The debate over aesthetic standards in visual media becomes even more interesting when we take into consideration the dominant force of the World Wide Web. The statistics are impressive. Take YouTube, for instance. A recent report indicates close to 80 million total video uploads, increasing by 200,000 a day. Along the same lines, faith-based Tangle.com (formerly GodTube.com), attracts a modest 600,000 viewers per month, offering over 250,000 religiously oriented clips.The numbers aren’t as important as the social trend. Television’s marketshare continues to diminish as more viewers choose to inform and entertain themselves on the web. And while this seems like a bland observation, it’s likely that this migration is going to have an effect on the social consciousness (or subconsciousness) as it relates to production value.
Translation: We are becoming more and more accustomed to viewing media that is either poorly produced or copied from a copy, then compressed for the web, and calling that legitimate entertainment. So while Entertainment Tonight spends multiple millions of dollars a year to attract about 5 million viewers, YouTube’s “Fred” uses a simple camcorder to produce 3 minute amateur shorts that attract similarly sized audiences. His latest release, Fred on April Fool’s Day, garnered close to 6 million views in just one month.
Of course, we’re not comparing metric apples to apples, only pointing out that the implications for the future of aesthetics in visual media may be enormous.
Questions abound. What are the effects of web environments such as YouTube on perceived aesthetic standards? Is a more interactive web medium altering the rules of engagement? Perhaps aesthetic thresholds are time based—I can stand horrible for five minutes (ala Fred), but not sixty. Or perhaps horrible is the new black, thought of as less disingenuous than a polished piece prepared for prime-time. If so, what are the repercussions for television’s traditional business model.
And if aesthetic standards are different for television and the web, what happens when the two become indistinguishable? Technologies such as the NetFlix Roku and AppleTV are redefining the boundaries of television and the web.
While no one has access to a crystal ball, I’ll go as far to suggest that we are witnessing the beginnings of a dramatic revolution in the democratization of visual content production, whose currency has long been production value. Until recently, organizations and producers who could afford “network quality” production held the keys to large and influential audiences.
What we are seeing now is the proliferation of content created around the world with little to no traditional “production value”, which is being watched and shared by millions of viewers. The implications for faith-based organizations on shoe-string budgets are worth noting. In the end, if Fred can garner an audience of millions, what’s keeping them from doing the same? Distribution is no longer an issue. Production value is losing its…well, value. Which leaves us with one dominant currency currently driving the visual media world—creativity.
Posts
