Should we be more surreal than anything else? [Archive]

BrainStove

3rd June 2003, 04:35 AM

Well, trying to throw some new colors here on the forums, I?ll post some controversial threads to see what happen.

A lot of times some people here has said they are trying to communicate ideas, make statements/remarks and in general make the ppl/crowd thinking as result of theirs visuals while VJing.
Well, I think it?s totally wrong... at least in the context where VJing was born from... Music, Parties, Concerts, etc.
That?s OK for others environments like Cinema, Film/Shorts Festivals, VideoArt Galleries, Fashion/Advert Events etc. but not for this underground scene of Raves, Clubs, Discos & Party events where the music is the main protagonist.

For not repeating myself too much on this topic, you can read also this thread (http://www.vjforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=575&perpage=15&pagenumber=7) entirely (The longest thread in the history of VJC/F):
But for the effects of what I wanna say now just read the bit in my post titled *The Art of VJ?ing* I posted almost a year ago but still useful to illustrate the matter I wanna stablish in this thread.

Yeah, the reason I?m more involved/looking in 3D based sound reacting VJing tools rather Clips triggering, processing, scratching treatment of the VJing side of things, is cuz I really think we must be as surreal as possible (no necessarily abstracts) in those music parties enviroments, just enhancing the music vibe as a whole and of course trying by any mean our Visuals be perceived by the crowd EARS more than by their EYES in a sort of synesthesic mastering skillz treatment where our show is not perceived by the regular & traditional human senses.
Yeah, you even can try be a little bit coherent with your visuals, but please no speechs/lectures will be so welcome for those chemical sprayed brains being forced to split their attention between the more pleasant adrenaline pumping music and your visuals... simply that is not gonna happen.
Of course it?s also matter of individual style/taste of VJing and what sort of tools you use to make your source material, so nothing is forbidden and everything is valid, but just think twice about what I?m saying here. ;)

Ok, I guess it?s just me with my Researcher/Scientist temperament who is talking, I even must confess a lil secret about me... I never in my life pay/ed attention to any lyrics in any song in any language, so yeah I?m just a Rhythm, Melody, Harmony animal about music, maybe that have something to do with my visual style too.
By example in Painting Arts I like Surrealism the most; specially Salvador Dali & Eisher, the endless suggestions in their imaging work are what guide and inspire my visuals & VJing style. I really don?t like so much any Art where I can feel/perceive the borders or limit lines... (Explicit Art?)
I mean, I can appreciate a good impresionist landscape or portrait picture and celebrate the author kickass skills to copy/recreate the reality so accurate on a canvas, but also too static/boring to my taste for keeping me excited beyond of that.
Just think about this: Could have the same impact that famous Dali picture " The persistence of memory" if he just have named it "Melting clocks"???

Well, to make this post not any longer just 2 final thoughts:
I think Eisher is one of my more admired visual artists and beside of DaVinci; two of those rarities whom were/are genuine brain ambidexterous melting that Science/Art hybrid flavor in their work I like so much.
Finally I can?t avoid to name another genius I admire (different field though), that?d be Quino (The Mafalda creator), not by Mafalda itself, but by his singular kickass illustrator & comic design skills expressing SO much with so little and able of making you really dig in your mind and get lost in your own inner thoughts through the tons of those highly acclaimed "no words" (and ironic?) comic stripes he is known for ;)

Well... hehehe, I hope we can get some fun from this thread :D

holly

3rd June 2003, 06:35 AM

WHAT??!!! I am totally offended by this post!!! How dare you be sooo controversial!:D

I actually don't see much surrealism in VJing, at least not on the order of Escher and Dali. surrealism: A 20th-century artistic movement that attempts to express the workings of the subconscious and is characterized by fantastic imagery and incongruous juxtaposition of subject matter. If the kaleidestrobe and audio-pumping-static'n'swirl effect is what is going on in the average VJ's subconcious, then they all need Ridilin....

I see more abstract and psychedelic VJ structure (and influence) than anything else. Mostly psychedelic.... Why? VJing is about filters, distortion, time shift, and recurrence. With Brainstove and the others who use audio-visualisers, VJing is also about synaesthesia (a state of psychosis where sounds are seen or tastes heard). The trend of the current crop of VJs is software-driven, non-conceptual psychedilia coming from laptops. This is why the scene is centered around (and slave to) drug-friendly Trance and Electronic music DJs. There's also a strong trend towards using these trippy fx on live camera feed, furthering the psychedelic sensoria with or without halucenogenic drugs.

There's a little abstract work out there, but this is usually coming from an older, more minimalist art scene. The sit-and-ponder set. Trains and architecture seem to be a popular subject. Presented completely out of context, with no pretense towards meaning, only the endless motion of trains or the regular squareness of windows in a wall; a focus on the aspects that make trains "train-y" or windows "window-y". This is abstraction.

Surrealism had a lucid clarity that I don't see in most VJ work. It evoked a world where the rules of physics were familiar but different, and at the same time coheasive and immediate to understand. Advanced and seemless compositing would be necessary (in my opinion), as well as clean video sources and high-concept footage (think Cremaster, think costumed actors and dancers in photorealistic 3D environments). Surrealism is about mastering the rules of realism ( in otherwords, how to make flawlessly represenational video, like what you would see in a TV commercial) and using those tools to recreate the laws of nature in the most convincing but inprobable way. Most VJs, it seems, can't spend the time and effort (and especially the expense) to create something so accomplished, conceptual, or polished.

Psychedilic art is much easier, faster, and cheaper, and a dirty signal is accepted, almost expected, in that environment.

PilotX

3rd June 2003, 09:40 AM

nah.. right vis for the right place. sometimes some text and some message is good.. it's gotta run with the feel of the music.. but a bit of creativity with the styling of text can make it fit realy well..
I guess if song lyrics never meant anything to you then it'll be different, but we've done nights which wouldn't have worked without text, where the crowd responded to it, for instance:

lo-fi allstars dj set.. rock&roll theme for the night.. used text from song lyrics that were appropriate (such as 'irk the purists, it's a right good laugh').. obviously 'fuck you I woun't do what you tell me' was in there - the crowd responded in kind to that (ratm wasn't played unfortunately).. the music at the night is eclectic breakbeat btw..

sometimes text works.. sometimes themes work.. sometimes surrealism, bizzareness and all manner of fucked up wierd visuals works..

KillingFrenzy

3rd June 2003, 10:20 AM

I'm sorry if you're just not expressing yourself very well Brainstove, but what you've expressed is an appreciation of the aesthetics of surrealism without much understanding of the manifesto behind the movement.
Surrealism is fraught with "meaning," and while the swirling psychedelia of a 3d artist may visually recall elements of the methods of surrealism, I tend to see more of melting clocks and less of intellectualized labels such as "The persistence of time." Where is the visuals equivalent of the context that that label provides in the painting? Is a dream being actualized, or is an environment being prodded for sensual appeal?
I don't see how a wormhole with sides that scintillate to audio is surreal, whereas me playing a clip from "I will walk like a crazy horse" where a fellow realistically gives birth to a bloody skull, is at least a reference to an honest attempt at capturing the spirit of a surreal image. Even if I myself were to create the images, then I question whether the projection/visual mixing techniques I use would be surreal in nature though the content might be. It seems to me the technique I use is more akin to Dada; hacking up sources and creating a collage full of juxtaposition that invites critique.
I think a purely surrealist set is possible, and I think interactive 3d is probably a good way to get at it, because it would allow the improbable to be dealt with in a very visually realistic manner. The trick is you have to get the elements out of your subconscious into some sort of accessible palette, and then start painting with them in a live context. The results shouldn't read as a text with directed purpose, but should delve enough into the psyche to unleash the symbols of deeper meaning that comprise a dream.
There's a reason that Dali conjured up a clock instead of a burrito, and not just because it looked more cool all melty. The clock had deep symbolic value, and the title of the painting is indicative of his understanding (perhaps post creation) of something other than an aesthetic entertainment.

Rovastar

3rd June 2003, 01:01 PM

Ummh I have often seen most of the work I do to be pretty 'surreal' I do wonder what ppl like Dali, etc would be doing today if they came on the scene and had teh techincal knowhow to make CG stuff.

I Also spend just as long inventing titles for the scenes :) again like a 'work of art' but cg stuff will never be accept as a work of art but I do not know why. I have tried to find 'nice' CG visuals in art galleries in London etc but alas nothing. :( Maybe some form of snobbery dunno. *shrug*

robotfunk

3rd June 2003, 02:06 PM

i think the problem here is that people stared to use the word 'surreal' as a synonym for 'trippy'. As in 'whooaaa surreal, man' . Real surrealism is IMO a bit too scary under the influence of psychedelics. But then again I'm a pussy.

syzygy

3rd June 2003, 03:11 PM

Which VJs/live video artists have acheived recognition outside of the VJ community?

