Questionset of the Second Week.

[BasharOfTheAges]

False dichotomy or false dichotomy! Choose!

[gotegenks]

which video holds more value or significance, the 3 million views video that everyone knows and loves (and is well edited, not just a crap video) or the video that all the vets point you towards and say "do it like this" ?

If it's well edited, who is to say that the vet isn't pointing towards it? This question is a bit convoluted.

well the first one isn't really original or the best at anything, so nobody looks to it as a standard for any sort of technique or whatever.

[Otohiko]

what factors outside of the actual editing or concept factor into critical and/or public reception?

Lots of things have been mentioned already - I'll add one more that hasn't really: the setting and context in which a video is being watched. Some videos do brilliantly well on the big screen, with a big crowd helping pump up the atmosphere, while others are meant to be watched alone at home with full attention and no outside distractions. Some videos work well in contests, while others are best watched purely on their fan merits. A lot of videos require being in a certain mood to be perceived. You can control some of these factors but not others. The more specific your video, the more likely the response to be mixed.

What has more of an effect on a video's public reception: song choice or anime choice? For example, you have video A that uses a neverbeforeseen anime with your favorite song, and video B that uses a neverbeforeheard song with your favorite anime, both of the unknown sources are equally likable to you, which video would you probably prefer or have a better chance of enjoying?

Depends on the audience. More than either of those things, the quality of the actual video still matters the most.

Personally, how well I know a source won't matter if the video itself makes the source look/sound really cool. I like discovering new things through AMVs. Likewise, I'm not any more likely to enjoy what I consider to be a poorly-done video to a source I really like than I am to enjoy a poorly-done video to a source I don't know or don't like. I am more likely to go and actually look for and watch videos with sources I like, but my perception in the end isn't necessarily driven by source. In fact, more than anything, I'm more likely to get pissed off if someone makes a lame video to a source that I am a big fan of (wasted opportunity etc.)

you all know those videos that really suck (in our opinions anyway) but everybody ever loves it to death. Some of the creators of these videos with less humility than most assert that the amount of likes and comments is a good measure of how good the video is. We all know youtube views are bologna, but why? What's your response when people claim lots of subscribers and views mean you're a good editor, or do you just agree with them?

What's "good"? Who is the judge of good?
That answer depends on when you're coming from. "Good" and "popular" aren't necessarily the same thing. If you make a video in order to specifically get a lot of views and subscriptions, and you get them, that means you're successful in your goal. It does not mean your good. If I make a video for personal and aesthetic reasons, and it meets that goal, then it's no less successful at what it achieving what it set out to achieve.

If I had to push that response further, I would simply ask what popularity has anything to do with aesthetic value, that's all. I would have at least some reservations about a large number of people on the internet being a good indicator of aesthetic value.

Is your favorite video the video you believe is the most well-edited (out of what you've seen), or is it the video with your favorite anime and/or a song you love, or both?

Neither.

What tickles your fancy more in a video, when they use an anime you know and love that is used a fair bit in videos, or an anime of equal visual quality that you've never ever seen before at all (not even trailers)?

Neither.

What floats your boat the most in a video, when they use music that you love effectively, or when they use music you hate and effectively make you love the video in spite of the bad music?

Both about equally.

Who are the best judges when it comes to deciding what video out of 2 or more is better objectively: Youtube viewers, Org viewers, convention judges, convention audiences, your own favorite editor, you yourself, your mom, your dog, eimij7, me, jesus, (insert custom answer(s) here)?

To put it most bluntly: If you think aesthetic value can be evaluated objectively, you are really dumb (sorry).

There is no way of objectively deciding what video is better, and in fact no video is "better". However some videos are more functional in particular contexts and at particular goals. The only "objective" judgments you can make on that are how well a video functions in a given context and how well it meets given goals. Ultimately, that is the dialectic between audience and video, and also one between editor and his goals, that determines those. Everything else is just projection of criteria which, like it or not, are inherently subjective and even arguably arbitrary.

