Watch a video of your choice on youtube.com and another on http://www.ubu.com/film/index.html (the latter, by the way, is a wonderful resource for avant-garde and experimental film and video; just click on one of the names listed on the site, click on one of the artist's pieces, and finally, click to play!). Keeping in mind Wasson's discussion of the "dynamics of size, colour, shape, clarity" and proximity that affect our perception of screen images, compare and contrast the AESTHETICS of both sites. How is the presentation (and not the content) of each video similar? How is it different? How do the websites themselves affect the way you view the videos? Please be as specific as possible. In the course of your discussion, integrate 1 well-chosen quotation from either Wasson's or Huhtamo's article.
Here's one of my favorite YouTube videos, artist Pipilotti Rist's I'm Not the Girl Who Misses Much:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
75 comments:
I watched a video by Ryoji Ikeda on UbuWeb and a clip from the most recent Eurovision on YouTube. The presentation of both videos was similar in shape, size, and picture quality. Both screens were very small, rectangle, and looked like they wanted to be wide screen. My experience with the quality of picture was much like what Wasson said on page 80 about videos on QuickTime: “These films appear grainy, jerky, flat. Colour is washed. Focus is shallow. Background detail is lost and blurred to abstraction; foreground details also frequently appear fuzzy.” The presentation was different in that the YouTube video that I watched was of slightly better picture quality. On UbuWeb, the run time of the video wasn’t listed, and the video had a black frame all the way around it, so it looked like it was on a mini TV on the computer screen. The video was also placed more towards the center of the webpage, and I had to click on it for it to start. In contrast, the video on YouTube had its run time listed and only had a strip of black on the top and bottom—no sides to the frame. The video was also placed off to the side more, and it played automatically.
The set-up of the websites definitely affects how viewers view the videos. The YouTube set-up is more interactive, with comments sections, number of views, lists of related videos, and lists of videos posted by the same user. The search tool also makes it easier to find more videos. This could make the pull the viewer in to spending hours on the computer watching video after video. But at the same time, the set-up is also a lot busier, which is distracting to the viewer. The viewer might be reading the comments instead of watching the video. The set-up on UbuWeb was simpler and less distracting, but also didn’t offer much. It doesn’t make the viewer necessarily want to watch more.
Katrina Schwarz
TA: Kate Brandt
The video that I watched on YouTube was called Evolution of Dance, which is a comedic look at how people have danced over the past decades. I also watched "Soundings," a film by Gary Hill. The videos are similar because they both have a main subject they are focusing on. In addition, the way the media was being displayed was similar. They both had viewing screens of the same size and shape. They both have sound options where the viewer can either turn the volume up or down. Furthermore, the viewer can stop or play the video at any time. Also, both videos were made in color. However, these videos contrast in different ways. First, even though the viewer has the option when to stop the video, the video does not play right away on ubu.com. On YouTube, you do not have to click on the the screen to start the video. Next, the color was more clear on YouTube, whereas the color was dull on ubu.com. Also, the sound was clear on YouTube and was grainy, just like the image, on ubu.com. As stated on P.91 by Wasson when talking about images, "their fluidity is not limitless nor can it be fully understood without recourse to the expanded viewing contexts and the enduring screens which enable their visibility."
The websites affect the way we view the videos because on YouTube, you have to put in keywords to find a video and on ubu.com you have to first click on an artist's name and then you pick the video you want to watch.
Erik Wagner
TA: Steve Wetzel
In preparation for this blog, I watched an animated short from a Vancouver Film School student Christian Smith on YouTube and a 17-minute film by musician John Lennon. Smith’s The Room had clear, almost pristine quality that surprised me, an avid YouTube user. Lennon’s piece, Apotheosis, however, had the grainy and washy screen that is expected from online media portals. The mediums were similar in their shape and size. Both were slightly rectangular and only a few inches wide by an inch or two tall. The websites each had a pause and play button available to the user, as well as a time-tracker, which could be dragged forward through the film or backwards, and both also had a volume control. However, the Lennon piece did not show the time progression as YouTube did, nor did Ubu have a “full screen” accessory.
The sites affect the way users view videos in availability and ability to control progression, which is in complete opposition to the “standard” film-viewing process. As Wasson says, “They [products like QuickTime and YouTube] achieve this [making a mockery of cinematic normalcy] with a vaguely cinematic and miniature frame littered with user controls.” Wasson’s argument is that this new media challenges the standards of cinematic viewing by giving the user the power to control the situation and by not conforming to pristine, perfect visual quality. Despite being in complete opposition to a regular cinema experience, these mediums have continued to grow and affect the way we see media in a unique way.
Mitchell Keller
TA: Laura Bennett
For my two clips, on YouTube I watched the “Charlie Bit Me” segment, and on ubu.com, I watched Forum Lenteng’s “5 Seconds 10 Minutes 24 Hours.” After really focusing on the aesthetics of both, I found numerous differences.
Starting out with Youtube, I believe it is overall more user friendly. The viewers are given the ability to enlarge and reduce the screen, post comments/ratings, put up advertisements, and be recommended similar videos that might appeal to their fancy. Whereas on Ubu, the viewers are limited to one screen size, no playtime running bar, or related videos. Upon entering into the Youtube site, it is visually pleasing with the many option video windows such as featured clips and the being watched section constantly scrolling on the top. With the multiple options, people are drawn back to its easy to use and user friendly settings.
Thought they had their differences, the two sites did have their share of similarities. Both, as said in Wasson’s article on course reader page 38, “draws the eye of the viewer in, closer and closer, exaggerating a sense of interiority already endemic to the mode by which such images have travelled.” With this, they both draw us into a state of zoning out, honing in on just the clip and forgetting about our surroundings. Though we “zone out,” both still do appear to be blurry, at times pixelated, with a grainy and flat color, lacking a certain cinematic presence. In addition, as said by Huhtamo on course reader page 69, they “serve as virtual windows to observe distant lands and current events.” As the clip is playing, the viewer is given a sort of “virtual remote,” with the power to adjust the volume, and fast forward, pause, and rewind to any point in the clip.
Dan Gorchynsky
TA: David Witzling
Robert Francis Curtis
TA: Stephen Wetzel
In watching "The Waldo Ultimatum" by JustForLaughsTv on YouTube and "Mad Rush" by Phillip Glass on UbuWeb, I have found several similarities and contrasts in the realm of small screen presentation. To begin with, the simple size of screens affected both videos. On YouTube I was capable of expanding the video to a full screen viewing, whereas on UbuWeb the image had to remain the same size. It was far easier to pick up on the details within the images in “The Waldo Ultimatum” because the quality of the image was very well defined. “Mad Rush”, on the other hand, was very dark and grainy and therefore more difficult to see everything. The set up of each website was vastly different. YouTube had numerous additions to its pages including comments by viewers, other videos, and information on the filmmaker which allows the viewer to explore vast catacombs of media intertwined. UbuWeb contained links to more of the artist’s work but little else. Its long list of artists however, allows a viewer to guess at what they will be seeing. This creates two very unique forms of viewing the small screen format.
Haidee Wasson writes that “…Web films are contained by a very small box, requiring attention to the effects not only of scale distortion but also of frame size.” These two videos were similar in that both images seemed to fit into their space quite well. “Mad Rush” focused on simple shots of a man on a piano, and “The Waldo Ultimatum” remained small for the small screen by having tight, close shots cutting back and forth. In this way it can be seen how the creators of each video have adhered to what Wasson writes fore they have adapted to the small scale of the Web film and utilized the space appropriately. Both videos being so small and so close to my eyes, drew me in to see everything at once which would not be possible on an Imax or even regular movie theater scale. Unfortunately they differ in that it appears as though “The Waldo Ultimatum” was produced on digital high-definition formatting, and “Mad Rush” was done with older, less compatible, materials for the internet Web film.
So, in conclusion, the Web films “The Waldo Ultimatum” and “Mad Rush” have been adapted and presented uniquely upon the small screen but are inherently different in quality of experience due to the web sites that display them.
“Yet, despite the range of qualitatively different organizations and films, there are several features these movies tend to share, largely because of their like modes of distribution and exhibition.” (Wasson, 80)
YouTube.com and ubu.com are like cousins, different though clearly part of the same family. YouTube’s main aesthetics is to grab your attention by showing you screenshots of all the videos that you can watch and how to share them and talk about by way of leaving comments. Ubu.com is far more formal than YouTube’s commercially driven mindset. It’s more basic as well, select an artist and select an available video to watch. I also noticed there are a variety of functions that YouTube has that Ubu did not such as sharing videos, leaving comments, and having the option to enlarge the video.
Nelson Schneider
TA: Kate Brandt
I watched the video called Kiwi! on Youtube.com it was a short 3min computer animation about a kiwi bird that can't fly so it nails trees to a cliff, and then jumps off with aviator goggles so he can pretend to fly, since kiwi's can not fly, so he does everything he wants to before he kills himself. The whole only has the audio of Mad World by Gary Jules to set the depressing/happy mood. It reminded me of the part in Wasson's essay where he stated "little Web films suggest what I would like to call a notably fragmented cinema - a cinema of suggestion - that calls attention to its materiality and its status as bound to a tightly integrated network." Because many short videos or animations, on youtube have little suggestions, to tell a story, or possibly to reference greater cultural meaning. Also when he talks about the integrated network, most videos on youtube have elements of video, animation, music, acting, or other mixed media integrated in the most integrated form of art in the world, the world wide web. As far as the size, shape, color, and depth of the film, it was very clear because it was computer animation the colors are also very vivid, but not as many different colors as you would see in film or video. Since there was less of a color palette it made the video have little depth, besides the clouds when the kiwi is falling, it seems mostly flat even for a computer image.
