amazing doc on the democratization of art, including filmmaking.

Gonna bump it because I think it's terribly prevalent to today's industries and for upcoming artists. Really give it a watch. I can't say how many good points are in this documentary.
 
Nice find. I'm only a third through it, but one of the points really sticking out that might be applicable to us is that when the tools weren't as prevalent and didn't do everything you needed them to do people still made do, they made it work, instead of just rejecting and saying eh, it's missing this feature, that framerate, totally useless. Very cool doc.
 
This is an interesting one. Actually have been watching it in pieces and am almost all the way through.

Some good news, some bad, guess it's all in how you look at it.

And you get to hear a cool "fun fact" about a Public Enemy recording session from Hank Shocklee.
 
I just finished watching it. It's an extremely important topic and it's well executed. Though I believe the documentary itself (the stories told, the opinions expressed, the way it is done) does become limited within the film as I kept hearing the same point being explained, though spread out by sub-topics relating to the bigger picture. But I don't think it is a documentary that dictates anything to you that you may or may not already know and sides with one way of looking at it over the other. I found myself listening to each opinion and fact and creating my own opinions and filling in the gaps with facts and topics that they left out after each sentence from each individual. It made it seem almost interactive in a way, and I imagine that everyone will have their own personal experience while viewing it, hopefully with an open mind.

Thank you Ryan for sharing it. I don't think I would have found it (perhaps not right away) otherwise, because as they said in the documentary, the internet is filled with "garbage" and "true artistic expression" and it makes it difficult to find your way through the maze to find the diamond in the rough, so to speak. I've been sending it off to friends, non-industry related and vice versa. I'm going to screen it at work one of these days, as well because of how important the subject is and to realize the possibilities.
 
Last edited:
Found it because of this post, and definitely appreciate it. Fantastic, engaging, and well-presented.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, this is one of those pieces that's like a good book you keep telling your friends about ad naseum….but they haven't read it and probably won't, so it's hard to explain and probably not worth it.

But YOU'VE seen this film, so let's talk about it. I had to get up early to render out a project for a client, so I'm spinning some wheels right now……...

A few random parts that I found interesting. *spoilers*

-talking about how our attention spans are shot. whens the last time you watched a movie or tv while doing email/iphone?
-death of cds, birth of mp3 through napster & related
-and the ipod generation
-video/film in the hands of the masses. the fact that that film professor said his students came into his class already knowing the basic elements because they'd grown up with editing.
-random funny viewer comment: "you kinda lost me when you brought the sales guy in from RED."
-recording industry becoming obsolete because anyone can do it in their basement.
-same with publishers. you can write a book and put it on the net
-working in an office vs. desktop editing/graphics from your home. "shortage of digital talent" I found it interesting that they touched upon the fact that the new generation of young workers don't want to sit in an office, they want to work on their own terms at home on their machines. That's how I feel. That's what I do.
-the whole piece on Shilo was cool & the blending of roles in production.
-Hopefully there will never be a way to emulate a good live performance. You still have to get off your ass if you want to go to a concert.

Overall, a good piece. I could do w/o all the Moby though. It seems like you can't keep that guy out of documentaries these days. He has some good points, but it seems like he's gone from being a performer to an authoritarian on culture. And that guy Andrew Keen is a downer. He should focus more on a better hair style and worry less about all the talentless hacks putting their work on the internet. :grin:
 
"Lost in the ocean of garbage." - great quote. I am not a fan of democratization of filming (it kind of destroyed photography already).

What was the doc shot on? RED?
 
hey macgregor, check out this link. specifically page 2.

"They started off using the RED 18-50mm and 50-150mm T3 zoom lenses, but as Isaksson explains, "We noticed that they weren't working all that well, so when we were in Los Angeles, we went to Duclos Lenses, and they modified some Zeiss still lenses by de-clicking the iris and adding gears. We ended up with Zeiss zooms and a couple of Nikon zooms. Most of the interviews were done on the Zeiss 28mm, 35mm and 50mm."Dworsky and Köhler had their eyes on the RED ONE for a while, and this time they had the funds to use it. "We wanted a really professional look, and we wanted to prove that even if we're a small company, we can get our hands on the same camera that a studio feature might use," Köhler states.

