Sunday 26 August 2007

the wide field of livevisuals

After reading the comments to the last post I felt it might be good to chat a bit about the wide field of live visuals of which VJng is one possibility. As I have understood, VJtheory doesnt discuss only VJs playing at night clubs, but also visual music, live AV-sets, live cinema, etc.. If this is not the case, then i probably shouldnt be here to start with.

I also started as VJ, but then moved into live AV-sets, collaborations with musicians, theatre, etc... I think VJng in general is a good opportunity to experiment with images (as "noone" is normally watching and trying to analise your work ) But I remember one night standing amongst the audience in a drum'n'bass party watching someone's visuals: clips from chaplin's movies followed by clips from space odyssey followed by other clips endlessly etc... in a fast rhythm ... and i was wondering if these images had any connection in the mind of the vj ? why did he choose these images and not some others ? had he ever read about Eisensteins montage theory ? had he ever done any visual studies ? many questions crossed my mind while i was watching the visuals..

how ever long i watched those images, i couldnt figure it out, was there suppose to be somekind of random logic, a secret code to discover or not, but as i didnt figure out any message behind the choises of the Vj, the images soon appeared as noise and my mind didnt respond to them anymore, and i couldnt remember more images afterwards, all was erased, before even recorded, and in the end, this mix could have been done without the help of the vj. computers can make random mixes as well as people. What computers cant make out of a library of video clips, is somekind of story or meaning. Of course we all know that in the end, the meaning is built in the receiver's mind, nevertheless, if there is no meaning to start with, then the receiver will be wasting her time, right ?


the thing is, this particular VJ-show i just described would have been much better (from my point of view) if the vj would have put more thought into what he was doing ...why wouldnt he had just mix the clips in a way that would have been funny or interesting or give us food for thought or at least emotion.. i dont see any sense of mindless image bombing especially as these visual tools we have nowadays are so powerfull, that amazing, beautifull, mind blowing performances can be made with them ...



like many other vjs, i left the clubs and started to do live cinema/live AV/.... basically to be able to explore more these new possibilities and work better with audio and show the results to an audience which is actually watching. It is a different experience than VJng, as the audience is expecting much more if they are to watch and listen to something for 30 minutes. Still, it is not cinema and it will never be, as the whole structure is based on samples, not timeline.


the main interest is to create audiovisual experience which is not cinema, not vjng, but something inbetween, somekind of metanarrative poetic transformative event...i believe that visuals can work like a shiatsu massage for your eyes ... live visuals could make you laugh or cry and hopefully to go home remembering what had happened, at least bits of it.

this is what many live visuals artists are struggling towards...creating "new" visual narratives,aesthetics, etc...


i hope this post serves to open up a bit the discussion,towards realtime av, not just VJng.. sorry for the lenght ..

11 comments:

vjam theory said...

In our days is hard, maybe impossible and not necessary, to think art and audiovisual cultural forms as specificity. It’s better to observe how the expressive elements are being used. I like Michel de Certeau’s idea of the use, in a way, depending how you use objects or structures of ideas the symbols works, and maybe generate a different concept.
We may defend that a new quality, or a new aesthetic experience for the public during the performance, it’s connected at same time with the elements as sound, images, amount of screens and the space created with them. In a way, how the performance bring together all expressive elements. There are obsoletes concepts in arte? Maybe. I prefer to look at the materiality of the expression to see how it creates mental and physic experience instead of being all the time bringing the history to say. It’s more useful to consider who goes how at the places, so, if we are in XXI century, if we have created computers and use it, non-linear structures are more usual than we suppose. It no means an automatic situation, but our cultural thinking form is changing. Latter I may develop this subject, because it’s far from what I bring here now.
Rhythm and time exist at cinema, at poetry, also at forms and objects. The VJ’s rhythmic images suggest peaces of artists as Stam Brakhage, bus the director’s work is very different, he doesn’t use music, his artistic investigation try to make a visible music. I would like to know if the visible world of image as representation is enough to understand Vjs works? I don’t think so and when I bring Brakhage’s work is a proposition to show the difference. And when I say rhythmic I remember how usual are Vjs performances that break the movements, or that create movement with still images. Well, figurative forms and abstract forms produces sense, but mainly produces abstraction as musical form.

