I didn't make him for you!

[gwyn]

There's this thing I've wanted to talk about since Vividcon, but after the fan fracas took over any discussion of the con, I just decided to keep my yap shut for a while because it feels like anything about it will fan flames. I have a lot I wish I could say about the overreactions I saw, about the language people used and the conclusions so many people jumped to, but I'm just going to focus on one area that I know a lot about because I think it needs clarifying.

Vid review panels are not for the vidders. They never have been.


There. See, a number of con reports I read exclaimed against the fact that things people say in the review panel on Sunday morning aren't helpful for the vidders, and how much they hate those comments, etc. etc. There was even a bingo game played surreptitiously (which many of my friends engaged in, to my dismay) where you got to mark off cliche comments the audience makes during the panel, I guess because those comments get aired every year and they don't help the vidders.

Review panels for Saturday night vid shows aren't necessarily a fandom-wide thing. At fan cons with vids, historically the vid programming fell into two camps -- vid contests and vid shows. Award winners at the contest-having cons were often announced at Sunday morning panels or breakfasts. But there were always fans running cons who don't like contests, and they simply presented vid shows, erasing the competition factor (because let's face it, in fandom, competitions aren't really competitive, they're often popularity contests or fandom du jour contests). Review panels came about because people wanted to discuss the vids and what they thought of the shows. How that helped or didn't help a vidder wasn't really part of the conversation; it was about the audience having a chance to discuss these things in lieu of any awards or honors.

That's a huge simplification, but it helps to put some of this in context for new fans who know nothing about the history of cons and vidding. Cons generally have fallen into a couple different categories, and what people think of as fan-run cons (see this page at Fanlore for a good introduction to cons) tend to focus on fan-created entertainments as a highlight or one of the highlights of the weekend. Many of the most well-known ones started at a time without the Internet to communicate with other people who wanted to go; there certainly wasn't computer vidding, and fanfic appeared in zines that were sold at dealer's tables (or frequently under the table, literally, if it was slash). You couldn't just get started in fandom by clicking a button or searching -- often you needed to know someone or go someplace where you could find out about fandom in general before you ever got to the specifics of fanfic, vids, etc. Vids were most often obtainable only on tapes of fannish con vid shows or contests -- few vidders put out their own collections (speaking from experience, it was quite an ordeal putting together vid tape collections and you were lucky if you could make back the high costs of getting them out to people). It was a lot easier to let the con do it for you!

A lot of cons feature entertainment other than a vid show -- SF cons often have masquerades or costume shows, some historically held plays or filking as their primary entertainment. But as vidding grew (slowly) as a source of fannish entertainment and more people were able to do it using emerging and cheaper technology -- and this encompasses everything from the first home VCRs to the first editing-specific tape decks to Hi-8 to computers -- vid shows became more popular because they were easier to put together. Back in the VCR days and in the early days of computer vidding, people brought their tapes (later discs) to the shows, so breaks between songs were a natural occurrence. Escapade already had instituted a vid review panel for attendees to talk about the vids, but they decided in the mid-'90s to utilize the breaks by creating comment sheets for the viewers to write quick notes about the vids.

Comment sheets were for the vidders. We used to gather round after the show in some common space or someone's room and read the comments people left for us, resulting in hurt feelings, anger, extreme happiness, pride, laughter, and mocking. It was Escapade comment sheets that gave us immortal vidding lines like "nice use of vid clips." But a lot of the audience felt like, as the comment sheets got more complicated and larger, they were in school taking some kind of 30-second test in between each vid, and gradually comment sheets faded away, from both audience malaise and vid show comm antipathy. I worked on the vid show comm at Escapade, and spent way too many hours putting them together, collecting and organizing them, and reading comments designed to be cruel and cutting, with nothing redeeming for the vidder at all. Many of my friends loved them, but I grew to hate them, though I confess I do miss reading some of the loopier, funnier comments.

