Youtubers.

Judging by how many people have viewed this video and how much the marketing community likes youtube (and blogging about it) I'm sure most of you will have seen this video (as ever I'm well behind on these things). But I hadn't until this morning, when I found it on Ben Mason's blog.

I found it very powerful. Probably the most thought provoking thing I've ever seen on youtube. Maybe because it's the video equivalent of 'Life in the middle'. Well what I'd like it to be, rather than what it actually is; funny, challenging, cheesy, pointless, pointful, sad, confusing, nice, scary, inspiring, and contradictory.

Comments

[Ben]

That was beautiful.

I hadn't seen it before. If people don't understand YouTube, they should just watch that. Lovely.

[Lebowski]

Is this going to be another earnest Dead Poets Society type blogging moment?

I'm off to kill a rabbit and eat it for lunch raw.

[Colman]

Lebowski, how about a nice warm glass of shut the hell up!

[Lebowski]

There you go, that's much better.

More of that please.

[Jared]

That was an audio-visual reminder that there are 6,000 more blogs out there that I need to avoid.

[Lebowski]

I think Elton John should write a song to go with it and it can be released in time for Christmas.

[Ben]

How come your Babe video wasn't in there?

[Colman]

The 'everything is crap and I'm above it all' mentality is boring. I'm still drying my tears you insensitive bastards.

[Lebowski]

Paul, I'm with you on the everything is crap thing - couldn't agree more. It's predictable and easy.

But why has blogging made it ok to applaud or publicly declare support for sentimental, tacky self-indulgent crap? This is Diana culture writ large and it's horrible.

Blogging shouldn't mean the death of taste.

[Colman]

Ah yes I remember you're worried that people can't be trusted on their own to maintain some abstract notion of 'standards'.

I don't understand the comparison with the Diana thing, which was surely about being seen to be doing something - a type of mass hysteria. Versus this, which is just people being people (admittedly to a cheesy track).

How are you defining 'taste' - stripping nuns?

[Lebowski]

I knew you'd bring that argument out. This isn't about people being or not being trusted, (which is a pretty lame argument I think any way because its logical conclusion is that no criticism can ever be allowed or is ever justified because it's all subjective, which is a kind of moral relativism which is highly dubious).

Anyway, regardless of that, the Diana thing does have some relevance for this because it is a lot about being seen. That's the very point of it. The cheesy track is totally apt for it because of its very lameness.

Anyway, I'm off out with Russell now and he reckons you're an idiot.

[The Wife]

Fight!

[Colman]

It's nothing to do with moral relativism, or not being able to level criticism, just intellectual snobbery - the reasoning behind your criticism.

Plus you merely criticise what I think we can both accept is a truism; you yourself blog and care greatly what others think of it after all, right?

(Russell is a wise man.)

[Ben]

Diana.

[Neil Hennessy]

I can't believe I have just sat watching 7mins of that rubbish, hoping something might happen. What a bunch of attention seeking saddo's.

[Jared]

It's just... not... good. I don't understand.

For the sake of discussion, look at it like an ad.

I get the brief ("The perfect democracy of the Internet" or possibly something catchy like "Empowering entertainment"), but the final product is just unpleasant to watch.

It's awfully long, the individual pieces of content are painfully uninteresting, and the music is so heavy-handed that it could've been an ad for cancer research.

In fact, it would've been put to a better use if it WERE an ad for cancer research - throw up an end-frame that says '33% of these people will be dead by Wednesday - check your balls for lumps' - and, voila, you've got legitimate poignancy, and everyone's (otherwise irritating) foibles become quite endearing.

As it is, it's a five minute testimonial encompassing, literally, hundreds of blogs that are CLEARLY UNINTERESTING. What is this video meant to make me feel? I certainly don't want to go to YouTube, because YouTube is clearly filled with inept, narcissistic, smarmy crap.

And I hate the type.

[Colman]

But Jared why look at it like an ad? I don't think that helps, and it's what everyone in advertising always says.

I think of it as something it's actually like. For instance sitting on a park bench watching people go by, I might laugh at them and think they are sad and on a micro analytical level 'uninteresting', but that doesn't mean I don't find something interesting about the experience as a whole.

[Colman]

Ps. Another thing - I'm not interested in people because they're perfect. I'm interested in them because they're not.

[Lebowski]

But what's the motivation behind doing this video? It's so heavy-handed - you know every step of the way how you're meant to feel, and how the compilers want you to feel, not least because of the music. Very cliched.

My criticism isn't snobbery in that "I could do it better" way. But it is snobbery in the "I think this video is shit" way. But then I'm also a snob for hating Mariah Carey, the over-reaction to Diana's death, and Robbie's 'Angels', or any other over-the-top display of earnest emotion done for its own sake seeking to elicit a very particular reaction.

On a more upbeat note, I corrected Russell and told him you were a very nice, bright man.

[Jared]

I'd like to appraise it as an arty piece of short film, but I'm not sure that mitigates my feelings any. As a demonstration of 'The Internet empowers everyman', it actually leaves me praising my spam filter. I don't want to come into contact with any of these people.

