Art? no thanks, I do visuals

[deepvisual]

lets be controversial
Maybe its just me, but someone mentioning the words art and visuals in the same sentence drives me crazy.

I was wondering if instead of the terminally dull threads on Vj categories, it might be easier to split the whole field into Artists and craftsmen
can someone help tidy up my maths?

Art + visuals = little talent + big ego.

[SteveG]

Hows this then?
Little Talent + Visuals = Craftsmen with no time for ego or social life :D

[ShaKinDa]

vjing = art (whether you like it or not)
when putting a few bricks in room or having a big turd on paper is considered art even if you only play downloaded clips badly you still (even if unconciously) made decisions about what would got where when, what colours to use, form etc. therefore of course its art at some level.

however doing something thats creative and disappearing up yer own arse are not the same. a mate of mine sells over 50 paintings a year for about 2k each, and he says its just "a painting" and i still see him drinking in the same pub watching the football.

i dont think there should be any fear over being called "an artist", if Djs like Goldie and Alex Kidd who are basically psychopaths who happen to be good at mixing records are called artists then why shouldn't vjs? i mean it doesnt mean you have to wear a scarf and talk about paris all the time, its just a description of what you do. most of the great masters went through painting apprenticeships where they trained like craftsmen but made art...

not that there is anything wrong with craftsmen its just i consider their primary job to create an object that has practical use and then be creative with it. so until i can sit in or set my coffee on a vj set i think we're more in the artist category...

whether you are up the front in a pink shirt beside the dj, or down the back in black by the sound guys bears no relation to whether what you are doing are not is art....

[SteveG]

Funny this should come up today....I'm up to my eyes in tins of Dulux....guess i'm an artist today. The sittting room is various natural shades before you ask :D

[lichterloh]

true deep visual. as we all need to do working products to be used by the audience we're much closer to a designer doing a spoon to eat with or a chair to sit on, it's a f**king service.

for us the equation is more like art + club visuals = whatever talent + too little ego, as it's an attempt to justify what one is doing, tryin to make it sound somewhat better (depends on the point of view though).

we've actually done an interview at the shining festival for new media art (=visuals!!!) in germany claiming visuals not to be art, which got us quite a lot of, well, let's say bad vibes from fellow vj's :flamethro
and we've been to a vj gathering once with aim to find new ways of cementing visuals as an art form. we've left early and looked like this :eek:


we wouldn't say nothing out there to be shown as visuals is possibly art. but most of it, especially when promoters always take the younger and cheaper vj's, doesn't even work as good design/doesn't work for the people (which is our job!) - you like have to claim it's art then :D and as the club audience in general is anything else than art experts, they'll most times believe you.

[john01]

Does that mean you'd have a problem with a sentence containing the phrase "visual part" ? kind of neuro-linguistic bullying. "You'll be doing the visual p-art".

In all honesty whenever anyone praises something I have made and complements my abilities I always reply it's the guys that make the software that are the real talents. A lot of what people splatter on the screen is the result of the modern so called creative process of "Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks". It is a selection of the more or less random results of a process of elimination. Often people who style themselves as "artists" or "creative" do not actually have a creative vision, they have a sense of style, good or bad taste.

So I think the division you are looking for is between the people who match with what you find to be stylistically and technically acceptable (your craftswomen), and people who are trying to make some kind of statement (your aspiring artists).

Personally I think clubs are places to socialize, they are not art galleries or cinemas, the role of the visuals is to entertain & excite, if they achieve this then whether the lady making them is a self styled artist or a skilled craftswoman is a side issue. Beyond clubs I don't really know, I am not interested in standing in a gallery, holding a glass of cheap white wine and pretending to be interested. What I do like about the combination of music and visuals in clubs is the fact it is transitory, it is a time and place, enjoyed for what it is then forgotten. Arbitrary and random associations, like modern life.

I have a bigger problem with advertising in visuals in clubs myself.

[lichterloh]

So I think the division you are looking for is between the people who match with what you find to be stylistically and technically acceptable (your craftswomen), and people who are trying to make some kind of statement (your aspiring artists).

Personally I think clubs are places to socialize, they are not art galleries or cinemas, the role of the visuals is to entertain & excite, if they achieve this then whether the lady making them is a self styled artist or a skilled craftswoman is a side issue. Beyond clubs I don't really know, I am not interested in standing in a gallery, holding a glass of cheap white wine and pretending to be interested. What I do like about the combination of music and visuals in clubs is the fact it is transitory, it is a time and place, enjoyed for what it is then forgotten. Arbitrary and random associations, like modern life.



word!!!!!!!

[USE]

can someone help tidy up my maths?

Art + visuals = little talent + big ego.

erm

vjing*(art+deepvisual) = (chip/shoulder)>deepvisual

:lol2:

[Scratchpole]

DV maybe your just a technician!

Steve, a craft person takes his time, don't rush it.
A painter and decorator is usually a labourer!
They earn a lot less than toilet attendants.
I find p+d quite a zen experience.

Maybe:
Art+Technician=VJ/craft person

My major problem with Art is the predominant ideology of the Fine Art/Conceptual art establishment.... If you have to read the description on the wall the art is not communicating effectively.