A lot of that commentary slack has been taken up by vid show reports in LJ and whatnot. It's definitely not the same environment and if people aren't on your flist, or linked from a community, you may never have the chance to see those comments and pick up feedback on your vid. But few cons offered anything like the comment sheets anyway (I think Zebracon did once, but otherwise, I really don't know of another con like Escapade that used such a tool; if you do, please let me know). The general feeling was that the vidders would get personal comments at the con, and if there were awards or review panels, they could go to those and hear stuff. But neither were designed to provide in-depth feedback; if you wanted that, you had to look elsewhere.

I've run vid review panels before at Escapade and this past year co-modded with jarrow, and I generally try to be pretty honest and straightforward about my feelings on vids. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, and I also try to focus on the vid rather than make assumptions about a vidder or decide I know what the vidder's intent is, but I say what I think. I do that because I believe that as the audience, we have the right to talk about the vids and say what we think -- if a vid has been made public, in any kind of venue, then it is fair game for discussion and critique. OF ANY KIND. Now, I'm not advocating some of the nastiness I see people engage in, and attacking a work simply because they can. But if you put it out there, then it will be talked about, and you have to prepare yourself for that.

That said, it's important to realize that most of the time, the audience in a show like this is not talking about it for your benefit or with you in mind. At some con review panels, they won't know if the vidder is there or not. They're talking about their impressions, their feelings, and they're not providing a critique to the vidder. They're not reviewers, but they are reviewing their impressions about the vids. If we as vidders are in the audience and taking away the feedback, that's fine -- after all, vidders so rarely hear anything about their work that it's like finding gold nuggets in their Honey Nut Cheerios: here's an audience in one place, talking about what they liked or didn't like in a vid, in great detail. 's wonderful, 's marvelous! This year, I found the discussion about my Mad Men vid utterly fascinating and people said things I never would have expected, but they weren't saying them for my benefit. I got to take home some of the cool comments and pet them, but I looked to post-con review comments for more detail, for information that may have offered me more to learn from and grow.

Not every vidder wants to learn and grow. While that disappoints me personally, I know that's not what motivates everyone, and I have to accept that a lot of people just come to a vid review panel to hear what they hope will be nice comments. However, people in the audience may be critical, and for vidders or attendees to lament the cruelty of comments that "don't help the vidder" is missing the point of these gatherings. It could just as easily be awards for a contest, where you're not going to hear anything except who won "best humor vid" and it's a vid you thought was lousy and decidedly unfunny when your own was the biggest ROTFLfest to hit vidding in decades.

Another side effect of griping over the comments in a vid review panel and whether they are/aren't helpful to a vidder is that it quashes discussion. John and I were adamant about not seeing the same hands during review this year; I think in large part that helped encourage some folks who were timid about saying anything initially. But when someone posts a great big rant about people who compare a new vid to a prior vid made to the same song or turns a comment like that into a mocking entry in a sekrit bingo game, future audience members will be a lot less likely to participate in the discussion, and then everyone loses.

Vidders are probably already filtering out what they don't want to hear at a review panel anyway, and non-vidders tend to self-censor primarily because they aren't vidders, feeling they don't have anything valid to say. This is something I've been battling against my whole time on LJ, and for a large part of my fannish life. I think everyone has something to say and it doesn't matter whether they're a vidder or a writer or an artist or whatever. Consumer opinion is as valid as producer opinion. If we believe that vid review has to become a tool for giving the vidder what they want and thus censor comments that aren't helpful to a vidder, then we all lose, because those people who won't speak up since they're "just a consumer" are lost to us completely. Deriding their comments or ranting about it later aren't going to help ANYone.

If VVC vid review has to change because the nature of vidding is changing -- fewer and fewer cons have vid shows where new vids are entered; instead they're cherry picked by a person or committee; most awards programs have moved online and are often confined to highly specific criteria -- then that's cool. But it's important to understand, before anything happens, how vid review evolved and who it's for. Without that, all we're doing is reacting to a kerfuffle over something that doesn't even really exist in the form some people think it does. Vid review at VVC is a bit of a chimera, really -- it has all these different parts that seem to exist for various people, but it really only began as one animal. I have a lot of faith in the con comm that if it does evolve into a different creature, it will be because it makes sense for everyone, both the vidders and the general audience, to discuss the show. But I have a feeling a lot of people will kick and scream because they believe it's something it's not.

