Juhasz Final Video

[chasea98]

I think you offer a necessary corrective to all the overly celebratory rhetoric surrounding the implementation of "new" media technologies into the classroom. I'm wondering how useful a historical study on how "old" media such as television (PBS specials, news reports) and film (documentary, video art) have worked or "failed" within higher education in the past, as it seems this would inform/qualify the flawed notion that ever newer technologies will ultimately lead to progress.

[remotedevice]

Great investigation, Alex!

The discussion about the potential risks of academic engagement with/on YouTube got me thinking about hoaxes, viral marketing and astroturfing. Maybe the most radical threat that YouTube poses isn't the way it degrades certain forms of discourse, but rather how it enmeshes all communications -- genuine or not -- within a populist Everyman vernacular, the perfect disguise for the praxis of sales...

[lalakiwi1]

This an interesting experiment on classroom methodology within the frame of entertainment and the larger realm (role) of academia in the YouTube setting. In searching through the various recorded classes and clips pertaining to this course- the idea of the syllabus represented as an artifact brought a number of questions to mind with the larger structure of academia and its "texts" in translating on screen. How does the walls of academia extend their core?

[trholland]

Great points on what "new" works work on youtube, namely commercial-like bits in a corporate atmosphere. Does this temper the fervor for implementing new technologies in pedagogy? It seems the euphoric incorporation of tools like youtube in the classroom may prove to be antithetical to our projects and lives as academics in the US. Should we adapt to an entertainment-based culture in order to survive within this new media milieu? Great class/topic/method though, just fails at being dumb!

[AWFFB]

Difficult to remain within the 500 character limit: How can academia incorporate or rather make use of an entertainment-based technology without remaining an enclave that reveals its members immediately through their particular linguistic style (including myself I guess)? It would be interesting to know how much this seminar changed the student's relation to youtube-posting and if it just stayed an academic task to fulfill.

[AWFFB]

I see the discrepancy mentioned between a wordy lecture based on development and elaboration versus the speed-efficient seeking summarizing of youtube. Its difficult to incite interest for a video recording (i.e. the particular need for the visual or even audiovisual, what differs in the message from a text here?) of a lecturer standing a bit too far away from the camera, seemingly disembodied, while a certain visceral closeness would have been what could have made one difference here.

[scottfunkhouser]

Quack, quack.

[MediaPraxisme]

rmckfakerson: you were right about learning form popular culture on youtube, and academic culture and popular culture have little in common, nor need they. But as we lose politics, academics, and other once isolated forms into places like youtube, what do we lose that had value there?

[MediaPraxisme]

klr02004: yes we learned, and sure even some of it was academic, but weren't we compromised and don't we want some places to remain committed to complexity, depth, slowness, and the power of the argument?

[edauenhauer]

For me, the lack of structure made the class frustrating. I feel that because the students weren't prepared for leading the class, we often stagnated on the same topics instead of moving forward and forming new ideas. We learned many interesting things, but I think sometimes we were limited significantly by YouTube's structure. There were many interesting concepts that we discussed and learned from, but I'm not sure if a class with a similar structure would be very productive in the future.

[MediaPraxisme]

edauenhauer: Yes, but as I said in class, the "experimental nature" of the class attempted to mimic youtube in structure, as well as topic. This was to allow us to see how (ancient) structures of education, quickly losing ground to other formats, allow for authority, connection, and the accruing of knowledge, all sadly missed when you are trying to learn more than a sound bite.

[pitzergeorge]

Using youtube for brain-numbing entertaiment since its first days, I've found out that there's so much more to what seems to be a completely simple site. Limits, details, subject matter, content etc. A few have mentioned how the beginning of the class was a total chaos. I have to agree, but I definitely think things moved upwards as we got more organized and created goals of what we wanted to learn.

[MooseNuckle00]

Overall I enjoyed the research projects we did about the different topics in youtube and thought this class was worthwhile. To be able to study the ins and outs of this cultural phenomenon has enabled me to identify how our society thinks and works. The structure of the class was definitely a little chaotic in the beginning but we began to adapt and made this into a productive class.