[SteveG]

Maybe you should come and paint my sitting room then Joe :D

Deepvisual's done it again......dropped the grenade into the hole, taken cover and waits to watch the fallout....lol

[deepvisual]

i just think I am lucky I got thrown out of art class - for painting a gang of skinheads fighting when asked to do 'queing for the match' for homework.
I told the teacher he had obviously never been to a football match .

i think I got thrown out of RE too, for the same reason..

[SteveG]

I got thrown out of art class for modelling things in clay that I shouldn't have :D.....still managed an A Grade though ;)

[Scratchpole]

I hope some of my art/tech/communication workshops with young people may have helped them stay in school and keep learning.

My fine art degree tutor asked if I would leave, two years in a row. I reminded them who pays the wages.

Steve you know my hourly rate, it's the same as VJing- but I'm a bloody good P+D.;)

[john01]

I got kicked out of computer studies for being a smart ass (no surprise there) and spent my art classes at school sniffing fixative, our teacher was never in the room for some reason, I think alcohol might have been involved. We all flunked.

If I'd been asked to do "Queuing for a Match" I'd have drawn a line of people with unlit cigarettes.

[6071842]

So I think the division you are looking for is between the people who match with what you find to be stylistically and technically acceptable (your craftswomen), and people who are trying to make some kind of statement (your aspiring artists).

Personally I think clubs are places to socialize, they are not art galleries or cinemas, the role of the visuals is to entertain & excite, if they achieve this then whether the lady making them is a self styled artist or a skilled craftswoman is a side issue. Beyond clubs I don't really know, I am not interested in standing in a gallery, holding a glass of cheap white wine and pretending to be interested. What I do like about the combination of music and visuals in clubs is the fact it is transitory, it is a time and place, enjoyed for what it is then forgotten. Arbitrary and random associations, like modern life.

I have a bigger problem with advertising in visuals in clubs myself.

Holla!!!! :)

[deepvisual]

the role of the visuals is to entertain & excite, if they achieve this then whether the lady making them is a self styled artist or a skilled craftswoman is a side issue.

indeed.
its just synchronicity i know, but it always seems that the words visuals and boring come to mind when I go see these 'art events'..

I'm a luddite I guess but, it could be worse. It could be me in a gallery talking a load of pretentious claptrap about my latest 'work'..

[ASMD]

Artists create problems

Designers solve them.

[SteveG]

And most designers go over budget and screw up the artists original plans or visions :biggrin:

I think visuals can be classed as art in a gallery type setting but any I've seen I normally find very boring and not the visuals I personally enjoy watching or producing :D Nor is it what clubbers would enjoy and that's where I concentrate my efforts. I'd rather watch some form of short film or documentary. Visuals in the VJ'ing sence to me are for musical events providing an interesting changing background in order to bring things to life a little add colour, movement provide another source of interest.

[ASMD]

I'd say that the VJ who actually creates their own material (beyond animating a logo or some other design) is effectively a video artist, as long as there's some sort of conceptual idea or theme going on that's being explored.

Most clubland VJs have the unique advantage in that they have an audience and envionment to showcase their creations, even if that is 1000 clubbers completely off their heads.

But you've got your audience. You've got your context. You've got your concepts. You've got your constraints. VJing isn't art for arts sake; it's art to entertain and enhance the experience of those 1000 clubbers completely off their heads. If you don't, don't expect to get paid.

In that respect, I'd consider a VJ a designer rather than an artist.

[bryandod]

VJing isn't art for arts sake; it's art to entertain and enhance the experience of those 1000 clubbers completely off their heads. If you don't, don't expect to get paid.

In that respect, I'd consider a VJ a designer rather than an artist.

Well said.

[asterix]

Art as content creation
Art as programming
Art as performance
Art as an installation


For me it is very much 'art' and a welcome escape from my regular design job. Art is a manifestation of your intention or idea - you don't need to be using oil paints or gallery's to be an artist. If you're merely a 'button' pusher - then I'd suggest you are not a VJ :rolleyes:


"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance." ~ Aristotle

[Donnie Darko]

For me it is very much 'art' and a welcome escape from my regular design job.

What kinda design you do mate? Graphic design student bum here..

Also, I feel this picture applies well to this thread :

http://img.ffffound.com/static-data/assets/6/5fd64a3c22b432afe0a86cab55ac9869c59e9ac4_m.jpg

[deepvisual]

thanks guys.
I'm a changed man.
its nice to see people talking sense about art for once.
I think I've had too many high-maintenance High-Art girlfriends.
I could never see the point in spending a year making something dull, with a ridiculous price tag, that will only be seen by a dozen people.

Art gallery + visuals = Zzzzz...

visual art + fun = :club:

[Donnie Darko]

i became a designer because my art teacher was never happy when my explanation was "it just looks cool"

[vdmoKstaTi]

In all honesty whenever anyone praises something I have made and complements my abilities I always reply it's the guys that make the software that are the real talents. A lot of what people splatter on the screen is the result of the modern so called creative process of "Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks". It is a selection of the more or less random results of a process of elimination. Often people who style themselves as "artists" or "creative" do not actually have a creative vision, they have a sense of style, good or bad taste.


This bolded statement is true to a degree, though once again even programmers haven't created the software without the use of tools and platforms of people before them. It all goes down the line here, some people created Operating Systems, Others have worked on developing computer languages, creating compilers while numerous mathematicians working out the formulas for those things to work, programming editors were created for those programmers to realise they work into something new. Software which you eventually use for your own expression.

