Is vlogging a female medium?

Something in an interview with cewebrity Magibon on Know Your Meme got me thinking: are there more female vloggers than male ones, and if this is so, why might that be? Magibon says that in Japan, most males do not go on video and, if they do, they do not show their faces. In my casual perusal of home-made videos from Japan on YouTube, I've found this to be true, and it wouldn't surprise me if this were true in the US as well.

Why might a gender difference exist in online self-expression? First off, a disclaimer: any difference we might observe is as or more likely to be a product of cultural expectations of gender roles than it is to be a product of some inherent difference between the sexes. Having said that, its possible that young females believe they can gain status by gaining attention, and one way to gain attention is to use their looks. Perhaps many males, here and abroad, do not enter this entertainment arena because, traditionally, males do not derive their cultural worth from showcasing their looks to the extent that females do. Perhaps males fear some sort of permanent tarnishing of their professional image. Perhaps they fear that employers won't take them seriously when they find their rather silly video blog. Young females, not having as much to lose in the traditional professional world (or at least not anticipating that they will when they get older) jump right in and start vlogging.

The result is a medium dominated by female producers, but is this media created for a female audience? Probably not as much as, say, the female blogging community. Take the looks out of the picture and, I would imagine, you take away a good sized portion of the young male audience. Its worth re-thinking how we identify authorship for YouTube and vlogging. Are females really empowered when they have to cater to a male audience (a young, hetero male audience fixated on looks)? Then there are those wildly popular make-up tutorial videos created by women for women. Even when both the audience and the creators are women, it seems to be ultimately geared toward pleasing men (albeit indirectly). This just doesn't seem to be true of the female blogosphere, and I think most of it has to do with looks.

Magibon made it seem as though males "can't compete" with females in the user-generated video arena, that it would, in some sense, come to be dominated by women. But how dominant are these young women?

Ronald Jenkees, a Real Character

The Sports Guy has drawn my attention to the latest freak vlogger: Ronald Jenkees. Beebee890, DaxFlame, and Ronald Jenkees are not quite taking over YouTube, but they represent a decent-sized niche within the YouTube ecosphere. DaxFlame is #32 on all-time most subscribed list, and Jenkees is #50 on all-time most subscribed musicians.

Mainstream press and/or Digg picks up on these guys, and that gets them their initial boom in subscribers. The Sports Guy and Digg brought attention to Ronald, and G4 did something on DaxFlame (to which he angrily responded). All it takes is one member of the mainstream media to reference one of them, and then they become discussion topics. Their freak appeal takes it from there.

So, is he socially awkward, mentally challenged, or neither? What do we mean by mentally challenged (or retarded, disabled, etc)? Perhaps we've been able to get away with two vastly different views of these different people. There's the PC "noble savage" view, which says that anyone who appears to be "different" is worthy of praise (regardless of whether the behavior can be attributed to social awkwardness or a physiological condition), and the grade-school playground view, which says that anyone different must be ridiculed. These knee-jerk reactions have been able to coexist because the two groups don't have to come into contact with one another because those freaks that spark the debate between the two camps aren't in the public eye that much. Until now.

But Ronald Jenkees is more than just another William Hung. His keyboard and beat-making skilz rival that of any shitty post-krunk hiphop producer. There's talk of him being some sort of savant. He claims that he is not, but how would he know if he were a savant? Who is the authority on this - the individual in question? A doctor? Movies about savants (e.g. Rainman)? Us? I'm also reminded of the unhappy story of another "different" musical genius: Daniel Johnston. Once fans recognize an artist as a savant or a genius, the bar gets set unrealistically high. An unstable person gets introduced to the wrong people, and disaster ensues.

Before we assume that Ronald is acting, its worth considering the possibility that "different" people like Ronald have been waiting in the wings, not good-looking or "normal" enough to be in the public eye before YouTube. They could've had a blog and/or a MySpace page, but that just wouldn't have conveyed how different they were - only video could do that.