Here is the link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs
I watched Ant farm's Dirty Dishes on Ubu and on youtube I watched Danny Way jump the great wall of China. Both websites are very similar. The screen on Ubu is slightly bigger but both let you watch videos the same way, click on a link then press play. Youtube's color and overall quality were much better than Ubus. However while anyone can put anything about anything on youtube, Ubu has a vast selection of more experimental work. This gives it a different audience than youtube. On youtube I like how people can blog about the video which is not available ubu, all you get is the video. Both websites are good for showing videos but it all depends on what you want to see.
I watched Ant farm's Dirty Dishes on Ubu and on youtube I watched Danny Way jump the great wall of China. Both websites are very similar. The screen on Ubu is slightly bigger but both let you watch videos the same way, click on a link then press play. Youtube's color and overall quality were much better than Ubus. However while anyone can put anything about anything on youtube, Ubu has a vast selection of more experimental work. This gives it a different audience than youtube. On youtube I like how people can blog about the video which is not available ubu, all you get is the video. Both websites are good for showing videos but it all depends on what you want to see.
Matthew Axberg
TA:Katherine Brandt
Nearly everyone in today’s modern world sees some sort of moving image projected on a wide variety of mediums daily. Almost as important as what those images are is how we see them or what medium they are viewed on. However, if we take one medium, the web-based video played in a browser, there are still differences that can be seen between different web pages which further affect how we view what we are watching. The differences that we see even within this same medium, as Wasson points out, “depends on the media reader you use, the processing speed of your computer, and the nature of your connection to the Web.” So after viewing two videos, The Waldo Ultimatum by The Imponderables on youtube and Fiorucci Made Me Hardcore by Mark Leckey on ubu, there are many obvious similarities that we see as well as some surprising differences. Both web sites present the videos in a rectangular box surrounded by the website and the rest of your screen. The ubu site however, is much cleaner in appearance and presents the video without distraction whereas youtube is set up to distract you to get you to click on another video or on ads. Both videos are grainy with bad sound quality, both have little background, and both websites provide a little information on the video as well. As we can see not only the medium we choose to watch a film but also specific choices within a medium affect how we view a film.
Lanae Smith
TA David
I began with You Tube since I was more familiar with it and watched “The Waldo Ultimatum”. Then on UbuWeb I watched Helmut Herbst’s “Deutschland Dada” Part 1, and found many similarities and differences in the aesthetics.
In the presentation of both, they were quite similar. Both were rectangular in shape and about the same miniscule size. Both videos were grainy and jumpy (You Tube more-so). On page 35, Wasson says, ”web films are contained by a very small box, requiring attention to the effects not only of scale distortion but also of frame size”, and that is exactly what we see on both of these sites. Because of their network, scale distortion and frame size, it causes them to be grainy, discolored and jumpy.
I also noticed how different the set-ups were between You Tube and UbuWeb. On You Tube there were more options to play with. I could enlarge to full screen, choose from a much larger selection of films, interact with other people by commenting, and much more. On UbuWeb all I could do was turn up the volume and pause it. There was no comments or suggestion for other films. There was also a limited selection of film to watch. This caused me to only watching that one film and getting stuck with watching several films on You Tube after “The Waldo Ultimatum”(thanks to their suggestions in the same category)
Carly Rieder.
TA: David Witzling
I chose to watch System Of A Down's "Lonely Day" music video for my Youtube video. This video is basically a montage of the band on their tour bus simply lying down or sitting around along with scenes of every day people doing every day things. The only twist is that the somewhat depressing but hypnotizing tone of the song goes along perfectly with the fact that there is something on fire (done with special affects of course) in virtually every scene of the music video. The video skips back and forth from members of the band on their bus to people doing things with a shot of something on fire in the background. The Ubu video that I chose to watch was of renowned violinist Billy Bang. The video consists of Bang, on stage performing a song behind a black wall. Both videos appeared on a small rectangle and were basically the same quality picture-wise. Both screens that the video's were shown on had the same basic features such as a loading bar, and a volume meter, but that is where the similarities ended. Youtube is obviously a much more commerical type of website because the homepage is filled with options and you are immediately bombarded with all types of different videos and advertisements that you can click on. Ubu is more of an artsy type of website that has more of an emphasis on the artists in the videos, and is not very commercial or mainstream at all. The homepage simply has the names of all the artists that you can choose from and that is it. On Youtube you can create a user-name and profile page on which you can upload videos, display your favorite videos and customize it to your heart's content. Ubu is much more of a viewing website on which you can just click on what you want and enjoy it. Ubu was much more simple and less hands on than Youtube, which in my opinion was very refreshing. For instance, after you are done watching a video on Youtube, two more links pop up with a still image of something similar to what you just watched based on the content of the video. This type of feature is used as a tool to keep you watching videos and more importantly keep you on Youtube in general. Ubu did not have any features like this and it was more standard when it came to features and options on the page of the video that you were watching. Youtube reminds of what Wasson talked about in the reading when he said, "...as the material, corporate, and technological conditions of cinema's production and exhibition transform, those tasked with understanding these changes must reorient their conceptual tools."(p.75) I thought this was a perfect description of how older generations (i.e. my parents or grandparents) must learn to how to use Youtube and other sites like it in order to stay up to date with what is going on in the Popular culture today. Youtube and sites like it are a whole new type of mass media that can be used as a market for anyone. For instance the first Demoratic and Republican debates were used interactively with Youtube, so that anyone across the United States could log on and ask one of the Presedential nominees a question. Based on having seen these two websites it was very clear to me that technology is changing, whether we like it or not. But having seen the differences between Youtube and Ubu I must say that Youtube had much more of a marketed type of feel to it as opposed to Ubu. It seemed to me that once you got to Youtube, it was much like Myspace or Facebook because the creators wanted you to stay there. They did this by using multiple types of interactive options and advertisements. The Ubu site was much more simplistic and the emphasis of this website was to allow the viewer to simply appreciate the video he or she wanted to watch and not comment on it for the next three days.
Connor Murray
TA: Katherine Brandt
Firstly, I watched a comedy clip on youtube from the late late show with Craig Ferguson, then secondly, I watched The Hearts of Age (1934) by Orson Welles and WIlliam Vance on the ubuWeb website. One of the first things I noticed between the two sites was the slight difference in screen size. The ubuWeb had just a slightly larger screen then youtube did. The actual picture quality though, when I played the video on ubuWeb, was about the same as the videos on youtube. The bigger size made it feel a little more professional though. To quote Wasson from Moving Images, Materiality, and the Aesthetics of Size on page 91, "Moving images may be increasingly fluid but their fluidity is not limitless nor can it be fully understood without recourse to the expanded viewing contexts and the enduring screens which enable their visibility." Another difference I noticed immediately between the sites was that the ubuWeb page was a lot less cluttered then youtube, which is always covered in advertisements and links for other videos. This also made it feel like a more professional or higher quality video. To summarize, I'd say that the slight differences in the websites presentation made my expectations for each site's videos much different.
Travis Torok
TA: Steve Wetzel
Elizabeth Miller
I watched a video called Skip Arnold on UBUWEB and a video called Danny Jumps the Great Wall of China on Youtube. I would have to say that the video on Youtube I believe has a higher quality than the one in UBUWEB. However, the one is UBUWEB was shorter and told you exactly what the film was going to be about, compared to the video on Youtube. It seems that more people visit Youtube than UBUWEB.
Elizabeth Miller
T.A. Kathy Brandt
Andrew Tolstedt
TA. David Witzling
I made my way over to youtube and sat for a minute watching "A scene from Troll 2", then hopped onto Ubuweb and clicked a random name. I ended up watching Bells of Atlantas by Ian Hugo.
Both videos are very small, something we are accustomed to with web movies. Wasson discusses this in the reading; "Web films are more akin to what Stewart identifies as the miniature... We envelop it, hold it in our hand, survey it all in a quick glance".
The size of the video itself is the most notable similarity of the two sites. When we watch the stream, we seem to take control of it and possess it, we have complete control over its miniatureness.
Aside from the size, the function buttons, and the inherently low quality of the videos, there is virtually nothing similar between the two websites. Youtube is incredibly interactive, dominated by buttons, links, other videos, and interesting things to look at, while Ubu keeps it simple: White background and a sentence describing the video.
I first traveled to the Ubuweb site and watch the Jack Chambers Film The Hart of London (1970), Part 1 and the then I went to the YouTube Site and watched The Dark Knight Trailer Spoof from EvillguanaProduction.
-The Hart of London:
-The Dark Knight Trailer Spoof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sYBqhOEdRQ&feature=user
Both sites are archives devoted to media as an art, whether its video or not they are open to the public and open to opinion. The two sites rely on the visitor’s curiosity to have a look around and see what kinds of entertainment they can find, the funny, the strange, the scary, and the interesting. Their homepages both have site news and links to featured videos. Both of these videos are being show in a similar fashion small rectangular window on my computer screen but one connects us to the past and one to the present. Both offer a search option to find specific videos, play/pause button, a loading bar, and volume bars. Overall the two sites do a very good job in presenting its visitors with a new way of looking at media (although small) its the power to find virtually anything you want at your fingertips, new and old, that keeps us coming back.