Are they artists/crews who create trippy 'eye-candy' that doesn't really have any meaning, or are they people who create work with some meaning/message to it?

Now, most of my friends will not know the name of the crew who does the trippy visuals at a rave, in the same way as they don't know the name of the lighting operator or the sound guy.

On the other hand, they know names like the light surgeons and hexstatic very well and would go to see them as artists in their own right.

They are respected as artists.

I don't think visuals have to have meaning to be good (and sometimes an event is definitely more suited to less concious imagery), but visuals that make people think definitely get noticed more as an entity in their own right.

Of course, fame isn't the be-all and end all but I think this does show that there are plenty of people out there who appreciate visuals that make them think a little bit.

I'd rather be putting stuff out to the 'thinkers' than to trippers who would be quite happy as long as the screen flashes with lots of pretty colours. For a start, the 'thinkers' stand much more of a chance of remembering what they saw.

Dan.

holly

3rd June 2003, 03:14 PM

i think the problem here is that people started to use the word 'surreal' as a synonym for 'trippy'. Agreed. art history for all of youze!

DaVinci was a pioneer of realism. He drew what he saw (and what he envisioned) with amazing accuracy. Surrealism uses that same level of skill but will forever be linked with "pop"-psychology of the 20th Century (Dali painted several portraits of Freud in the late 30's). However silly the concepts seem today, there was a great vogue in spilling out sexual dreams, paranoia of unprovoked violence, and repressed trauma ? all from the white male's perspective. It seemed the more creative you were, the more bizarre your subconcious should be (artists should be on the verge of being insane, an insulting sterotype that persists to this day). The quintessential surrealist film Le Chien Andalou by Dali and Buniel, and Dali's sequences for Alfred Hitchcock's films Spellbound and Vertigo are required viewing for every vj who abuses the term "surreal". Rova, from what little I've seen of your work I'd suggest that it is probably not surreal.

Little shapes jigging to the beat is psychidelic. Nothing to do with surrealism.

many2

3rd June 2003, 03:44 PM

We tend to see surrealism as a very "unified" movement while it's not. Most artists of this movement would approach it with their own ideas and their own views on what it could be. Some were attracted for the blending of psychology and art, some others for the juxtaposition of completely heterogenous ideas (like clocks and liquids), some because the movement was giving illustrators the opportunity to work on figurative subjects and realistic illustration (which had been "out" of art for years at that time).

I haven't see any VJ set I would call "surrealist".

I would describe some sets as "dada" : some are built on collage and on the showing of apparently unrelated/random elements. Dada is the father of the surrealist movement.

Many-2

Rovastar

3rd June 2003, 03:49 PM

It does depend on what scenes I do.

Surrealism for me at least means a different thing now to what it did then 100 years ago.

A picture doesn't have to have meaning to be in a surrealisticc style. If I did a painting of melted clocks etc it would be in a surreal style. It might not be subvertive and grooundbreaking as the orginal surreal movement but it would be 'surreal'.

Someof the visuals arelike that notr all just someand the ones more recently. Other ppl have said so too."Oh that is look surreal" (in the surreal style)

holly

3rd June 2003, 04:04 PM

Surrealism for me at least means a different thing now to what it did then 100 years ago.
...and when I say I'm Empress of the Universe, it doesn't mean I married the Emperor of the Universe..., but a hundred years ago that would have been the requirement.
Someof the visuals arelike that notr all just someand the ones more recently.
This sentance is not surreal. It is Dada.

We get to make up our own definitions when we are alone, but when we enter a public debate it's best to stick with the actual definitions of words.

Amukidi

3rd June 2003, 04:26 PM

And if Dali were alive today, and you knew what sort of person he was, you'd just want to kick him in the nads.

Amukidi

3rd June 2003, 04:48 PM

Maybe I should explain myself! Dali was a fascist, misogynistic bastard whose biggest skills were in self promotion. Sure, he had a real talent for applying paint onto canvas, and maybe drawing too, but that doesn't make him a great artist in my eyes. (I doubt Joseph Beuys could emulsion a wall, but he was great - geddit?). Accessible art has always stuck in my throat a bit - give me a challenge any day! If you are interested in the surrealist movement, sure, check Dali out - then move on to the more interesting works of de Chirico, Magritte and Miro. Just my opinion of course!! But liking Dali is , like , soooo laaaast year dahhhhling!

vjrei

3rd June 2003, 05:09 PM

I'm agree with the difference between "surreal" and "trippy", Trippy is a video I some times use of MTV Jack Ass receiving a kick in his balls but that is not surreal at all.

