Why no videotaping at shows?

[tugmoose]

I like it when I'm in the same shot with Zooey Deschanel.

 

 

I like it when I'm in the same shot with Neko Case.

 

[Chinese Apple]

Isn't that what this thread is about, someone not being able to tape their experience for later reflection.

 

 

Meanwhile, while autoethnography may be a new thing (it sounds sort of bogus to me...), what is not new is autobiography, which is basically the same thing and is suspect as well, but terribly entertaining and enlightening about someone's state of mind.

 

 

Wanted to clarify, for the record:

 

I started this thread NOT to justify reliving my own concert experiences through badly made videos, but because I find it interesting to look at other people's badly made videos.

 

The main difference between autobiography and auto-ethnography is, if members of Wilco make a video about Wilco, or a fan films him/herself (not Wilco), that would be autobiography.

[gogo]

Back on topic, I think people that video at concerts are sadly missing the whole point of the concert experience. IMHO the videoing is another example of our "look at me" society, the majority of videoers just want to "prove" they were there, so I don't think it's anything to do with them making a record of the concert experience at all.

I think that that was part of the point that the OP was making, or it's how I understood some of his point, anyway. Not that the videos allow anyone to relive the concert experience (or experience it second-hand, for viewers that weren't there). Part of the interest from an "autoethnography" viewpoint is in what these people have chosen to record, and to post. It's telling us something about our culture that this group of people feels the need to have this public record of their attendance at these events.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Exactly. Their attendance is more important than the quality of their personal experience, because the cultural currency is not the experience but the proof for many videotapers.

 

As for which generation is most self-absorbed, I think it's kind of a transparent argument to be having on a message board where all of us, regardless of age, think our input is important enough for everyone else to see. And I would like one person on the board to truthfully admit that the majority of their thoughts each day do not revolve around themselves, their well-being, and the well-being of those things and people they cherish. Like I said, I think the youngest generation's obsession with posting has more to do with peddling in the contemporary cultural currency than an uptick in self-absorption.

[Dude]

Like I said, I think the youngest generation's obsession with posting has more to do with peddling in the contemporary cultural currency than an uptick in self-absorption.

 

I wonder if narcissism doesn't play a small role in that. The fact that people are willing to be lowered into a vat of live insects, or willingly break the law and instruct their children to lie about being in (or not being in) a weather balloon, all in an effort to get themselves on national television says something about our times. Whatever makes people hungry for notoriety and attention surely feeds into their need to share so much of themselves and their experiences on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

[Sir Stewart]

I wonder if narcissism doesn't play a small role in that. The fact that people are willing to be lowered into a vat of live insects, and willingly break the law and instruct their children to lie about being in a hot air balloon, all in an effort to get themselves on national television says something about our times. Whatever makes people hungry for notoriety and attention surely feeds into their need to share so much of themselves and their experiences on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

As a comment about our times, I think it's just as important to recognize that people can get themselves on national television by doing these things. Which came first, the exploiter or the exploited?

[Dude]

As a comment about our times, I think it's just as important to recognize that people can get themselves on national television by doing these things. Which came first, the exploiter or the exploited?

 

True, there is a definite appetite for it. We're both a society of voyeurs and exhibitionists. Clearly both groups get something out of the transaction.

[MattZ]

As a comment about our times, I think it's just as important to recognize that people can get themselves on national television by doing these things. Which came first, the exploiter or the exploited?

 

Agreed wholeheartedly. To take it a step further, I also question who is being exploited. The person being dropped in a vat of insects? Or the viewer?

[Guest Speed Racer]

willingly break the law and instruct their children to lie about being in (or not being in) a weather balloon, all in an effort to get themselves on national television

 

A perfect example of an older generation doing something equally stupid as anyone in this generation. Same goes for the White House party-crashers, or any reality star over 35. This behavior is far more a sign of technology at our disposal than it is the age of the people who participate in it.

[Guest Speed Racer]

To take it a step further, I also question who is being exploited. The person being dropped in a vat of insects? Or the viewer?