On the contrary the Ubuweb site was much more traditional in appearance as apposed to the flashy YouTube site. YouTube is designed for everyone, anything you ever want to watch, chances are they got it. Ubuweb archive allows for a narrower audience to find the video that they need or want to see. Anyone can make an account with YouTube and post a video or comment but when I clicked “submissions” on the Ubuweb site it said, “We are not currently accepting submissions at this time.” This shows that YouTube is equally designed for the viewer and the maker of the videos and Ubuweb is designed with mainly the viewer in mind but with little opinions available. Not only does YouTube offer the chance for a bigger screen, time bar, and related videos but it also lets you customize you YouTube after making a simple account.
“QuickTime [YouTube, Ubuweb, etc] provides a distinct kind of network, consisting of codes, digital and analogue networks, servers, Web browsers, media players, and microprocessors that each play a role in how precisely the information that will eventually yield a moving image will look and what the price of admission will be” (Wasson 81). This quote stuck out to me because it made me realize what this screen networking does, it changes the way we perceive moving images which is often not how the film maker wanted us to see it. There is no more control to how videos are scene no matter what you do it will most likely be chopped, edited, changed and show up on a tiny screen on a computer somewhere. Both Ubuweb and YouTube are examples of the ever-changing history and advancement of media in the way that it is presented to the audience.
Kirk McCamish
T.A. Steve Wetzel
The two videos I watched were extremely different on many levels. On You Tube I watched an interview with Charles Manson when he's in San Quentin, and on Ubu Web I watched an experimental film from 1924 by Fernand Leger.
When you first go to the You Tube page, you can see recently viewed videos and the most popular ones, instantly capturing your attention and drawing you into watching certain things. Also being marketed are other random advertisements, which can serve as a distraction. You Tube essentially has an unlimited amount of videos, since new ones are being added by the minute. You can find videos about virtually anything and anyone can post them. Ubu Web is very different in these senses. The videos are organized by director in alphabetical order. There are no ads on the page, and it is very professional looking.
The videos themselves are ascetically different in many ways. On You Tube, you an expand the videos to full screen,and the videos are displayed in a fake widescreen format, mimicking professional films. The videos are very pixelated and blurry, often not loading all the way properly. Ubu Web's screen stays the same size, and the video fills the little screen, which is more square than rectangle. The image is sharper, just blurred because of the old film.
To me, You Tube is very useful and entertaining, but at the same time very annoying. You can find almost anything you want, but at a cost: quality. Wasson said that "through the dynamics of size, colour, shape clarity, blurred abstraction, screens are not blank frames but active forces." I think this is very true. The screens on Ubu Web and You Tube really make you lean in and focus you full attention to what your viewing, because it's not crystal clear. I think web videos are usefull, but not ascetically pleasing.
-Dawn Borchardt
-TA Steve
I watched Sigur Rós’s music video Saeglopur on YouTube and Gregory Markopoulos’s 16mm film Sorrows on UbuWeb to prepare for this blog. The two websites, both dedicated to bringing movie clips to viewers via the internet, have many aesthetic similarities. Both websites open to a homepage that has a list of various shorts that are easily accessible to the viewer with just a click of the mouse. Upon clicking on the desired film piece, the viewer is taken to a mini-screen. Both YouTube and UbuWeb screen the movie clips on what appears to be the same size screen, which is very small. Both sites offer a description of the clip, as well. While watching the chosen clip on each site, the viewer can see a bar at the bottom of the mini-screen that shows how much of the clip has passed and how much is left. Each has a play/pause button on the left hand side of the bottom of the screen and a volume control on the right hand side. The quality of each clip was not what one would consider “good,” but as Wasson put it, they were “grainy, jerky, flat […and] fast movements are […] indistinct” (Wasson 80).
In many ways, the aesthetics of YouTube and UbuWeb are similar; however, they differ is numerous ways as well. The list of shorts on the front page of YouTube includes a small picture of the video along with a rating, the number of times it has been viewed, its genre, and the beginning of the description of the clip. On UbuWeb, the list is simply a list of the filmmakers. The emphasis on UbuWeb is clearly the filmmaker more than the film, while on YouTube the film appears more important. On YouTube, a viewer can search for a key word or a specific title of a clip by typing in the search box at the top of the page, while UbuWeb does not offer this. After clicking on the desired clip, YouTube takes the viewer to a page that includes not only the mini-screen and a description of the film, but also a list of other films he might enjoy, a comment section, and a link to share the video on social networks such as Facebook. On UbuWeb, the page is much less busy. Besides the mini-screen and description, all that is there is the filmmaker’s name, the year the film was made, and a short biography of the filmmaker. As stated before, the emphasis on UbuWeb is clearly more on the filmmaker than the film, while the opposite is true for YouTube.
The aesthetics of YouTube and of UbuWeb easily affect the way a viewer may view a video clip. On YouTube, it seems more recreational, like a social networking site even. By having the option to comment and rate each clip, the viewer is much more involved while on YouTube. Because there is a list of similar clips, it is easy for one to view multiple videos without much thought. The rating as well as the tiny picture of the clip can help one decipher whether or not a clip might be worth watching. On UbuWeb, unless the viewer knows the filmmaker, it’s kind of a shot in the dark. It is completely unknown whether the clip will be black and white or color, long or short, fast or slow, until the viewer clicks on the filmmaker’s name. Nevertheless, UbuWeb has a much more professional feel to it, giving the clips a bit more of an authentic feel.
Aesthetics is defined as "the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste," (wikianswers) This can be seen on both Youtube and UbuWeb. Both present movies made by people so that they can be enjoyed by all. Yet UbuWed seemed to have a high quality in the appearance of there videos. Yet the sound quality on Youtube seemed better. I watched A film by the name of Larry Jordan and it was an animation that was very artistic but had poor sound quality of someone playing the piano. On Youtube I watched a video called Mainstream Media Commercial which was done by a comedian and was a satire on how mass media affects us, and his sound quality was excellent.
When it comes to the presentation of the video the two sites have a similar format yet are thought of in different contexts. When I went onto UbuWed, the site seemed professional and I expected to see a professional looking video. Yet when a person logs onto Youtube, you might think to yourself that he videos you find are going to be comical and poor quality. It is also different way of thinking about the videos them selfs. And because of this these videos are not thought of as films but are "forcing a new deffiniton of cinema" Meaning that because of these videos we have to redefine what cinema is, to include these videos made by everyday people and not just Hollywood or independent companies.
I watched a YouTube video called "The Departed, F*cking Short Version" The UbuWeb video I saw was entitled "Exchange" by Robert Morris.
While "Exchange" is done in black and white, the YouTube video is the color version of the movie "The Departed". They both look rough, but for different reasons. "Exchange" means to do it, while "The Departed..." does it because of import quality.
Both content is shown on a screen that is small, but the YouTube site allows the video to become enlarged. The websites themselves also have a certain experience that you expect with them. With UbuWeb you expect some funky crap, but with YouTube you can expect almost everything. For me the idea of "The peepshow box (being interpreted) as a distanced and nostalgic ritualistic re-enactment" (Huhtamo, pg 55 of C.R.) is like that of many YouTube videos, including "The Departed, F*cking Short Version". We use YouTube as a reminder of the original form that we had seen what we are seeing now in.
Kyle Arpke
TA: Ms. Bennett
You tube has become a staple in my entertainment diet. For that fact, I will compare what I watch most on you tube which is old episodes of Are you Being Served. On ubu I watched film by Yvonne Rainer titled Journeys from Berlin. But, I would have to argue that it is the internet venue, rather than screen size, that effects the viewings content. From Wasson’s article he paraphrases Stewarts idea of the miniature or web streaming video saying that the miniature invites a sense of mastery compared to the large, I.E Imax, which promises to contain us. But, do I feel a mastery when I am watching Are you being served, or Journeys from Berlin? No! You tube is more of a commercial venue to show not only old BBC programs, but home videos and promotional material. Ubu, however, is obviously less of a commercial venue than you tube and emphasizes exposure to experimental films. The screen size for you tube is adjustable, while ubu is not. This enables the you tube viewer to enlarge the video to the entire screen of the computer simulating a T.V watching experience. Ubu’s nonadjustable screen disables the viewer from experiencing the full effect of the films that it shows, but may be the point of the site to encourage viewers to go out and seek screenings of such material, such as experimental Tuesdays at the UWM union.
Nicholas Lawrence
Andrew Megow-
The Aesthetics of screen is another way of saying, the "Beauty" of screen. The biggest difference between the screens of www.ubu.com and Youtube is that Youtube gives you the option of enlarging your picture. Now this can benefit the film of which you are about to see or it can definitly destroy the aesthetics by pixilating everything quite drastically. But I think Ubu mission is to show you pieces of avant-garde film and present their beauty correctly, unlike Youtube. The piece I saw on Ubu was David Byrne's "Report From L.A." and it was definitly interesting, and staged well and no pixilations at all, in fact any fuzzyness probably had to do with the quality of the filming. (I'm assuming it done in the 80's) The Youtube vide I watched was "The Waldo Ultimatum - The Imponderables". This was made to look like a movie trailer and designed for laughter whereas I believe Byrnes had a deep message to it. Although I'm a regular Youtube person I can't help but think of Wasson's quote, "They (Quicktime movies) resolutely reject or perhaps make a mockery of realist conventions of cinematic perfection."(pg 81) I think of this for youtube because at least the one I watched tries to make itself look as though it were a real movie and yet mocking the drama and suspense trailers give. But many videos indeed have zero budgets and are mostly inperfected. Most of the videos on Ubu I'm assuming were brought there from a different source so it was easier to make sure the quality of the video was okay. The set up had no gimmicks and didn't offer much but then again, too many options can be the death of something.
