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
2 comments:
I just wanna thank you for these thoughts. I find myself at a cross road, (it might be a roundabout as well) where I struggle with the question of how relevant I am in my efforts to proclaim a certain message to the media driven culture.
Creativity? What's that? In a Christian church? I believe you want too far on this one... :)
I see your point, but I would like to present to you an option. What if production quality has never been what drives viewer interest? Since television became the standard information and entertainment source, viewers were "held hostage" to a limited choice of content. The networks used VHF to give us 12 channels, then UHF came along and increased our options... but we still were held hostage by what was offered. THe choices increased with cable and niches became important, people began to have real choices.. but the problem is that as broadcasting opportunities became more abundant and grew exponentially, the creation and production of content didn't.... thus, the reruns.
I propose that human beings are basically social entities. Our drive to "watch TV" is beyond our interest in information and entertainment, is our need to CONNECT, and in some cases the voyeuristic pleasure of looking at somebody elses life. Television offered us an opportunity to sooth our inadequacies through the creation of an "alter ego" we lived vicariously through the fantastic life of superheroes... we looked for personality traits that matched ours and felt validated. That was the key of success for the famous "series".
The point I am trying to make is the following: The democratization of media distribution didn't change our interest in content, it merely enabled us to have a stronger illusion of CONNECTION and BELONGING.
If you look at viral content, at the innocuousness of social media content and overall web interaction, you will find a common theme, the need for validation, identification and recognition. And these facts bring us to the realization of one basic reality MOST HUMANS ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH WHO THEY ARE, there is lack of inner peace. "THE PEACE THAT SURPASSES ALL UNDERSTANDING"
What if... we could create content, of excellent production quality, that lead people to find that peace of mind?
What if, we did what Christ expected us to do and live a "reality TV" of true Christianity?
What if we could demonstrate true peace of mind and share that precious secret via audiovisual content?
Post a Comment