From anne.roth at anche.no  Mon Feb  8 23:33:10 2010
From: anne.roth at anche.no (Anne Roth)
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:33:10 +0100
Subject: <videovortex> New media, democracy, relevance and women
Message-ID: <4B709126.4060004@anche.no>

Hi,

I'm new on this list, and the reason I just subscribed (next to general
interest in net and media politics and discussions) is that Evelin
Stermitz suggested that I post the following questions here. It's not
only about video. In fact it's more about text based weblogs, but got
started by something I noticed that was done with video.

Thanks for listening and looking forward to another list that looks
interesting!

Anne

----- Original Email -------------

I'm looking for information, articles, or ideas where to to go look for
research on a special topic, or maybe it's several topics.


== Background ==


Some months ago a series of video interviews with 'important bloggers'
was published in Germany (German bloggers, that is). It just happened
that they were all male.

I ranted a little bit about it in my blog - certainly after I noticed
that in the "Top 100" of German blogs at that time the first blog
clearly written by a woman made it to no. 35 (or so).

I was surprised to see that this kicked off quite a debate in different
places. Debates about whether it matters that they're all male, about
how to define 'important', or 'relevant', about the ranking systems that
categorise German blogs. The different ways to define relevance of blogs
obviously isn't 'man-made', but done through different automated systems
using the tools of the web 2.0. What counts is websites linking to
blogs, numbers of readers, numbers of visits etc.

Assuming that no (or little) active manipulation is taking place to help
whichever group in society to gain grounds and be more important than
others I'm wondering how it happens that our much praised democratic,
participatory, interactive web2.0 seems to create a monoculture that is
much more exclusive that the real world.

I don't know - because it's less obvious than the male/female gap - but
I have little doubt that there's equally few people who are part of all
kinds of minorities. The interviewed important bloggers are all white,
German, academic...



== The Questions ==


What I'd like to find out now is whether there is any research,
articles, projects dealing with

- is this just a German phenomnon or similar in other countries?

- why are so few women considered relevant or important bloggers?

- what creates relevance/attention/importance in the web 2.0?

- how does it happen that the much praised open structures of the
current digital world seem to create even more exclusive (virtual)
realities?

I'm not active in adademia (anymore) and not even regularly reading or
writing on feminist issues. Same for all the different strands of net
culture(s), media politics and the like. And so it's perfectly likely
that I missed obvious things said on these subjects. Please let me know
of anything you know!



Thanks for any kind of help and feel free to forward this wherever you
think is appropriate!


Anne


http://annalist.noblogs.org
mostly in German

http://www.twitter.com/annnalist (German)
http://www.twitter.com/Anne_Roth (English)


From valentin.spirik at gmail.com  Tue Feb  9 12:57:44 2010
From: valentin.spirik at gmail.com (Valentin Spirik)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:57:44 +0100
Subject: <videovortex> videovortex Digest, Vol 38, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <mailman.9.1265713207.9749.videovortex_listcultures.org@listcultures.org>
References: <mailman.9.1265713207.9749.videovortex_listcultures.org@listcultures.org>
Message-ID: <152fa7181002090357s5ceb822o4e4ed56b29873c1d@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, <videovortex-request at listcultures.org>wrote:

> Send videovortex mailing list submissions to
>        videovortex at listcultures.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/videovortex_listcultures.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        videovortex-request at listcultures.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        videovortex-owner at listcultures.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of videovortex digest..."
>

> == The Questions ==
>
>
> What I'd like to find out now is whether there is any research,
> articles, projects dealing with
>
> - is this just a German phenomnon or similar in other countries?
>
> - why are so few women considered relevant or important bloggers?
>
> - what creates relevance/attention/importance in the web 2.0?
>
> - how does it happen that the much praised open structures of the
> current digital world seem to create even more exclusive (virtual)
> realities?
>
>
My (non) scientific answer is that it seems web 2.0 is (also) simply
mirroring structures in our society that is to a certain extend (still) male
dominated.

I always wondered why there are almost no well know women film makers.
Simply ask anyone what female film maker they like in particular...! Those
women who made it (through a male dominated industry) of course had to be
exceptional. The first two names that come to my mind are Leni Riefenstahl
(controversial of course but basically she created and perfected a modern
advertising look long before others did it - handsome people/bodies in a
very stylised environment) and the other one is Kathryn Bigelow, a real
master of action/suspense/drama (e.g. The Hurt Locker, 2008).