I watched a clip called old greg on youtube and a clip under Roulettetv called billy bang on UbuWeb. Both "Information Surfaces," were pretty similar in shape,size, but the quality was a little better on youtube and you could tell also a lot newer. The Aesthetics of each site are quite similar considering the both have screen shots of the film your about to watch, they both have ares where people can discuss and comment on films and both can be searched by maker of the film. They also have there differences, you can easily tell that youtube is a place for more modern films but also includes alot of every kind of film and the UbuWeb is for more weird experimental films.
The video i picked for my youtube video was "The Angry RV Salesman." Its a video about an RV salesman freaking out on the set of one of his commercial shoots. The ubu video i watched was called lightning. Its a video by Paul and Marlene kos about the phenomenon that lightning never strikes when your looking for it. There are not a lot of similarities other than the fact that they are both short films. On the other hand, there are huge amount of differences. The first would be in how the film was shot. Lightning is a black and white movie with very low picture quality and its all in black and white. Another is the content. Lightning is a very serious movie focuses on a serious topic. Wile RV salesman is made for strictly humorous purposes. lightning is also trying to prove a point wile RV salesman doesn't really have one. Even the look of the websites was completely different. Youtube looks a lot more fun and it tries to have a newer more hip look to it. Ubu one the other hand looks a lot more boring and straight to the point. Wile these are two very different forms of media, both are are good at doing what they were made for
Zach Cosby
I watched a Russian Animated Short on Youtube.com made by Stepan Birukov and Constantine Aref'ev. On UbuWeb.com I viewed a short film by Wim Delvoye. The display areas of these two videos were both rectangular, similar in size, and proportions. Youtube.com presented an organized list of options in various links to other videos, small advertisements, information about the video, and comments left by viewers. The video on UbuWeb.com was more minimalistic. It contained a heading graphic, the video, a link to the home page, and a small number of resource links. The presentation methods are very different. UbuWeb.com seems to be promoting the video more where Youtube.com appears to be offering other things to distract from the video. I paid far more attention to the video on UbuWeb.com than I did at Youtube.com. I believe this reaction was produced by the loose atmosphere created by Youtube.com’s site structure. They offer more items for you to think about and view than UbuWeb.com, so you feel less obligated to watch the video. In Wasson’s article, “The Networrked Screen: Moving Images, Materiality, and the Aesthetics of Size”, Wasson states, “Much of the World Wide Web is based on the logic of attraction. Flashing banners, slogans and logos try to persuade us to click…” Youtube.com is a much more popular, and visited site than UbuWeb.com because it is has a more engaging and stimulating format.
Nathaniel Winter
I watched off of Ubu Charlemagne Palestine's "Island Song"(1976) and off of Youtube Raymond Briggs's "The Snowman" (1978). Both of these videos were blurry and had the grainy look to the picture. Both the videos appears in small boxes with the black bars going over the top and the bottom. The Ubu video also had the bars over the sides, to make it completely enclosed. Wasson wrote "Web films are contained by a very small box, requiring attention to the effects not only of scale distortion but also of frame size." The ubu video stayed the same size at the middle of the screen while the youtube video was more in the left corner of the screen and it can be enlarged to view at full screen, which makes the video a little more blurry, but still recongnizable. The youtube video also has a time bar to show the total time of the video and the time it is at making it able to change the spot that the video is at if I wanted to skip parts. The ubu video didn't have a time bar and I had to watch the entire video without knowing how long it was. Also at ubu the only thing was the video on the page while on youtube there are more boxes for distraction like a comments section, a related videos section, and lots of colors to draw you away from the video. The ubu didn't have other related videos listed so it made youtube seem more interactive.
Kaitlyn Murray
TA: Kate Brandt
I watched the YouTube music video for the Tom Petty song "You Don't Know How It Feels." I watched the UbuWeb Video "A Man and his Dog Out for Air" by Robert Breer. According to Huhtamo, "As [portable screens] they constantly cross the threshold between public and private, going where the users go."
Both sites feature the same basic presentation. The video players are essentially the same for both sites. Also, both offer a means for artists to feature work.
The differences are much more striking. YouTube videos are accompanied by ads and comments. The opportunity to download ringtones and "Broadcast Yourself" is not found on UbuWeb. UbuWeb is much more basic aesthetically, featuring only a white screen and the video player. YouTube bombards the viewer with advertisements and offers amateurs as well as professional artists the chance to exhibit themselves. UbuWeb features only artists have shown a high level of talent in their respective fields and have had their videos added by ardent fans. Ubu also features biographies of the artist, detailing their lives and the high points of their careers. YouTube features no such biographies, unless they are added by those uploading the video. In summation, both sites, though aesthetically different, offer the same premise: streaming art and video across the world.
Joseph Otterson
TA: Laura Bennet
Upon arriving to youtube.com I decided to click on one of the videos currently being played on the site. I picked the music video for T.I.’s song “Whatever You Like.” On the ubu.com site I came across a video entitled “Tree Dance” by Gordon Matta-Clark made in 1971 – a black and white silent film made in 16 mm. Both sites had a video screens approximately three by five inches with a time bar. On the YouTube site, however, there are advertisements for similar videos along with other distractions on the side of the page leading the viewer to continue watching more media. In addition, viewers on the YouTube site can post comments and even rate the videos. The YouTube site is much more about stimulating the viewer whereas the ubu.com site is a plain and bland way to view videos. After viewing both of these videos I have to agree with Wasson when he says that the quality of web video is extremely less than that of cinema or television. Wasson quotes “These films appear grainy, jerky, flat. Colour is washed. Focus is shallow. Background detail is lost and blurred to abstraction; foreground details also frequently appear fuzzy. Fast movements are likewise indistinct.” This quote definitely sums up perfectly the quality of both the videos.
Alison Korth
TA: Laura Bennett, Discussion Section 807
The videos that I chose to watch were Paul Gilbert's "Scarified" on youtube and the Oliver Lake Reunion on ubu.com. Both of these videos depict musical artists playing their music with a band on video. As far as aesthetics, these videos have few visual differences. They both feature the classic grainy online video visual that Wasson talks about. One notable difference between the two is that the Oliver Lake video is in widescreen, while Paul Gilbert's video is in full screen. Also the overall size of the Oliver Lake Video is much wider than the youtube video. The music is easy to hear in both of these videos but other sounds are harder to make out. Wasson directly refers to this audio phenomenon, "they (online videos) rely heavily on sound and music, yet often forego the tight coordination required for synchronized sound, particularly in the form of dialogue," (80). It is easy to hear the main music audio in these videos but quieter dialogue is harder to make out.
Ubu.com and youtube are very different websites. In ubu I find myself clicking on an artist and then looking at their videos. Youtube is much different. For youtube I often just search videos in the searchbar and then look at other videos similar to the ones I search. Although these two websites differ greatly, they both strive to make video content available to the masses.
After beginning with a video about the setlist for Rock Band 2 on YouTube, i eventually ended up on a favorite video of mine. It was the music video for Björk's "All Is Full of Love" directed by Chris Cunningham. This sudden change of pace led me to realize that I had been just clicking on related video's on the sidebar for over an hour, completely forgetting why I had been on in the first place. Upon further inspection, I realized that the video was not as good as i had remembered. What was once a bold, rich video that seamlessly blended cgi with real footage, now seemed lackluster. The quality was still decent, but things were not as clear and seemed "dwarfed...by the diminutive...screens on which they appear" (Wasson, 80).
On ubuweb, I decided to watch the documentary on Andy Warhol. It was a very grainy video, as it was originally recorded on VHS from a television program. This quality an be seen in many YouTube videos as well, not solely on ubu. The size of both videos is small, but on YouTube, it makes sense. We live in a very fast-paced world. Most people don't have the time to enlarge a video and watch te whole thing. When there are constant reminders on the side that there are millions of more videos you could be watching, people will change their minds halfway through a video. We live in an age with a short attention span.
Steven Ball
T.A. not sure of his name...we meet in room B49.
Before posting my blog response, I watched a Youtube video titled “Chad Vader”. On Ubu.com I watched a film titled “Dwellings” by Charles Simonds. After watching these videos on separate websites, there are many things that can be compared and contrasted about them.
First, both video displays are similar in the fact that they are rectangular, small in size, and contain a play pause button in the bottom left side of the player. They both have a progress bar as well. Youtube differs from Ubu.com because their video player has several more functions to it. For one, it has shows the running time of the video. It also shows related videos on the side of the video player.
I find that watching videos on Youtube can become distracting at times. I am always intrigued to read the comments, and scan through the related videos on the right hand side. On Ubu.com however, the layout is very simple and I had the ability to concentrate on the movie better. There are no big links or comments like Youtube. Instead, the page was simply the video player and a short description on the bottom.
The quote I have chosen is from Wassons article and it relates well to Youtube rather Ubu.com “…a vaguely cinematic and miniature frame littered with user controls: pause, fast forward, and play buttons, time and control bars, browser icons, indicators of connection speed, and memory remainders.” This is a great example of what Youtube appears to be. It is a point proving how much media has transformed and how our ability to control the playback in many different ways can change our perceptions on the media we watch.
