Re: [videoblogging] It's not a video blog if it's on TV

On 23/08/2004, at 11:42 AM, Christopher Weagel wrote:

> what parameters define a vidblog are personal. The below may work for
> you, but not for another.

no, they're not 🙂 That's like saying what makes a western a western
is a personal definition. It isn't. We're talking about genres and
we're defining the genre right now through our practice. I'd suggest
the definition will include something about the personal, but following
Steve's comment about videoblog on tv, there presumably will be
something about a videoblog that makes it a videoblog rather than a
blog, or video. That's not a personal definition, at best it is a
socially defined one.

>
> To me, overly strict definitions are antithetical to this whole
> process.

of course, but hard questions and responses like yours help a lot 🙂
>
> Are there boundaries that separate what is a vidblog and what isn't?
>
> Probably.

yep, see above.
>
> But I'm not too eager to begin laying down anything approaching rules.
>

well, we could call them something else, but just as there are things
that define a blog and separate a blog from a diary or a journal, it
will be the same here. (btw, i'm not looking for an argument, more
puckish than pugulist.)

cheers
Adrian Miles
………………………………………………………..
hypertext.rmit || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/adrian
interactive networked video || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog
research blog || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog/