The video information - worth the time or not?

[Infinity Squared]

Meh... I read the back of the cereal box when I eat breakfast in the morning, just to see exactly how much riboflavin I'm getting out of this... it's the same with the video information.

[Pie Row Maniac]

It's nice to know how certain things were done in the video by explanation of the one who created it. It's also enjoyable to tack on a piece of the editor's personality onto the video before or after watching it simply by reading the profile. I don't see why they wouldn't be needed to be honest.

[Keeper of Hellfire]

If I see no video information I'll tend not to download the vid. Why bother if the creator hasn't bothered to tell me what it's about?

X2.

A video is a video, there's no need to learn about the backstory or the meaning unless you really want to.

Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. Without background information an AMV gets out of context, what can change it's meaning. An example what I mean: The sentence "Freedom always means the freedom of the ones who think different too." While in first place looking like a plead for freedom, it can easiely be a justification for surpression with saying "We can't allow different thoughts, so we can't allow any freedom." To judge how it is meant you need background information who it said and for what reason. Saying this simply shows your ignorance and is a humilation for any editor who puts more effort in an AMV than simply sticking random clips (and effects) to music.

[Szwagier]

If the video I was watching was good in most cases I read its information, to see what the editor have to say about his creation. It shows that editor is starting some dialogue with the viewer, and i like that. But saying that video without its background cannot be understood well is just nonsense. A good vid can always defend itself without editors help. And if the video is crappy then even if editor would explain the meaning of every scene, and the reason for putting it like that, it would still be crappy. For example REALEASE by Pianos isn't a mindless action vid, and it's really easy to understand but the description is just one sentence....

[Willen]

Video information will many times determine whether or not I download the video. Occasionally I will download a vid just because of the anime / song combo or theme. Usually, it is a good barometer of the effort put into the video - the more detailed the description, the more attention to detail the video will have. But some videos have a concept so simple or so self-explanatory they need very little descriptive text.

To sum up: better description = better chance I will download and watch it.

[Keeper of Hellfire]

But saying that video without its background cannot be understood well is just nonsense.

I didn't say this. I said that a vid without background information can be misunderstood or not understood. That's an important difference, which parts sense from nonsense.

A good vid can always defend itself without editors help.

Like for any art, this isn't true. In many cases you need to know the reason why an artist made that work, or about the generell situation of that time, and this doesn't disqualify it as bad art. An example that happened to me: In our school hung a copy of Picasso's "Guernica". I didn't like it because it was abstract art and I didn't understand what it was about. After hearing in a lesson what happened in Guernica it was easy to understand. Not only this, I started to like it because it expressed the same feelings I had on this matter. And so it is with the most things. But often that background info isn't provided with the art itself, you already have it. Imagine watching a George W. Bush parody without knowing him. Do you think it would be same funny? Or worse, without knowing anything about the USA at all?

[Bakadeshi]

I like reading video descriptions if they arent to long like bakadeshis zetsumo video description I almost died after I read it all

yea my vid descriptions tend to get pretty long since I include alot of information including the kind of edits I did in it. I do seperate the description into sections though so people can skip over parts they are not interested in. The actuall Description part of the video for Zetsumo (without the technical details and stuff) I think is only 2 paragraphs.

I find it interesting to read those kind of things to videos I like, especially if I see an original effect, or type of edit I like. I also agree with the post that said they find it humerous sometimes to read about issues and problems people had while making their video ;p (like Vicbonds Haibane vid)

I also enjoy reading inthestos vid descriptions that have nothing at all to do with the video

[Infinity Squared]

Hmm, I think perhaps you're being too strict with this idea, KOH...

These videos are as much a personal enjoyment thing as they are a person's creation. What I mean is, people interpret things differently, even with the "notes" of the creator present. You cannot consctrict yourself to believing you'll always need to have the creator explain to you what their vision was with the video for you to enjoy (or not enjoy) the video. I believe the creators notes are a good way to get people interested in downloading your video, however, in the end, the enjoyment will not come from you knowing the video you downloaded was dedicated to this person's grandmother, but rather that the video spoke to you on its own, that in your own volition, you decided it was good (or bad ).

[Szwagier]

But saying that video without its background cannot be understood well is just nonsense.

I didn't say this. I said that a vid without background information can be misunderstood or not understood. That's an important difference, which parts sense from nonsense.

I see. Then I misunderstood You a little

A good vid can always defend itself without editors help.

Like for any art, this isn't true. In many cases you need to know the reason why an artist made that work, or about the generell situation of that time, and this doesn't disqualify it as bad art
An example that happened to me: In our school hung a copy of Picasso's "Guernica". I didn't like it because it was abstract art and I didn't understand what it was about. After hearing in a lesson what happened in Guernica it was easy to understand. Not only this, I started to like it because it expressed the same feelings I had on this matter. And so it is with the most things. But often that background info isn't provided with the art itself, you already have it. Imagine watching a George W. Bush parody without knowing him. Do you think it would be same funny? Or worse, without knowing anything about the USA at all?

It's obvious that You need some knowledge of the main context of the artwork. But that doesn't change the bad work into something briiliant. If i dislike the painting from how it looks, I won't start liking it after knowing its background. I might give it a little more respect, but if somthing is ugly to me it will stay the same way. And about that Bush parody example. Have you ever seen a George W. Bush parody video with links to his biography, to history of the USA, to his best quotes and to some videos with him? Cuz i haven't. And that means the author left the work of finding that info to viewers. He didn't have to defend his work because he assume that the viewers have some basic knowledge of the subject. I also never saw a poem with list of contexts that occur in this poem, or a painting with full description of every object made by author.

[Arigatomina]

I also never saw a poem with list of contexts that occur in this poem...

Guess you've never taken a college literature course. You're not allowed to read any poem without knowing how everything about the author, from how the author's mom wiped his butt as a baby (front to back, we hope) and how many times he had sex before croaking (virgins make better angst-poets). Don't believe it? Just take a semester of any advanced literature course. Or, if you really want to see how much unreasonable background information is forced down a student's throat, try taking a Shakespeare class. In any written field, according to 'educated critics', you can't appreciate the artwork without understanding the artist. That red wagon is not a wagon. If you think it is, you're missing the artist's natural talent at finding a world in a grain of sand. It's crap, honestly. Students aren't even allowed to read a fiction story without understanding how every aspect was caused by some quirk on the creator's part. It just isn't art appreciation unless you appreciate where the artist comes from and what he intends. Poems are the worst. Most poems are all metaphores and symbolism, and unless you're just a genius who automatically knows a bee sting made the artist wacky and that's why she wrote so many pages about white walls, they're just words on a page without translation. Sure, the words might rhyme in a pleasing aesthetic way, but you're not appreciating the artwork for what it's worth because the poem was never meant to stand on its own. At least, not according to the critics.

Blegh. I hate literature courses. Why read Shakespeare in its original form if the footnotes translate every single line into some 20th century form? It's like reading one of those modern rewrites of the King James Bible - what's the point? You lose everything if you have to translate everything. But that's the way they (infamous they, educated and better-knowing-than-thou they) have it. No point arguing over something that is factually proven in *every* single literature course in the United States.

For amvs, does it really matter? Some vids you just won't 'get' without looking at them the right way. Others are made for blind (uneducated) enjoyment so you're looking at them the 'right way' by default. It depends on the video. Since no one is giving classes to tell us which are 'art' to be studied by studying the artist, it doesn't really matter. I prefer to have the creator tell me how he looked at the video - then it's up to me whether or not I read what he wrote.