To the debates over whether or not he is acting like a dork/mentally challenged person, we should add the question as to whether or not he wrote the damn good songs he performs. Maybe they're pre-recorded loops he got from someone else, though the visuals seem to provide the needed proof that he can play the keyboard.

Somehow, their freakishness works to their advantage, drawing attention to them and making them impervious to criticism (provided you don't get busted for acting). How can anyone rag on you if you can always hide behind being different? You could try to be cool, you could try to be your normal semi-cool self, or you could exaggerate your inner dork to the point where you're clearly different (not retarded, just different). If you do this, any social misstep you might make can be attributed to your different-ness, which is considered a positive attribute (kind of like the self-effacing jujitsu Eminem uses on his first couple of albums).

There may be people as talented as Ronald Jenkees out there, but who would notice them if they're just another Steve Vai wannabe from Berklee School of Music, some quiet man-of-mystery (which reads as holier-than-thou) with a ponytail, no fashion sense, and zero charisma? If that were you, then wouldn't you have an easier time getting attention and sympathy if you exaggerated your dorky characteristics (in effect "passing" as a dork)? Just like people who pass as black, gay, etc, there is enough of an element of truth to the claim that the passer could not be outed as a total fraud.

So, what happens next? What does stardom (or the new semi-stardom that online fame creates) do to a person? What makes it seem as though DaxFlame is an act is that he seems utterly oblivious towards his newfound semi-fame. There's something about the kind of fame that's achieved by vloggers on YouTube that feels hermetically sealed, cut off for the most part from real life like all social acts online. For this reason, vlogging and YouTube in general still feels like a proving ground for would-be stars (albeit a different breed of would-be stars). Ever since Brookers got signed by Carson Daly, that's the way that most people think about it. Ronald Jenkees is interesting only if he's going to put out an album or work with established rap stars.

Freakish Behavior

This is an expansion of some musings from an earlier post on freaks and YouTube. I stumbled across the videos of DaxFlame. Like many other video bloggers, he exhibits what could be called unusual behavior in his videos. This unusual behavior is humorous to many, and, at the very least, intriguing to the rest of us. His unusual behavior seems reminiscent of a mental/emotional disturbance, perhaps Tourette or Asperger's syndrome. So, is he faking it, completely, or partially?

If he is bluffing, then we shouldn't even watch his videos, because that will just make him more visible. He could potentially profit by acting as though he has a mental problem when he, in fact does not, and he tacitly encourages others to do this by being so popular. If he is not acting, then many would say that disturbed individuals shouldn't be hid from public view, but should be out there in the public sphere, making videos, chatting with others, so more power to him.

There are certain cues or qualities we can look for in order to determine whether or not (or to what degree) his performance is a put-on. His apparent age would make us believe that it is less likely that he's acting (unless we have another Andy Milonakis on our hands). He's got about 44 videos, so that makes him less believable than someone like Beebee, who has hundreds. Interestingly, interaction with other people seems to reveal bad acting to a far greater degree than the direct mode of address that most vlogs employ.

It becomes clear that we may never know whether or not many of these video bloggers are imitating freakish behavior in order to mock it and draw attention to themselves, or whether they are just being themselves. The freakish behavior becomes unmoored from the individual. At that point, we have to judge ourselves, the audience, and not the person who created the video. Do we find any of this behavior to be amusing? Do we find it intriguing enough to watch? I suspect that many people who want to watch freaks (and the people who exploit this desire by imitating them in order to get attention and the $ that will come from getting attention once vlogging becomes commodified) don't feel any genuine contempt for them, but just find it worthy of their attention, like anything that is unusual in the world.

Ultimately, isn't it better to acknowledge the fact that we find unusual behavior and appearances (whether a person is responsible for it or not) to be worthy of our attention instead of pretending that we don't feel that way? Many of these videos seem to evoke sympathy, derision, and laughter. This combination of reactions, and the visibility of those reactions, seems like a step in the right direction, away from the total lack of visibility of freakish behavior and appearances and/or the politically correct "noble freak" images pushed by traditional, paternalistic media. Once we get past our initial shock and interest, maybe we'll begin to think about how people become freaks, why its important to maintain behavioral diversity, and the relationship between neural health and "normal" behavior.

One also wonders whether people who guest star in video blogs like this one know whether or not the star of the show is affecting a personality. The more I think about it, Borat may be the most resonant film in this age of video blogging.

Jimmy Smash, American Idol: Self Image, Vlogging, and the YouTube Freak Show

First off, there’s an archiving issue here. YouTube might go down someday, and researchers really need to be archiving a sample (not all, as that would be impossible) of the videos on YouTube, including some of the unpopular videos.

And that’s why I find Beebee’s videos interesting – b/c they’re unpopular. I think what’s revolutionary about YouTube is what’s going on under the surface. It also is an illustration of how online motion pictures cannot be thought of as mere extensions of the entertainment motion picture industry as it stands. People are using motion pictures for other things, namely to connect with other people, to socialize, to work out issues of self-image, to make friends, to understand the culture or sub-culture that they are a part of. Should we be regulating, censoring, and advertising in the middle of people’s social interactions?

For the sake of argument, I’m going to refer to beebee as a “freak.” He is an unusual fellow. I mean no offense by this. I’m only pointing out that his behavior and appearance are unlike those of the majority of others many of us encounter in our lives and through the mainstream media. People are not inherently freakish, but are considered freaks b/c they happen to be different than the group of people they are surrounded by, which radically changes the minute you upload a video of yourself. Even though you may only want to be part of a community of a select, sympathetic few, the nature of the Internet (blogs, ebaum) dictate that your video/blog/whatever will be linked to by a group of people who are quite different than you, so different that they find you funny and worthy of derision. For the age group that is especially concerned with forming a self-image - early teens (coincidentally, this seems to be the group that using vlogs and blogs the most) - the jump from the playground to the vlogosphere is significant.

Is it exploitative to watch or link to beebee’s videos? Is it unethical to comment on the videos, to tell him to stop posting videos, to make fun of him, or just to laugh and forward it to friends? This dilemma of freak appeal is nothing new (see Howard Stern’s Wack Pack and/or your average elementary school playground). I recently saw the episode of The Sopranos in which Tony is trying to join his neighbor’s exclusive country club, but feels as though he’s just being kept around for the WASPs’ amusement. Tony’s story about Jimmy Smash – the boy with the cleft palate they all used to make fun of in school, who would sing for the amusement of others but go home and cry himself to sleep - was a perfect articulation of the ambivalence many people feel towards freaks. They can't help but laugh at them, yet they feel guilty for doing so. Its not a question of whether or not you sympathize with them. Many people sympathize with them AND find them hilarious. Freak appeal drives the ratings of the most popular show in the US, American Idol.

The standard answer to these questions is: yes, it is exploitative to look at these videos, to talk about these videos, and certainly to laugh at them. Any other viewpoint is a justification for our sick, unethical desire to laugh at freaks. No matter which side of the argument you’re on, it comes down to a question of normalization through censorship. Either you normalize the freaks by laughing at their behavior/appearance and by forwarding them on to others an encouraging them to do the same OR you normalize people who are laughing at a certain mode of behavior or appearance by discouraging them from doing so on ethical grounds.

But the comments on beebee’s videos and many others suggest that the audience is split in two – the people who laugh at it, and the people who want to encourage him to be more visible, to ignore the haters and come out of his shell. The Internet has been a way for freaks to shed their abnormal physical characteristics and their social hang-ups and make friends in a new way. Vlogging seems to be the next step in this process – people are returning to their skins, accepting the facts that they stutter, they look unattractive, they have boring things to say, and are willing to be judged by these characteristics. But instead of rejecting them outright (as would happen in RL), the online community is embracing them to some degree. Is this genuine? Is it a genuine attempt to compensate for the meanness of others that may or may not work out? Not sure, but will find out.

