Web Videos

Whilst video platform Vine has closed down, its legacy of short Internet videos has remained. Investigate the popularity of these short videos. Why are they so popular? What makes them popular? How can a short video reach success – what needs to be included within the short video to make it successful? Is this medium preferred over longer YouTube videos, for example?

Recently, there has been a boom in social media coverage of political events. Politicians have been using social media to their advantage to build an image for themselves during campaigns. Analyze the role social media plays in influencing audience perception. How is this trope being harnessed by politicians today all over the world? What are the moral/ ethical dilemmas (if any) associated with this free and easily accessible tool for shaping public perception?

As social distancing measures have left us stuck in our homes, those that create and share art on YouTube, Instagram or other platforms have never had more time to add more user generated content to the never-ending mix of digital media. Plus, consumers this content have never had more time to scroll through these self-proclaimed artists’ creations. Now more than ever, with more and more people turning to the Internet both to produce and consume art, it is worth figuring out how to interpret, sort, and evaluate this type of art.

I’m not going to suggest that all Instagram or YouTube content should be considered “high” art. One of the trade-offs of total accessibility is that, while it allows anyone with Internet access can create and upload material that they believe is artistic, it is difficult to sort out the good from the bad, and the best from the good. After all, it’s not as though having a broadband connection is a viable substitute for having talent, something meaningful to say, and an original way to say it. For example, a video of someone showing off their dance moves on TikTok can be entertaining, but does it pose a topical question, provoke discussion, or relate to greater issues of society, truth, or beauty? Probably not. But where do we draw the line? When has “art” been achieved?

I believe the entire persona of “Poppy,” as she appears in YouTube videos, albums, and on stage, offers up avant-garde aesthetics and difficult-to-interpret cultural commentary. The videos she posts on her YouTube channel (made in collaboration with director Titanic Sinclair) are, to say the least, difficult to react to. In her debut video, “Poppy Eats Cotton Candy” (2014), she – as you might expect – wordlessly eats cotton candy; and in another, she says the words “I’m Poppy” for ten minutes, in a series of takes to camera. These videos may be perplexing, but they are oddly fascinating: they resist easy interpretation because, unlike most of the content uploaded by YouTube “personalities,” they seem to be more provocative than entertaining. Her work has the same theoretical value as “gallery art” – it contains layers of meaning, aesthetic appeal, and can be unpacked and analyzed to the same degree as any “high art.”

But should it be? Or should there be NEW set of critical practices/criteria that are reserved only for digital media?

An entire YouTube industry runs on musicians and artists creating covers of popular songs. As an avid listener of many such artists, I enjoy their covers; however, I have often wondered about the copyright implications. Since music/lyrics are the creative products of the original artist, are they technically protected from being remade into "covers"? Or is a cover seen as symbiotic with the original work, increasing the original work’s popularity/renown?

I’d love to see an article delineate the copyright implications of YouTube covers and/or the relationships between the original artists and the artists producing covers.

We’re always told that potential employers will look at your online platforms and turn you down if you don’t fit their image, but is this idea losing importance now that you can become your own employer using a platform like YouTube. Yes, it takes time and effort but it can be done. Write!

What is it about YouTube videos that makes them more accessible and appealing to today’s inquisitive audiences? Why do people seem to prefer YouTube web video celebrities with little to no credentials or credentials in unrelated fields? Is it a matter of charisma? Confirmation bias? Laziness to read? A mix?

Disney launched earlier this week (11/12/19) and reportedly had 10 million subscribers in the first 24 hours of its availability. This number is expected to continue to grow over the next few weeks. How will the streaming landscape be affected by Disney ‘s release? What effect will Disney have on Netflix and the upcoming HBO Max? Will Disney push these companies out of the streaming business? Will Netflix and HBO Max be forced to adopt new strategies to entice customers? The article would speculate/analyze how Disney is changing the streaming landscape and business.

The name YouTube perfectly described the platform of my youth. People making and posting content of themselves meant to be shared online. And not necessarily with the hope of going viral. What has it become now? Small YouTubers are overshadowed by corporations and businesses. Individuals who become successful now all sell merch and maybe even have exclusive content unlocked for a price with "join" button or with their Patreon. Youtube’s algorithms give me dumb suggestions I don’t want to watch because of all the clickbait out there. How has this happened? Is this a problem? Is it inevitable evolution of the medium?