Out and about

I went and showed my face to the agencies again, but still nothing concrete. Still, it was a lovely sunny day, so I sat and read the Times Educational Supplement with the sun on my back, and very pleasant it was too. A beer would have topped it off but apparently I'm not allowed one until I get work.

We went to hear the speaker and while it had potential the mix of speakers wasn't great and the format of the evening left us unsatisfied. He made some good points about how the new 'democratising' web (some call it Web 2.0) is actually filling with dross. There is currently no way in which the good can be sorted from the bad, or the good be rewarded for its quality. He points out that the new web seems to have no respect for intellectual property either, so far from artists making money from the collapse of the existing structures, they will now no longer have any mechanism to gather revenue once a work is 'out there', unless it is made from physically being there - like a band touring, or a painter doing commissions. Of course there is more to his argument than this - enough to fill a book, called Cult of the Amateur, which was for sale, but which I haven't read. There were two other speakers and a 'host'. The second speaker was trying to make a point about new media being an interactive experience that allowed connection between people in different ways to the traditional, and that people would work out ways to handle Web 2.0 once the 'rules' were known. At least I think this was her point as she didn't make it very well, and came across as a lightweight (probably unfairly). The third stood for the opposite of everything the first speaker thought so a better debate would have been just her vs him. She was of the opinion that breaking down the traditional structures allowed more people to express themselves, and lowered the hurdles to reaching an audience. I think this is actually his point, but he thinks this is bad and she thinks it's good. Sadly the compere did a poor job of marshalling the debate by not keeping it on topic, and by throwing in his own tuppence worth. In the end the speakers just looked bored, and too little time was left for the audience to question the panel. I think it will all come down to how discerning the new generations of users will be, and the third speaker and I disagree on how savvy today's kids are. J said there was an article on the radio where a father put a clip of film on the web showing his daughter singing badly and it was viewed a million times. This, he would argue, shows that what is being rewarded is poor quality, but perhaps amusing, entertainment rather than good, or thought provoking or educational entertainment. Much like reality TV in fact.

We thought we'd missed the France v Argentina game by the time we got out, but there were still 30 mins to go so we made it in time to see a very different beginning to the World Cup than expected! I do feel for France, being at home and with high expectations for that, but I did predict Pool D would be the most interesting and it already is. So now the Ireland v Argentina game could knock the hosts out of the World Cup at the pool play stage.... who'd a thunk?

A final piece of news is that After the Battle have allowed JP and I to expand our book from the smaller 'Through the Lens' format to a full 'Then and Now' treatment should we wish it. I believe the battle deserves it easily as much as the Bulge or Anzio, and that we can get enough pictures and matches to do it. I hope JP agrees! (The smaller format didn't have as much room for matches, concentrating on the original photographic record. The enlarged format allows for a full treatment of the battle, with matches were possible, so making better use of all my work.)

So with neither the speaker or the game quite what we expected, we'll see what the open days bring us.

Ciao