There’s also the issue of whether or not Beebee890 is acting, which cannot help but be an issue post-lonelygirl. Now, we look for physical characteristics – the moles on his face – as some sort of marker of authenticity. He could be affecting the voice and the character of beebee. Again, this raises ethical issues. Is it immoral to even suggest that a disabled vlogger is “faking it?” Is there any way a person could fake such a thing and parlay it into ill-gotten financial or social capital? Could you build up a fanbase under these false pretenses, sell ad time, insert a product in the video, and make a profit? Granted, this is lower than low behavior, but it’s worth considering the possibility of it. In the end, the lesson of lonelygirl was to be critical of all video (in particular vloggers) purporting to be “real.” It is easier to be a fraud online than in person. Its not a reason to doubt everything (which plenty of people do on YouTube, insisting that all videos are faked), but merely to consider that possibility.

What kind of a sucker do you take me for?

Lonelygirl15 doesn't seem to be a fluke, in the sense that many other vlogs are posted by ambiguously "real" personalities. Its impossible to tell to what degree people are putting on an act. Perhaps part of what keeps viewers coming back to such videos is the game of trying to figure out who the poster REALLY is - a bit like the pleasure of watching a mystery. They watch the videos, look for cracks in the facade, and try to figure out the motives of the poster. Its not a black-and-white "are they confessing or are they acting" question, but rather - what aspects of the poster's persona are real, which ones are fake, and WHY is the poster being fake in that way. Presumably, they are being fake in that way to boost their ratings, or perhaps to feel superior to the viewers ("ha ha, I fooled you" type of thing). To try to figure out one of these could-be-real-could-be-fake vloggers is to try to understand how creators view their audiences. If they think they can fool us, how are they trying to fool us? Its a bit of a competition between creator and audience, and I don't see this game ending anytime soon.

Today's desperate artist's only choice: to masquerade as Truth.

Systematic, prolonged deception is not only possible on the Internet, but it has become increasingly easy and inexpensive. Every single one of the blogs on this site or any other site could have originated from a single source or a souce that holds the opposite opinions of those expressed in the posts. Like message boards, online video distributors (e.g. YouTube), and pretty much every other participatory website, this site allows a single user to impersonate any number or variety of other people.

We can be reasonably sure the news we receive on the web is real, NYTimes, CNN, and all the rest being longstanding, reliable sources with a lot to lose if their reputation is besmirched. The Internet as news source is not what’s at stake, but rather the Internet as a social space. You can “triangulate” the truth by looking at many different website’s accounts of a news event. You cannot do this with the intimate lives or opinions of individuals. There are plenty of old fogies who do not use the Internet as a social space who would like to dismiss identity play as unimportant merely b/c it doesn’t effect them or anyone they know. But last time I checked, there were millions of young people all over the world using the Internet as a social space.

It may not take much $ to deceive people on the Internet, but it takes time and creativity, both in short supply for most. You’ve got to have something to sell to make it worth the time, unless you’re just trying to prove a point. It is this apparently motiveless mass deception that is the true new art form that lonelygirl15 portends. Think of it as experimental theater, as the next big step in the erosion of the barrier between art and life.

For those who continue to doubt the relevance of this, consider the obvious political implications of phony personas. If personas are easier to fake, then the grassroots democratic nature of the Internet could be partially or completely illusory.

Normally, I wouldn't quote something at great length, but this post is buried amongst others:

emjo on NYTimes Screens blog:
"Rewind to the 17th century, and the birth of the novel in the Christian west. In its early manifestations, the form relied on the popular convention of make-believe truthfulness — “found” Arabic manuscripts in Don Quixote, “discovered” correspondences between dead lovers in any number of epistolary novels, and so on. Back then, fiction was lies, and lies were immoral — but everyone new these books weren’t really the real truth. It was originally perhaps a symbolic, but obligatory, nod to the atmosphere of religious censorship, plus there is that extra shivery bit of pleasure from imagining that a story MIGHT be true. See also more contemporary examples — Nabokov’s “Lolita,” for example. Enter reality T.V., and, shortly after, literary identity scandals like James Frey and J.T. LeRoy. This is a little bit different–the assumption is that audiences will be more interested (will perhaps ONLY be interested) if they REALLY BELIEVE that the stories they’re hearing/seeing are true...[For those who doubt the revelance of LG15 and the like], do we really not care anymore about anything but the material facts of our world–particularly those facts that put us in bodily danger? Is imagination a waste of time? Is fiction immoral?