Ryan Dunn said...

I can't possibly agree that video somehow eludes the linear. Whether there is narrative or not, not that's a question. I am working with video as an accompaniment to live music, in particular, noise music (as well as other video pursuits). I find that as a performer I play a role that is subliminal to the act of the musician, while being, at that moment, inseparable. I believe the visual element, if performed as a live instrumental part, becomes part of what it accompanies. The audience finds them bound (without closing off a sense). I also find that even though I can use tools and clips and programs, my favorite instrument is still the camera in conjunction with the physical world, whether in front of an audience or in my studio.

On that note, I don't see how you can make such a broad claim as video never being like cinema, as it is based on samples... I have performed plenty of live visuals that have plenty of variation, and absolutely no samples. They approach something more like a landscape, and I describe the work as video painting, rather than VJing, as there is no relationship to DJing (sample based mixing or playlist development), where the term evolves from.

Regardless of where video fits, the exclusion of narrative from video as a live form is bogus. A piece of video is inherently timeline based, whether it is prerecorded or performed. Just as a piece of improvised music goes from one time to another, so does video. This is the fundamental magic of these media, and what the creator uses and intends is up to them and not your limited imagination or compartmentalization. Just as you expected more structure from the VJ set you reference, couldn't you see a timeline of constructed clips/performative visual elements being performed for a long period? A video play if you will?

What exactly is it that you see separating video and cinema? Personally, I think it is generally narrative, but not timeline. Again though, these are generalizations, which I think we're trying to create a dissolution of anyhow, yeah?

machine said...

i do agree with ryan: the "distance" between cinema and video is minimal, when compared to the possibilities offered by computers. both cinema and video are *recorded* on necessarily linear media (tapes)... yes, there is digital video everywhere now, but it emulates the linearity of tape.

now, i believe that multilinearity is an illusion visible only to the illusionist, and not the audience. why? well, only the illusionist (vj) knows what string she is pulling. the audience sees only the results, which end up being linear for them. even if time is bended and folded, and images of chaplin and space odyssey are scattered about, as is related in this post. the final experience is resemblant to that of storytelling. no matter how much you twist a story, it's still a story. and if it gets too twisted, it looses its interest. in fact, the interesting thing about stories is precisely their solidification, with the possibility of only minor "hacks"

so multilinearity is not the only way for a VJ or AV performer. there is also the possibility (and we could even say need) for the performer to interact with the audience. and this is where i think that the VJ (for short) can pass the "VJ Turing test": is there a human or a machine at the controls? is there someone who is sensing the mood of the moment, the ambience, who knows the cultural context in which we are all gathered? or is it just a machine popping out one image and effect after another?

can a vj escape from narrative without having to escape from meaning? sounds like poetry to me. with poems composed and "played" on the spot.

Michael Betancourt said...

I have the feeling that this is getting at something important to the definition of what people are doing: that the venue itself imposes demands, and that ther eis a key difference between works done to be paid attention to and those that are not meant to be watched in any real fashion. It's entirely possible that as this medium develops the VJ in a club which is the current dominant model will come to be seen in much the same way that the "serious" film world (i.e. the film is an art people) views the commercial cinema creations such as "Die Hard" when compared with "Red Desert." Even though they share much in common, they are regarded as being completely different. (Ignore the experimental film in this relationship.)

Any experience we have is necessarily going to be linear (time is linear afterall) however, what seems to be suggested by the idea of a "non-linear" work is that the construction requires effort on the viewer's part because the components arrive in a different order than their coherence requires; in other words, "some assembly required." Suggesting that all video is necessarily narrative because we have to experience it in a linear fashion confuses what is generally meant by "non-linear" when we talk about narrative or moving images.