Kyle Probst
The aspect ratio on the two sites are pretty similar however the screen on the UBUWEB site seems slightly bigger. The quality on the two web sites was pretty similar with a lot of artifacts present and a general lack of quality. This is in line with Wasson's description of Quicktime videos as "grainy, jerky flat. color is washed, Focus is shallow." The controls on both sites are pretty similar although the UBUWEB is a tad bit simpler which brings us to the main difference between the presentation of the two video hosting sites. The UBUWEB has a very clean and minimal presentation. Mostly you are just given the video along with a very brief amount of information bellow all pertaining directly to the video you are viewing. On the other hand YouTube is overflowing with information and most of it has only a loose connection to the video at hand. We are overwhelmed with different options of the site, information about the individual who uploaded the video and an assortment of other videos that may or may not be very similar to the video that you are watching. Because of these differences I feel that the UBUWEB site makes you focus much more at the piece on hand. Everything on the page draws your eyes to the video and there is no confusion as to why you are there. YouTube on the other hand has a very cluttered environment that tends to distract and take attention away from the video which is the supposed point of the site.
-Johnathon Olsen
TA: Kate Brandt
I watched 'Allee Willis presents Bubbles and Cheesecake "Editing Is Cool"' on YouTube and 'Captain Beefheart' by Anton Corbijn on UbuWeb. Both were similar in the small screen aspect. And both were also quite artistically creative pieces. The obvious difference that stood out were the difference in the playback quality. The YouTube short was quite pixilated and fuzzy, while the UbuWeb short retained some integrity of the original film. I could easily imagine myself sitting in a large auditorium viewing the latter. Another difference lies in the layout of the two sites themselves. YouTube is littered with ads, links, viewer comments, etc. while UbuWeb is incredibly minimal. "The tight sense of order and systematicity implied by the geometrical frame, the buttons, the time bars, and the corporate logos contradicts the blurred and unpredictable nature of the images inside" (Wasson, 88). I felt distracted by all the other implements of the whole computer screen, to the point where I found my eyes drifting away from the video I was watching. UbuWeb obviously wants none of that sort of distraction during the viewing of their shorts. In my opinion though, both have their virtues. I enjoy the minimalist nature of UbuWeb if I find myself wanting to fully engage in a particular film. And the charm of YouTube lies in it's ability to cater to a viewer who is not so serious about what they're watching, and also provides links to similar videos for further curious web surfing.
The video I watched on Youtube was a Free the Children promo video. It was a video informing its audience what the organization of Free the Children does and how they help change the world. The video I watched on UbuWeb was John Cage and Raashan Roland Kirk video called Sound?? (1966) it was a composition of a musician preforming several different instruments as many as three saxophones at once while mixing in different video clips with the music of the musician overlapping. It was interesting to see even upon entrance of the sites. Youtube has its featured videos and the ability to search for a particular video or subject whereas Ubuweb presented you with a list of the creators of the films and you would click on the link of a name and it would bring you to a description of the person and the links to their videos. When viewing the videos they had a very similar presentation a rectangle with the abilities to press play/pause and a time line showing the progress of the film towards the end with the ability to advance to any point in the film. They both also gave you the ability to adjust that particular films volume. When looking at the sites UbuWeb offers a large viewing screen for the film but lacks the time frame/clock of the video and the ability to view the movie at full screen. Both sites present their videos in a quality that Wasson recognizes as being presented pixelated and grainy. One large difference I noticed was on Youtube when a video ended it would bring up videos that may relate to the one you just video and the views of each one tempting you to continue viewing. This brings up what Wasson meant when he said, “Much of the World Wide Web is based on the logic of attraction. Flashing banners, slogans and logos try to persuade us to click…” thats what Youtube does from the moment you enter the site. It is covered with different ads and featured videos wanting you to explore the site and check out their sponsors. While Youtube is very well known in our society today for the ability for the common man to upload and share his works of film both sites strive to achieve a common goal among all video sites which is to allow its viewers to access them from home and present them to larger amounts of people all over the country or even world.
Zachery Holder
TA: Laura Bennett
oh yeah,
My TA is Steve Wetzel.
I decided to watch a video titled “The Old Prince Still Lives at Home” by the artist Shad. The second video that I watched was an excerpt from Paul McCarthy’s “Black and White Tapes.” Shad’s video is a video that uses the idea of the theme song to “Fresh Prince of Bel-Air”. The image quality of the video by Shad was a bit blurry when it was in its’ original screen, but became increasingly worse when enlarged to fit the full screen of the computer. It is easy to depict that it is a Quick Time video because the video, I believe that the quality of the images would be better if the computer’s software was more advanced. When watching McCarthy’s video its’ image quality was very low. Obviously a main reason for this is that the video was made in 1972 and quality of videos was not as advanced as it is today. Both video's are small and square, displaying images that appear flat.
When it comes to the sounds of each movie, however, they are very different. Shad’s audio is not only clear but holds its rhythm, and it remains synchronized to the video from start to finish. The McCarthy video does not seem to remain as rhythmic, but also seems to lose the synchronization of the video, though it is hard to tell because of the nature of the video.
Dan Schultz
TA Steve Wetzel
For this blog I had the pleasure of watching a crazy short film by an artist named Cheryl Donegan at the suggested website and then I sat through some short flick on Youtube about grilling a pizza. The Cheryl Donegan film, showed on UbuWeb was clearly a different film from the one I watched on Youtube but more fascinating were the websites themselves. Youtube, as we all know by this point is covered in adversiment and ratings for each film from the moment the web page loads. Ubuweb on the other hand is a rather plan screen featuring only a list of artists. Once i chose an artist her page came up with nothing but the titles of her works and their running times. On Youtube, "filmmakers" can create profiles for themselves like something straight out of myspace. After I chose a Cheryl Donegan film to view a new screen appeared with only a box for the film to be screened in a short description. On Youtube you have raitings and comments from anyone and everyone who would like to post one. In Haidee Wasson's discussion of IMAX and QuickTime, she makes a satement that really hit home to me after viewing these two websites. She states that "QuickTime...presents us with a kind of branded media". While I'm happy to say i didn't feel that the UbuWeb page was guilty of this, Youtube clearly is. The Youtube page smears it's name over ever corner it possibly can never allowing the viewer to really get into the film because they are not allowed to forget exactly where they found it.
Lisa Casper
Steve Wetzel
I watched Doo Wop Rally by jsjnordseth on youTube and Salvador Dali's "Hommage Raymond Roussel." Each film appeared different by their sizes. On UBU website, the video clip only has one size but I felt that the grainy is clearer and nicer. However, there is not any indication about the length of time or information about the video. There is information related to time on You Tube in the form of a timeline at the bottom of the screen while video you are watching. The rally video was made by Jens Nordseth and it is more of a personal home video. Home videos many times have a poor quality to them. This was the case for the rally video as well. The film had a very grainy appearance to it compared to what I saw on UBU. However the nice thing about you tube is that the viewer can be interactive with the video. For example I like that it is possible to change the screen sizes (regular or full), timeline as well as adding to the comment board.
UBU site is a site which does not allow any changes or feedback. As a viewer you are left. Personally, not being able to interact with the production or the producer is not all that interesting or very engaging for me.
According to Wasson, "the small size and the jerky, grainy qualities of moving-image texts are not new to visual culture" (p. 81). The type or degree of quality we see on internet, or any videos online, are grainy and jerky. It is not new for us to see this level of quality because of how we see pixels and how our brain interprets puts together what we see. It is because of our past experiences that our brain will fill in and make up for what a defect in reality is making us overlook the quality of films.
Another and somewhat important characteristic which I noticed is that UBU has captions/subtitles with some of the films. I thought it was nice to have captions
with the films so viewers with any type of hearing loss can understand what is going on. This would also be helpful if the sound is distorted or if there were any type of distractions.
Catie Eller
TA: Steve Wetzel
Both YouTube and Ubu offer short videos of just about anything you could think to view in a window about the size of an index card. They also offer a search engine to help you find videos related to the subjects you wish to view. However, because of the amateur nature of YouTube’s users, the keywords they select are sometimes obscure or incorrect. Ubu, it seems, has a more scholastic use causing the users to be more cautious of their keyword selection when posting a video. Even though Ubu is more refined, it could use the “related videos” feature that YouTube has.
Another difference between the two sites is the intent of the videos. The videos posted on YouTube are meant to be viewed on YouTube. The users are sharing videos of anything that interests them online for everyone to see. While many Ubu videos are films and documentaries meant to be see in the cinema. The convenience of viewing any video online allows the viewer have repeated viewings, and the chance to dissect the video for closer analysis. But, due to the poor quality of picture and sound with both sites this opportunity is futile. Regardless of quality, the value of these videos for educational purposes is enormous. Wasson states, “inasmuch as we can isolate these little films from the texts, controls, and marks of their corporate environment, they also invite a particular way of looking, one that has a complex and reciprocal relationship with ways of engaging with images not generally associated with cinema”. Few people will watch a Hollywood blockbuster and think to themselves “I can do that”. But, anyone who watches a video on YouTube or Ubu will find themselves thinking at some point “I can post something like that”.
Nathan Irish
TA: Kate Brandt
The viewing experience on Youtube and Ubu are both quite similar. On Youtube I watched a clip from the television show Live from Abbey Road and on Ubu I watched Ghosts Before Breakfast by Hans Richter. As stated by Wasson, both videos were “grainy, jerky, flat. Colour is washed. Focus is shallow. Background detail is lost and blurred…,” although the video from Ubu is from 1928 and the rough appearance of the film is understandable. The screen size for both sites is relatively the same size and shape and in the same general region on the page. The sound quality on Youtube is much clearer and sharper than that of Ubu though. The video color on Youtube is more vibrant whereas the colors on Ubu are dull.
The website formats also affect the viewing experience on either site. Youtube videos include descriptions of the videos, a list of links to related videos, and an interactive commentary box. This makes the website more informative and easy to use but is very busy and distracts from the actual video playing. The Ubu site is very clean and simple but very little information is given about the film. It also has a smaller amount of videos posted whereas Youtube has pages upon pages of videos uploaded.