[jessw11]

The 'fringes' of Youtube may someday come to the fore. We definitely did, when we got media attention. The fact we did get attenton, shows the importance of Youtube as a cultural phenomenon, which deserves to be looked at intricately. I think our class "jammed" Youtube effectively by our academic look at it. I know we have become a part of Youtube history. Someone, please add a little paragraph about us (and the academic taking on of Youtube in general) to the long Wikipedia article on Youtube

[MediaPraxisme]

jessw11: Perhaps we know we are doing our best work when it stays out of the fore. From the fringe we are free to be truly critical and alert. But you're right about the fact that we popped into the sites of the mainstream: di we or they gain anything, however?

[jessw11]

Our class, more than any other at Claremont, is most up-to-date on contemporary culture due to our time spent on Youtube. We see Youtube evolving. We can all hope that our culture will demand more than mediocrity from democratic media. Will the demand ever be strong enough to cause change in the supply? People always wondered this same thing, about the "brain-drain" aspect of television. But Youtube, like the internet, is a participatory form of media, and therefore different than television

[indievintageclassic]

In the same way, I don't believe that users on YouTube can police themselves, because they will not catch all the inappropriate comments or videos, which is why there are so many of these videos still up that should be flagged. If there were 'YouTube Police,' I think it might make YouTube a better, kinder, less immature environment.

[MediaPraxisme]

indievintageclassic: What terms would the youtube police use? Regardless, they'd be stated, which is better than the unnamed/mob- rules currently employed.

[indievintageclassic]

I wanted to discuss the 'self-policing' aspect of YouTube, because I noticed that it does not work at all, just as it wouldn't work in 'real life.' The government hires Police to intervene when people act inappropriately, and I believe there is no way society as a whole would be able to prevent all the injustice that takes place.

[Raspelfy]

I suppose I have gained basic skills in video editing and the possible beginnings to a lasting relationship with Youtube thanks to this class. I agree that Youtube definetly favors some lower forms of thinking in society, and is hard to learn in depth from, but I still think it has positive attributes. It is true that Youtube is young and should continue to change (improve/worsen...depending on your perspective of things) in the coming years.

[MediaPraxisme]

Raspelfy: It would be interesting for us to hear what you think it's positive aspects are. I would assume the sharing of your own art to be one of these?

[klr02004]

I think it is hard to say that we did not learn anything from this class but i will respond to some of your points after i write what i think i learned from this class and youtube in general. By having this class, i've had to immerse myself moreso than usual, in this what you called a "contemporary cultural phenomenon".

[klr02004]

And i think i avoided the website because of the absurdity of it, the stupid humor it contains and its ability, as a technological platform, to sway the masses. Basically, i didn't understand the hype of it....So i was excited to take the class, to learn more about it and to understand it better. you can't knock it if you haven't tried it or familiarized yourself with it.

[klr02004]

. you can't knock it if you haven't tried it or familiarized yourself with it. I was really disappointed when i found out that it would be student led. because that right there limited much of its ability to "teach". I think that because this class and this teaching style was at a "liberal arts" college really hurt the class from reaching any of its potentials.

[klr02004]

. However, if it was for example, at a UC, like Cal berkeley, i think the class itself and the students would have had a better and more satisfying outcome. Regardless of this, i will focus more on the class now. I had never really studied the internet or even thought about that concept so this class really introduced that type of activity.

[sadelv327]

(cont) I think just because we didnt arrive at the answers we wanted, doesnt mean the the work, the process that got us there wasn't helpful, because i feel like it was. Because the youtube (expanding to the internet) is right now, and because it is successful at "getting people's attention" (distracting them) it is something that most people wouldn't think of analyzing. especially students

[sadelv327]

. i think we get really wrapped up in this social aspect, especially when we are in institutions that tell us to study history instead of the contemporary (also we are moving that direction) and which has institutionalizing affect on us, that we (students) still obey authority, we obey what the authority tells us to obey, a lot which is the norm, which is mediocre, which is mainstream. *we are too concerned with our grades.