"Of course, there was no way we could choose film because of the amount of shooting we were doing," adds Dworsky. "And with the RED raw files, it will last at least a few years before people say that 4K is dead."

and there's more in the article…..
 
macgregor said:
"Lost in the ocean of garbage." - great quote. I am not a fan of democratization of filming (it kind of destroyed photography already).
Click to expand...

Ouch, no way. I have to disagree. Sure- there's as higher noise to signal ratio with filming and photography.
More people have the tools without the talent or knowledge, which means more crap.

But I think this risk is worth it, because it's making it easier for those who aren't well off, or well connected, to be able to express themselves.

And in the end, that meant more potential talent and superstars, even amid the crap. :]
 
This was one of the opinions that I personally found very open ended, where I found myself creating my own opinions and filling in the gaps they left out. The small amount of people represented in the documentary certainly have clout in their selected industries for their opinion to matter. But beyond the individuals represented here, who is to say what is "art" and what is not "art". "True art & artists", as they called it, have certain guidelines which makes them a "true artist" and their work to be "true art". That they have an idea and execute it in a creative or imaginative manner makes it artistic. That success does not necessarily come with artistic expression. There are probably dozens of artists yet to be discovered and it is simply a matter of them gaining an audience.

Now would a YouTube video of two friends riding a roller coaster or a dog's owner is using baby talk to their dog, and to me it's mildly amusing be considered art? Within those guidelines, no. It's certainly a documentation of one's life, that has been captured on video, but there is no message behind it, there is nothing artistically inspiring about it, there is no creative expression involved. It is simply a moment. But the video camera allowed the owner to capture that moment and share it with the world. Then someone comes and rips the video off on YouTube, adds some music, makes the video look like a drawing, and adds titles, and it's now considered art by thousands of people. Plenty of "art" has stemmed from something that was originally not artistic, and then it found an audience of others who consider themselves artists and appreciators of art.

Renee said:
Ouch, no way. I have to disagree. Sure- there's as higher noise to signal ratio with filming and photography.
More people have the tools without the talent or knowledge, which means more crap.

But I think this risk is worth it, because it's making it easier for those who aren't well off, or well connected, to be able to express themselves.

And in the end, that meant more potential talent and superstars, even amid the crap. :]
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy Pierce said:
This was one of the opinions that I personally found very open ended, where I found myself creating my own opinions and filling in the gaps they left out. The small amount of people represented in the documentary certainly have clout in their selected industries for their opinion to matter. But beyond the individuals represented here, who is to say what is "art" and what is not "art". "True art & artists", as they called it, have certain guidelines which makes them a "true artist" and their work to be "true art". That they have an idea and execute it in a creative or imaginative manner makes it artistic. That success does not necessarily come with artistic expression. There are probably dozens of artists yet to be discovered and it is simply a matter of them gaining an audience.

Now would a YouTube video of two friends riding a roller coaster or a dog's owner is using baby talk to their dog, and to me it's mildly amusing be considered art? Within those guidelines, no. It's certainly a documentation of one's life, that has been captured on video, but there is no message behind it, there is nothing artistically inspiring about it, there is no creative expression involved. It is simply a moment. But the video camera allowed the owner to capture that moment and share it with the world. Then someone comes and rips the video off on YouTube, adds some music, makes the video look like a drawing, and adds titles, and it's now considered art by thousands of people. Plenty of "art" has stemmed from something that was originally not artistic, and then it found an audience of others who consider themselves artists and appreciators of art.
Click to expand...