Your work and work of many others incorporates the work of other people just as well, all on different levels. It is the same in science, you either inventor of something totally new or you base your work on existing tools and knowledge.


Even true artists explore other people's produce before they paint a master piece or create sketches. Some people craft and frame canvases for them, develop paper, create paints and put it into the tubes, while select few chase squirrels to make the best brushes, etc :)


True Art comes from within incorporating your feelings, emotions, expressions that you get out through your chosen medium. If you happen to make a living out of your Art, your internal instincts will find its own chosen project away from any "commissioned" work that you might have to be doing. This is the way for the true artists in you to continue. VJing in our example encompasses wide variety of individual skills and abilities for it all to come together.

As Asterix posted,

Art as content creation
Art as programming
Art as performance
Art as an installation

+ much more (each of the groups can be expanded and few more added)

[paranoidkarma]

I create content, unique content from scratch, i think i'm an artist, visual artist, i don't care about craftsman anymore :)

[complexvisuals]

Does it matter?

[Gumby]

Does it matter?

It does if people are always going to question "what is art?".

Art is what you want it to be. Some people don't consider video art to be art, despite the fact it's been around for years. Anyone can consider anything to b art. One persons award winning work is another's pile of shit. (probably because their jealous that they didn't think of the idea and get the 25k prize money).

If you think that VJing is an art form: Fine.
If you don't think VJing is an art form: Fine.

Why is VJing know as AudioVisual art?

VJing is performance video art. You can't deny it. The sheer fact that you are performing something which has been captured, or created organically makes it art. You are showing people the world through your eyes, something which you saw once and they didn't and they now can see it.

Admitidly yes, maybe in the context of a club when everyone is drunk/stoned then they're not going to appriciate the art side to the visuals. As long as people enjoy it, then thats good. As long as you enjoy it thats good too.



Right, off my soapbox.

[Entheogen]

Genres and categories are so last millennium.

My life and work transcends the boundaries of society's labels. I like to think at least anyway.

[complexvisuals]

As long as people enjoy it, then thats good. As long as you enjoy it thats good too.

So it doesnt matter then.

[bridd]

So it doesnt matter then.

If it does matter, why are you commenting? :devilwink

[john01]

This bolded statement is true to a degree, though once again even programmers haven't created the software without the use of tools and platforms of people before them. It all goes down the line here, some people created Operating Systems, Others have worked on developing computer languages, creating compilers while numerous mathematicians working out the formulas for those things to work, programming editors were created for those programmers to realise they work into something new. Software which you eventually use for your own expression.

Your work and work of many others incorporates the work of other people just as well, all on different levels. It is the same in science, you either inventor of something totally new or you base your work on existing tools and knowledge.



The guys that understand machine code amaze me, the people who understand how a circuit board works, or a microchip processes, how discs store data and how machines make that data look like everyone's favourite tunnel effect.

The reason I made that comment is a lot of what I knock out in my day job is generic derivative pap, the right software, the right filters and a bit of experience and you have a product.

I remember back in the 90s when I was an underling at a production house and was given some designs to use in a Flash interface for the launch of a new car. I thought the design of the buttons was pretty cool, then I got the latest upgrade of Photoshop too and realised the designer had just used the new gradation options. Guess he had the taste to select them and the sense to get the latest upgrade ahead of everyone else, and he was a good designer, but .........

A lot of what we say is creative is driven by what becomes available on the market. Certainly the developers say they love the way people take what they make and use it in ways they never imagined, but I think there is also a lot of work that looks cool but actually lacks any unique quality. If I was going to venture a definition of art I'd say the work has to be in some way unique.

[mowgli]

i became a designer because my art teacher was never happy when my explanation was "it just looks cool"

This has to be the most honest rationale for any creative work and it is also the one that will engage with an audience without a need for previous knowledge or background information.

Lets face it, anything IS art but then like with everything else there's good, there's bad and there's ugly.

Its all words at the end of the day, nothing more and nothing less. I don't care if I'm a craftsman, an artist, a vj, a provider of services or whatever else as long as I can do whatever I want to. I guess that "free" is the word that springs to mind.

Also, I agree that technology is enabling people with no talent to be "creative". The photoshop filters example mentioned above is a clear example. Then again what makes the difference is the ability to use the given tools in a way which surpases their face value.
I used to do photorealistic watercolour illustration, needless to say that most of the work I do now is digitally based but the skills acquired using "analogue" media are easily adapted for digital media while I don't think that the opposite is true.
I'm always amused when someone asks me "what filter did you use for that" and the answer is "the brush tool".

[john01]

I'm always amused when someone asks me "what filter did you use for that" and the answer is "the brush tool".

I'd answer "command z"

[Rovastar]

Regarding the filter is photoshop. I see the same stuff all the time with standard effects in VJ software so it not exculsive to designers.

I remember a few years ago at the Big Chill when I was with Unj and we were watching another VJs set and I saw what I thought was a clip mostly black background with several moving squares with an image/video underneath as said 'Didn't you use that clip in your set yesterday' and the answer back was it was a standard effect in resolume/freeframe.

*sigh* ;)

Sometimes when the effects are sooo strong it become the "content" then who is the artist.