Tanisha Richter
TA: David Witzling
On youtube I watched a Machinima Clip called Red vs. Blue: Reconstruction and on UbuWeb I watched a video from Skip Arnold called Punch. Both of the videos had a similar set up, functions of the player and size etc. I would say that both of these videos are similar because of the fact that they're not considered to be "conventional" videos. For example Red vs. Blue used a videogame to create its characters. They later add voice overs and create a story using the game engine. Punch on the other hand is a video of an artist being punched in the stomach. Both would be considered to be a little unconventional. Differences with the two websites are that on youtube the video plays immediately where as with UbuWeb the video does not. Youtube is also set up so to encourage the viewer to find their own videos search as they please. With UbuWeb it is assumed that the viewer already knows the artist they're looking for. Youtube is set up better for looking up random videos and is ultimately more user friendly. UbuWeb doesn't make searching for videos as accessable for someone who just wants to see some random videos.
Nick Aldrich
T.A. Steve Wetzel??? (We met in B49)
On Youtube, I watched "Lady Ice (work in progress)" by lpdisney, and on UbuWeb, "Balkan Baroque" by Pierre Coulibeuf. The two sites show video in very similar ways - the standard, tiny, interactive web-movie window, the not-so-great quality, and a bunch of "stuff" surrounding the window.
The differences between the sites' videos starts with the video player. YouTube's player was more cluttered, with larger, more prominent controls and buttons, and more of them. UbuWeb's player is simpler and more streamlined, allowing more focus to be placed on the video itself.
The second, and largest, difference is in all the "stuff" surrounding the video window. YouYube's site is cluttered, full, and busy with all sorts of comments, information, user options, and links to related videos. While it's very familiar and almost comforting, it also takes away from the seriousness and credibility of the video. It happens almost subconsiously, but it happens. UbuWeb's site, on the other hand, is very minimalistic, streamlined, and the word that comes to mind is stark. They give you the basic information, such as the artist, subject, synopsis, and a lot of artistic statements and analysis, but that's it. No clutter, no busy links and graphics surrounding the window. It makes it seem like the work being showcased here is serious art. There is, however, the odd graphic at the top of the page, of the woman with her eye being held open. I found that image, along with the almost militaristic black, white, and red color scheme, a bit distracting and disturbing. I think it took away from my focus on the video even more than all of YouTube's clutter did. Maybe that's because I'm used to the clutter, maybe the designers of UbuWeb meant it to be that way, I don't know.
Whatever the differences or similarities between the two sites, the videos being shown are heavily influenced by what is around them on the website, and even the fact that they are being shown on a website. As Wasson says, "Little web movies announce their aesthetic interpenetration and dependence on their mode of transport" (p. 87). We, as consumers, are so used to this form of watching movies that it is like second nature to us. We usually don't stop to think about how the method of showing actually does affect the viewing.
Bethany Davey
TA: Katherine Brandt
Kevin Witkowski
TA Steve Wetzel
I am very familiar with Youtube. The screen is about 4 inches wide on my screen and the quality is fuzzy and blurry or as Wasson said about quicktime, "Colour is washed. Focus is shallow. Background detail is lost and blurred to abstraction". I don't believe youtube uses quicktime but they do stream video just like it. Youtube does have options for the screen. If you wish, you can enlarge the picture to the entire computer screen but the quality is often to poor to make out what's going on. You can also adjust the volume to how you seem fit. Surrounding the image, there are ads for other videos, information about the person who posted the video, and a place to search for other videos.
UbuWeb has almost the identicle screen as Youtube. The size, quality and streaming speed seem the same to me. You can also change the volume like Youtube. However, you cannot change the size of the image. Surround the video is mostly whiteness with some words about the video below it. Both expierences of watching video on these sites were very similiar. The main difference would have to be the content but I won't go into that.
Kevin Witkowski
TA Steve Wetzel
Distributing videos on YouTube and ubu.com are but one example of a networked screen in today’s multi platform on demand culture. The ease of distribution offered by the internet increases the exhibition of various media. However, “distribution and exhibition of moving images is intimately tied to the material specificities of the networks though which they travel.” Thus, the image being broadcast is generally discolored, faded, pixilated, jerky, flat, blurred, and distorted in an attempt to compress and make the video available on many different screens. Quality of the video depends greatly on your media reader, computer specs, and connection. Furthermore, videos from both places like YouTube and Ubu.com were relatively small to cover for the loss in quality previously stated. The small scale of the videos not only distorts the original image, but also our perception of the piece itself. “Changes in size augment and subvert otherwise recognizable images and objects.” In addition, small images enact feelings of mastery, privacy, domesticity, and possession. By playing with the drama of scale the small video invites the viewer inward to observe.
The primary difference between the two sites was the environment in which the videos are displayed. Granted both are of small scale and poor quality from being streamed over the internet, the websites’ presentations are different. Ubu.com presents films in a database format, giving me only information to base my opinion of the video, whereas YouTube fosters a more public and commercialized feel. YouTube presents us with a branded cinema of logos and images of its brand omnipresent within the site. Furthermore, YouTube is a community in the way that it allows user feedback of videos to be posted and discussed. Opinions and interpretations of videos followed with little information are often swayed by opinions of others. In this way, internet videos are considered cinema as an object and as a system of distribution and exhibition.
[Garrett Katerzynske]
[Wetzel or Witzling]
(Sorry for confusion)
I chose to watch a video on UBU that was relevant to my film 116 class which we are dealing with sound. I found the video of a television broadcast showing John Cages 4'33''. This broadcast displays the first live orchestra demonstrates what John Cage had hoped for in experiencing a silence and listening to the sounds around the audience rather than the much more common playing of instruments. One size issue with the web screen I kept in my mind was that it seemed I should be watching television and the screen was too small. Other aspects the video included random shots of the composer and audience reaction. The television broadcast almost seemed to be an up-to-date with picture clarity, use of lighting, and sound quality. My second video on YouTube I came across completely by accident. It was titled Spiders on Drugs. It also seemingly came off as a documentary on a scientific study of the affects of drugs on spiders that was broadcasted on television. Though the image was blurry and sometimes had quick editing cuts, the sound quality was clear due to the narration of the video. The video was actually a spoof and turned out to be a joke about spiders on drugs, making fun of the spider’s behavior like the drugs stereotypically make humans behave. (Ex: THC made the spider lazy) The two videos are similar in the fact that sound is the main part of the video. Although in the 4'33'' video the lack of sound is what makes the video unique, the video about spiders using the sound narration to make the viewers realize the joke in the video. With no sound neither video would be recognizable for what they are meant to display. The reason both these videos become out of the ordinary is explained in the reading when Haidee Wasson explains that expansion of film has "...shifted our understanding of cinema away from a sacred and finite text towards an expanded system of overlapping relations." This quote explains of the filming of the documentary of spiders can be turned into the spoof it has become using the previously filmed video to create a new meaning with words. The same exists with the sound displayed via a television broadcast. It changes the results when you watch the performance on television or on the web because your location changes the performance itself. You hear different sounds depending on where you are and the television or web allows you to be in different locations watching the same performance. As far as the specific website, the only really obvious difference to me was the familiarity of YouTube, and feeling that I was going to find something an idiot decided to post online. On visiting UBU, a site I new nothing about, I expected to find film with meaning and a more elaborate use of film techniques seeing as not just anyone can post to it.
Matt Prekop-- TA Katherine Brandt
I watched “Ear to the Ground” by David Van Tieghem on UbuWeb and the music video for Radiohead’s “Motion Picture Soundtrack on Youtube.
When it comes to the layout and context of the two websites, they are very much different. Youtube is much more “user friendly.” You can look at related videos, see use comments, search for videos, look at different channels, and view stats about the video you are watching (such as the date added, user ratings and views). You can add the video to a playlist, post it to Facebook or My Space, email it to friends, or flag it for being inappropriate. UbuWeb, on the other hand, is much more basic. You simply click the name, then click the movie and it plays. The page displays the name, year, and creator of the video, as well as a brief discretion, and nothing more. UbuWeb seems satisfied at showing you just the video you are looking for, while Youtube wants you to stay and watch more.
While the two websites themselves might not have too much in common, the actual video’s options and qualities do. Both video layouts offer the same basic things: a play/pause button, a bar at the bottom showing how much time is left and how much has gone by, and volume control. Youtube has one additional feature that UbuWeb does not: fullscreen. When it comes to image quality, both sites have what we think of as “internet quality, which Wasson describes well: “[The films] appear grainy, jerky and flat. Color is washed. Focus is shallow. Background detail is lost… and foreground details also frequently appear fuzzy.” In full screen, the video on Youtube looked even worse, becoming extremely blurry.
William Ingebretsen
The video I chose to watch on UbuWeb was "Woah Woah Studio" by Cheryl Donegan, and I watched The "Potter Puppet Pals" on YouTube. Both of the videos were similar in size, they both had volume and playback control. They also shared the same poor video quality that most streamed videos are characterized by. The presentation of these websites where the videos were streamed were very different. The atmosphere at YouTube was relaxed, commercial and user-friendly. It has advertisements on the sides, a comment section, ways to share the videos, and similar videos, so that you can watch more stuff that you would like. UbuWeb was more formal, listing videos by artist and not by popularity. It also gave us a few paragraphs of background on both the artist and the video. The website was simple, not at all commercial. Both sites, though, have a similar purpose and a similar trend among the videos. They were created to share their videos and their views with the world. They were not meant to be on the big screen, they were made to be watched for free by everyday people. Wasson sums it up when he says, "They resolutely reject or make a mockery of realist conventions of cinematic perfection and the idea of pristine, invariable film texts. They achieve this with a vaguely cinematic and miniature frame littered with user controls," You could tell that both videos were made to simply entertain the masses cheaply and with no intention of "cinematic perfection."