I'm sure there are as many talented women film makers as there are male
ones, but maybe women just don't fell the need to show off their egos as
much as men often do...? While men can't have babies they can produce
art/movies etc. that "live on". (Artists, writers etc. often talk about
their "baby" = latest work.) I think that's a point in this not to be
underestimated...

Of course I'd love to see more women film makers, vloggers, bloggers etc!


> I'm not active in adademia (anymore) and not even regularly reading or
> writing on feminist issues. Same for all the different strands of net
> culture(s), media politics and the like. And so it's perfectly likely
> that I missed obvious things said on these subjects. Please let me know
> of anything you know!
>
>
>
> Thanks for any kind of help and feel free to forward this wherever you
> think is appropriate!
>
>
> Anne
>
>
> http://annalist.noblogs.org
> mostly in German
>
> http://www.twitter.com/annnalist (German)
> http://www.twitter.com/Anne_Roth (English)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> videovortex mailing list
> videovortex at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/videovortex_listcultures.org
>
> to change your settings or unsubscribe, please go to:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/videovortex_listcultures.org
>
> End of videovortex Digest, Vol 38, Issue 1
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/videovortex_listcultures.org/attachments/20100209/9e2f1e6b/attachment.html>

From mail at dennisknopf.net  Tue Feb  9 21:44:53 2010
From: mail at dennisknopf.net (Dennis Knopf)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 21:44:53 +0100
Subject: <videovortex> videovortex Digest, Vol 38, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <152fa7181002090357s5ceb822o4e4ed56b29873c1d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.9.1265713207.9749.videovortex_listcultures.org@listcultures.org>
	<152fa7181002090357s5ceb822o4e4ed56b29873c1d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7FA37B43-B03D-40EB-BCFC-47EDA9527622@dennisknopf.net>

I wrote an essay called "Defriending the Web" for this book:

http://digital-folklore.org/

My essay questions the web2.0 being a "new digital democracy" (Time  
Magazine, 2006), might be interesting to you guys!



PS: I once tried to post my video to this discussion but I'm not sure  
my message ever went through because I sent it from a different  
account. So pardon if you've already seen this; I'm playing with the  
YouTube format in the end (featured videos):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIzL99tlCs

All the best,

Dennis



-- 
http://www.dennisknopf.net

Am 09.02.2010 um 12:57 schrieb Valentin Spirik:

> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, <videovortex- 
> request at listcultures.org> wrote:
> Send videovortex mailing list submissions to
>        videovortex at listcultures.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> videovortex_listcultures.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        videovortex-request at listcultures.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        videovortex-owner at listcultures.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of videovortex digest..."
>
> == The Questions ==
>
>
> What I'd like to find out now is whether there is any research,
> articles, projects dealing with
>
> - is this just a German phenomnon or similar in other countries?
>
> - why are so few women considered relevant or important bloggers?
>
> - what creates relevance/attention/importance in the web 2.0?
>
> - how does it happen that the much praised open structures of the
> current digital world seem to create even more exclusive (virtual)
> realities?
>
>
> My (non) scientific answer is that it seems web 2.0 is (also)  
> simply mirroring structures in our society that is to a certain  
> extend (still) male dominated.
>
> I always wondered why there are almost no well know women film  
> makers. Simply ask anyone what female film maker they like in  
> particular...! Those women who made it (through a male dominated  
> industry) of course had to be exceptional. The first two names that  
> come to my mind are Leni Riefenstahl (controversial of course but  
> basically she created and perfected a modern advertising look long  
> before others did it - handsome people/bodies in a very stylised  
> environment) and the other one is Kathryn Bigelow, a real master of  
> action/suspense/drama (e.g. The Hurt Locker, 2008).
>
> I'm sure there are as many talented women film makers as there are  
> male ones, but maybe women just don't fell the need to show off  
> their egos as much as men often do...? While men can't have babies  
> they can produce art/movies etc. that "live on". (Artists, writers  
> etc. often talk about their "baby" = latest work.) I think that's a  
> point in this not to be underestimated...
>
> Of course I'd love to see more women film makers, vloggers,  
> bloggers etc!
>
> I'm not active in adademia (anymore) and not even regularly reading or
> writing on feminist issues. Same for all the different strands of net
> culture(s), media politics and the like. And so it's perfectly likely
> that I missed obvious things said on these subjects. Please let me  
> know
> of anything you know!
>
>
>
> Thanks for any kind of help and feel free to forward this wherever you
> think is appropriate!
>
>
> Anne
>
>
> http://annalist.noblogs.org
> mostly in German
>
> http://www.twitter.com/annnalist (German)
> http://www.twitter.com/Anne_Roth (English)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> videovortex mailing list
> videovortex at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/videovortex_listcultures.org
>
> to change your settings or unsubscribe, please go to: http:// 
> listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/videovortex_listcultures.org
>
> End of videovortex Digest, Vol 38, Issue 1
> ******************************************
>
> -----
>
> video vortex discussion list
> artist responses to youtube
>
> to change your settings or unsubscribe, please go to: http:// 
> listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/videovortex_listcultures.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/videovortex_listcultures.org/attachments/20100209/88f49fe1/attachment.html>