[sadelv327]

we don't know how to deal with the new mediums that are coming out, although available to us, so we're still trying to behave according to the old conventions of academic success. and so with little outlets that we have, we're more than happy to releasing our anxieties and using internet sites such as youtube, to release all of our feelings, confusion, and stress from school;

[sadelv327]

without really understand that they're creating, playing into this medium, social device, whatever you want to call it, into being something that is insatiable but addictive, unsubstancial but what steals all of our time and energy away. which leads me to my next point, the fact that it is led and controlled by a corporation doesn't help one bit. although it is primarily a visual cite for people to create and share whatever they want, somewhat network, etc. it is for profit.

[sadelv327]

and i mean, that traces back to just the fact we are a capitalist country. even if someone invented youtube like in their home, where it purely was people creating videos and posting comments to create actual discourse, two things could happen: 1) it wouldnt have got popular enough or 2) it would have been bought out by a large company which, would turn it into what it is now.

[sadelv327]

To change topics, i learned that YouTube successfully advertised to people to be in control of the screen, and i think cameras are in hands of people it never really was before (the youth especially). however, no one is teaching us how to use those cameras. and we are amateurs at the technology.

[sadelv327]

but i think people are putting their best foot forward when they are filming skills and talents, things that they are good at: singing, dancing, music, painting, movie-producing, etc. i think people know they are in control but they aren't sure how much that control can be extended. which has turned into, idiots with cameras (no intentions of offense).

[sadelv327]

But to sum this all up, i learned some methods of how to tackle websites, i learned where youtube had its limitations and where the areas are that can be extended. i learned that people are still scared to be different publicly, scared to confidently showcase their opinions and beliefs.

[klr02004]

i agree with the "logic" of youtube - in my day and age - things are quick, efficient, flashy, personal (sometimes) or accomodating to your style and taste.

i by learning from youtube, we cant say we didnt learn anything at all, and we cant be quick and harsh to say we didnt find anything academic,

[klr02004]

but instead, i would have like to say here's how we can match academia with youtube, or with video, because i have learned from friends that in some science classes, youtube proves to be material to be used in academic situations (aka class, ). I feel incorporated some of the ideas in response to your video. so that will be all. thank you.

[MediaPraxisme]

klr02004: I think your comments are well-founded. But the structure of the course mirrored that of the site, where non-specialists or authorities have equal voice in representation, education, everything. Why would this have gone better at UCB? Are you making a comment about access and democracy?

[InTheSone]

As a participant of YouTube I am a contributor to the logic of crowds, but as a member of this class I am an observer, an analyst. My relationship to this mainstream media culture unique for its community-shaped hierarchy of popularity must negotiate between the enjoyment and disillusionment that I take from the site. The attitudes that you describe and my own reaction to this medium stem from the struggle to avoid the clash between these.

[MediaPraxisme]

IntheSone: I'd love to hear more about both your pleasure and your disllusionment. I do think that this tension defines not only your experience but the site and how it feeds your generation, and its time.

[mperry08]

In assessing whether a video is successful on YT, I worry that we belittle "NicheTube" by maintaining that popularity (numbers) are the only measure of significance. Mainstream culture values popularity above all else, it seems, but what is successful to other communities/individuals is a much more subjective quality that can definitely be attained on a microcosmic level w/o 1000s of hits. Hence, I believe that the true value of YT is the potential of its technology rather than its content.

[MediaPraxisme]

mperry08: Hits have always been a silly measure to me. Or perhaps a measure of silliness. To get big one almost by definition must simplify, tone down, summarize, lose self and community, affiliation and complexity, while amping up humor and style.

[jrobertson427]

I think that most state colleges are very much aiming for a broader, more mainstream approach. It has been a dream come true to be in this class, and I hope it is offered again sometime in the future.

[jrobertson427]

A lot of disgusting sexual and violent content is quite popular, and with the emergence of the "Two girls, One cup" phenomenon, this point is reinforced. By saying, "the work we do in higher education is the niche-work", you are classifying higher education within the realm of a liberal arts institution.

[jrobertson427]

I agree that the limits of the medium and the fact that the class was student lead were contributing factors in the disorganization of the class. However, I do think that the media attention synthesized the class itself. I know that personally I did better work in hopes that it would be mentioned by the mainstream media, as it was in the beginning of the course by USA Today. I don't think that all the things on YouTube that are popular have to be "not un-settling" as you put it.