Megan Linner
Val Danculovich
Film 115
TA K. Brandt
9/15/08
The importance of computers in today’s world has increased in the last few years. The ability to just sit at a desk, turn on your computer and find pretty much anything you want is amazing. What Wasson was talking about was the evolution of film on screen to film on VHS/DVDs. Previously, you had to go to a theater to see a movie or a documentary. With the explosion in technology, you are now able to rent films, buy them, or go on your computer, iPhone or MP3 player and download videos. After watching Francis Bacon; (on UbuWeb), an artist from England getting interviewed by a man from The South Bank Show in 1985, I learned that Bacon’s paintings were very provocative. When Bacon was being interviewed, he admitted that “Some people think my paintings are shocking.” His paintings display images of deformed people, death, and of people dying. My YouTube video was a short skit from SNL (Saturday Night Live) with Mike Myers, Madonna, and Roseanne Barr doing “Coffee Talk”. In the middle of the skit, Barbara Streisand makes a surprising appearance. In this assignment, I chose two very different forms of entertainment. One was more of a narrative, the focus of which was to inform the viewer about Bacon’s work. The second was a polar opposite meant to simply entertain. The point of this is that thanks to the tremendous technological advances, we are no longer tied to the theater chair. We can be entertained by sitting at our desk and choosing any number of entertainment options from movies to television shows to our neighbor’s independently produced videos of his son’s baseball game. We’re not even limited to a television screen. These images can now be enjoyed on a computer screen or even projected on a wall-size screen.
In his article "The Networked Screen: Moving Images, Materiality, and the Aesthetics of Size," Wasson states "screens persistently and actively shape the images they yeild and the experience of those who watch and listen to them" (76). I found this to be true while watching videos for this blog. I watched a video called "Flight of the Conchords Ep 12 Bret's Angry Dance" on YouTube and on UBUWEB I saw a video "Deutschland Dada, Part One". Both videos had about the same size viewing screens but the YouTube video had the option of entering a full screen. The picture will become larger however the quality won't be as good. The two videos were different in picture quality though. According to the website, "Deutschland" is a video from the year 1969 so obviously the picture quality isn't going to be as impressive as that of "Angry Dance" from 2007. While "Deutschland" was a little bit dull in color and grainy, "Angry Dance" is of a much better and clearer picture quality. The sites themselves also affect the way one views videos. Personally I find it much easier to watch videos on YouTube. While the content may not always be the best, I find it is easier to get around. With YouTube, there is usually a short, simple, straight forward description that goes along with each video. Also the viewer may get a sense of what they are going to be watching because there is a still image from the movie that goes along with it. On the UBUWEB, there is a long "wordy" description with each video. There is also no still shot from the film to know what it could be about.
Sara Nesbitt
Kate Brandt
For my clips, I chose a clip entitled ‘Garbage Day’ from the film “Silent Night Deadly Night 2” on YouTube, and a Willard Maas portrait of “Andy Warhol’s Silver Flotations” on UBU.com. Watching the video on YouTube, one can get easily distracted by all of the comments, other videos, users, tabs, and other things on the page. However on the UBU page, it was much cleaner and less cluttered, making the watching experience more relaxing, even though I watched both videos from the same exact seat only five minutes apart. When watching a video on YouTube, I am sure to continue watching more and more videos, since the page is encouraging me to everywhere I look. On the UBU page however, the only other thing to look at is a description of the video and a short biography of the film-maker. The websites have their similarities as well. As Haidee Wasson stated, “…Web films are contained by a very small box, requiring attention to the effects not only of scale distortion but also of frame size” (83). Both websites have videos that are about the same size, requiring you to squint ever so slightly to see the video. In the sense that you are going on to this website purely to watch videos, the pages are extremely similar.
Mark A. Scholbrock
TA: Kate Brandt
I watched a video titled "Some YoYo Stuff" on UbuWeb; then I watched "Damo Suzuki's Network in Sheffield UK" on YouTube.
The purpose of these two websites (UbuWeb and YouTube) is similar - they are designed to broadcast videos to the masses, for free. There are, however, significant differences. UbeWeb was made to display avant-garde films and other experimental projects. YouTube is capable of doing the same, but it is mostly crowded with home videos. In addition, YouTube focuses on quantity, not quality. Almost all videos are limited to ten minutes, so that the site can maintain the capacity to hold everybody's home videos... among other things of course.
The layouts of each website are also quite different. UbeWeb is about as simple as it can possibly be. There are no advertisements and no comments; it uses as few words on the screen as possible. YouTube is more colorful, and the video box is surrounded by recommendations and a comment section. Contrary to what I would have thought, however, there were no advertisements.
From a technical standpoint, neither of these websites provide great video or sound quality. Video that has been adapted from one medium - say, a VHS tape, or even a DVD - will inevitably lose quality when uploaded to a new medium... in this case, that medium is the internet. In her article, Haidee Wasson explains, "QuickTime links moving images - commercial and not - to visual forms previously confined to the experimental, artistic, and domestic realms: small screens, unstable images and sounds, and a hyper-sensitivity to temporal networks that are distinct from cinema's conventional 24-frames per second." The translations between media are obviously flawed. Watching old films on the internet is not quite the same experience as watching old films in their original medium. But it is interesting, and in a way exciting to see new art forms created specifically for new media such as the internet.
Kurt Raether
TA: Steve Wetzel
For this question, I decided that in order to focus on the "screen" and not so much the actual content of the video, I would screen two pieces of similar style. For the Ubu.com video I chose "The Human Face is a Monument" by Stan VanDerBeek, and for my YouTube video I watched a portion of the Russian art film "Stalker." Both are pretty experimental and non-flashy. The space around the two, however, was quite different. On YouTube, there are advertisements everywhere, flashing and distracting. On Ubu.com, there is a very simple design with no ads, just plain white surrounding the video (at least the one I saw, I realize some are in different places). The Ubu.com video was also much higher quality, both in sound and picture. The YouTube video directed me to other pieces by similar artists, whereas the Ubu.com one did not. I feel like YouTube is much more of an exhibitionist website, whereas Ubu.com is more of a sharing site, if that makes any sense. YouTube tries to bombast you with images and videos under the pretense of “sharing,” but all it really does is aid you as you mindlessly click from one video to the next. “The banners have taken the role of the showman,” says Huhtamo on page 71 of the course reader, “and the coin has been replaced by a credit card transaction.” I feel as if YouTube is very advertising-driven, and Ubu.com is more of a community of artists, sharing their work.
Eric Grycan
TA: Steve Wetzel
Sorry I forgot to do this.
I watched a video on UBUWEB called "Corridor" and my youtube pic is the music video for Spanish rock band Avantgarde's "Get Down." Corridor was a good surrealist flicker film. There was a lot of actual speed long corridor tracking shots and I thought I was going to have a seizure. It was shot on 16mm and had a high contrast look. The size of the screen was small quicktime sized internet video. "Get Down" had the look of an older sepia film with a lot of film artifacts that were consciously manufactured in post. The screen size was similar to corridor but this one was a 16:9 aspect ratio to Corridor's 4:3. In comparing thee two videos I thought of when Wasson stated "on a television, IMAX screens hold no promise of engulfment." The thing the UBUWEB video has that the youtube vid does not is on a larger screen, Corridor would hold up visually and immerse the viewer whereas the music video would not.
In the article written by Wasson titled "The Networked Screen: Moving Images, Materiality, and the Aesthetics of Size", she described how the screen that is used to present different types of images affects our perception and interpretation of those same images. She explained how "Screens are not autonomous forces but intimate consorts of specific material and institutional networks. Their shape, size, control buttons, and positioning reflect the logics of the systems and structures that produce and sustain them." This part of Wasson discussion of screens seems particularly describing of websites such as Youtube and UbuWeb: Film and Video. The layout of Youtube seems to encourage the sharing of opinions about the videos and their content a lot more that UbuWeb. I watched Tender Forever's music video "Magic of the Crashing Stars" on Youtube and on UbuWeb I watched Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster's piece called "Parc Central-Rio de Janeiro ". Both videos were of similar quality meaning that they offered similar amounts of clarity in their images. By their layout, features and presentation, it can be inferred that both Youtube and UbuWeb are intended to be used for different purposes and by different people.