From bubotic at gmail.com  Wed Feb 10 10:09:27 2010
From: bubotic at gmail.com (bubotic at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:09:27 +0100
Subject: <videovortex> Sandberg Instituut / NIMK - [AMS 12 FEB]
Message-ID: <1870EF6A-EDD1-413F-957C-77F18554327A@gmail.com>

perhaps of interest to Amsterdam-based VV members; 

the youtube performance lectures by Sina Khani, the web 2.0 devolution of Edwin Stolk, the underwater security camera ballet of Styrmir ?rn Gu?mundsson, the Dr. Phil sampling of Giorgi Tabatadze, the essay film of Nicole O'Niel, the webcam and iphone compositions of Paula Alburquerque...

.

Sandberg Institute at NIMK

A night of new work by M.F.A. students of the Sandberg Institute. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Renee van Trier, Giorgi Tabatadze, Salome Lamas, 
Styrmir ?rn Gu?mundsson, Edwin Stolk, Nicole O?Neill, 
Nadine Hottenrott, Tom Milnes, Paula Albuquerque, 
Sina Khani, Susan Lanting, Vera Korman

Friday 12 February, NIMK Keizersgracht 264. 
Deur open 20:00 Programma 20:30 Einde 23:00 
Toegang 3.50, studenten gratis

http://nimk.nl/nl/agenda/sandberg-institute-nimk-2
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=268321705497&ref=ts

Curated and produced by Theus Zwakhals (NIMK) and Emile Zile.
Afterparty at Occii http://www.occii.org/nightdetails.asp?id=834

.

From geert at xs4all.nl  Sat Feb 13 09:07:33 2010
From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:07:33 +0100
Subject: <videovortex> Where Did VCs Go Wrong In Online Video?
Message-ID: <E1FD168E-E21A-48FC-9146-6F79F90DBA99@xs4all.nl>

Where Did VCs Go Wrong In Online Video?
By Ashkan Karbasfrooshan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: t.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 43 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/videovortex_listcultures.org/attachments/20100213/0827df8b/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------


From: Techcrunch

http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/12/online-video-vcs-wrong/

Editor?s note: The following guest post was written by Ashkan  
Karbasfrooshan, founder and CEO of WatchMojo.You can also read his  
series on the state of Online video (Parts I, II, III, and IV) video..
Yesterday?s final implosion of video site Veoh, which declared  
bankruptcy after burning through $70 million of venture capital, was a  
long time coming. A lot of so-called smart money went into Veoh:  
investors included Goldman Sachs, Time Warner, Intel?s venture arm,  
Spark Capital and former Disney CEO Michael Eisner. And it was hardly  
an isolated incident. Joost, another high-flying video startup  
launched by the founders of Skype, went through $45M in VC money  
before ending up in a fire sale.  Who?s next?

More importantly, why is so much venture capital that funded video  
startups going down the drain when the number of videos watched on the  
Web is going through the roof?

Nowadays, it is fashionable to discredit VCs as financial engineering  
hacks with no operational talent who lack the moral compass required  
to lead people; but that would be unfair. VCs, it turns out, are  
neither the problem nor the solution: good ones might offer more than  
cash, bad ones will kill your business.  And once killed, they?ll  
blame everything and anyone but themselves.

Fish Out of Water

Last year I was speaking about raising capital with a fellow CEO,  
Brightroll?s CEO Tod Sacerdoti, and he mentioned that the ?video  
industry is more media than technology?, to which I added, ?that is  
why VCs come across like fish out of water?.

Indeed, most VCs tend to lack any meaningful background in  
advertising, publishing, sales or media.  Selling software doesn?t cut  
it.  Building chips is irrelevant.