[asterix]

Is mark knopfler less of an artist because he uses a fender stratocaster? What about impressionists after monet - are they not artists or is using brush and oil paint on canvas enough to void that too?

[VITAL]

Visuals=Art

Shit visuals=Shit visuals

:rolleyes:

[mowgli]

Visuals=Art

Shit visuals=Shit visuals

:rolleyes:

Shit visuals=Shit visual art ?

[crustea]

Visuals=Art

Shit visuals=Shit visuals


I couldn't agree more !

[disassembler]

Art is a moment in time, when the mundane transcends itself and become profound, when a new perspective and understanding is revealed.

Yes, everything is art, but only for a moment until it becomes mundane. Art is in the mind, therefore it is possible that VJing is sometimes art. If one uses the term "The visual" then that most certainly doesn't equal art, it equals, something seen. Art is about the pushing forward of consciousness, which extends far beyond the visual. Just like science, art is subject to change when old theories presented as truth get voided by new contradictory data, resulting in new truth.

That which is simultaneously everywhere is at the same time nowhere. It is that, which is not everywhere at all times, that makes something a thing.

Example of something profound within VJing in the club, when it becomes art.

A video of a politician or cooperation saying buy, and just a one purchases that next drink realizes that the event they are at is the same as the videos. That the club is a sub cooperation dictating behavior and promoting consumerism.

[john01]

Do you drink tap water or bottled water ?

[disassembler]

http://www.helixcharter.net/department_sites/socialscience/honors_geo/student%20work/Period%203%20websites/t3moldewatpol/images/plastic%20ocean%20trash.jpg

[john01]

sea water ?

bit salty

[Gumby]

Tap water. Why would you buy something which you could just get out of the tap?!
anyways, tap water is better for you teeth :D

[DayVeeJay]

Visuals can be quite artistic but in my opinion it takes a lot more skill. Those who where artists before VJ's often put more meaning into their work. I do not consider myself to be an artist despite the fact that I do pay attention to colors, shapes, etc. If youre gonna throw a bunch of flashy stuff on the screens, then you might as well make it look good. A small kid is able to make a really cool looking painting, but its not art like a Picaso.

Take what you want from it. Interpretate how you choose. I'm really not sure where I was trying to go with this rant.

[asterix]

I like the movie 'hero' and its take on that. The kanji writers where just writing words but their devotion and discipline to it was what made it special. Almost like painting words was a martial art. You could apply the same attitude to anything you do in life.

[rayrik]

For example in Switzerland anything, any shit even dog`s, even fake they consider art but as we know artist and art can easily go off the hook:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/12/3

[AsylumSeaker]

If VJing isn't art then I guess neither is music? Or film? Or theater? Or comic books? Are art and entertainment really that mutually exclusive?

To me it seems there are two main popular definitions for art and they are basically

1) Any deliberately creative activity.
2) People wearing berets and putting blank canvases in art galleries.

I see artistic endeavour as the continuation of evolution. It started with slow coalescence of material into stars and planets then the advent of life which complexified and developed intricate systems of interrelatedness which we call biospheres and all this followed an exponential curve leading up to the rise of intelligence and imagination and now this momentum is moving too fast to be expressed with genetic evolution so it overflows into the creative utterances of some strange bipedal creatures. I wonder what the next step in this curve will be?

[triskele]

I don't know - I think people are rebelling against the "berets and blank canvasses" definition of art, and reappropriating the old concept of "high art" - art that imitates nature, and takes much practice and dedication (or at least an abundance of innate talent) to perfect. I, for example, am skeptical as to whether Tracy Emin's bed is art at all.

Unless of course you choose to go for a third definition of art, which is "anything that inspires or creates meaning". However, the problem with that is that it is way too broad in my opinion. Unless you want to go for the mystical "art is within everything" idea. If so, you'd have to agree that human rights violations and mullets were art, though.

The definition of art may indeed be somewhat more fluid than we wish to accept. I personally think that whether a VJ set is art (or whether a DJ set is art) depends on a fine balance between the VJ/DJ and the receptors (punters), the level of dedication, skill, forethought, talent or sheer luck that is put into the set, the mood of the night (or day), as set by previous VJs...and multifarious other factors.

In sum, whether or not VJing is art is contingent on many factors, and cannot be judged until the moment of presentation.

[john01]

DV has just gone out to buy a black beret.

[mowgli]

Ok, lets clarify. Everything is art. Now the question is: is it good or bad art?
Now we need to define good and bad or just get on with our visuals (hopefully good)

[many2]

Art = redefines what art can be
Craft = what most so-called artists are producing

[john01]

Art = redefines what art can be
Craft = what most so-called artists are producing

damn that's crafty

[vjpixylight]

There is certainly the technical parts to it which I would consider on the craft side.
The Art side usually takes most of the good stuff to long to get noticed, and therin lies that maybe, the true artist is simply one that doesn't feel the need to commercialize it.

I caught this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/arts/television/18pbs.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) documentary the other night, and one might say that the photographers involved are both visionary artists, and, technicians simply doing their job.
doesn't this photograph from the "Faces series" look like GW Bush..
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/18/arts/television/MigratoryMexicans-600.jpg

[stuckfootage]

Great thread. Thanks, deepvisual, for throwin it down!