Marisela Rodriguez-Gutierrez
TA: Steve Wetzel
Sorry Above ^
Kyle E Smith
Lauren's Section
The videos I chose to watch were; A piece by music artist Banksy called “The Punking of Paris Hilton” on Ubu, and on YouTube, a short film titled Warlord. Content aside the presentation on these two sites were vastly different. YouTube is supersaturated with pop-culture and it is evident in it’s display, related videos, featured videos, large obnoxious control buttons, and connections to a dozen other social networks where we can easily tell the world exactly how many stars we’ve given the newest Vlog. In stark contrast is the layout of Ubu, which feels almost like perusing the video catalog of a museum or art collection, with its archaic list format of artists and its simple Quicktime video playback. As to how the layout affects the media we watch, the simplicity of the Ubu lends itself well to a focus on the video at hand, whereas the complex layout of YouTube creates distractions, as if to suggest that we could possibly process more things at once while attempting to watch a video. The enticing option of what to watch next, and who to tell about it create an atmosphere almost completely unrelated to the content of a video, and more contingent on the community surrounding it. This is corroborated by Wasson when she says, “Streaming cinema offers moving images that are themselves constantly changing because of the fitful networks of which they are a part and on which they wholly depend”
Zach Erdmann
TA Kate Brandt
In preparation for this blog I watched a video on UbuWeb called Sunstone by Ed Emshwiller, then I watched a video on Youtube named Zorb Fall. The presentation of the clips on both sites is fairly similar. They both show the video in a small square box with some options for video playback at the bottom. Youtube had many more features at the bottom of the video such as a full screen button and a clock which displayed the video duration. Youtube also had a lot more options directly underneath the video. The options included rate, share, and comment, among others. This layout contrasts UbuWeb's layout drastically. The layout on UbuWeb was much more sparse than on Youtube. The overall website was extremely different, but fitting for the style of videos being viewed. The Youtube page was very in your face with lots of options and video reccomendations. It was designed so that someone could go on and spend hours watching useless videos. On the other hand, the UbuWeb page was very simple. All It had was alist of links to different directors, then their films. There were no UbuWeb friends, requests, most watched, related videos, usernames, highest rated, or comments like on Youtube. Both of these websites make these videos readily available to us, or as Wasson says it,"We envelop it, hold it in our hand, survey it all in a quick glance.
Nick LaVake
T.A. Laura Bennett
ubuweb seems to be a an archive of films that take a very artistic perspective on filmmaking. Youtube is different in that it has a large mixture of film and video that is meant to entertain on so many different levels than just the artistic experimental side of filmmaking. Both websites are hit or miss as far as quality, but Youtube tends to have better video quality whereas ubuweb is a compilation of video collections that date as far back as the early 20th century. On UbuWeb I watched Andy Warhol's Factory and John Lennon's Happy Birthday both of which were very interesting accounts of the artists mind as it related to art and film. It was also interesting to me to see that both of these great artists had a similar style in filmmaking which was very unconventional as it would compare to the mainstream. I would say that both of the artists were "Underground" filmmakers and probably didnt expect to be recognized by mainstream cinema. On Youtube I watched a film called "Noah Takes a picture of himself for 6 years." The piece by Noah Kalina is a six year project in which Noah photographed himself every day while keeping the same emotionless face. The video runs for about five minutes and forty five seconds. Noah started the project in january of 2000 and released the video in 2006. He has continued everyday since the video was released and plans to do so until the day he dies. Noah is a classic youtube born internet sensation.
I watched the music video "Hoppipolla' by Sigur Rós on youtube, and a film by Michael Gordon on UbuWeb. They were both muscial performances, but the youtube video was presented in a more narrative way, while the Gordon piece was live with less imagery. The youtube video had a better overall quality, as it was probably made to be seen on television. The other film had more of a private viewing feel, as though being seen in a gallery or concert hall. This is true for the presentation of the sites as well. Youtube is certainly a more interactive setting; viewers are able to leave comments with their thoughts on the video. It has a more relaxed and casual vibe, while UbuWeb's setup makes you more aware that the film you are viewing is indeed art. The layout is more organized and there's more information about the artist and their piece. Also on youtube, there are links to other videos of the same nature, making it easy to jump from video to video. With UbuWeb, it seems you have to be looking for something in particular.
I chose to watch M Henry Jones’ Unknown 1 on www.ubu.com and Stars’ Your Ex-Lover Is Dead on www.youtube.com. These two videos are very similar because they are both being distributed to the masses on a website used solely for watching and uploading video.
Stars’ video is much simpler and visually appealing than Jones’, which is the opposite of the websites they are on.As Wasson points out in The Networked Screen: Moving Images, Materiality, and the Aesthetics of Size, “Distribution and exhibition networks shape the cultural life of any given film or group of films, sending cameras but also spreading their products-images-over vast expanses of geographic space and time, linking centre to periphery then to now. Watching a video on YouTube makes it feel less like art and more like pop culture, even though Stars’ video is much classier and artistic in my opinion. The other website doesn’t have as much clutter or any advertisements, which allows the viewer to concentrate more on the film than what’s present on the rest of the website.
Heidi Sherwood
I chose to watch "Ear to the Ground" by David Van Tieghem on ubu. I realized quickly that even though both youtube and ubu have very similar ideas and concepts to there websites they are very different. On ubu it is a place for experimental and independent films. When looking through the list of film makers I only recognized maybe five names. Also on ubu I was unable to find a spot where you can upload videos. Where as on youtube they are almost begging you to upload your videos. There tag line is even "Broadcast Yourself". Anyone and everyone can upload videos onto youtube. The video I chose to watch on youtbe was "Fortune Teller". This video was essentially a waste of my time which is what I think about many of the videos on youtube. Basically because anyone can upload anything. It is also near impossible to find a certain video unless you know its exact title.
Now I feel as if both sites have the same quality to there videos. Ubu's screen size is slightly bigger than youtubes. Although on youtube you are given the option to enlarge the screen. Most times on youtube you don't want to enlarge the screen because then it will just make it more pixels than it already is. The picture quality and sound quality aren't that good on either website. However this is one way how media is being delivered to us now. I think it is an overall convenient way but not the best viewing way.
I watched a film converted to video on ubu.com it was about an art project that involved human risk water and a hot electrical wire. The video experience on Ubu.com was very personal and dedicated to the film. There were no other links on the site the video played on, which gave the video a more personal and exclusive feel.
Youtube is the exact opposite, there are promotional ads and links to other sites and other videos, being on yourtube is an experience because they try to entice you to stay on the site as long as possible, “This basic situation provides opportunities for multiple modalities of experience.” The website feeds you knew ideas before the video your watching is done. The number of views, ratings and comments around the video take away from the videos exhibition value. The viewer knows how many other people have seen the video and it takes away from the personal aspect of the video.
Nick Edmonds
TA: Kate Brandt
The video I watched on YouTube compared to the one I watched on Ubuweb were very similar yet very different. Some of the similarities that both videos had were that they both involved animals. "Narcoleptic Cat," the video I watched on YouTube, centers around a narcoleptic cat who randomly falls asleep while the Ubuweb video "Le Vampire" involves random clips of various animals like squid, gerbils, bats, ticks, etc. The differences are that one is in color and one is not. "Narcoleptic Cat" is a comedy video, while "Le Vampire" is more of an artsy film. "Le Vampire" is in black and white and is very tantalizing. It seemed to take more time to develop than "Narcoleptic Cat." The websites are completely different. Ubuweb is obviously more organized and has more videos with value. Although YouTube has some fascinating things, videos can be uploaded by anyone. Many of them are completely pointless. Like Wasson said, "One way to understand some of the changes digital technologies have brought to moving-image culture is to think about the ways in which streamed Web films index a distinct kind of networked cinema." YouTube and Ubuweb both bring video to the web for easy access.
Derek Reilly
Aesthetics is defined as "the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste," (wikianswers) This can be seen on both Youtube and UbuWeb. Both present movies made by people so that they can be enjoyed by all. Yet UbuWed seemed to have a high quality in the appearance of there videos. Yet the sound quality on Youtube seemed better. I watched A film by the name of Larry Jordan and it was an animation that was very artistic but had poor sound quality of someone playing the piano. On Youtube I watched a video called Mainstream Media Commercial which was done by a comedian and was a satire on how mass media affects us, and his sound quality was excellent.
When it comes to the presentation of the video the two sites have a similar format yet are thought of in different contexts. When I went onto UbuWed, the site seemed professional and I expected to see a professional looking video. Yet when a person logs onto Youtube, you might think to yourself that he videos you find are going to be comical and poor quality. It is also different way of thinking about the videos them selfs. And because of this these videos are not thought of as films but are "forcing a new deffiniton of cinema" Meaning that because of these videos we have to redefine what cinema is, to include these videos made by everyday people and not just Hollywood or independent companies.
Kate
I chose People Like us "A Story Without An End" from the ubu site and An Old Betty Boop Clip "Ha Ha Ha" Both of the films had an old school feel to them. The Betty Boop Cartoon was from the 30's so much of it centered around that time frame and the ubu video centred around the 50's educational film type of theme. Both films featured a significant amount of still images and animationas well as motion pictures in them, sometimes in the same scene. They also had very upbeat and kind of dream like soundtracks. In the “Story without an Ending” clip, the entire film was a constant variety of color; some scenes were in color others in black and white or both at a time. The grain affect wasn't too obvious but you could see it the most when newer images or scenes would be presented. The screen was medium in size, with a thin border around the perimeter. It was big enough to see what's happening and understand the concept of the film, but I wasn’t able to view it in full screen . In the Betty Boop clip the grain was more apparent, especially once I put in the full screen mode. When it was in full screen mode however, the images were slightly distorted. The entire clip was in black in white with a few images of actual pictures and footage of real people. Both websites provide the host with a variety of options of films/ short clips. The difference between the two is that the ubu website seems to focus more on film and art and serves as more of a movement for art while You tube is pretty broad; from porn type videos and music videos to old cartoons and foreign commercials. The ubu website didn't allow me to view any clips I pre-viewed in full screen, however the quality of the pictures in most clips I glanced at were pretty good. Youtube has a little bit of everything, some clips are clear and others are blurry or of very poor quality."One way to understand some of the changes digital technologies have brought to moving-image culture is to think about the ways in which streamed Web films index a distinct kind of networked cinema"(Wasson, p.81) Which is the case with both websites which each have their own community emerging from them. You can post your ideas and clips of your own on both sites causing a community and maybe even lifestyle to take place by interacting with others on an international level.
Venise Watson (this is a repost because i forgot to add my TA's name last week)
Steve Witzling
Post a Comment