In fact, the very same things that make technology companies  
successful are often weaknesses and even threats to media companies.   
For example, a tech company?s contract for recurring licensing fees is  
not as attractive as a series of contracts for recurring advertising  
deals. This merits a post in of itself, but the kinds of things that  
VCs were drawn to in video have all become commodities, namely: video  
aggregators, content delivery networks and content management systems,  
which are capital intensive, low margin areas always at the risk of  
getting cancelled and shifted to a competitor.

Making things worse is this ?crazy ass backwards? investment thesis  
that they should invest in 10 companies and watch seven burn to the  
ground, hope that two do ?ok?, and pray that one will be a ?grand  
slam?.  Forget the theory of diversification, which underpins all of  
finance, VCs keep aiming for the fence and let?s face it, finding  
winners in business is as hard as finding them in Hollywood.  You win  
with singles, doubles, triples and occasioanlly home runs. basing your  
strategy on grand slams is futile, which takes us to VCs odious track  
record in online video.  Online video startups tend to fall in one of  
the following categories, with some overlaps:

	? Content management system (CMS) platform technology companies
	? Advertising creation and management companies
	? Content aggregation and distribution
	? Video file hosting and sharing
	? Video content editing
	? Content producers
	? Content delivery network (CDN)
Where are the grand slams other than YouTube?  There aren?t any.

The Elusive Media VC

True media VCs just don?t exist.  One explanation could be that most  
high ranking media executives who were working in big media with high  
salaries but little or no equity, never experienced the massive  
paydays that would give them a path to investing their own money and  
subsequently setting up a fund to invest on behalf of others.  There  
are exceptions, of course.

But the entrepreneurs who have made fortunes in media tend to reinvest  
in their own empires rather than dole out the money to potential  
startup competitors.  Media moguls like Rupert Murdoch, William  
Randolph Hearst, Sumner Redstone, SI Newhouse and the like who never  
sold out retained their earnings and built empires.  Once they became  
the Establishment, it made little sense for them to finance the  
disruption.

Mr. Murdoch (who bought the company that bought my last company)  
bought MySpace when it was convenient, generated a windfall from the  
Google deal, and now that its fortunes have soured, he is divesting  
from the medium: first Photobucket, then Rotten Tomatoes.

Conversely, most VCs were technology founders and executives who sold  
companies and came into cash.  They set up or joined VC funds to  
reinvest their money and continue the cycle of disruption.

The Web is Entering a Period of Massive Content Consumption.

There seems to be a massive wedge between media and technology.  One  
side doesn?t get the other and the result is wasted investment dollars.

?There?s no one in the record company that?s a technologist,?  
Universal Music Chairman Doug Morris once explained. ?That?s a  
misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry  
missed this. They didn?t. They just didn?t know what to do. It?s like  
if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his  
kidney. What would you do??

Well, alternatively, VCs have no clue where the advertising money will  
go in media but all VCs seek to invest in the Google of Video.  
Incidentally, Google?s initial business model was based on licensing  
its search technology, a unit which generated hundreds of millions of  
dollars.  But today, Google is foremost an ad-supported business.   
However, it?s one of the only successful ad-supported technology  
businesses in the world.

Google lucked out by benefitting from a perfect storm and is now  
limited by its free, ad-supported worldview (Apple understands that if  
there is one thing people love to do is actually spend money ? but  
again, separate post).

Regardless of whether the Internet will be larger on Mobile or PC, the  
nuts and bolts are starting to matter less than the content that is  
consumed, and how that content is monetized.  More likely than not,  
the model will be advertising based.  Today, fickle media companies  
have less faith in ad models, but consumers continue to shun paying  
for content.

Regardless, VCs keep investing in the next crapstr, whereas they  
should be investing in content, which is missing piece for advertising  
to take off in online video.

Content is King

?The real barrier is content and the model necessary to make more of  
it.  Cable TV suffered from this same fate early on?, states Broadband  
Enterprises? Matt Wasserlauf.

We?re still in the early days of online video content and history is  
repeating itself.  The film industry initially recreated theater and  
added a camera to record plays; early TV recreated radio and added a  
camera as well.  Online video content has much room for improvement,  
but what is missing is the kind of investment required to create  
compelling content.  VCs keep throwing out clich? after clich? and  
just show their lack of understanding of that fact. Sure, some of the  
aggregators such as Veoh did scale quickly but it wasn?t all that  
defensive.  Despite all of this, VCs seem to be making all of the same  
mistakes over and over again: investing in the technology and not in  
the content.