So most people hold they belief that they edit primarily for themselves, which to me seems like the only logical stance (though i'd love to hear support for another) because as far as i know you can't make a living at AMVs (at least not a comfortable one), so if you hold that belief as well, what exactly does that mean to you? Do you edit the songs and animes you want to without considering what anybody else will think? Do you do whatever the fuck you want in your video and don't give a shit what beta testers and critics say? How much outside influence do you consciously take and accept when it comes to your videos? Have you ever pandered in the slightest, in any way, shape, or form? if so, how?

As I said, it should really be about goals. You set yourself goals, and then you figure out how to get there. Oftentimes other people can tell you a lot about how to achieve your goals, depending on what they are. Even if you are making a video for yourself, it's usually because you want to see something on screen that you will really like. Other people's advice can be instrumental in helping you execute that sort of vision.

if you don't hold the above belief, what do you believe, then? Do you pander wholeheartedly to any given audience? Do you pick out of a hat what animes or music to edit, whether you want to or not? do you take suggestions by beta testers blindly even if you don't (or wouldn't) agree with them?

Then why are you editing? Ultimately, even if you are pandering, it's because you get a kick out of public acknowledgment and praise for your work, which is still for yourself in a very direct sense. Then you already have a personal goal and you have things that can make you better at achieving it. And just as it's true that others advice can be useful if you're making a video for personal reasons, advice can also be useless if you're making a video for popularity. Never accept anyone's advice on anything blindly. If you do, you are really dumb (sorry).

which video holds more value or significance, the 3 million views video that everyone knows and loves (and is well edited, not just a crap video) or the video that all the vets point you towards and say "do it like this" ?

Define value and significance objectively.

No, wait, you can't. If you think you can, you are really dumb (sorry).

There is nothing in aesthetics that isn't psychosocially motivated, and aesthetics are subjective by default because they are defined by the sociocultural context in which one operates. Depending on the context in which you're operating, the judgment of aesthetic value and significance will vary.

What kind of video would you rather make, a 3 million views video that only scrubs gush over, or a 10k views video that good editors look to as an example and admire?

I like a video that does what it's supposed to. If I make a video for a contest, I'd love it to win. If I make a video for fans of a particular show or particular type of music, it's a massive pleasure when the fans of it pick up what I was doing and love the hell out of it. If I make a video to express a particular mood or idea, whether for myself or for other people, and the end product does that - that's great.

To that I should also add - neither the 3 million randoms nor 10k editors interest me. In fact, I've recently realized that what editors think actually only matters so much. Editors are often total dicks with conceited opinions that don't have anything to say about my goals. Editors are often technocratic and jaded. Things that matter to most editors honestly don't matter to me most of the time. So, as odd as it might sound, I actually have become suspicious of editors' opinions. They often have too much of a stake in editing to look at it freely and see goals in others editing that aren't necessarily their own editing goals. More generally, editors often take stuff too seriously.

on a scale from 1-10 how annoying is the guy posting below you?

[/quote]

My level of annoyingness, minus 1.

[gotegenks]

that really opened my eyes on what exactly constitutes a "good video," thanks.

although i don't think aesthetics are totally subjective. I mean, it's a visual art, and so there are still the basic elements and principles of art. some colors make other colors look good with contrast and all these different things that are pretty objective measures of what looks good. although It can go back to goals, in the end your goal can be "to make a bad painting" and so you would try to ignore all those principles and have a good painting for what you were going for, but it'll probably (and i guess hopefully in this case) it'll be a bad painting.

though what if that painting becomes popular somehow and paintings that ignore all those elements and principles become the standard, then does the art community create new elements and principles that measure how good a painting is in this new society where the tried, true, and established elements and principles of art are not relevant? I think the staggering amount of time that those elements and principles have been regarded as art law is enough support for me to say they're pretty objective, or at least as objective as it gets, when it comes to judging how good a painting looks, but the goals thing can come in and say "i don't want it to look good" and thereby give it value if it succeeds in looking like shit, but if it succeeds in looking like shit, i don't think that changes the fact that it looks like shit, it just gives value to the fact that it looks like shit. So i do think aesthetics have an objective base deep deep down on some level, but i completely agree with your concept about goals being the ultimate gauge of intrinsic value or worth.

i have been known to be very dumb though, so your bigotry is not misplaced here.