Show Posts
31
Off Topic / Re: Youtube is on a Downward Spiral
« on: June 03, 2018, 12:42:12 PM »YTPs are art, just like memes are art.If the internet has taught us anything, it might as well be that the human compulsion to create is just as strong as the compulsion to destroy. In certain examples, the two move in lock-step. The prevalence of deconstructionism – not only as a means of intellectual inquiry, but as a method of self-expression – has blossomed in the internet era, as the necessities for content to generate clear profit and appeal to pre-identified audiences have been somewhat left by the wayside.
And YTPs are 5x the art WatchMojo and loving Buzzfeed are.
Because what is there to lose by simply uploading an artistic creation online, save perhaps ridicule (or an abundance of pesky – and occasionally ludicrous – copyright claims)? In this piece I do not aim to provide an exploration of the YouTube Poop phenomenon as a whole, but rather to examine one particular (shining) example of the “movement” and explore how by re-contextualizing the mainstream content it employs it is able to both establish itself as its own entity and provide a hermeneutical inquiry into the original text by deconstructing and parody both its form and content.
Take a deep breath.
Before we get ahead of ourselves: what is a YouTube Poop, and why do we care? A YouTube Poop (hereon referred to as a YTP) is a style of mashup video popular on the site that gave the genre its namesake. Noted for championing an absurdist style of mashup comedy that uses existing content as the building blocks of a new piece of media, these pieces are designed to entertain their audiences through any number of traditional or non-traditional means. The most immediately understandable or even accessible form of the YTP is rather simplistic and oftentimes juvenile (something like Grandma’s Kisses, which simply dubs over clips from a SpongeBob Squarepants episode with raunchy dialogue). Videos like this could perhaps be seen as the offspring of the work of someone like Todd Graham, who in the late 1980’s was noted for his short films Apocalypse Pooh and Blue Peanuts that combined children’s cartoons with dialogue from popular films (Apocalypse Now with Winnie the Pooh in the former, Blue Velvet with The Peanuts in the latter).
The more typically thought of YTP’s are much more abstract in nature. While the humor of these short videos is oftentimes derived simply from the comedy of odd sounds, crass juxtapositions, and novelty, there are a plethora of more intellectual lines of inquiry through which to explore this form of content creation.
The Fesh Pince of Blair (2011) and its sequel The Fesh Pince of Blair 2: Uncle Phil Yiffs in Heaven Again (2014) serve as our (shining) examples of YTP as a method of deconstructive parody. Imbued with a blue watermark reading ‘Dikekike’ (the stamp from their otherwise anonymous creator), the two Fresh Prince of Bel-Air based YTP’s tell absurdist hypertextual alternative narratives constructed almost entirely from footage borrowed from the Will Smith-fronted sitcom. The two videos function based on humor derived from the strangeness that can be created from merely re-contextualing images and sound from what is, in its original form, an incredibly formulaic piece of media. One of the most intriguing points about these two videos is how they bombard the viewer with so many unconventional editing techniques, non-grammatical speech patterns, and intentionally nonsensical non-sequiturs, that a first-time audience member is unlikely to notice that they both actually tell (relatively) cohesive narratives.
For the sake of arguing this last point, let’s briefly run-through the plotline of the first Fesh Pince video (I’ll stick to just the first video in this section, for the sake of brevity). The video is split into two main sections, each mimicking an episode of the original series, each with an A-plot and a B-plot (as is typical for sitcom construction).
In the first section Philip Banks is running for some kind of position in an election. He is slandered in the newspaper by the opposing candidate, prompting him to say that he’s “not going to fight back”, which shocks his family. But when his opponent insults him on live television, they strongly urge him to stand up for himself. Will chooses to confront his uncle’s opponent, who has a heart attack and dies. The next morning Will “feels so guilty” about what has happened.
Meanwhile, in the B-plot, Carlton has been attempting to speak to President Bush on the telephone in a fruitless effort to get his father what he’s always wanted: “a Pizza Hut in the garage.”
In a moment of rage and frustration, Will accidentally kills Carlton. At his memorial service, Will gives an impassioned speech about his fallen cousin, and receives a round of applause.
The second main section’s narrative is more obtuse than the first. It is a modified version of the season three episode “Winner Takes Off”, wherein Will and Carlton play a prank on Geoffrey, convincing him he’s won the lottery. When he reacts wildly and rashly to the news, only to discover he was duped, he quits his job as Banks family butler in shame. The boys have to convince Geoffrey that the family values him and get him to resume his position.
The Fesh Pince version features Will and Carlton’s rivalry with Geoffrey culminating in the butler embarrassing himself by throwing a tantrum inspired by an episode of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, and then attacking Carlton. Like in the original episode, Will and Carlton have to convince Geoffrey to take his job back after he quits. The B-plot involves Aunt Vivian writing her “first short story” and Uncle Phil’s insistence upon avoiding having to share his honest thoughts with his wife.