I don't understand how this is appealing in any possible way. It's cheesy, smarmy and weak. It makes YouTube look crap and freely owns up to everything a Luddite detractor could possibly say about the democratisation of the Internet.

It would be a better piece of film (as well as a more appealing story about YouTube) if they axed the cancer music and put in a light comedic score. As currently shown, there's nothing to laugh 'with' - so they might as well change it so you can laugh 'at'.

[Colman]

Bollocks to this. I don't really care anymore.

I've got a head full of fear from stagging in Berlin since Friday at 8.53am. So you two can be right; you are the purveyors of what is good and what is not, what is true, what is fake, and (as I'm sure your own blog stats confirm) what people want to see, and what they don't.

Well done. Go have an idea and a burger to celebrate.

[Ben]

"as I'm sure your own blog stats confirm"

Harsh.

[Lebowski]

Alright, alright. Just having a bit of debate. Albeit a chippy one. There's no rights and wrongs. etc etc.

And apologies to everyone who's sat through me and Jared wanging on about this. Very self-indulgent bollocks.

And I've changed my mind. I really like it. And so do the 3 people that read my blog.

[The Wife]

Group hug?

[Jared]

I'll have you know, I'm well up to six visitors a week. (None on Sundays, when my Grandmother plays canasta instead).

I'm done now. Grousing makes me hungry.

[Ben]

OK. The defence. I still love that video, and here's why.

It has nothing to do with taste or artistic merit. I suppose there's an element of voyeurism, liking looking into people's gardens as you whizz past on the train. It's real, which I like. It's not a version of real or someone's perception of real, these are real videos of real people uploaded to YouTube with no intention of being put into a 1M plus video montage. Literally. Boys, girls, black, white, old, young, mums, dads, kids, grans, animations, cats, dogs and even some EMO's.

One of my favourite quote is from Larry Page, "Knowing what’s really happening is more important than trying to control people". To me, that's what's happens on YouTube.

Yes the editing is a bit naive and the music is a little 'End of The Year'. But as a representation of the YouTube phenomenon and as a collection of videos from 2006 it's lovely. Let's not get too Catholic about it, as a client of ours used to say.

[Ben]

And Princess Diana, obviously.

[Jared]

If someone remade that without the music, I'd be happier, because I'd get to bring my own sentiments/prejudices with me.

I really resent being hit with the emotional bat. ("You will cry now. You will find this Good. You will... oh sod off.")

(That said, anything involving mood music + athletes doing things with balls = Jared crying like a baby)

(e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0sZ_oPBFr8)

[The Wife]

It's a bit like sit-coms with laughter tracks, I hate them, so patronising. And I love Ricky Gervais for proving how it's infinitely better without one.

[russell]

Just to explain - when I told Simon you were an idiot he hadn't told me what you're arguing about. I just meant it generally.

In this instance I'm with Ben and Paul.

[ELE]

'Maybe because it's the video equivalent of 'Life in the middle'.'
Having followed your blog for a while now, Paul, I was just about to comment that I think your blog is much better than this video.
However, then I read
'Well what I'd like it to be, rather than what it actually is'
You are the blogger here, and hence any aspirations you might have for this blog is of course valid. But I think you can do, and have been doing, much better.

[Colman]

Cheers Ele. And welcome back.

[Lebowski]

Just for the record my complaints about this video are not complaints about

a. blogs and blogging
b. youtube
c. anything remotely related to web 2.0

all of which, I think we can broadly agree, are GOOD THINGS.

The complaint is about the video itself. In particular the fact that it is a totally cliched and hackneyed piece of film that blatantly attempts, and in my humble opinion staggeringly appears to succeed if this post is anything to go by, to pull on emotional heartstrings.

Imagine that instead of this being a film where people 'blog' but instead was a film where the same people talked in gushing, heartfelt tones about how the wedding of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes had touched them. I would hope that anyone watching it would acknowledge it as the piece of ill informed gash it clearly would be. Quite why this film is any different, just because it's a collection of personal blogs, is beyond me.

But then I have been accused in the past of being devoid of emotions so this may well be just another example of that.

My issue is that this film could almost be a Chris Morris satire if it was only more subtle and more engaging. And yet somehow it appears to be lauded without any kind of critical faculty being displayed other than, "Hey isn't great that all these people own a video camera and talked into it". Surely the debate about the merits of youtube and blogging has moved beyond this, and we can critically evaluate whether this is really an interesting enough piece of content for people to spend so long watching.

And Paul, Ele is right. You demean and undermine yourself by even regarding your blog as being in the same league as this pitifully pisspoor video.

[Colman]

Reductionism won't do. It's what they talk about that I find interesting, not just the fact that they are doing it.

I'm fascinated by the palpable sense of belonging that some people clearly lack in their lives, that we all lack sometimes (even you Lebowski). The desire of some individuals to be recognised, famous, infamous, lusted after, laughed at, talked to, acknowledged, or feared. And of course some of these people are just talking to one another for the fun of it, to record a moment in time - for no other reason other than it's easy to do so. As I said originally I like this pointlessness. Its lack of clarity and purpose is what makes it real; and what makes the analogy with advertising redundant.

