bart

Cameras clicking and flashing in the audience

32 posts in this topic

...but what about some "Summum Bonum", or even some Bentham-Mill Social Utilitarianism...you know,"the greatest happiness of the greatest number" thing...?

The important thing to remember is that it is dangerous for the dancers. No photo or UTube video is worth someone getting injured, no matter how many of us enjoy them.

Without debating the ethics of videotaping performances to put up on youtube, I think it is worth mentioning that as the thing that imperils dancers is camera flash, and there is no reason for a flash to be used in videotaping, there is absolutely no reason to believe, as was implied above, that videotaping a performance in any way leads to performer injury.

Share this post


Link to post
When we are talking about paying money and taking time to go to a live performance, the "greatest number" are -- by far -- those who wish to be able to focus on the stage and not be distracted by movement, light, and noise created by the behavior of those sitting around them. The "greatest good" to these people is as much silence, stillness, and mutual respect as possible.

performances a year, who finds himself or herself sitting behind a row of brightly-lighted texters. The music lover trying to ignore the cllicks and whirring.

bart, going back to the original matters of this thread made me realize that we all-(me included)-agree on the non-tolerance policy to noise coming from the audience, whereas it comes from candy wrappers, shopping bags-(oooh, how do I hate those...!! :wallbash: )-miss behaved/crying children-( :wallbash::wallbash: )-and all sort of NOISY/FLASHY electronic devices. I'm actually pretty up front about giving dirty looks to the offenders and if that doesn't work, shoosh them right then and there. So that is well established.

About Youtube and the underground filming...mmm, well, that would be probably a whole totally different thread to discuss, but echoing Aurora's statement , I don't really think the two subjects have a lot in common. Let's not forget that the ultimate purpose of this surreptitious/secret filming is not to be caught...to be as silent and non evident as possible.

And then, a little :lol: , I do confess to be a little compulsive on my ballet viewing on Youtube. At the end, I don't see another way that I could have possibly ever seen Anna Pavlova! :)

Share this post


Link to post

I stand corrected, flash photography and video are two different issues. I think I lumped them together because they have both upset me, flashes while on stage, distracting cameras while in the audience. :lol:

Cubanmiamiboy makes a good point about the historical value of pirated video. There is an issue of the dancer's and choreographer's rights however. They have not approved the quality of, or been compensated for these videos.

Another point, the union regulations (at least in the US) for filming make it quite expensive for companies, and maybe those regulations are out of date, and need to be revised, given the advances in the development of equipment and the increased importance of video. If only companies could release their own videos in quantity there would be less pirates, more happy fans, and a source of income for the co. :wallbash:

Share this post


Link to post
About Youtube and the underground filming...mmm, well, that would be probably a whole totally different thread to discuss, but echoing Aurora's statement , I don't really think the two subjects have a lot in common. Let's not forget that the ultimate purpose of this surreptitious/secret filming is not to be caught...to be as silent and non evident as possible.
I do see this and now agree with both you and LiLing. I guess I assumed, incorrectly, that any kind of camera work would be distracting to those in the area. If it's silent and unobtrusive, it is indeed a different matter. And a different topic for BT. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
About Youtube and the underground filming...mmm, well, that would be probably a whole totally different thread to discuss, but echoing Aurora's statement , I don't really think the two subjects have a lot in common. Let's not forget that the ultimate purpose of this surreptitious/secret filming is not to be caught...to be as silent and non evident as possible.
I do see this and now agree with both you and LiLing. I guess I assumed, incorrectly, that any kind of camera work would be distracting to those in the area. If it's silent and unobtrusive, it is indeed a different matter. And a different topic for BT. :)

This reminds me of Victor Jessen, and his faithful recording of the Ballet Russe. I have a copy of the Dance Films edit of his Gaite, and have used it in dance history classes. Despite its flaws, I still think it's a wonderful example of that period and style -- without Jessen and his overcoat our knowledge of that time would be much diminished.

You're right, that this is a discussion for a different thread, but it is closely connected to this topic.

Share this post


Link to post

Correct me if I’m wrong, but even if it’s silent and unobtrusive it’s still illegal. And as grateful as we spectators may be for bootleg recordings and bootleg films, the artists whose work is subject to such practices may feel differently. It's a thorny issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Correct me if I’m wrong, but even if it’s silent and unobtrusive it’s still illegal.

No...you're not wrong. It is as illegal as it is enjoyable for some of us. A not so uncommon issue, if I may...

Share this post


Link to post