I fully realize the implications and/or consequences of my argument for my last paper may seem inconsequential given the sequence in which they were produced. That said, here they are.
I began my research for this paper from the standpoint of an artist examining the possibilities YouTube and other video sharing sites present for the proliferation of creative content, with emphasis on the 'myth' of 'viral' video. Much of the scholarship surrounding viral video phenomena tends to focus on things from an advertising perspective, seeing the viral phenomena as a potential gold mine with which to purvey their product. Ultimately, the conclusion of my paper is that 'viral video,' aside from being almost impossible to nail down a definition of, is something an artist shouldn't be overly concerned with, as there exists many ways in which an individual can interact on a very meaningful level with an online audience of less than a hundred.
In turn, the implications of this conclusion lie somehwere along the lines of careful self promotion within spheres of people the artist may already know as a means of getting your foot in the door. This method stands in stark contrast to that suggested by much of the advertising-related writings - finely engineering the form of your video at the expense of content and hoping it is streamlined enough to gain views fast.