Translator: Varvara Zubko
Reviewer: Rhine Lee
Hey, everybody!
(Applause)
So, when I say the word "essay",
what's the first thing
that comes to your mind?
Probably, for a lot of you
the word "essay"
triggers a kind of
Pavlovian twist in your gut,
a reminder of how pointless and stressful
it was to write five double-spaced pages
for Mrs. Walsh on "The Motif 
Of Whiteness In Moby Dick".
I think, for this reason, when we
don't have to write any more essays,
we hang up our topic sentences
and supporting paragraphs and conclusions,
and never think about Moby Dick
or Jane Eyre or Anna Karenina ever again.
But the English paper doesn't represent
what's best about the essay,
or what's most exciting about it,
from my point of view.
As Paul Graham, the famous
programmer and essayist,
detailed in a wonderful essay about essays
called "The Age of the Essay",
the English paper as we know today is
sort of historical accident,
a result of the way 
English departments formed,
and how much medieval
universities focused on law.
When we think about that,
that actually makes a lot of sense.
Topic sentences, supporting 
paragraphs, conclusions -
I've watched enough "Law & Order"
to know how much this resembles
opening statements, prosecuting the case
with witnesses and evidence,
and, of course, concluding
remarks to the jury,
which is just a forceful rephrasing
of the opening statement.
It's actually kind of weird 
that English classes,
the place where we ended up learning
both English literature and composition,
how to write, -
you don't really think about that,
but because stuff like this
totally fascinates me,
I dug into Graham's footnotes and found
a fantastic article from 1967 called
"Where Do English Departments Come From?"
by William Parker.
In it Parker traces the incredibly short
history of teaching English in schools.
Actually, the first chair of an English
department anywhere in the country
was Fancis March, who was appointed
in 1857 to Lafayette College.
And that was my favorite slide to me.
(Laughter)
English literature had a hard enough time
overtaking Latin literature,
eventually it did do that,
but writing had always been
under the province of another
subject called rhetoric.
Basically what happened was this,
as I understand it:
as public speaking became
less and less popular,
and the number of colleges doubled
at the end of the eighteen hundreds,
because we were encouraging
more and more people to go to school,
academic departments rose to power,
and they decided
what was going to be in the curriculum.
So, it was basically like an arms race.
English got really greedy and gobbled up
literature, linguistics, journalism,
theater, and of course composition.
So, if English departments had to teach
both literature and writing,
it's no surprise that we had to write
so much about literature.
I admit that's a bit of a digression,
something that is totally
frowned upon in English papers,
but in the wider world of essays
things really aren't so strict.
You don't have to follow
the model of a court case.
You don't have to rigorously defend
your thesis point by point.
We have other forms of writing for that.
In an essay you are perfectly allowed
to follow a train of thought.
In fact, essays sort of
are trains of thought.
I want to get back
to that point at the end,
but for right now what you need to know is
that essay should be
short, interesting,
and it should get to the truth.
And that's actually
a good three-word definition
for what essays are:
short, interesting, truth.
Michel de Montaigne,
the father of the modern essay,
wrote about everything
from sadness to drunkenness,
to friendship, to cannibals.
He even has a great essay on thumbs.
It's a short essay, you really
can't write that much about thumbs.
But it's worth a read,
if you are a thumb enthusiast,
which I am, obviously.
(Laughter)
Ralph Waldo Emerson, my favorite essayist,
wrote things that changed
the course of my life.
And it wasn't so much what he wrote about,
but how he wrote about those things,
the way he phrased and positioned
facts and insights,
so that something that was needling you,
that you couldn't quite put into words,
suddenly became as clear as glass.
And that kind of writing...
It opens up doors in your mind.
It shows you that you
are allowed to think a certain way.
It invites you in for
investigations of your own.
Of course, essays don't have to be
heady and abstract.
David Foster Wallace writes
wonderfully about tennis.
Elif Batuman wrote a great essay last year
about Istanbul's construction
and its archeology and their intersection.
Kristin Dombek wrote a sprawling,
beautiful essay
about sex and addiction and love in 2012.
And Jeffrey Downard wrote brilliantly
about the motif of whiteness in Moby Dick!
(Laughter)
See, I can't shit on Moby Dick,
because I love Moby Dick,
actually, and literature.
You don't have to write about them,
but you can obviously, if you want to.
Essays are having a little bit of
a cultural moment write now, actually.
As Christy Wampole wrote
in "The Essayification of Everything":
"It seems that, even in a proliferation
of new forms of writing
and communication [before us],
the essay has become
a talisman of our times."
And you can see that in the proliferation
of blogs and think pieces,
but you can also see it in things
like medium.com,
where anybody can write an essay
on a topic of their choosing,
where the public gets to decide
what points of view to elevate,
where media gatekeepers no longer
have the power to marginalize
radical or different points of view.