Now, the other point is to use "surreal" material or a "text message" like stuff (I do not find a denomination for that).

Now, as a VJ everything (in my case) depends strictly on the music the DJ is playing. If the VJing was all "surreal" all I had to do is to let run iTunes and that is it! But I can not use iTunes for more than 5 minutes in one night because even the software represent the audio very well the texture is always the same.

In my case I use an specific clip when the beat is very present on the song. I have a DJ whos music is very cartoonish, so, I use a lot The Moppets Show loops with him, I have another DJ who plays a lot of Jazz in the chill out, well The Jungle Book dance sequence are for him (for a few seconds), I have another DJ whos music is more snob, for him I have his visualizations and so on.

It takes a lot of feeling (and library) to be able to represent what the music really is telling you, I'm an electronic musician and from what I do that is what I use when I'm performing. I have been doing electronic music for 14 years or more, so I can visualize very weel what I'm listening.

The good thing about VJing is that you can not marry to any concept, you can not be "surreal" with hip-hop, it may work, you could be with Progresive but there is a specific atmosphere for every kind of music if you want to find the inmmersion in the public.

In my case I would like to represent each meassure but I'm only able to represent one song as a whole, that include:
1. Textures: House music has a low end look, Trance is very clean.
2. Beat: When is very present or not I sue different ones.
3. Color: If the DJ is playing Trance I usually use red or blue dark colors.
4. Concept: House= Muppets; Trance= Atmosphers; Hip-hop= Urban clips.

littlecatalyst

3rd June 2003, 05:27 PM

I like Breton's definition (since he did the surrealist manifesto i think he's a good bloke to inspect):
SURREALISM, noun, masc., Pure psychic automatism by which it is intended to express, either verbally or in writing, the true function of thought. Thought dictated in the absence of all control exerted by reason, and outside all aesthetic or moral preoccupations.

but really its all about thought being supreme to matter.... which would be pretty tough (and pointless imho) to convey to a crowd of clubkids to begin with.... on top of which i am pretty suspicios of replicating the "automatism" with something like MotionDive.... can't be done. youre cheating. bringing images up from a file is a lot fiferent than from the depths of your mind, or dreamstate...... surrealism is a lot more than a melted clock

and i agree with many2 that more work falls into the dada camp (and hey there's nothing wrong with that... it fits in the lifestyle too!)

...lastly; Rei: if you think trippy is a kick in the balls.... please do some mushrooms and close your eyes. lsd will also work. jackass is fun (i wish it wasn't; guilty pleasure) but is NOT trippy. at all. serioulsy rei.

littlecatalyst

3rd June 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by jaffa808
And if Dali were alive today, and you knew what sort of person he was, you'd just want to kick him in the nads.

dali did psychedelics???

eirenah

3rd June 2003, 05:57 PM

great thread Bstove!
i have to agree with syzygy. there are sooOoo many different kinds of audience and we have to adjust to their music taste. that way you can't give deepminded message (not necessary txt) to trippers audience, and you can't give splashing strobo rainbow coloured 3d @ experimenthal glitchy minimal music (and it's audience).
Also, there are so many clubnights that are not necessary dancefull and there's no need for visuals to move the audience. In that context, if you have a room full of 'thinkers' you have to feed them with what they want. You have to give them visual synonime for the music they came to listen. (the ones who respect someone like Scanner should know what i'm talking about).

It's all about context. as the lightman shouldn't work the same way on jazz concert and rave party, we shouldn't either.

Now, someone may think that their trippy style fits on all kinds of music - and he can do lousy job @ non-trippy events, and there are others who are aware they have to adjust and are switching styles depending on event. and the third ones, who are only into one style and staying loyal to the music and events that inspires them for doing the right thing.

holly

3rd June 2003, 06:08 PM

Oh goodie. Name calling fights just like the good old days! The ghost of ***** brought up by BrainStove at the beginning of this thread (with a link to classic *****-isms of separatism, paranoia, and mis-guided attempts at "religious" VJ fundamentalism), plus the actual ***** making a cameo appearance on another thread like Jacob Marley rattling chains (wasn't he banned or something?). Woo-hoo! I'm pulling out my leather chaps and shit-kickers. Bring it on, boys!