With as many new folks as we had this past year, history and fannish culture becomes more important than ever, I believe. You shouldn't condemn the review panel without understanding its purpose and its history. Though fannish culture, and vidding culture in particular, is evolving at light speeds these days, we have to keep in mind that traditions are usually created in some specific era or to fulfill some specific need. In this case, non-contest vid shows needed a place where the non-Internet-era audiences could discuss the vids they'd seen at a given con, and thus the vid show tradition was born. Anything we do in the future has to keep in mind that past, not to quell a few fans' crankiness over this year's review panel or the types of comments they hear each year. Vid review is a good tradition and one that I think can evolve and maintain its usefulness, and its fun, especially at a vid-focused con like Vividcon.

Comments

[kass]

This is an awesome post; I love hearing about the history of how this stuff came together. I remember when there used to be vid comment sheets at Escapade...

The analogy I find myself wanting to make is: it's a little bit like when someone reviews one of my stories. If she's written a LoC, then that's written directly to me; if it's a review in her lj or whatever, then it's neat if I come across it (because I like hearing what people have to say!) but it's not for me. Vid review seems to be similar, in certain ways; the comments there may be useful to the vidder, or they may not, but the purpose of the conversation is the conversation, not giving the vidder feedback per se. Is that a reasonable analogy?

[adair]

This is a great post; I hope someone from metafandom picks it up for general distribution. I have not had much to do with vidding commentary for several years; I'm not familiar with most of the current fandoms and I am not a person who knows much about vid design and the new technical possibilities, but this history and view of vidding from the vid viewer's POV is very good, and newer vidders need to keep it in mind.

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

You know I have a lot of mixed feelings about this topic, and some history, too. I thought about posting something about it after VVC, but I was late to the party and eventually decided I wasn't really sure about what I wanted to say anyway.

My initial reaction to hearing people's complaints about vid review was pretty knee-jerk, and impatient, and amounted to, "are you serious? That was nothing compared to vid reviews back in my day, jesus" --cue me putting my dentures in and waving my cane around.

Then I started thinking about how that's not necessarily a good thing. Like, just because we all developed dinosaur hides in vid review Back in the Day, does that really mean it's a good thing that I can have someone say "how dare you?" to my face about a vid and not give a crap, because it's not the worst reaction I ever got? Or is it maybe better that more people now are of the opinion that critique is for beta, and that public feedback should be positive if it's offered at all?

Also, I remembered how I felt about vids when I first started seeing them at cons, in big shows where the emotional impact was heightened. I was just over the moon about them -- and the very first time I ever encountered some of the Media Cannibals, it was overhearing them talking in the dealer room very critically about another vidder, and I remember being shocked, and upset, feeling that it was somehow wrong to critique something that had been created to bring joy and for no other reason. I mean, it really upset me. (I was YOUNG, okay? :D)

But then I thought about Lum, and Carol, and the WoaDies -- some of my favoritest vidders of all time, obviously -- and how those harsh, critical comments made them rise to the challenge, and think about audience reaction, and impact, and a whole host of things that they might never have explored in the same way if they hadn't heard those honest reactions. How those comments opened up our awareness to the idea that people are reacting all kinds of different ways to those hundreds of tiny decisions we make in creating a vid, and that if we hadn't heard those honest reactions, we wouldn't have come to the creative place where we could make our own choices about which to take to heart and which to take with a grain of salt.

And I think in that regard, it is for the vidders. Maybe not in the sense that it's a big shiny feedback present, or a beta, or a balanced review, or what have you. But it does have value, and we do learn from it, and there's a reason that's how work is evaluated in art school or film school or any learning environment where creative work is being produced. And, yeah, I'm going to try and be more sympathetic to the upset and hurt in the future, and I'm going to try and weigh my comments more carefully and decide if they're really worth voicing out loud. But I do think it has value, to all of us as a creative community, to get those honest reactions in a forum where a conversation can ensue.

Enough rambly. Thanks for posting this.

