Artists, ownership, etc.
First of all, let me say right off the bat, if you saw the title and thought that this would be a post about downloaded music, the RIAA, etc, I'm sorry to tell you that it is not. Basically, this post came about when a well-known vlogger on YouTube named Paperlilies posted on her blog about how she feels that her audience expects her to act a certain way, and she feels obligated to do so. She is what is known as a "YouTube Partner," which means that YouTube pays her money for her videos. I have no idea how one becomes a partner, just that your videos have to be well-known, and have a certain quality that most (including my own) lack. Most of the following is adapted from a response I made to Paperlilies' post.
It's been my experience that when something or someone is "big," the people who are entertained end up feeling a sense of "ownership." Basically, the audience comes to expect certain things from their entertainment, and when the entertainer deviates from those established norms, the audience feels betrayed.
Eventually, the phenomenon outgrows the original entertainer, and becomes "bigger" than him or her. For example, I am a geek. Therefore, as a geek, I am a fan of a little show called Star Trek. If you look at the history of Star Trek, it began as an innocent, campy, but entertaining program that aired for three years in the 1960s. However, Star Trek soon became a huge phenomenon. Now, people whine and complain that it's not like it used to be and that it's not what they expect anymore. In fact, a new movie is slated to be released for Christmas 2008 in which the original characters are being re-cast, the ship is being re-designed, and classic characters such as Kirk and Spock will again be on the big screen, albeit Shatner-less. Everywhere I look are Trekkies screaming that "you can't do this!" or "you're raping my childhood!" Seriously? "Raping" your childhood? To these fans, I must ask: How many James Bonds have there been? Or Batmans... men... whatever? I'm sorry, but there is fandom, and then there is fanaticism. This brings me to my original point: the audience does not "own" the entertainment. People such as this should realize that there are other people in the audience, and the world cannot simply mold itself to their own vision. If one sees something that doesn't follow their vision 100%, whining and complaining about it will not help. If you don't like the product, don't consume it!
Audiences have to learn that they do not "own" the entertainment; they have no special control over what an artist does or says in crafting his or her particular art. As much as I love watching Paperlilies, or Star Trek, I know that it is entertainment. It is up to the entertainer to do as he or she sees fit, and if people don't like it, then they shouldn't watch just to bitch and moan. Again, if the product does not line up with what the consumer wants, they should not watch it.
In any case, I apologize for the rant. Also, sorry if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This was basically an off-the-cuff reaction to Bryony's (Paperlilies) post, and the vitriol I've seen on the 'net with regards to J.J. Abrams' new Star Trek movie. Oh, and I'm hoping to include links to Paperlilies' Blog and YouTube Channel over on the left hand side. Also, I'll stick up a link to my YouTube Channel... but don't watch it. Seriously, it sucks.
G'night all!
posted by Kertrats @ 9:50 PM
6 comments
links to this post
6 Comments:
A quick comment - I agree with you about people not owning the artist and all the stuff you said - you say it so much better than I would (although you did misspell a word) - that's my teacher gene coming out - although I am not a teacher. I am not going to tell you which word either - you can figure it out. Anyway, back to the topic: I agree with you and I hope this paperlilies chick sticks to her own ideas and disregards the audience. Keep in mind, though, that audiences have (since forever) made their expectations/reactions clear - from standing ovations to chucking tomatoes at stage performers in the old days. That will always be there and you artists will need to deal with it but it doesn't mean you have to comply - resistance does not have to be futile! Do what you want and you will achieve success with your audience (or you will not) but at least it will be your own contribution not someone else's. I guess it might be a fine line between being successful by delivering what the audience expects and being true to your art by doing what you want to do. You need to know why you are doing something before you decide how you are going to do it. That is, is it to satisfy a creative need or is it to help you earn a living? Having said that, the television networks are adding to the expectations of active audience participation with their attempts to compete with the internet and keep their viewers' interest. For example, the new show, Heroes, asks viewers to log on and design the next Hero. Jeepers! Isn't that how they're supposed to earn their bucks? Why should we do the work for them? Like you, I just want to be entertained and if I feel like fulfilling a creative impulse, then I will do so, using my own ideas, thank you very much. Heroes is creating expectations that other artists (such as Paperlilies) may not welcome. Anyway, I guess that was my rant. Thanks for your new blog.
Well anonymous, I must admit to being stymied! I checked the spelling, and I did correct one punctuation error (J.J Abrams' instead of J.J. Abrams's)... I thought that I may have misspelled "whining," but sure enough, I looked it up and it is spelled correctly. Little help?
This post has been removed by the author.
*sigh* Nevermind. Found it.
I hate to admit having tuned in to Dr.Phil a couple of days ago where he was speaking to a couple about clearing up clutter. The husband is a Star Wars fanatic with more than 6,000 pieces of Star Wars paraphenalia on which he's spent more than $200,000. His entire basement was full of the stuff which includes a life size storm trooper costume. His lifelong dream is to lose enough weight to fit into the costume (long, long shot - he's quite fat). He would like to be buried in it when the time comes and if he hasn't lost enough weight by that time, he hopes "they" will do what it takes to squish him in. He resents his wife's attempts to get him to spend more time with her, claiming that snuggling with her is boring and he'd rather hang out in his basement. If she'd like to snuggle there whilst he plays with his Star Wars stuff, then he'd be willing to comply. She was cute and funny and I truly have no idea why she's saddled herself down with this loser (neither did the audience, judging from the stunned looks). Bottom line (and I know this was absolutely NOT the point of your blog) is that you are hardly a geek because you enjoy Star Trek. Dr. Phil's guest is a geek in the extreme. Enjoyed your blog and, as usual, am in complete agreement although really couldn't care less about the dummies who'd prefer to see William Shatner drag out his walker in an attempt to stay "true" to the original series than improve upon it. Your (future) Japanese students will be fortunate in getting a teacher who's so well versed in the subject that he will be teaching. 'Til next time, "live long and prosper"!
Eeeps! Shatner with a walker...I am totally with you Slick. I too am a Star Trek fan and totally non-geeky - as is Kertrats. Cheers!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home