I call myself an artist. Of course, I'm
a lot of other things, too. Every form of human
expression has some art, some craft, and some bullshit.
And there is good and bad of each category.

I used to play in bands. For many people in the club,
the only reason we were there was to help them get laid or paid.
But even when you're cranking out schlock,
you can do it in a clever way, you can mess with people's minds,
you can throw in a couple of references that only a few will understand.

We all communicate and provide services and do our craft,
but we can always add a little extra bit of mindfuck to our work.
Something that makes having a brain lots of fun.
Whenever you play with that, you're an artist.

Anyway, I would rearrange deepvisuals' maths thusly:

stupid art = stupid visuals = little talent + big ego
great art = great visuals = great talent + big ego

<smiley>

[bigfug]

I've tried calling myself an artist, though I always feel like a bit of a berk doing it.

People immediately assume that you work in paint, or sculpture, or one of the mainstream mediums, so to reveal that I'm a VIDEO artist (which I don't quite think describes what I do anyway, but let's not get into that), they give me a quiet strange look and say "Oh..."

However, this is not in context of actually showing "my work".

If I set up a projection in an art gallery, alongside paintings and sculpture, as I have done, then the reaction to it, and myself, is entirely different. Of course it's art: it's in an art gallery (doesn't have to be good art), and by definition, I am therefore an artist (not necessarily a good one).

Yes, I really think that is pretty much the knack of art: the context in which you show it.

This is a bit of a generalisation, of course, but certainly not an unexplored idea (found art by Duchamp, turds by Klein, etc).

For this reason alone, I believe that visuals shown in clubs will rarely, if ever, be considered art, however good they are.

As has been talking about many times on these pages, most club/festival punters aren't there to see the visuals as their primary concern. In a gallery, they are and that's both scary as hell and exhilarating in a way I never experienced doing club visuals.

The label of artist has never really bothered me one way or the other but I find it intriguing and, most of all, fun to explore these alternative worlds.

Having said all that: EAT MY ART (http://www.artdaily.org/section/news/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=35862)

Alex

[deepvisual]

I've tried calling myself an artist, though I always feel like a bit of a berk doing it.

Ah
maybe you are doing it wrong.

Try refering to yourself as The Artist and always talk about your work in the 3rd person, ideally using only your last name. Its also very important that you dont actually do anything yourself and get your assistants to do all the work, otherwise it is only art and not Art. Be sure to be full of self importance at all times and finally, be sure to charge 200 times more than you usually would or no one will take you seriously

[bigfug]

Try refering to yourself as The Artist and always talk about your work in the 3rd person...

Some strong words of advice there, thank you. A similar approach worked very well for Prince, I seem to remember, so I'll be sure to try it!

[Hfour]

I studied Fine Arts in University, and one of the 20th Century Art History Profs had a very good working definition of Art, which I have since expanded upon for a better understanding:

The 'Artness' of a piece of work can be determined with 4 qualifying categories:
1. Institutional Value
2. Aesthetic Value
3. Conceptual Value
4. Technical Value

Explanation:
1. Institutional Value is 'measured' by how the art institution of the world thinks of the artist and the piece. Did the artist go to art school? Which one? Do they exhibit at galleries? Are they covered by critics and art related magazines? Are their works collected by art collectors and are they generally considered to be an Artist?

2. Aesthetic Value is how well the work satisfies the 'aesthetic tastes' of society at large (and more likely the people within the art world game).

3. Conceptual Value is the way in which art communicates its ideas, what those ideas are, their profundity, and how they are connected to the art world or society at large.

4. Technical Value is measuring the skill of the artist in their media, or the skill of the artist show in a particular work. Splatter paintings like those of Jackson Pollock are very low in this category because they do not demonstrate any great mastery of a skill.

Plug any work into this working definition, and you can have a better understanding of the 'artness' of it. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the focus from technical-aesthetic work shifted more towards institutional-conceptual work, but this appears to be changing constantly.

In terms of VJing, the difference between making art and being a visuals guy seems to be the artistic background of the VJ, their technical skill in the medium, and the concept communicated.

Technical skill for VJs seems to be very high for most video artists who have been vjing for more than 2-3 years. The knowledge needed to set up a show, create, modify,and present content and operate the hardware and software is quite significant. If you'd spent the amount of time you spent on learning various vj related skills doing something different like learning to paint or draw, i'm sure that your technical skill in that field would also be very good.

I consider myself a video artist, but must admit that the cost of producing a video installation vs the cost of producing a painting limits my creative concepts to what I can 'sell'. I keep telling myself that my video art path will head back deeper into the art world, and I honestly hope it does, but the art world better have the budget like brands do... (So selfish, so shallow, I know.)

[iro3]

Most artists only seem to be appreciated and their works valued when they are dead ... that does not bode well for VJs!

[many2]

Most artists only seem to be appreciated and their works valued when they are dead ... that does not bode well for VJs!

Who knows, now that VJing is dead maybe success will come ! ;)

[Andy_T_E3]

this seems a little weird to me. As the width of what is possible with the equipment that is available and the potential for transient situations with projection systems is quite far reaching....why then is there a predominantly club centred discussion happening here?

I truely think making art is about intent..the person who is spinning .swf files freshly d/l to booming techno at the club on the weekend can hardly be called an artist. Nor possibly would they wish to be labeled as such. However the person crafting their own animation or video with intent and a mindfulness, has relationships with many parts of the fine art world...take your pick...make what you want and call yourself whatever you wish.