[cereta.livejournal.com]

I guess this is the English teacher in me, puzzled by the whole conversation. I spend a bulk of my life giving commentary that helps people improve, but I also spend a bulk of my time in circles where analytical discussion of a text is valued for its own sake. The goal is to help the readers/viewers understand the text better (or just in a different way), and I'm always sort of puzzled that fandom, which (usually) seems to value that for the source texts so often rejects it for our text.

The more I thought about the bingo cards, the more puzzled I became. I teach a rhetorical analysis in one class and a literary analysis in another. Both have the same terms crop up over and over again, but it's what people say about those terms that is interesting. It seems to me that it's a good thing that vidding has developed its own analytical language. Surely the issue isn't that "song choice" gets mentioned for half the vids so much as what gets said about song choice for each.

[counteragent.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the history! This newbie finds it fascinating.

[kadymae.livejournal.com]

"nice use of vid clips" -- well, given that at Escapade you had a whole 30 seconds in which you had to let your eyes adjust and no hard surface upon which to write? I'm surpised *anything* legible got written down in the 5 seconds you really had.

OTOH, given how often there is cutting off the beat -- and not the good way? Or, and I'm thinking of bradcpu's "Go With The Flow" -- cutting to something that punchy with any kind of coherency is harder than it looks.

I usually need to see a vid 3-4 times before I can say anything "deeper" about it other than the blindingly obvious.

And finally, I'm a little sad that *no* mention has been made at all on several places I've looked of the other Vid I had commissioned for Vivid Con. I think that Sandy and Rache did a bang up job of working the kind of song they don't normally work with, of telling a non-linear story in the video (because storytelling in T:SCC is inherently non-linear) and because I loved a lot of the paralells the pulled togeher in terms of images and themes and ... it's like it's fallen off the face of the earth. (sigh)

And finally, there are times, when talking to, or sitting and listening to vidders talk that I feel I need advanced studies in visual theory just to follow or to have something to add to the conversation.

So, in conclusion: nice timing of clips to the music. Interesting song choice. you used good clips to make your point.

[bop-radar.livejournal.com]

How interesting! Thank you for the history, as even as a non-attendee I find it interesting to hear how things evolved and (it sounds like) are continuing to evolve. I do think knowing the history and purpose would be helpful in managing people's expectations.

Just a thought but as someone who only experiences vidding fandom online, I can imagine that for many people moving from that experience to a con experience relatively recently, the whole idea that people actually talk openly about liking and disliking different vids could be pretty radical (and easy to feel confused by)--that and the fact that concrit is so insanely hard to come by online could possibly be leading to people having very high expectations for vid review? In an 'all eggs in one basket' kind of way? Like, if they don't get what they're personally looking for there, where will they get it? And it's impossible for it to be all things to all people, so of course that results in some disappointment. That's not an excuse for the criticism--just wondering if that's part of the issue emotionally for people.

ETA: Consumer opinion is as valid as producer opinion.
I really wish this was said more often. Thank you!

[destina.livejournal.com]

There was even a bingo game played surreptitiously (which many of my friends engaged in, to my dismay) where you got to mark off cliche comments the audience makes during the panel

Oh, yeah. Many of my friends as well, and I didn't think it was cute. I thought, why are you here if what you really want to do is surreptitiously mock every comment that's made? I dunno. Rocker, porch, cane, get off my lawn, whatever. It made me feel bad for the people commenting.

[destina.livejournal.com]

and how those harsh, critical comments made them rise to the challenge, and think about audience reaction, and impact, and a whole host of things that they might never have explored in the same way if they hadn't heard those honest reactions.

That is so true. And I remember begging (literally!!) Lum one year to put one of my less-than-stellar vids in vid review so I could get some harsh critique; I was dying to hear how I could improve. Which is why I'm so fascinated now by the comments of vidders who feel completely differently about the experience of open critique. I mean, I was completely shell-shocked the first few times I experienced it, but...the purpose of vid review may not be explicitly for the vidder, but OMG, I can't understand how a vidder can fail to take away buckets of useful thoughts and perspectives from the experience. That is, however, with a lot of time and experiences under my belt, and I try to remember that shell-shocked feeling, and how others had to help me embrace it. *g*

[merryish.livejournal.com]

DON'T FIGHT IN THE SNOW!!!