Maybe on our journey back towards the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, we are finding new ways to push art to the margins. Global terrorism, by god! We have no time to waste on childish make-believe! I can understand how artists desperate to get our attention might feel that their only choice is to masquerade as Truth. Unfortunately, this compromise is dangerous and demeaning. So what to do? Do the narrative arts continue to become more polarized — either popular, soothing, and meaningless, or powerful, brilliant, and obscure? Do more and more theater, film, and fiction artists turn to fake reality? Or do we as audiences give the imagination the space it deserves, to interpret and represent aspects of experience that can’t be fought with wars and bombs?"

http://screens.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=77#comment-935
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/weekinreview/17zeller.html?ref=weekinreview

Fake Blogs, Fake Vlogs, and Verisimilitude

More on Lonleygirl15...

Many artists aspire to create the most realistic art they can. Many see the arts on a steady tragectory towards art that is indistinguishable from reality. So, is Lonelygirl15 and other blogs or vlogs that are fictional the next step towards verisimilitude? Do those who fee lied to have any more of an ethical beef than people who were originally tricked into believing early films were "real?" As I recall, Lonelygirl15's creators never explicitly claimed to be non-fiction. They simply took advantage of an audience's preconceived notions of a medium.

the birth of a new art form

call me crazy, but I believe "The Creators" when, after the (apparent) revelation that Lonleygirl15 is not "real," they declared the birth of a new art form. In terms of medium specificity, I think they have a point (although its dopey to think of the Internet as a single medium at this point, as it fulfills so many different fuctions for so many different people) - one of the walls that the internet was destined to break down, along with the walls between public/private and public/celebrity, was the wall between fiction and realtiy.

I guess you could draw parellels to "War of Worlds" or "Quiz Show," mass media deceptions on a much larger scale. Like everything online, this only affects a minute portion of the public. But still, the same principles apply. And so we might think that, just as War of the Worlds was to radio and the quiz show that inspire the movie Quiz Show was to TV, this is to the Internet (or at least autobiographic blogging, vlogging, and podcasting). In other words, there comes a time in the evolution of any medium where the audience is forced to confront the fact that the medium can be used for mass deception. They are forced to become critical of it. Again, this only applies to aspects of the Internet (primarily those that ape aspects of "traditional media" like YouTube does to TV. But the same can be said about autobiographic blogs.

loneleygirl15 is real in the sense that the person who is on screen is almost certainly real, and she is real in the sense that the sentiments that she expresses, the motives that inform those sentiments, are both from another real person (or perhaps several real people) - the Creators. It is possible that The Creators is just a computer program that analyzes autobiographic blogs, pulls recurring themes, sentiments, and motives and weaves those into a story (unlikely considering how unsophisticated AI is rright now, but in principle, such a program, with minor human assistance, could exist soon).

Is lonelygirl15 any less real than the coached personalities on Laguna Beach? What if those personalities weren't coached? Would that, then, be real? By "real," I suppose we mean that the actions of a person are motivated by only them, and not other forces, or that at least those other forces pass through the filter of that person. It would be better if Bree was "real" in the sense that she, like the characters on Laguna Beach and the Hills, had a pre-existing life that was dicovered by producers and then shaped to suit dramatic needs. There could never be any definitive unmasking. There would never really be any lying. It would be impossible to fix the line between reality and fiction. They (or she) might have been coached, and her behavior might have been altered, but it is impossible to say to what degree and in what way.

We all put on some sort of a performance to garner attention, in our writings and our behavior. What makes us real?

So this is all some combination of Andy Kaufman and Andy Warhol. And at least for now, it feels new.