From sabine at networkcultures.org  Thu Feb 18 18:53:35 2010
From: sabine at networkcultures.org (Sabine Niederer)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:53:35 +0100
Subject: <videovortex> Impakt event with Johan Grimonprez,
	introduction by Thomas Elsaesser
References: <20100218175037.96CA558E88A@mail.impakt.nl>
Message-ID: <333FA1BB-3860-42F8-8C8C-48CBD369B68D@networkcultures.org>

IMPAKT EVENT: JOHAN GRIMONPREZ, Double Take and YOUTUBE-O-THEEK

Next Saturday the Impakt Event with the Belgian filmmaker and artist Johan Grimonprez will be held. We screen his new work Double Take, with an introduction by Thomas Elsaesser. Later that evening we screen the YouTube-o-theek ?Maybe the sky is really green, and we?re just colorblind" curated by Johan Grimonprez & Charlotte L?ouzon. Below the program.
 

YOUTUBE-O-THEEK ?MAYBE THE SKY IS REALLY GREEN, AND WE?RE JUST COLORBLIND ?
Curated by: Johan Grimonprez & Charlotte L?ouzon

In this program, Grimonprez takes his audience on a trip through the Internet and the endless stream of information coming to us via YouTube and blogs. Viewers are confronted with a mix of reality and fiction and the imminent risk of manipulation. Maybe the sky is really green, and we?re just color blind is an ongoing project in which Grimonprez assembles and contextualizes amateur rarities, artistic responses to our television culture and highlights of commercial and political visual production.

Program:

1.  Alive in Joburg by Neill Blomkamp (6?30),  Prod. Spy films, Canada, 2005.           

2.  Echolalia by Robert Arnold (2?40) USA, 2003.

3.  Blair and Bush Love affair by Johan S?derberg, (1?08), Sweden.

4.  Guns Sale, Amnesty International by Dougal Wilson (2?17), Prod. Blink, UK, 2005.

5.  Gorillaz, El Manana by Pete Candeland (3?48),  Prod. Passion Pictures, UK, 2006.

6.  George Bush is? Stupid (3?57), hosted by YouTube.

7.  Coming out Jesus (I will survive) (1?10), hosted YouTube.

8.  Cocked by Matthew Suib (10?), USA.

9.  Talking dogs (42??), hosted by YouTube.

10.  Faithless, I want more by Daniel Gordon (3?14), Prod Passion Pictures, UK.

11.  Cream and Punishment, Noel Godin, Dazed & Confused TV, UK, 1998.

12.  Prep Unit, Tea Partay by Julien Christian Lutz  (2?15), Raw Tea Records, hosted by YouTube.

13.  Angry Petrol Man (1?21), hosted by YouTube.

14.  Who do we invade next? (1?44), hosted by YouTube.

15.  Jesus Versus Terminator (4?51), USA, 2006,  hosted by YouTube. 

16.  Soulwax, NY Excuse by Chris Palmer (3?), Prod. Gorgeous, UK, 2006.

17.  School For Democracy by Michael Moore (2?30), TV Nation, USA.

18.  Dove Real Beauty (1?15), hosted by YouTube.

19.  Dove Boy Parody (1?15), hosted by YouTube.

20.  The Yes Men, Bhopal Case (5?51), hosted by Youtube.

21.  Royks?pp, ?Remind Me? by H5 (4?), Prod Black dog films, UK, 2002.

22.  Beauty Kit by Pleix (2?17), France, 2001.

23.  Dust, GAP by Spike Jonze (1?35), Prod MJZ, USA, 2005.

24.  Jesus Action Figure (43?), hosted by YouTube.

25.  Monthy Python?s International Philosophy Football Match (3?48), UK, hosted by YouTube.

26.  The Stupidest Dog Alive (40?), hosted by YouTube.

[77 minutes]

 

Thanks to:

Charlotte L?ouzon and Johan Grimonprez would like to thank all the artists who shared their films: Camille Henrot, Clare Rojas and Andrew Jeffrey Wright, H5, Neill Blomkamp and the Spy films crew, Richard Fenwick, Robert Arnold, Matthew Suib, Pete Candeland, Dougal Wilson, Johan S?derberg, Daniel Gordon, Spike Jonze, Chris Palmer, John Williams, David Lea and Rong. Another warm thank you to all the producers and music labels for their great support: Passion Pictures, Passion Paris and Fabien Paillisse, Rupert Smythes from Gorgeous, Matthew Fone from Blink, Jean-Marc Dehoul from Pias, John Hassay and Brian Carmody from Colonel Blimp, Naz Foroodian from Stink, Andrew Thomas, Kathy from Tex Agency, Jackie Holt from Lux. Frida ?hnell and Kristina Aberg from Atmo.se. Also thanks to Bernhart Schwenk, Mike Van Peel, Angelique Campens and Franziska St?hrm.