[Hfour]

Welcome to the forums Andy, I agree with you 100%.

[Moabyte]

I've always felt that what makes something a piece of art is the intention in which it was created. This same thing was said in a movie I recently watched called Beautiful Losers. http://www.beautifullosers.com/

For me that intention is to communicate the inspired internal dialog I have with myself about the world around and in me. What I like about VJing is that is lets us take things that have one intention, which may or may not be artistic in nature and reform it with another intention.

I approach it like this; We are all artists. Inspiration is the pure voice of our higher self and when you create from this inspiration you are making art.

There is video art in the club and rave arena, but we don't really know for sure unless we know about the VJ and their intention.

Cheers.

[Pleasuretek]

I consider what I create to be art as what I create is generative realtime visuals. I try to use as little "footage" as possible. So what do I sit and create with my free time at home and what gets delivered at the show... Yeah, its fullSpectrum psychadelic spiritCreature art.

I think art can be pure crap, but if the artist goes into that happy creative place inside us all when creating... then it is art. If the visualist goes into it thinking of the client and getting paid blah blah, its not art, its work. You might be hustling some art, but that still makes you a hustler and not an artist.

[vjneef]

The 'Artness' of a piece of work can be determined with 4 qualifying categories:
1. Institutional Value
2. Aesthetic Value
3. Conceptual Value
4. Technical Value

I'm no so sure I agree with your Art history profs. It seems that their definition only works for what is accepted as art by society, which is usually about the dead artists and artists that work in ways which are generally accepted and fit into a tradition.
For example Vincent van Gogh would probably not have made it into any of these categories during his life as an artist. He was not accepted in art school, society would not like his paintings, he did not communicate his ideas very well because he would just make a fight about it and his technical skills were actually not very good.

I do think that artists are related to a society and the relation between the artist and society defines the value of the art. But this doesn't mean that society should be the judge of what is good art. At least not at the moment it is created.

[Rovastar]

this seems a little weird to me. As the width of what is possible with the equipment that is available and the potential for transient situations with projection systems is quite far reaching....why then is there a predominantly club centred discussion happening here?


I suppose it is because this is most a VJing in club related forum - most here are from/in that background some do more, some are now in more 'arty' fields.


I truely think making art is about intent..the person who is spinning .swf files freshly d/l to booming techno at the club on the weekend can hardly be called an artist. Nor possibly would they wish to be labeled as such. However the person crafting their own animation or video with intent and a mindfulness, has relationships with many parts of the fine art world...take your pick...make what you want and call yourself whatever you wish.

Do you really think that all people do in clubs is have downloaded spinning swf files?

[Andy_T_E3]

I suppose it is because this is most a VJing in club related forum - most here are from/in that background some do more, some are now in more 'arty' fields.



Do you really think that all people do in clubs is have downloaded spinning swf files?
of course i do not....although the predominant aesthetic that i have experienced is based around vector graphics. I was merely making an example of what i consider to not be "art".
Button pushing versus the "craftsmen who meticulously creates their own content"
Do we consider what people were doing at the first "raves" with 16mm and overhead projectors in the late 1960s early 70s to be art or were they just wrapped up in the full experience of a "happening" which itself could be considered art....

I have spent much time myself working at a club in melbourne back in the days of vision switching and tape.... analog styles...

[Hfour]

I'm no so sure I agree with your Art history profs. It seems that their definition only works for what is accepted as art by society, which is usually about the dead artists and artists that work in ways which are generally accepted and fit into a tradition.

I do think that artists are related to a society and the relation between the artist and society defines the value of the art. But this doesn't mean that society should be the judge of what is good art. At least not at the moment it is created.

If art is not defined by the society it is embedded in, how can anything be defined as art or something else? It is very clear that some objects are art, and some things are not, and that the only characteristic of their 'artness' is based on who made the work. This reminds me of an auction of some pieces 'attributed to Banksy'; in which the bidding value was expected to be several thousand pounds. Banksy refused to confirm or deny that the work was his, and thus the auction failed to reach expected levels because the buyers didn't want to buy a fake. Banksy being the rebel he is probably would have loved to see 'fake Banksy' works sold for thousands of pounds.

The problem in the 20th century arose when the art institution started defining art without asking the rest of society for permission. When royal families and nobility ceased to have as much power as they did, their requirement to support the art world decreased, and the reality check that they provided was largely lost. The development of photography also plays a huge role in the development of modern art, as artists were no longer needed to paint representational portraits of rich people.

And so, the art institution became their own little society, and began to play an in-game with artists, critics, galleries and collectors. There are those who are in on it, and those who are not. The utter crap which 'anybody could make' but is labeled as art receives such categorization because the artist is part of the art institution's 'in crowd'. The real art process going on seems to be how to find your way into the in-crowd, through social networking, attending famous art schools and sleeping with critics(social networking). And here you thought you had a hard time in high school?

Three art critics from the New York big time art scene in the mid twentieth century did more to shape the art world of that era than any artist of the time. Their art reviews made or broke the careers of every artist they cared to write about. They pretty much decided who would be part of the 'in-crowd' and who wasn't. Tom Wolfe wrote a pretty good book covering art history in the mid 20th century called 'The Painted Word'. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in (or hates but wants to understand) the Art World.