(i'm sick with death flu, that's all i got! but this is a really interesting post; hope it will open up some interesting conversations.)

[therienne.livejournal.com]

All we had to go on this year were reports about the Con, but some of this filtered back to us, and I was actually pretty upset by it. VVC for me is a place you go to learn stuff - about other people's vids, about your own, about the nature of video. You cannot learn unless people can be honest in their reactions to the videos.

The thought that people are trying to change the vid review to a place where only nice things can be said really sort of enrages me. Yeah, that's nice and all. But I can't learn a damn thing from it.

It's hard on both sides, and I know this. I think sometimes the audience discounts how hard it is on the people standing up in front giving the reviews. It's scary. The audience is full of freakishly smart and talented people and you're about to tell them why something they did might not have worked for you. No one wants to be the bitch that says "Your vid sucked." These people are the people you want to hang out with, who you admire, who you want to like you back. And it can be very difficult to say "here is where I think you took a misstep". It's more difficult when you're being shot down for saying so, not because its not true, but because a vidder, or a vidder's friends, don't want them to be upset by what they might hear.

Turns out I don't know how to finish up my thoughts here. Maybe there needs to be more than one panel where people can give feedback. But I learned about vidding from the vid reviews at Escapade. Before those, I just saw pretty pictures set to color. They taught me how to interpret things, and how to see the structure that was built into the vids, and the comments made there about where a vid tripped or failed were invaluable. I do not want to see the opportunity for that kind of thing lost.

[therienne.livejournal.com]

Forgot to mention -- not only did we actually *get* the comment, "Nice use of video clips", we also got, for our vid Kryptonite: "This is not the fandom I would have expected for this song. I think you should have gone with Smallville."

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

:D A timeless variation on a theme. ("Why Duncan? Methos is Death.")

[counteragent.livejournal.com]

Hee!

[deejay.livejournal.com]

Just my generally lame opinion, y'alls mileage may vary....

Sometimes a vid is just a vid. Same with vid reviews. Not everything has to be neatly delineated or labeled as "meta" or as whatever-"fail".

P.S. Am willing to bet that the words "Meryl" and "Streep" were nowhere on that asinine bingo card.

P.P.S. Am honestly still confused as to why those words were ever uttered in the first place.

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this post. I keep re-learning how critical context is in any discussion. You've provided valuable insights on how VVC Vid Review evolved, and that context should be considered in any discussion of it.

I sure don't miss comment sheets. (:

[soundingsea.livejournal.com]

As a newbie this year, I found the vid review fascinating. Scary? Definitely. But I think it was illuminating and interesting to have comments in a public forum. I thought you and Jarrow were great mods, too.

[melinafandom.livejournal.com]

Still an awesome comment -- though my favorite part was tzikeh's instant response: "Talk about missing the point entirely!"

Thanks to gwyn for this post and to you and everyone for their follow-on comments -- it's good to hear the different, smart perspectives.

nice clips

[talking-sock.livejournal.com]

Yeah - maybe you were there at the Escapade when poor L said the "nice use of clips" comment, but that was exactly her point after we laughed at her -- she didn't have time, but wanted to say something nice about a vid she liked. It's a tough spot to be in.

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

Augh, sorry it's taken me so freaking long to reply. You know, I'm horribly afeared that I'm the MC who you heard saying mean things, because back then I could be so mean. I wasn't using filters at all -- and I was often drunk at the cons, which as you well know makes me nearly intolerable. ANd if it was me, I have to tell you how sorry I am that I was that way (I'm like an alcoholic, still trying to make amends).

I think you make a good point about whether we really do need that thick hide or not... I really have this belief now that there's a happier medium, that we can do honest crit while still being positive and encouraging. At least, that's what I try to do, but I can't say I always succeed.