While the two main sections tell these obscured absurdist narratives, they are frequently interrupted by surrealistic vignettes unrelated to the “storytelling”. And even within the context of the narrative scenes, there are frequently side-steps involving characters speaking gibberish, performing wild actions, only to return to where they were prior. Within the editing of the video there are frequently what are essentially asterisks within the structure of the video – where the action is halted and a tangential vignette begins, oftentimes based on some visual cue, sound, or connection between segments. Similarly to metafiction, Fesh Pince of Blair uses video editing as a means of self-commentary, via visual footnotes that reference and distort the material being used.
I emphasize the point regarding the relative narrative soundness of Fesh Pince of Blair because I think it serves as a sort of argument against those who would discredit the videos for seemingly being ‘just’ random. While Fesh Pince, as well as the whole of YTP culture, is partly predicated upon the comedic potential of the random and entirely unexpected, being constructed without care is not synonymous with creating a piece based upon randomness.
The brilliance of Fesh Pince of Blair and its sequel lie in the ways in which they engage with popular culture. They are both aware of their own position as entities entangled in the culture of internet mash-ups, but also as pieces of derivative content that will be digested by those already familiar with the content from which they are derived. Similarly to a subversive sequel or a film that deconstructs genre tropes, The Fesh Pince of Blair has the ability to continually present a multi-layered experience hung upon the fact that the content is recycled. This creates a fascinating relationship between the mainstream and the underground, as well as illuminating the way that this relationship is constantly being renegotiated in the internet era. As popular culture further fragments into subsections, the idea of an internet video being consumed as a valid form of artistic expression and entertainment comparable to a film or television program is nearing the point of becoming a reality.
This is part of why I find Fesh Pince of Blair so fascinating – not only because it creates an incredibly abstract and polarizing piece of media nearly entirely out of something known for being extraordinarily accessible and universally appealing – but because as a (shining) example of YTP culture it provides an entryway for re-examining contemporary storytelling in media and the way it connects to its audience. And the polarizing nature of Fesh Pince of Blair is not to be understated – realistically, one is more likely to find it utterly insufferable (as many I have shown it to have) than appreciate it. But it is also impressive how easy it is for an audience with the right sense of humor to accept it for what it is. If the YTP is not the first truly pop entertainment form of experimental film, then it at least expands upon and exaggerates the seeds laid by the music video. And while an audience in the 90’s was likely to accept pieces of experimental content in the 90’s on MTV, so today are they inclined to enjoy something like The Fesh Pince of Blair.
Why is this? I would argue that it is exactly because a YTP like The Fesh Pince of Blair re-contextualizes mainstream content. Even if a music video is more or less an experimental film, audiences will usually accept it as long as the music it is re-contextualizing is mainstream and accessible in content. Similarly, The Fesh Pince of Blair strongly emphasizes its relationship to the source material, and because of this any audience can not only readily identify with what is being seen on a level that they can’t with, say, a Stan Brakhage short, but also easily grapple with the way the piece is re-framing this material.
By this method of examining a pre-existing text and deconstructing its form and content, videos like this not only widen their audience appeal, but allow anyone watching to examine the way that a piece of media is connected to a multitude of things: the society it was created in, the form in which it was originally exhibited, and those who watch it.
While most of these points are mutated and cursory versions (or even bastardizations) of ideas explored in post-modernist theory, I find them valuable in attempting to supplant the line between internet content and ‘legitimate’ content. While the argument has raged forever, from the Paul’s Boutique sampling-in-hip-hop court cases, to the Negativland / U2 fiasco of 1991, the internet has certainly accelerated the way we discuss derivation in content creation.
In 1936 Joseph Cornell created a short film called Rose Hobart, an ode to the titular actress that used clips from her film East of Borneo re-edited to create a dream-like and experimental version of the original movie. In 1958 filmmaker Bruce Conner created A Movie, a short experimental film that combined clips of found footage with music to connote meaning and implications that weren’t present in the original source material. Extremely talented contemporary filmmakers like Damon Packard (Reflections of Evil, SpaceDisco One, The Untitled Star Wars Mockumentary), Jean-Luc Godard (Goodbye To Language 3D, Film Socialisme, etc.), and Todd Haynes (I’m Not There, Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story) and others have explored similar techniques and ideas in their work. And examples like this are prevalent throughout the entire history of experimental cinema. The forefathers of YouTube Poop and mash-up videos are many – and significant.
If post-modernism is destined to transform into a blossoming and forthcoming fully formed ‘internet culture’ (for lack of a better term at current date), then I would argue on behalf of re-contextualized art being one of its most important tools. Not because – as the prior examples corroborate – re-contextualization or deconstruction are recent creations. Rather, it is because the possibility and ease of consummation in this fast-paced world should be matched by the possibility and freedom to constantly re-examine and re-brown townyze ourselves and what we create.