By the way, the three critics were: Clement Greenberg, Leo Steinberg and Harold Rosenberg.

After modernism broke apart and multiple styles of art once again became cutting edge, the 'in-crowd' grew in numbers, but the boundaries between art and not-art are still just as clear.

[Hfour]

Do we consider what people were doing at the first "raves" with 16mm and overhead projectors in the late 1960s early 70s to be art or were they just wrapped up in the full experience of a "happening" which itself could be considered art....

Is it art? Yes and no. Please read my last post before continuing.

...

It is starting to be considered part of the canon of art because it was the precursor building block to other forms which are definitely within the canon of art. In order to legitimize the current video artists who have work which resembles the acid test style projections from 40 years ago, their predecessors are 'written in' to the canon.

When it was being made, it was mostly created to 'trip people out' while they were experiencing LSD. Because it wasn't in a gallery, because it was happening in California and less so in New York, and because it was made by creative people who weren't playing the art game, it wasn't considered high-brow art at the time. Just high art ;)

I made a post in a different thread about not being interested in vjing exclusively to make trippy visuals at a club, but it seems that this also has a potential art world future...

[vjneef]

1. Institutional Value
The real art process going on seems to be how to find your way into the in-crowd, through social networking, attending famous art schools and sleeping with critics(social networking).

2. Aesthetic Value
Their art reviews made or broke the careers of every artist they cared to write about. They pretty much decided who would be part of the 'in-crowd' and who wasn't.

3. Conceptual Value
The utter crap which 'anybody could make' but is labeled as art receives such categorization

4. Technical Value
as artists were no longer needed to paint representational portraits of rich people.
I have compared your postst about art categorization and treid to find the explanations in post #69 for the points you made in post #59.
Although it seems there is an explanation given for all the points you have made and your categories do seem to be consistent. I would not think that this is the way I would like to determine if something is art or not.
If this is all there is to say about art/not art then I would go with Deepvisual and think that art is just a category made up to compensate for little talent.
I hope that this is not the case as I think art is very important to society.

[Hfour]

I would not think that this is the way I would like to determine if something is art or not.
If this is all there is to say about art/not art then I would go with Deepvisual and think that art is just a category made up to compensate for little talent.
I hope that this is not the case as I think art is very important to society.

I would have to agree with you. I would like to believe that art is something more, something deeper, something meaningful, but the art world 'in-crowd' are the people who decide what Art officially is, and they treat it like a game.

But having an in crowd is somewhat understandable in terms of professions. Engineers have requirements for their work, as do doctors, architects and plumbers. You have to meet the requirements in order to be considered a person of that profession; the same goes for art, except the requirements are abstract and social.

[vjneef]

I think it's a lot harder to disagree with your last post but I'm gonna try anyway. ;)
What art is depends on context, and a lot of things that were not considered art when they were made are considered art when some time has passed.
Artists always change the definition of what is art, much more than for example engineers change the definition of what is engineering.

The definition of the art-world is something different maybe their definitions are not changing so much. And if you're inside the art world than the art world will say that you're a great artist, or an awful artist, or whatever it is they say. But being inside the art-world is more about status, ego, self-promotion and money than it is about making art.

So although it is very well possible that someone within the art world will make good art. It is also very well possible that they make bad art or something that would normally not be considered art at all because a lot of them are actually not busy making art but just creating a good place for themselves in the art world.
Artists who operate outside the art-world can be much more focused on creating art. But unfortunately a lot of them are too busy being angry that they are not part of the art-world or simply too busy trying to make a living.
For an artist to make a truly revolutionary piece of art it would be much more logical that they were not in the art world because inside the art-world it is probably much more difficult to think for yourself and change the definition of what art should be.

[Hfour]

All your points make perfect sense to me, it's just how the art world goes.

Now in order to continue this thread, we'll have to insult each other and go off topic.

"I don't know if light is waves or photons, but your VJing is so bad, the speed of light slows as a result of the pain you inflict upon it."

[noizester]

A good combination, for what a vj is,is visual+ist=visualist!
what i know is that i like to make and see visuals. My only referenses is nor my behavior during art lessons in school neither my daily work as a designer(actually i am an economics student:moon:) but since i was a child i liked to see lights and the different aspects of it from video-walls in tv shows to fireworks,and the last 1,5 year i found that vjing is the best way to manipulate light as you want to... for vj sets in clubs or projection mapping intallations or just illuminate your house with motion pictures after a stupid academic lesson on economics!My point is that althought visuals have strong arty roots(cinema,dada,fluxus for ex) or simply entertainment roots such as 80's Mtv music videos, they have the same strong impact!!!So no matter what someone call him/her self artist or entertainer we all like to make visuals.
so we are visual+ists=visualists!haha;)

[madsmeskalin]

I guess it doesnt depend on what you do, but how you do it. Simply triggering some clips downloaded on internet to get free beer/laid (yes, in Budapest people actually think youre cool if you VJ) doesnt make you an artist.
But if you spend time in content creation, trying to convey a theme or a special feeling/atmosphere, yes you are an artist. Even though you doesnt fit into an old an conservative defintion of art.