It definitely is a place that the vidders can get something, but what was bothering me most was hearing a couple of people really blast some of us who've compared vids done to a song to an older vid of that same song, or something thematically similar, whatever. There was a lot being said after the con that upset me, but that one got to me in a big way. It's a very uninformed way of trying to quash certain types of discussion, and it hits my buttons. I would not like to see vid review go away at all. I always pick up something interesting there.

OTOH, twice I've had my vid completely untalked about, and it left me feeling kind of bad, and I would have gladly listened even to something harsh just for a few words. So I know it's not always useful, even when it can be.

So, yeah, all that said, I have no idea what it should become if it does change!

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's one of those things I put a hashmark for in the I Don't Get It category. I mean, I get that people have different opinions about crit and how people should talk about stuff and... whatever... but I really can't quite grok the full issue of why or how we should talk about certain things. I keep thinking the talking is the important thing, but I wonder if I'm just out of step and that most people are really looking solely at "what does this conversation do for me?"

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

That's a super point about people moving from one type of experience to another for the first time. I think my main problem was that it wasn't newbies who were doing the loudest complaining but the vets! Maybe the newer folks were geared up for it from what they've heard before, like you said -- higher expectations and maybe they rubbed themselves with sandpaper beforehand to get their skin calloused. ;-)

By the way, I love your icon. I just saw The Fall last night and fell in love with that little girl.

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

Do you know what my favorite one still is? The person who wrote "I'm your huckleberry" about Jo's and my Tombstone vid. (Although I still have a soft spot for the person who wrote, about the Skinner/Mulder vid Sandy and I did, "The song injures the video.")

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

Yeah. The thing I want least to happen is that next year, those people come back and never say anything, so it's the same five people commenting over and over and praising their friends' vids.

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

OMG, I had no idea that was for one of your vids!!! Ah, years of mystery have been revealed.

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

VVC for me is a place you go to learn stuff Oh, how perfectly put.

I mean, I'll be honest -- there were a few vids in the show this year that flat out repulsed or horrified me. But saying that isn't helpful -- it's just criticism, not critique or constructive in any way. So I had to think about what to say that was honest but at least somewhat useful -- what led it not to work for me, where the mark was missed, etc. That isn't so hard to do. If a big-mouthed bitch like me can learn to do it, anyone can!

So in that respect, yes, it's about being helpful to the vidders. Because Sunday morning review is different now in that you have to be at the show to put a vid in premieres. So it's a lot more likely that you'll hear stuff, unlike other cons.

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, the eternal question: Why Duncan? I ask myself this EVERY DAY.

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think if there was a comment sheet war, I would be the general on the anti side, and Carol would be the general on the pro side. ;-)

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

Aw, thank you so much! I really liked doing it. Everyone thinks I'm crazy, but I thin it's kind of a fun challenge -- can I be a relatively decent human being for two whole hours?

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

It wasn't you. *g* And in retrospect, it wasn't mean at all. I was just still a very new fan and hadn't realized that people took their fannish creations seriously in that way. The first story I posted, it never occurred to me that I might want someone else to read it (or even proofread it myself!) before I hit send. I mentioned it only because I have to try and remember how different my perspective is now from when I went to my first cons.

[bop-radar.livejournal.com]

Hahaha, ok that's funny--and maybe makes sense. I can imagine vets feel more entitled to complain than newbies. I can see how frustrating that would be though.

Yay! Another The Fall convert! She is so amazing! One of the best, if not THE best, child performances I've ever seen.

[grey-bard.livejournal.com]

I'm... confused. As a very new vidder (but not new fan) who hasn't gotten to go to Vividcon yet.

If vid critique isn't for the vidder, then why are only vids by attending vidders critiqued?

[gwyn-r.livejournal.com]

Because the vids in the premieres show on Saturday night are from only attending vidders. If you can't make it to the con, your premiering vid can go in any of the themed shows, or in the Non-Attending Premieres show, but to submit a vid to Premieres, you must be attending the con.

The vid review panel on Sunday morning discusses that show. That's why things may change in the future, because there are other premieres as well. This year, in fact, AbsoluteDestiny used the in-depth vid review panel to discuss a premiering vid in Club Vivid.