This is something other than Eisenstein's montage--the goal there was always (in its highest form) to transform the image from specific into general, so it could act as language instead of picture Narrative isn't required for Montage to work (look at Vertov for example)and neither does being linear as experience necessarily mean that a non-linear construct is impossible, only that it requires specific cues for the audience to understand what's happening. Nole Burch goes through this in the book Theory of Film Practice.

camib said...

i think its critical for the form to evolve past eye-candy, with no real narrative, message or conceptual basis, and outside the club space into more of the art form it can be. many artists have struggled to make it relevant, an artform and its time the world saw it as more that visual stimulus for drunk a drugged out partiers. it can be cinematic, abstract art, performative installation, poetic and innovative within various locations, contexts, technological forms, artistic milieus and practices, so I'm excited to see that the transition from the club to the theatre, gallery, streets, the web, etc are happening and that we can start to see it evolve and have a new and varied voice.

big mini said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
big mini said...

The most thought provoking idea in this post to me is the idea that the artist is most responsible for delivering the meaning of the artwork. I believe it was Duchamp who said that for every artwork there are three participants: the artist, the observer, and the work of art itself, all with equal power. That statement resonates for me personally so I use it here. It ties in with my empirical experience as an artist, as an observer, and occasionally as a work of art. As a human, I prefer a world where the artist and the observer have equal power and ability to assign meaning to an artwork, just as I prefer to interpret the meaning of the world around me rather than have it conveyed to me by someone else. It is just a personal preference but I am sure there are others like me in the world; those people would be my ideal audience when I am the artist.

Taking an active role as observer in assigning/deriving meaning from the world around me (including that part we might designate as 'artwork') is very liberating; I'm not bound to interpret the artist's intentions in order to have a successful experience, and my interpretation becomes every bit as valuable as the artist's. As a bonus I get a personalized life experience best suited to my own mind. If I happen to interpret the meaning that the artist intended, this is a plus, but not required for the artowrk (or the artist, or the viewer) to be successful.

Ask yourself: as an artist, what is the message that I feel compelled to convey to the world in such a way that all can readily receive it? Is it possible to convey meaning in such a way? If it is, then what would be the value of that, to me and/or to the world? What message is that important?

And finally: What would the world have to be like for the artist to reliably communicate this way?

I'll relate the above to video art when I have time, best to all of you who are taking the time to put your thoughts here, peace.

big mini said...

The most thought provoking idea in this post to me is the artist is most responsible for delivering the meaning of the artwork. I believe it was Duchamp who did that for every artwork there are three participants, the artist, the observer, and the work of art itself. That statement resonates for me personally so I use it here. It ties in with my empirical experience as an artist, as an observer, and occasionally as a work of art (smile). As a human, I prefer a world where the artist and the observer have equal power and ability to assign meaning to an artwork, just as I prefer to interpret the meaning of the world around me rather than have it conveyed to me by someone else. It is just a personal preference but I am sure there are others like me in the world; those people would be my ideal audience when I am the artist.

Taking an active role as observer in assigning/deriving meaning from the world around me (including that part we might designate as 'artwork')is very liberating. I no longer am bound to interpret the artist's intentions, and my interpretation becomes every bit as valuable as the artist's. As a bonus I get a personalized life experience best suited to my own mind. If I happen to interpret the meaning that the artist intended, this is perhaps a plus, but mainly for the artist, the artist's goal was to help me 'get' their artwork.

Ask yourself: as an artist, what is the message that I feel compelled to convey to world in such a way that all can readily receive it? Is it possible to convey meaning in such a way? If it is, then what would be the value of that? What message is that important?

And finally: What would the world be like if the artist could reliably communicate this way? Would it mean a more homogenized world where people are less likely to think for themselves?

big mini said...

I found the phrase 'seemingly random sequence of images' worth commenting on. If the artist and observer both have power and authority to assign meaning, then the observer's perception of 'randomness' is as much their responsibility as much as it is the artist's. It is always within the observer's power to assign meaning to art (and the world at large, if a distinction must be made).

My roots as a video artist aren't in the club/party scene, but were formed by channel surfing on cable TV with a VCR to record 'random' sequences of images. I found that these sequences often contained explicit or implied meaning based on their juxtaposition, if I was selective about what I added as the sequence progressed. I found that I could 'perform' TV live by picking two or three channels and switching from one to the other at the right time. It was uncanny just how often the juxtapositions had meaning.