I would also call "Alice in Wonderland" and "Charlie & the Cholotate Factory" for art, even though many of its audience is not typically "art-lovers".
My girlfriend is a jewelry designer, and the creative process she is going about in her workshop, is the definition of art. Along with grafitti. Does the police think grafitti is art?

It seems that people have very conservative view on what art is; that artists are only an elitist community, while it actually describes persons are active in certain creative endeavours.

[madsmeskalin]

You could say; did the artworld recognize Picasso or Dali?
Wether the selfproclaimed art community recognizes something or not, really doesnt matter.

[PCProject]

With LED panels, moving head projectors and mapping becoming more of a feature of what we do isnt it now a case that we are becoming LDs?
Controversial I know but thats the sort of mood I woke up in.

[francoe]

Im not considered myself a VJ (at least in clubber terms), maybe an images creator. From all my production stuff, maybe some pieces can be considerated art, but that's doesn't makes me an artist.
I think that visuals = design product
Sometimes, and I said sometimes, a design product can conform a piece of art.
Usually, aesthetic knowledge + reality's exploration through technique is the starting point. But design is all about comunication, and Art has nothing to do with comunication. Art is closer to resistance.
Art is not about beauty, is not about success, is not about ego.
Art is about new relationships and approximations to the reality concepts.
Technique and creativity are just that for me.

(sorry, my english isn't an art either)

[asterix]

I think people take the view that to be an artist you need to be somewhat serious and must be doing it for some higher intellectual motive. You must be able to have some goble-de-good big worded definition about what art is in order to be able to shelter yourself under the umbrella of art.

Take a look at memo (http://www.memo.tv/)- in my eye's he's what most artists claim to be an never live up to. He doesn't define himself as an artist but he doesn't need to in order to be one.

Again - if you consider yourself a button pusher then you're missing the greater point of vjing. If you're experimenting and expressing yourself then you can easily pass off as what I think an artist is. If you aren't expressing yourself or plunging your emotion into what you're doing, then your set will be rather boring.

I notice a big difference between when I'm really focussed and passionate about what I'm doing, in contrast to being tired or quite uninterested - the sets a guaranteed bore.

When you're tuned in , those magic moments just keep on rolling in.

Its the same tuning in you get when doing a painting or any other traditional art that gets me hooked. I couldn't imagine vjing without it.

[asterix]

By the way, Michelangelo, dali, whoever you would name a great artist have titles like 'painters' or 'sculptures' just like any vj/visualist does. All of Michelangelo's greatest works were paid gigs, just as we do. He had to conform to the clients limitations (he had to paint the human form in the Greek God form, not the true human form). He was regarded and employed much like a graphic designer would today.
His works weren't necessarily highly philosophical or portrayed any deep insight into the human condition and in fact were more political in keeping in line with the rulers message of the day.

By the way did you know Dali also worked in film? (Quite a dreadful film but it's interesting to note).

[werlin]

because the artist and its art are universal (from the lucid dream of an onironaught, cloud padrons, all the way to the 9th symphonie and george w bush quotes :D ) art is hard to define

i dont know where to begin, but i'll give it a shot...

"In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed"

so either:

assume nothing is new and there's no art

or assume that art it's based both on creativity, the ability of combining what already is and giving two things one new purpose

and these arguments easily cancel each other out,
and if you would put a determinism and a free will\won't advocates in front of each other, we'd probably stand here all day
(at least untill a marketeer came along to break up the fight saying its a question of profit and semantics)

for more on that particular waste of time : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#Definitions

moving on and assuming that there is art and that it is in part generated by creativity (dont forget those almost indestructable masterpieces which we call constellations)

you could say that art in general is the token of both ignorance and coincidence.

ignorance of both the artist and the spectator, the former humble and either clumsy or confused, the latter arrogant, lazy, and with fairly good taste

both of them amazed by the coincidence of being there taking part of that moment and witnessing something that, from a certain point forward, will forever remain a little out of their grasp


dont forget that at the moment that art is born the artist and the spectator are one in the same, and after that first clumsyness either the person stays confused and therefore curious and goes on living an artist's life or becomes a spectator waiting for another situation like it to come along.

dont get me wrong, a lot like a knive, none of these lifestyle choices is necessarily good or bad...
but nevertheless all of these art moments and philosophies around them created a kind of mass hysteria that fortunatly was killed in the 1920's, resurrected in the 60's, shot in the 80's but is difficult to call it bio-degradable...

i'm of course talking about the fine arts, it's self-proclaimed artists and critics (and deepvisual's past high-end girlfriends)
they're really seem to be an annoying bunch.

and because some cultural zaratustra decided he had had enough of them, marketeered the birth of the trash culture, with designers as its new prophets and salvation achieved by novelty in order to continue to feed the everlasting anarcho-capitalist society with a fresh face.

(and that is maybe why is easier for the existing generations to consider themselves as designers rather than artists)

needless to say it backfired, because as it turns out, even if you change the sign on the door, the door will remain and thus all kinds of people will walk through it, including the annoying ones...

but dont worry we are both artists and spectators at diferent moments in time and in space, and digital visuals can still be art or not depending on the naiveness and open-mindness of who's judging it

ps: looking for who once said that "the artist should be universal" and failling in produce an answer, i'll leave you with this other great one i've found in the process:

"Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else."

;) (if it makes no f**king sense, dont worry... i tend to wander when i writte)