 

I don't think any consenting adults are being exploited at all. Is a viewer better off watching a scripted sitcom than they are a (scripted) reality show? Many people appear on reality shows (a Bachelor show, let's say) never to be heard from again. Those who have a brief brush with fame and want more find a way to market themselves. Those who don't want to be marketed cease peddling themselves, in those instances where a taste of fame leaves a bad taste in their mouths.

[Dude]

A perfect example of an older generation doing something equally stupid as anyone in this generation. Same goes for the White House party-crashers, or any reality star over 35. This behavior is far more a sign of technology at our disposal than it is the age of the people who participate in it.

 

Yeah, I never considered it a generational thing, but I do wonder if it's the technology or if its the methods we use to seek attention and validation in this culture even if there is a risk we'll be exposed and be branded an idiot by all of society.

[MattZ]

I don't think any consenting adults are being exploited at all. Is a viewer better off watching a scripted sitcom than they are a (scripted) reality show? Many people appear on reality shows (a Bachelor show, let's say) never to be heard from again. Those who have a brief brush with fame and want more find a way to market themselves. Those who don't want to be marketed cease peddling themselves, in those instances where a taste of fame leaves a bad taste in their mouths.

 

I only have the energy to engage in long back and forths with you in one thread at a time. Let's just say that an argument can be made (not saying I am making it, just that I think about it) that we are wired to want the worst of everything (lowest common denominator), and we are marketed to as such. Not saying that TV stations have any moral obligation -- just that McDonald's really does add shit to their burgers to make you want to eat them even though they kill you.

[Guest Speed Racer]

we are wired to want the worst of everything (lowest common denominator), and we are marketed to as such.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you at all in this respect. I just don't see what it matters, so long as it's our leisure time to do with as we please. I think the morality of low-brow entertainment is a total non-issue, especially compared to fast food.

[gogo]

I only have the energy to engage in long back and forths with you in one thread at a time.

I barely have the energy to read all the back-and-forths between you two.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Yeah, I never considered it a generational thing, but I do wonder if it's the technology or if its the methods we use to seek attention and validation in this culture even if there is a risk we'll be exposed and be branded an idiot by all of society.

 

There are always people who have sought out fame and validation in the face of complete cultural embarrassment, but the audience is just larger now. More interesting are the people who do seek to specifically embarrass themselves as the easiest route to fame and validation.

 

What I don't quite understand is my personal fascination with celebrity news. I don't own a television, rarely see new movies, and everything I do watch tends to be filled with people who aren't covered in celebrity news. I have only heard of most of these people through celebrity news sites, have never seen or heard any of their work, and yet I visit several sites daily to keep track of news. Even the juiciest of stories don't compel me to seek out the work of any of these celebrities. I guess it's about as worthwhile as following sports scores, especially insofar as the ability it gives me to participate at the metaphorical water cooler, but I have no idea why it interests me so much.

[Dude]

I guess it's about as worthwhile as following sports scores, especially insofar as the ability it gives me to participate at the metaphorical water cooler, but I have no idea why it interests me so much.

I'm guilty of it also, its rubbernecking basically, and the better stories tend to be the ongoing car crashes like the bald, lunatic Britney / Lilo / Brangelina /Tiger Woods / Casey Anthony / etc. It's hard to turn away from lives that are spiralling out of control

[Guest Speed Racer]

That's exactly how I got into it. I was in Austria when Britney lost control in 2005, the month she shaved her head and all that. The saga was unfolding in real-time for me because of the time difference (her 3am was my morning coffee time, if I recall), and I was glued to Popsugar.

[gogo]

Last summer, my mom and sisters in I were in Mendocino for a few days, and my mom couldn't take the quaintness of it all, so we drove to a crappy nearby town to find a supermarket and buy trashy magazines. The woman at the check-out counter said to us, as she scanned our stuff: "Michael Jackson died. And Farrah Fawcett. I haven't been telling everybody that, but since you're buying The Enquirer...".

