Discussion in 'The Future' started by deepvisual, Jan 5, 2007.
that is Dadaizm
What, anti art? I am not understanding:shrug:
I'd go along with that as - all correct except the last line.
VJ is a subset not an umbrella term.
its the umbrella term we lack.
I am not disputing the fact of a pioneer in what he did. I am just putting it up to scrutiny today based on the end product. Also I was talking about visually more so that the audio (although that isn't much).
Just like I admire the early demo scene stuff it doesn't mean it is the best examples of demos. And as technology and also understanding/techniques becomes greater then the early pioneers move aside and others take over. Progress if you will. It happens all the time.
Are you *really* saying that is the best AV you have seen/we have got? You don't think anything in the past 35 years is any good?
I think there is confusion over admiration/nostalgia what I would regard as best. The best has to be constantly be reviewed.
How many demo scene groups from 10-15 years would regard there stuff as the best still? Does early Amiga Fairlight stuff really look better than new offering from Plastic or Kewlers?
NASA got man to the moon on, no doubt, excellent computer programs at the time but today we could do the same thing quicker and easier. I very much doubt that they use those original programs as shining examples of the best computer code and everyone coming on board should study them.
I don't understand the resistance to progress. I respect the past but also look forward to the future.
I too wish people would spend longer creating their content/work (There are often too many shortcuts and lack of effort now). Some of us still take a long time to make our work even with the realization that years from now it will look old and outdated.
and thus your totally missing the point of the piece - it is process based art - the end result is not important but the creation process is.
Show me something up-to-date that has such a direct relationship between the audio and video (ie a real physical entanglement of the two) I doubt it will actually look too different to McLaren's work.
Norman McLaren was experimenting with a very direct relationship between audio and images - this area by its very nature has to be simplistic or the relationship becomes increasingly tenuous.
That reminds me of going to a demo of "modern electronic music" roundabout about 1980. This really serious young man spent 20 minutes explaining how intricate the process had been, splicing tape and stuff, then played us a piece of music that was just boring, it had no groove.
With technology people often fall into the trap of doing things just because they can, and expect it to be appreciated because it is new, or difficult or whatever. You have to have something to say and use the medium and techniques to do this, not allow the technique to decide what you are saying.
Having said that the innovators and challengers are a vital part of the process, and it never hurts to look at the medium in a new way. The engineer who rigged up the huge tape loop for Dark Side of the Moon might have done it for a laugh by himself one night, but who knows what the result would have been, probably not one of the best selling albums of all time. (side note, if you haven't already check out the Dub Side of the Moon)
Getting back to this VJ moniker thing, I think the environment and objective matter in defining the role. Personally I prefer "visuals by .... the sad basket who doesn't get laid like the dj" because I think the VJ is helping create the environment. The jockey bit seems to focus too much on the individual.
Clubs are places for social interaction, not showcasing.
So it is all ok to create crap work if the process is different?
Maybe it is the same logic that VJ that fuck up there shows and display desktops and blank screens because they a complex creation process.
Maybe I understand now.......
without wishing to seem naive, dada-ist, or geekoid, actually showing a desktop can inadvertently alert 50-80 percent of the audience that HOLD ON WHOA THIS FUCKING AMAZING SHOW IS BEING DONE LIVE RIGHT IN FRONT OF US ... rather than their initial assumption that there is somehow a DVD already produced that is provided to be in sync with the DJ's tunes.
of course a live camera feed of the vj doing their thing can achieve the same result more elegantly but hey both are relevant and valuable imho. bring on animations of desktops i reckon.
I agree, but surely the umbrella term is 'visual artist'. I personally would never describe myself as that for a number of reasons but surely it fairly reasonably encompasses the concepts people here are debating over.
Oh and I think Vello Virkhaus has already got dibs on 'V2' :sigh:
i think we should change the name for VG, visual gourmet or VC visual chef...
we get fresh videos, cut the samples, cook them together, put some spice on them, we invent our own combinations, and serve them to the public at request of the line-up\menu genre.
we wont be annoyed by the J anymore
LMFAO at this comment.
Side note for your Side note
Have you heard their latest, Radio dread. Chuffin excellent. Its some of Radio heads best tracks dubbed in an Easy All Stars fashion.
sleepytom, not a tv chef, but hell, sometimes we even hunt and fish our own footage
terms aside i think what we do has much more in common with playing an instrument (whatever your custom 'instrument' is) than djing. it's more like drumming with light or playing a guitar made out of knobs and buttons than crossfading records.
I think a while ago, aside from the oillamp stuff (which i consider to be more in the lighting field) people would crossfade between vhs tapes, music videos and film reels and in those terms it was accurate to be called a visual jockey, whereas now with so much content being self-sourced and/or created on the fly... i think we should just be called GODS
I am a DJ and recently started down the path of becoming a VJ(I only use VJ for lack of anything else). Both ventures are equally hard in their own way, and to say one is harder than the other is like saying "being a doctor is harder than being a surgeon" there is really just no way to judge something like that. As in anything that is done by more than one person you will have some people that inevitably are better or more skilled than the rest of the pack. Further still, you will have a small group of people that take the medium to a place that is beyond anyones expectations. I'll admit I had no idea what was really involved in putting on a good visual show, but when I look at some of members of VJforums.com web sites I see some of you taking that next step and evolving past the VJ label.
This same transition happened in the DJ world when people like Q-Bert realized that so much more could be done with the turntable. If you have ever seen him or the scratch pickles perform you will understand what I am talking about. They along the way didn't feel that the name "disc Jockey" said enough about what they do. So they adopted the name "Turntablist". Suggesting their mastery of their chosen medium.
So I offer this, rather than getting offended when someone calls you a VJ. Simply state that you do more than just show up and pop a video in, that you are the reason that their night is far more than just standing in a room listening to a DJ spin, that you are the reason why they are in the middle of a fully entrancing audio visual experience....You are a Visualist!
PS. I still feel the the term DJ is overused as well. I don't think it is right to call Me(a club/house DJ) a morning radio host and the guy who plays "the Chicken dance" at a wedding all DJs. So I completely get why this thread was started.
Separate names with a comma.