IMPAKT EVENT: JOHAN GRIMONPREZ

In Double Take, his second feature film, the Belgian filmmaker and artist Johan Grimonprez (author of the prize-winning documentary Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y) delves into the increasing influence of television, news, cinema and advertising on our understanding of the present and the past.

Inspired by a short story of the Argentinean writer Jorge Luis Borges in which the author meets his twenty year old self, Double Take culminates in the ultimate confrontation between filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock and his professional double Ron Burrage. Who is who, and who is the mastermind behind staging the perfect murder? Grimonprez combines fiction and reality, making extensive use of archival material ? such as news images, commercials, and film fragments ? and reviews Hitchock?s favorite themes: the play of doubles, the politics of fear (from the Cold War to the War on Terror, from The Birds to Independence Day) and the ideological power of cinema and television (from the early days of television to our current, obsessive zapping behavior).

Artist, director, curator and teacher Johan Grimonprez (1963)divides his time between the United States and Flanders. Although he works with various media ? photography, digital clippings, and found footage ? video takes a central position in his work. Grimonprez studied at the Academy of Fine Arts in Ghent (KASK), the School of Visual Arts in New York and the Jan van Eyck Academy in Maastricht. All of his early video works, including Kobarweng or Where Is Your Helicopter? (1992), investigate the impact of images on its viewers. Grimonprez consciously manipulates the conventions of the documentary genre. His acclaimed documentary Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y (1997) was a visually overwhelming trip, a compelling visual montage of the history of a plane hijacking eerily foreshadowing the world prior to 9/11.

Date: Saturday 20 February 2010.

19.30 pm: Double Take and introduction by Thomas Elsaesser

22.00 pm: YouTube-o-theek ?Maybe the sky is really green, and we?re just color blind?

Location: Film Theater ?t Hoogt, Utrecht

Ticket price for each program: 8.50 euro (CJP/U-pas, 65+, student: 7.50 euro)

Combination ticket: 12.50 euro (CJP/U-pas, 65+, student: 11 euro)

Reservations at info at hoogt.nl and by Telephone at +31 (0)30-232 83 88

The spoken language is English. 

Expected:
Utrechtse Nieuwe Media Avond #3 / Brein - Computer Interfaces. Wednesday 10 March 2010, Impakt HQ Lauwerecht 10 in Utrecht
Things to Come #3 / Off the Grid. Thursday 25 March 2010, Moira Wolvenstraat 10 in Utrecht


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/videovortex_listcultures.org/attachments/20100218/72b3a42b/attachment.html>

From minx at bway.net  Mon Feb 22 15:05:08 2010
From: minx at bway.net (Perry Bard)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:05:08 -0500
Subject: <videovortex> chatroulette
Message-ID: <58EEA3E7-8264-48CF-AB91-BC5F5CBF0380@bway.net>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/weekinreview/21bilton.html

http://www.perrybard.net

http://dziga.perrybard.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/videovortex_listcultures.org/attachments/20100222/333e11be/attachment.html>

From sabine at networkcultures.org  Fri Feb 26 16:46:27 2010
From: sabine at networkcultures.org (Sabine Niederer)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:46:27 +0100
Subject: <videovortex> YouTube Reader
Message-ID: <518C6FC2-DEA4-40AE-9349-6F97A8F8594B@networkcultures.org>

Hi all, 
yesterday I finally saw an actual copy of the YouTube Reader, edited by Pelle Snickars and Patrick Vonderau and published by the National Library of Sweden.  It's a large collection of essays, all specifically about YouTube. 
The accompanying website is set up like a curated exhibition by Giovanna Fossati (filmmuseum.nl) with lots of YouTube clips (some of which are now offline)
Go to http://www.youtubereader.com/ >>click reader (in the upper right corner) for more info on the book. 
cheers, sabine