to document every step of the way, to the point where the documentation of the journey has overriden the original mode of performance of the vloggers.
i find it so hard to believe that an ipod for video, a killer pvp or pmp will take over the market and make people watch vlogs. instead, at most (and this is stretching it) we'll have full-on tv shows, produced by the people. funny sketch comedy, the kind we haven't seen in years. low-budget and hysterical situational comedy. best of all, none of it will be as driven by ad money as upn and fox and cbs and nbc are.
what tlas are going to tower over the vidcasting scene? will there ever be a landscape? i don't think so.
Posted at 8:05PM on Dec 18th 2005 by Benjamin Kaplin