Comments: Depth vs. Base
Are the comments even well thought out or just basic in modern Youtube? Is it more efficient and helpful to keep comments quick and simple, or should they be written out as constructive, explanatory criticisms? Not only are comments on YouTube often non-serious and unkind lately, but even positive criticism may have too little of information for the purpose it serves. Quick and simple comments elicit the notion that the people who created the original work will not understand anything more complicated. Quick and simple may also show that the person who commented did not put as much work into watching the video as the video creator put into making the video. Even positive, quick, and simple writing can show someone that his or her work was not important enough to be given analytical and wondrous thought.
Humans are cognitive misers. We are likely to take the easiest path especially if we get used to not doing anything more difficult. We create schemas with heuristics to make all of our decisions and comprehensions quicker and easier. Laziness can make people come across as not very kind online. One of the only ways to shorten a critical and useful complaint to the fewest words possible is to say that "I do not like the video," or worse, "this sucks." When one person acts this way, there is a cyclical nature of possibly unconscious peer pressure. Anonymity does not help since people sometimes do not care to even try to look intelligent, thoughtful, or humane when they know they will have no consequences due to lack of discovery. Of course, this is all seen as unintelligible by some, but others still can become very hurt or offended by the comments.
Even positive comments can be too basic and not very helpful. If people hear only positive feedback about their work, they may not be able to distinguish between reality and delusion, and they may believe that they have absolutely nothing they need to work on. Of course, everyone has room to improve even at something he or she has mastered. Though people will not obtain depression from positive comments, people may begin to become lazy or begin to feel that they no longer have a purpose. Humans always need something to strive for which is why attempting to adjust all of the world's problems is pretty immature as well. The biggest battles should be faced first, but we should attempt to conquer and explain our points of view on as many aspects of the big battles as possible.
If we would like to avoid the problem of overly basic comments that can be attributed to any video, it is important for comments to be more profound in regards to a video. Addressing the main goal of the content, symbolism, and theme of works of art is the best way to ensure that all of the most important aspects of the art are covered. Beyond constructive criticism or constructive praise, there is a need to actually pinpoint what one learned from a work of art and what one believes to have been portrayed by each crucial point of the work of art. Critiquing or praising one part of a video in depth is not enough. It is very helpful to actually explain which components and more subliminal messages were noticeable in a video. The humanities portray the best way to work with others because the humanities is basically just that which involves the study of communication, social skills, and understanding people.
The digital humanities could be incorporated into YouTube in more ways than it already has been. Videos are a type of humanity, but the comments can be used for a type of literary theory and criticism or even be used more like blogs for the digital humanities' advanced display. David Foster Wallace used irony in his stories, but he knew that irony was overused, and it still is. Criticism is dying as a whole. Film critics, music critics, book critics, and any type of critic derived from the preceding list are all losing jobs and places to post their ideas. Criticism is still something that people often partake in, but many people are not taking it seriously anymore. People are much more focused on avant garde art, humor, and reproduction than any kind of criticism or theory of other work.