Over 1.5 million people have viewed it.
It’s overly long and the music is as Jared commented so heavy-handed that it could’ve been an ad for cancer research. But I really do think that what is says is more than everyday people have access to cameras and the internet.
How to define it? Perhaps using CK’s methodology: This is what it’s not:
- It’s not fake
- It’s not funny
- It’s not filtered
- It’s not polished
- It’s not perfect
- It isn’t about empowerment
- It’s not about artistic merit
- About wanting to be heard
- About sharing
- About trying to connect
A few blog commentators were scathing. I was amazed by the sentiment that sentiment itself is bad. That emotion is naff. That the real loneliness of most people is tacky, crap and should be swept under the carpet where urban hipsters don’t have to see.
Ben puts it well:
“It has nothing to do with taste or artistic merit. I suppose there’s an element of voyeurism, liking looking into people’s gardens as you whizz past on the train. It’s real, which I like. It’s not a version of real or some one’s perception of real, these are real videos of real people uploaded to YouTube with no intention of being put into a 1M plus video montage. Literally. Boys, girls, black, white, old, young, mums, dads, kids, grans, animations, cats, dogs and even some EMO’s.
One of my favourite quote is from Larry Page, “Knowing what’s really happening is more important than trying to control people”. To me, that’s what’s happens on YouTube.”
And William Deed nails it:
” I was genuinely interested in each person who appeared in that video and not in a fucking, ain’t that interesting kind of way, but I was able to empathise with a whole load of people who were not only trying to understand themselves, but understand how to live in an age where the personal has become public.”
I agree, all you too cool for school marketing types. This is your audience fellas- look and learn. Most of these people could do with a good friend.
6 Comments so far
Leave a comment