[jrobertson427]

Juhasz, while I agree with almost all of your final points about the class, there are a few I have trouble with. Although the format of the class itself could be deemed "wild", the subject itself should not be (certainly not in the vain of media studies). I think that studying YouTube, and other sites like it, is an invaluable gauge of popular culture and new media.

[MediaPraxisme]

jrobertson427: Yes, studying new and popular culture is our duty: to talk about it in complex terms, even as it does not understand itself thus. And yes, the mainstream can unsettle, but on very expected terms (sex/violence, not intelligence).

[rubengaz]

It seems as though what we have learned about youtube is that it is like any other cultural phenomenon. It begins pure, yet as time passes it becomes corrupted and converted into a profit seeking entity caring more about money than the original reason this movement came to be. While I like to believe in the best of people, I feel as though youtube has lost its way. This is obviously not entirely their fault, after all, we've all shaped it in some way.

[MediaPraxisme]

rubengaz: given youtube's reliance on the user it is fair to say we're responsible, partly, for what its become. But given our uncritical reliance on corporate and mainstream culture, as these forces move us, we seem to follow uncritically, loving the goodies they provide.

[delainemureno]

I wish you would further the study of the site in continuing semesters. I think what we attempted to do is important. SO many questions have gone unanswered or danced around. As being in the "cynic tube" group, it is my hope that this YoutbueII/Nichetube phenomenon we uncovered will evolve into something better. My guess is that it won't but at least that option exists. This site will serve as an anthropologic document and the notion that we are a glib society is daunting.

[MediaPraxisme]

delainemureno: I have thought about the site as an archive of this moment. So much of our analysis will be meaningless as the site and others change. And yet, I imagine most of what we have uncovered will be a (negative) portent for the future of video on-line.

[jweitzel]

Even Steve mentioned that he wishes that he could have joined YouTube in its infant stages so that he could have received more profitable stock within the company. This world functions under a consumer capitalist economy that turns to popular culture and mainstream media to guide it. I can't imagine the popular fundamental organizing structure of YouTube to ever change, but only get worse.

[MediaPraxisme]

jweitzel: what do you imagine will get worse as popularity reigns more deeply on YouTube? It is amazing how the corp uses its users to generate content, cash, policing, and popularity. No wonder they have only 60 employees...

[jweitzel]

Our Advertising on YT group discovered that YT has created an incredibly efficient system of making money through ads. YouTube is in the hands of 60 ordinary people just like you or I, so what incentive do they have as a company to operate their site any differently when they have mastered a site structured to produce a ridiculous amount of money?

[jweitzel]

Popularity is a fundamental organizing structure for YouTube because this is what allows YouTube to survive as a corporation. Popularity= a larger influx of hits and active users= the more revenue that YouTube will see from its advertisements. As long as popularity is responsible for the financial prosperity of the 60 employees that run YouTube, then YT will continue to operate off of this basis.

[MrAmazing77]

I feel the dumbing down of society as you seem to suggest with the increasing popularity of youtube is perhaps an exaggeration. There was a time where reading a cheesy dime store novel was thought to dumb you down, then comic books, then television and so forth...

[MediaPraxisme]

It's not so much a dumbing down, as a meeting of the dumb and dumber with the intelligent lurking, playing, and trying in-between the cracks.

[MrAmazing77]

Somehow we have overcome all these things and continued to grow as a people, and in a positive way I would claim. Something has always gotta be the scapegoat at the bottom, and it's always easiest to point the finger at the new kid on the block.

[baxteric1]

I agree with most of the comments you made, but I don't think that what rises to the top in YouTube is necessarily "mainstream." Look at Ron Paul for instance - he's insanely popular throughout YouTube, but somewhat unknown in mainstream politics.  YouTube produces its own definition of "mainstream" that does not always coincide with the popular definition.

[MediaPraxisme]

baxteric1: i'd be interested to know how you'd define YouTube's mainstream, you're right that it is not a perfect alignment with that of the outside world.

[rmcfakerson]

I think this class was definitely cutting edge in its study of new media. My guess will be a lot more schools will begin to incorporate courses of this nature into their curriculums. I agree that YouTube is not a good place to study the academically centered "niche" types of things we talked about in class. But in terms of the study of popular culture, what better place to go than the most popular entertainment site on the net?