[Guest Speed Racer]

In Berlin a few years back, my sister and I were taking a photo outside the hotel where Michael dangled his baby, just for fun, when we noticed a whole mess of people at the end of the block. We got on the U-Bahn a few minutes later (where, bless their hearts, the lovely city officials in Berlin have televisions cranking out celebrity news 24 hours a day) and found out we were taking that photo while Brangelina was making its worldwide debut as a couple, right across the street from us. It was very meta.

[Dude]

I forgot to add Octomom, Jon & Kate and of course Jackson's death (and life) to that list. Yee gads, what a year.

[Analogman]

Last summer, my mom and sisters in I were in Mendocino for a few days, and my mom couldn't take the quaintness of it all, so we drove to a crappy nearby town to find a supermarket and buy trashy magazines. The woman at the check-out counter said to us, as she scanned our stuff: "Michael Jackson died. And Farrah Fawcett. I haven't been telling everybody that, but since you're buying The Enquirer...".

 

Mendocino

[Chinese Apple]

I'm guilty of it also, its rubbernecking basically, and the better stories tend to be the ongoing car crashes like the bald, lunatic Britney / Lilo / Brangelina /Tiger Woods / Casey Anthony / etc. It's hard to turn away from lives that are spiralling out of control

 

When I interned at a major network news magazine show a few years ago, I researched potential stories and wrote up pitches. They told me that the best stories (for ratings) were "when bad things happen to the rich or the beautiful."

 

Story pitches about bad/sad things that happened to ugly, poor people would be shot down, and never make it to air. Some stories about good things happening to poor people were OK'ed, but not if they were distractingly unattractive.

 

I went into TV hoping to make good TV, but in the end, the ratings trumped superior content. We can't simultaneously blame (verbally) and reward (with our eyeballs) people for making what we like to watch in a capitalist/democratic system.

 

I've also lived in countries where the government made TV, and it was all propaganda, all the time. That was poor in content and entertainment value. Where there IS a choice, I blame the viewers for bad TV.

 

So, I blame myself, for people videoing at Wilco shows then putting them on youtube, because, dang, I love watching it.

[Dude]

I've also lived in countries where the government made TV, and it was all propaganda, all the time. That was poor in content and entertainment value. Where there IS a choice, I blame the viewers for bad TV.

 

So, I blame myself, for people videoing at Wilco shows then putting them on youtube, because, dang, I love watching it.

 

True, and to get back to the fast food analogy, we can ultimately blame ourselves for making the McEmpires so huge and powerful. As MattZ says, McDonalds adds shit to their burgers to make us want to eat them, but we as a society made McDonalds the global monstrosity it is, and gave it every tool and incentive necessary to make their food the most streamlined, processed and the most addictive with little regard for their customers health, what they are doing to US agriculture or the environment.

 

At the end of the day, it is the consumer who shapes his destiny, and if there is a ton of low-brow entertainment, food and products out there, it is because we love them and demand them.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Again, I would hold the fast food industry to a higher standard than the entertainment industry simply because we NEED to eat. Leisure time is great, but we need no aspect of the entertainment industry to ensure our survival as individuals. The way the fast food business model works - to provide the cheapest, fastest food possible - undermines the way we nourish ourselves by providing a cost-viable (but certainly not nutrient-viable) alternative to cooking food from scratch.

[Dude]

Again, I would hold the fast food industry to a higher standard than the entertainment industry simply because we NEED to eat. Leisure time is great, but we need no aspect of the entertainment industry to ensure our survival as individuals. The way the fast food business model works - to provide the cheapest, fastest food possible - undermines the way we nourish ourselves by providing a cost-viable (but certainly not nutrient-viable) alternative to cooking food from scratch.

 

We need to eat, but we have a pretty wide range of choices to choose from and have over the years, including fast food, supermarkets, ma and pa owned restaurants, etc. We overwhelmingly chose fast food, due to the taste, the convenience and the low cost, but we could have made other choices, it wasn't our only option. Just like we can choose to watch a wide variety of programming, some semi-educational, but often choose entertaining crap, hence inspiring the entertainment business to make more entertaining crap to satisfy our demands, and so forth and so on.