For me it's different to people talking about what they think about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes's wedding because I have no interest in that subject, but I'm extremely interested in the hopes and fears of most people.

(Of course I think we can all agree that this blog is brilliant.)

[Will]

It's simultaneously authentic and hackneyed.

I blame the music.

I'm not the world's biggest fan because it doesn't tell me anything. It's (as Lebowski says) a celebration of the fact that lots of people can use a video camera.

Yes, yes, everyone is different. But the cynic in me asks whether I really needed to be reminded of that, especially with THAT music.

[williamdeed]

I'm a little bit out of my neck of the woods and so I'm not familiar with the writer of this blog or those who comment.

But I'm guessing a lot of those who didn't like the music were English. So damn predictable with our stiff upper lips.

Luckily I'm a little bit tired and so my barrier was down when I watched this. And I thought it was brilliant.

Yes the music is naff. But fuck it. The guy who made it clearly had a vision of how he wanted the video to look and I think he achieved it with a very admirable piece of work.

Cliched? I've never once seen a short video like this.

There's a lot of comments on this post, and I can't be bothered (it's late) to find the quote, but didn't someone say that there wasn't enough humour in this? If so, brilliant. But I really don't think the guy making it was trying to be funny.

And you know what, I was genuinely interested in each person who appeared in that video and not in a fucking, ain't that interesting kind of way, but I was able to empathise with a whole load of people who were not only trying to understand themselves, but understand how to live in an age where the personal has become public.

Shit, it's late.

[Colman]

Well said William (and welcome).

Ps. I like 'standing in a que'

[Lebowski]

The two girls kissing was hot. And obviously I, and every other bloke, liked that because it gave me an insight into the two girls hopes and dreams. And it was a touching and powerful demonstration of the struggle they face in learning how to deal with the fact that the personal has now become public.

I certainly empathised with them. And furthermore I was visibly moved by it.

[Colman]

My sincere hope is that you don't have too much trouble watching the girls kiss after I've closed one of your eyes up with a right hook.

[Kirsty]

This makes for hysterical reading, thanks guys (assuming you are men).

I'm on Paul's 'side' - although I find the fact that they are doing it just as interesting as what they talk about, as their insecurity and what I find intruiging about them seems wrapped up in both.

[Jared]

So, is everyone busy scrounging YouTube for the video diaries of complete strangers right now?

[Ben]

"Of course I think we can all agree that this blog is brilliant."

Let's talk a little more about that.

[williamdeed]

Cheers Paul.

Oh dear Lebowski, you're asking for it.

Although, regardless that your comment is ladened with sarcasm, I think you're actually spot on.

There are so many issues that arise in this video about contemporary society, with "lipstick lesbianism" and voyeurism being two of them, that it is not difficult to imagine this video showing up in future academia when they come to analyse the decade that we're in (cos these days history comes in nice sizeable ten year spans).

[Colman]

Ben, what are you saying?

Jared, I was doing it before, and not just video blogs - other random stuff. This is just an encapsulation.

[Lebowski]

Sarcastic? Moi?

You're right - academics will love this stuff. And god knows if they want to explore lesbianism and voyeurism in this decade there's plenty of stuff out there on the internet that doesn't even bother to dress itself up as a studied piece of a cultural artefact like this video attempts to. Other sites just show girls kissing, and people watch it.

Analyse that.

I'm with Paul on his blog being brilliant. It allows for debates like this which invariably involve Paul threatening physical violence against dissenting voices. We need more blogs like that.

[Jared]

Why is it voyeurism if they're putting it out over the Internet? They're snogging with the intent to be seen by millions (e.g. Madonna and Britney).

Just looking above, I'd like to point out that I loathe the music with the strength of ten ordinary men, and I'm definitely not English (American - so, by definition, extra-susceptible to being thwacked by the Bat of Cheap Emotion).

[Colman]

Finally we agree.

[williamdeed]

Do we know any background on why or by whom this video was made?

I would look myself but I'm too busy blogging.

Academia aside, I personally think I like the film because of its zeitgeisty appeal.

But, to be frank, if I was having this conversation in the non virtual world, I would probably not admit that. (An idea which is captured quite well by the video)

"Why is it voyeurism if they're putting it out over the Internet?"

Um.

[Lebowski]

No idea on the background or who made it. But I do know I don't like them and will not be going to see their first feature film when it hits the big screens.

I think the voyeurism point is a valid one. Voyeurism tends to be a private pursuit by its very definition. Placing things in the public arena with the very intention of having them watched does change the nature of the relationship between viewer and person being watched. Even if the viewer is still having to do so furtively.

[Lebowski]

Ooh, Mick Bianchi. He's into MMA.

I take back everything I said. I like him a lot and think this video rules.

He should also know that I'm really hard and er...my big brother's quite a tough guy.

Who's taken my identity on this site and posted all those negative things?