This is a great point. The noise can inspire. :]
 
I wish another doc were created not focusing on tools but on the distribution end of what these tools have done to industries. There's no doubt that digital has changed the arts, but there's a huge gap for analysis of how the distrubition pipelines like itunes, youtube, self distribution of music and films or books have really changed things. This was touched on briefly in this doc with the book given away for free, but I'm really curious how for example Radiohead did with their free album, or how careers have been made by giving away a film for free.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I wish another doc were created not focusing on tools but on the distribution end of what these tools have done to industries. There's no doubt that digital has changed the arts, but there's a huge gap for analysis of how the distrubition pipelines like itunes, youtube, self distribution of music and films or books have really changed things. This was touched on briefly in this doc with the book given away for free, but I'm really curious how for example Radiohead did with their free album, or how careers have been made by giving away a film for free.
Click to expand...

Louis CK recently experimented with this also.

Here's an article on it which mentions the Radiohead album:
http://www.geekwire.com/2012/comedian-teach-making-1-million-12-days

Here's his site with more info on the whole shebang:
https://buy.louisck.net/


 
Deepfocus88 said:
And that guy Andrew Keen is a downer. He should focus more on a better hair style and worry less about all the talentless hacks putting their work on the internet. :grin:
Click to expand...

I found his statements to be the most provocative and intriguing. It's a cute notion that any and everyone can be a filmmaker, musician, etc. and "define their own careers" as someone in the video said, but there are direct consequences for that and he is right to bring them up. I also think it's not quite accurate to say that the good stuff to will always rise above the "ocean of garbage", because one man's garbage is another man's treasure. The real significance of the digital era is the abundance not only of artistic choices\options, but the ease of which those millions of artistic preferences can be accessed, shared, explored, discovered, etc.
 
Thanks for posting this . I just watched it through.

I agree with the video artist who points out there's always a technology. One person said "now every kid has a band." When I grew up we all had bands and the tech was just guitar/amp/drums. I am as excited now learning Premiere Pro as I was the solo in Little Wing by lifting the needle and pushing it back.

We had a "record deal" in the 80s and and A&R guy "looking" at us and for all that BS and heart ache I would gladly have traded it in for the chance to self-distribute, grow a following and play out to those folks who have downloaded my music.

Now that my artistic interests tend to digital cinema, I'm entirely grateful for the tools to shoot and edit, get better, self-distribute. I've been acting for decades and I've appeared in better productions than my own, for sure. If my stuff falls below the "noise floor", I'll get better, because I can try again. That I think is the beauty of the democratization of the means of production. You can try again. We'll see about the money... I agree that "this is the best shot you'll get."
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I'm really curious how for example Radiohead did with their free album, or how careers have been made by giving away a film for free.
Click to expand...

It was a huge success and yet they abandoned the model for subsequent releases. Why abandon something so apparently successful you might ask? Probably because it was intended from the start to be a one-time-use cynical marketing gimmick (as opposed to a sustainable new business model). At its core, "Pay What You Want" schemes are simply the digital equivalent of busking, which is to say...charity. Radiohead's success was also predicated on a decade worth of big-label marketing. People seem especially prone to forget that little detail.

The Louis CK thing was cool but just as with Radiohead he was not some upstart indie darling that came out of nowhere. The peanut gallery's ensuing hyperbole and pronouncements of "revolution!" are as premature as they've ever been. The tone of his little essays bothered me as well. It seemed like he felt the overwhelming need to apologize for the money he made. The TMI financial translucency with John Q Public and the belated pledge to charity both came off like meek prostrations to me. He's free to do whatever he wants obviously and I begrudge no artist their chosen path. At the same time, there's a definitely a sentiment in the air right now that appears to take gleeful pleasure in knocking artists down a few pegs (discernible at times even in the OP's otherwise excellent video). I hope the rest of us don't kowtow to such sentinments quite so readily. Personally speaking, I would rather starve than be forced to preface every release with an ingratiating essay or grovel at the feet of digital locusts in desperate attempt to elicit sympathy sales.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top