Over the last year, the web series I produce have been praised by YouTube, recommended by the LA Times, and received a few other nice endorsements and accolades. Still, it remains a pleasant surprise whenever any of our shows are mentioned or referenced in established media outlets--even if that reference may come in the form of some negative press...

This last week the New York Times ran an article entitled "Serial Killers"--an almost inflammatory title for a piece that assaults the merit and purpose of serialized web entertainment. Virginian Heffernan, the Time's new media guru, writes that web serials "seem to be a misstep in the evolution of online video" and specifically cites our show "Cataclysmo" as one of the "slow, conservative, overpriced cousins to the wildly Web-friendly 'viral videos'".

Since our shows are free to audiences, I assume she's using "overpriced" to reference bloated production costs. Later, she describes web serials as "smacking of planning and budgets and all that vestigial Hollywood stuff." I wonder if it would surprise Ms. Heffernan to know just how little we actually spend on our web series--considering our all-volunteer workforce that pays for the shows out of our own pockets.

For now, I'll take it as a compliment that she lumped our low-budget independent fare in the same category as Hollywood web series that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Despite the jab, Heffernan makes some solid points in her meandering article. Perhaps most compelling though is her argument that spontaneous, off-the-cuff "viral videos" are superior to planned, produced, calculated web series. At first, I was intent on disagreeing with her on this point--after all, my team and I take great care planning and producing our own shows every day. How cruel to condemn our hard work whilst praising some jokester with a camera who spent five minutes making his YouTube video, right?

But Heffernan argues that there's more truth and beauty in those brief unrehearsed video interludes than in all of the many hours of "lonelygirl15" or "quarterlife" or "Afterworld"--some of the more publicized web serials of recent memory. Why? Because she feels that web serials compromise their artistic integrity when they become focused on the almighty view counts and the ever imperative bottom line of ad revenue.

The viral videos are unfiltered and unadulterated, often made by people who would never expect this brief moment of fame. They are, for all intents and purposes, real.

Meanwhile, Hollywood compromises and caters until they find the perfect blend for a "hit web series," releasing nothing other than derivative, unoriginal schlock. I completely agree with Heffernan on this point--having seen the basest pandering that occurs on ridiculous shows like "Prom Queen" and "Roommates." Story, characters, and art are absent in these works, while scantily clad women and discussions of sex abound.

Heffernan is right to praise the video-makers who strive for originality and artistic achievement in this wild west of new media. And I'll even agree with her bold choice to consider some of the silliest, oddest, and dumbest viral videos to be products of artists. For all the inanity that clutters YouTube, there are certainly some beautiful gems of original, artistic merit.

Concluding her article, Heffernan invokes the words of French filmmaker Jean Cocteau, who said that "Film will only become art when its materials are as inexpensive as paper and pencil." Viral videos are a strange, but at times admirable, fulfillment of that prophecy.

But don't count out the web serials just yet. While Hollywood is trying to dominate and capitalize this fledgling medium, there are still some of us who strive for something else. Sure, it would be nice to profit from our web serials--if only to be able to pay the bills and make more films. But as for me and my team? We do this because we love it. We love making art, we love telling stories. And we want to strike a chord--we want to see some truth in our films resonate with audiences in a way they never expected. If we haven't achieved that yet, then we'll just keep working until we do. And then we'll try to do it again.