But there is a whole another
form of the essay
I want to spend
the rest of my time talking about.
It's what I do for living.
It's called the video essay.
(Video) (Music)
[Narrator]: Are you ever aware
that you try to preserve fleeting moments?
[Old man]: Well, it depends on
what you call "fleeting".
Sometimes, in geologic sense
a year is a very fleeting moment.
And sometimes for the people
it's a twenty fifth of a second.
[Evan Puschak]: These days you
are most likely to see the work
of American photographer Ansel Adams
on a post card or on the wall
of your boss's office.
These photographs are so ubiquitous now,
that it's easy to walk by them
without noticing their technical
and aesthetic mastery.
Indeed, thanks to things
like Instagram and Snapchat,
photographs in general
are so ever present in our lives,
that standards about what we believe
to be great work in this field
are drowned out by the literally
billions of photos,
that are uploaded
to these services every day.
That's a short clip from
an essay I did on Ansel Adams,
and at "The Nerdwriter" I produce
a weekly show of video essays
about art and culture,
and science, politics -
whatever I happen to find
interesting that week.
So, what is a video essay?
Well, it's about as hard to define
as a written essay.
It's like written essays blend into
articles, reportage,
pamphlets and short stories,
[video] essays blend into
films, documentaries,
TV journalism, photojournalism,
and the lines there
are always going to be blurry.
But there is a history here too.
Not nearly as long as the written essay,
but going all the way back to 1940,
Hans Richter wrote in the film essay,
a new form of documentary film:
"In this effort to give body
to the invisible world
of imagination, thought and ideas,
the essay film can employ
an incomparably greater reservoir
of expressive means
than can the pure documentary film.
Freed from recording
external phenomena in simple sequence
the film essay must collect
its material from everywhere;
its space and time must be conditioned
only by the need
to explain and show the idea."
That excerpt is 80 years old,
but it hits the nail on a head
in so many ways,
namely, in this greater reservoir
of expressive means.
What do I mean by that?
Following from 1940 the essay film
evolved in a number of different ways.
Orson Welles famously made "F for Fake",
an examination of authorship
and authenticity
told through the story of an art forger.
Let's take a look at a clip.
(Video) (Singing)
[Narrator]: Then, finally,
on a distant island he did find a home.
He doesn't own it, remember,
but it's a splendid villa
with a fine view of the village,
the village jail.
[Elmyr de Hory]: To be in jail here
is probably, I would say -
here is better than somewhere else.
But a jail is a jail. Let's face it.
[Orson Welles]: Moment of truth.
He is talking about the time
they took him down out of that villa,
which he doesn't own, 
and put him into prison.
Let me show you that again.
[Elmyr de Hory]: To be in jail here
is probably, I would say -
here is better than somewhere else.
But a jail is a jail. Let's face it.
So that's almost like a documentary film,
but when Welles cuts back to himself,
he is revealing a deeper
layer of commentary,
showing how he is manipulating the footage
to examine his ideas and make his points.
And this is exactly
what Richter was talking about.
Along these lines -
let's take a look at one more essay film.
This time "Sans Soleil",
a seminal piece in this field,
by Chris Marker from 1983.
[Narrator]: The first image
he told me about
was of three children
on a road in Iceland in 1965.
He said that for him
it was the image of happiness,
and also that he had tried
several times to link it to other images,
but it never worked.
He wrote me: "One day I'll have to put it
all alone at the beginning of a film
with a long piece of black leader.
If they don't see happiness
in the picture,
at least they'll see the black."
So, that's a striking clip
and it's a fantastic movie.
And that other line from Richter
"freed from recording
external phenomena in simple sequence" -
Marker took that to heart.
All throughout "Sans Soleil"
he's cutting abruptly back and forth
from West Africa to Japan
to show how hard it is to contextualize
his memories of these experiences
and how that affects
our perception of time and history
as we conceive of it in these simple
sequences that we normally see in film.
Many would say that the video essay
is a continuation of the essay-film,
and in a lot of ways it is.
The narration from both those examples
has proven to be wildly popular
in the video essay on YouTube.
And film analysis channels,
like my friend's Tony Jones
"Every Frame a Painting",
are certainly in tune
with the traditions of cinema.
But I think that the video essay
is a slightly different beast
from the essay-film.
With the few rare exceptions,
the video essay hasn't ventured
nearly as close to the avant-guard
as like Chris Marker's work, for example,
or those who were inspired by him.
It seems to me, that video essays
take their cues more from
academia and journalism,
and from their online predecessors,
the educational explainer
YouTube channels,
that objectively present
fascinating information,
channels like "ASAP Science",
"Crash Course",
"In a Nutshell", "Minute Physics".