[rmcfakerson]

At the beginning of the year, I said that YouTube was a good way to study internet culture and American culture in general, and I stand by that statement. Was what we learned about our culture positive or negative? Well, that depends on who you are.

[PerchysBigAdventure]

Popularity is not only a fundamental organizing structure for this site, but for mainstream media, and almost everything in a capitalist society. I am a firm believer in capitalism, but this is certainly one of its greatest weaknesses. It seems that popularity, as well as the accumulation of wealth, and obsession with material goods are so deeply ingrained in our culture's consciousness that it's hard to see past all of that.

[PerchysBigAdventure]

And to be honest, it doesn't really bother me that the most watched videos on youtube reflect these incredibly inane and shallow values. What did bother me was the politics group's presentation, which illustrated this shallowness seeping into the arena of the people who will make decisions that affect this country and my life.

[MediaPraxisme]

PerchysBigAdventure: I have learned this semester that you all are really moved by popularity and the kinds of inanity it produces. It works for you. This has been hard for me to understand, although I have grown to accept your pleasure in comedy, action, and speed. How doesn't it please you? Is it enough?

[lickitysplt03]

omg BORING!!!! ima gonna go watch soulja boy or sumthin like that! peace out peeps ;)

[MediaPraxisme]

LOL

[salimshady0]

It marks shorter attention spans, obsession with the mundane in terms of what we find comedic. Is this all bad though? I don't think it is necessarily. Its bridging the generations in such an important way, and i find this beneficial.

[MediaPraxisme]

salimshady0: how is this bridging generations? creating a culture of shared songs and catch phrases? what of community and critique?

[salimshady0]

Youtube is still a baby and its extremely difficult to think that it is only 2 years old and that it is just getting started. Indeed the future of youtube might be grim with the impending law suit with viacom it still is extremely important for this generation's youth.

[pinches05]

This movie was horrible, but it made me think, is this where the future is heading? Is our nation going to go down the path of idiocracy? Is YT the start of our dumbing down of our society? I don't know. I hope not. I hope that people have learned that there are more to this world then five second clips and ads. I know I have. That's what this class has taught me.

[MediaPraxisme]

Pinches05: I'd love you to enumerate what else you want, what else there is, for you, "int his world besides 5 second clips and ads." Yes, we can say this is fun, and not enough, but can we also express clearly what we need. And given your commitment to humor, how to we continue to use it in long and deep form?

[pinches05]

I'd like to start out by saying there was this movie I saw called Idiocracy. It was about a man that was transported to the future where the world has become extremely dumb. Tv shows were 5 seconds long, the president was elected because he was awesome looking, and people didn't drink water, they drank gatorade because it was "healthy" and it was advertised everywhere.

[dallen1eleven]

The question of how "good" relates to popularity is something that I think our class has been circling the entire semester. As you note, true popularity does require talent, and I agree that typically this talent produces media that is easy to consume—accessibility is one of the key requirements for mainstream success. However, I wonder if concluding that because of this ease, YouTube is not a good forum for academic learning is accurate. It seems that it could also be looked at as...

[dallen1eleven]

...an opportunity for greater social change—if one can find a way to communicate an in-depth message while retaining accessibility, it would be possible to reach a wider audience than that found in academia, and perhaps effect a far greater change. I do not know quite how to attempt such a feat, but I wonder if academia embraced "ease" and sought to communicate change through it how much further it could reach than if it clings to hardness as a barometer for quality.

[dallen1eleven]

In conclusion, can YouTube be viewed as a platform that has not yet been properly used as well as the collection of mediocrity it so obviously is?

[MediaPraxisme]

dallen1eleven: I wonder what you're really willing to sacrifice for McAcademia?

[spotalex]

We have found many things to learn on YT about the media, corporations and their interactions with their audiences.I wanted to learn about the role YT plays in the world of new media in terms of how it is used and the effects of its use. We have accomplished this in our class.We know all there is to know about how this site works, and we will just have to wait for it to exist longer to further theorize its effects on media and society.

[MediaPraxisme]

spotalex: is there any hope that our findings will effect what youtube will become? I fear not, we NicheTubers buzz around the edges but with little effect on the huge corporate machine that needs but poorly feeds us.