I theorized that it is the nature of front brain consciousness to assign meaning, and that since the brain measures one input against the ones next to it, my brain was assigning meaning naturally. (Others were often able to see those connections as well, or make their own.) With practice I was able to bring subtlety and humor to these recordings and performances.

I think that when the currency is images, the potential for us to find meaning is multiplied because our brains are so visually acute. By using my intuition to allow for the richest ambiguities afforded by a sequence of images, I create art with multiple layers of meaning, and therefore with a rich potential for others to find their own meaning. This allows for all three entities (artist, observer and artwork) to have power in the experience, and results in a better world for all three.

Through my early experience as a channel surfer, I found that sampling this enormous stream of information to create meaning-rich juxtapositions is a natural, valid and needed response, in order to re-find meaning in the deluge. This is true for my life as an observer and as an artist (or of course as an occasional work of art!)

athena said...

there are some really good directions here.
i believe narrative is an important and perhaps
vital part of the human experience. it certainly can exist without the stricture of linearity....after all
the oral tales which existed before gutenberg press
were mostly no linear meaning that the time line was always relative to the reciter and listener.

i disagree strongly that time is linear. its a tool of measurement which we have created to measure
our placement. and it is useful ,but like many concepts.. it is reaching the limit of its ability to
explain and represent our present situation.
think of the opening line of any fairy tale:
once upon a time........which once and upon what time ?

its very true that meaning needs shared references.this is very intereresting to explore.
it certainly is not true that the meaning of art or music is soley constucted on the receiving end.
and the concept of art being a subjective phenomena is one open to renewed investigation.

for me its clear that not only linearity ,but time concepts themselves are being reflected in numeous ways throughout various forms of not only art but sciences. i agree with vjam theory
about obsolete concepts in art. i think of it in terms of strata.. for example newtonian phsyics
and euclidean mathematics are simply ineffectual
when treating atomic particle theory , or in quantum mechanics. that does not mean they are obsolete by anymeans .... just that they can only
be referenced up to a certain point with any contemporary usefullness.

this does no imply however that one should be unaware of the base that they have created for
contemporary physics and mathematic formulation. as a guitarist for example i find it fascinating that this fairly primitive instrument
still is so prescient surviving not only the tempered scale and the piano. but as well is doing quite well in face of software sequences and protools etc.
and certainly people still lock to the cinema and do still read alot.

still i contend as state i comment on rhythm page
that its unfortunate there is this gulf between science and art at the moment.and i do believe
that vjing has the seed of a fantastic plasticism
but as always it will require new ways of thinking
to achive its mature form.consider how long it took film to stop imitating theater and yet even as it achived its fantastic inventions,theater certainly did not become obsolete ,indeed both forms enabled important innovations in the other.

big mini said...

Meaning can originate with the artist or the viewer and result in successful art. The viewer has as much power as the artist to create meaning. Conversely the 'failure' of the artist to convey their intended meaning (or even to have an intention) does not preclude the success of the artwork. The artwork itself also has a voice and will speak for itself once it is released into the world; the artist can't and therefore shouldn't try to control what it says to all viewers at all times.

This is my opinion based on personal experience; results may vary. I just prefer the freedom to decide for myself what the world means, and affording that freedom to others. By affording it, we teach others how to see the world in a unique way that enriches their lives. To me, that's what art is all about.

Anyway I'm not advocating for total random image sequences if that doesn't get you there; it just happens to work for me. Maybe that's just my Dada roots showing. I also have done more structured sets where I picked my pallette in advance, but I try to have no pretensions about how that reaches my audience.

At any rate VJing affords the opportunity like never before to create live juxtapositions that surprise the artist and the viewer; and by selecting images that are rich in potential meaning, it is possible to allow both the artist and the viewer to discover the artwork in real time, as a spontaneous act. That's what gets me off as a live video artist. Sometimes this approach results in a set that falls flat; most times it results in pure magic, and something I could not have planned in advance. Not unlike a jazz improvisation.