Their massive success has proven
that there is a real thirst
for knowledge online.
More than that, there is a thirst
for curated knowledge
by people who are willing
to put the work and do the research
and show you the world,
maybe something you, guys,
never got the chance to study at school,
in an engaging way.
That, in turn, opened up a lane for
broader video essayists like myself
or video essayists like Mike Rugnetta
over at "PBS Idea Channel".
(Video) (Music)
[Mike Rugnetta]: Thanks everyone
for joining us
during our continuing segment
on the destruction
caused by superhero activity
and the question of responsibility
for destroyed infrastructure.
Joining us live via satellite
from their respective studios,
we have Josephine Shirley,
COO of Destructator,
the app for tracking
superhero-related
destruction in real time;
Anne Hannigan, director of communications
for the Safety First Foundation;
and Brock Funderburg,
researcher at the independent policy
group Center for Heroism Studies.
Let's get right into it.
Anne, before the break, we were discussing
whether there is any price
too high for the protection
of the human race.
[Anne Hannigan]: That's right, Tom.
And I think, you know, in these
superhero-related activities,
there's going to be some damage.
And we just have to be
as prepared as we can to face the costs.
It's just a fact of life.
And there's even regulations -
[Josephine Shirley]: And so what
are you saying,
that when the Hulk smashes your Benz
or collapses your entire
apartment building,
that's fine, and the federal government
should just have to foot the bill?!
Congress didn't wreck
your car or your sofa.
Heck, you chose to live there,
and you should have to take -
Brock Funderburg: Listen, listen.
[JS]: - responsibility for that.
[BF]: There are many forces
beyond choice and even law and regulations
at work here, including the Avengers.
We can plan for and solve
this problem ourselves
through clear communication, international
funds, workflows, and agreements.
It's not so much an economic problem
as it is one about attitude.
So, I love that clip, and I love it,
because it's something
you could only do in this format.
And what Rugnetta is doing here
is taking something from pop culture,
the massive destruction
that we see in all these
superhero movies,
and he is staging a fake newscast,
imagining what the official
reactions might be.
And by doing that,
he is able to interrogate
a very real issue, disaster relief,
and all the problems associated with it
from a different interesting angle.
Or take the video essays that Vox makes,
extremely slick pieces,
that pull from journalism, animation,
and those explainer channels
to produce affecting essayistic takes
on news worth the issues,
or sometimes issues
that aren't so newsworthy,
but are still fascinating
like this one, which I really love,
on how the NFL's yellow line works.
(Video) [Narrator]: The key challenge
in making the yellow line
is that the scene is constantly changing,
which means that the yellow line
has to constantly change.
Not only are there three different cameras
used for wide shots of the field,
each camera pans, tilts,
and zooms to follow the action.
So, the first thing Sportvision
does before the game
is create a 3D mathematical model
of each football field
using laser surveying tools.
And during the game
they gather data from the cameras
about their pan, tilt and zoom positions
for every single frame.
So, when the operator specifies
that the first down
is at the 43 yard line, for example,
the computers combine the camera data
with their own model of the field
to draw the yellow line
in the proper perspective
and to redraw it, for every frame
being broadcast to viewers.
There are so many more examples
I could show you.
I wish I could,
I just don't have the time.
What suffices to say
is that video essay is a rapidly
expanding genre of online video.
And people are watching.
"Every Frame a Painting"
has over 24 million total views.
I did a little linguistic analysis
of how Donald Trump answers questions.
It has over three million views.
Vox's most viewed video
has over 23 million views alone.
What was the last time
a written essay had that kind of reach?
And just like essay films
grew up out of the traditions of cinema,
commenting on borrowing from
and reacting to those traditions,
the video essay is growing up
out of the Internet,
commenting on borrowing from
and reacting to the audio visual styles
that are being created there every day.
Increasingly, our experience
of media is audio visual.
65% of people are visual learners,
and video essays play to that fact.
They help people engage with things
that they might not otherwise
have been able to.
No, I am not saying
that written essays are obsolete.
I still read plenty of them.
But I am encouraged by how many people
are watching video essays,
and even more by how many
people are making them.
Because for all its differences
the video essay still retains
the spirit of Montaigne,
that meditative spirit on all things
within the field of human life.
I said at the beginning that essays
are sort of like a train of thought.
Well, I kind of think
that writing is thought.
I believe for a long time
that we learn by saying.
So, when you are watching
the video that I make,
what you are really watching
is me learning,
that's what you are watching right now,
as I give this talk at Lafayette College.
And I encourage everybody
to try that out for themselves.
Because only by articulating
in words, in video, or in both,
do we really find our point of view.
Thank you very much!
(Applause)