Brainstove and Rova's lack of art history knowledge doesn't make them lousy VJs, but everytime I turn around here someone is comparing themselves to Dali or Picasso. The fact that BS asks if shouldn't we be "more surreal than anything else", without even knowing what the term means is classic ego inflation and *****-ism (tho without the vein-popping typos and threats). He meant "psychedilic", as in shouldn't we just make people trip harder rather than bog everything down with meaning and self-importance...? Maybe, but who cares what we should do. When VJing starts paying my rent and supporting my tech/fetish habits, I'll consider letting it dictate what I should show. Until that day, however, I'll continue to spread my femme-domme propaganda and eye-poping artmatics as long as it interests me.

Surrealism was oversaturated with meaning, symbolism, religious and sexual imagery. Yes, it was usually meant to be beautiful at first glance, but "shocking" and "tittlating" and "deep" as you stepped farther in. Current heir to the surrealist throne is Mathew Barney, and I can't imagine a more inflated ego, or more ponderous and elaborate production based on one white man's idiotic and stunted sexual journey named after a scrotal muscle. *yawn* Men are pathetically attracted to surrealism because they don't have the capacity to understand their own sexuality, or why they are slaves to it. Most men are still little boys seeking fartherly approval, and almost all of them are trapped by the dual (and dueling) need for motherly comfort and rejection of relationship commitment. I'm not on life's little journey of self-discovery, I'm one of the pitfalls.

VJing is what I need it to be: A trendy venue for my propagandistic tirades. Because I have schooling in film and self-taught knowledge of digital video, I choose to use VJing as a platform for my body and my ideas ? two concepts that don't fit comfortably in the moronicly boyish cabal of club VJing. I don't care for the dry intellectualism and pomposity of art galleries, because I'm not sexually attracted to artsy/brainy-types. Give me a hot guy in a sweaty t-shirt, a little drunk and a little overstimulated, and I'm gonna have a good time. Sexy women are born manipulators. Just because you want to pump some druggie's seratonin levels while I'm pumping some meathead's testosterone, doesn't mean we can't share the same VJ-title. Believe me, controlling a man's body is a lot more useful and reliable than controling his mind. I've done both, and the brain is nearly useless. In fact, from the neck up he's all yours. While I have no interest in conquoring every man one-on-one, I like the idea of controlling a roomfull with the imagery I show.

Get over it, and get over yourself. Stop telling people what they should be presenting onscreen. I'll use any media and any venue to punch holes in men's thin fabric of reality. There's a whole scary world outside the ecstasy bubble, and I'm learning through experience and experimentation the power of VJing to take you there.

syzygy

3rd June 2003, 06:15 PM

moronicly boyish cabal of club VJing

:D
When it comes to name-calling, noone does it quite like Holly...

Is it the sort of cabal that involves rituals and secret passwords? If so, could somone recommend me? (and could everyone else refrain from black-balling my membership?)

Cheers,

Dan.

Amukidi

3rd June 2003, 07:25 PM

"Surrealism was oversaturated with meaning, symbolism, religious and sexual imagery. Yes, it was usually meant to be beautiful at first glance, but "shocking" and "tittlating" and "deep" as you stepped farther in. Current heir to the surrealist throne is Mathew Barney, and I can't imagine a more inflated ego, or more ponderous and elaborate production based on one white man's idiotic and stunted sexual journey named after a scrotal muscle. *yawn* Men are pathetically attracted to surrealism because they don't have the capacity to understand their own sexuality, or why they are slaves to it. Most men are still little boys seeking fartherly approval, and almost all of them are trapped by the dual (and dueling) need for motherly comfort and rejection of relationship commitment. I'm not on life's little journey of self-discovery, I'm one of the pitfalls".

Holly - thanks for saying what I was holding back on, for fear of pissing everybody off!! When I used to be a college lecturer, the liking of Dali and Giger were clear indicators of how visually naive students were (and yes - 99% were male - surprise!).

littlecatalyst

3rd June 2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by holly
who cares what we should do.
yay. so true. why not tell every musician how/what style to play... dictate style and structure to all dancers, all vjs, all poets... hey while we're at it all pizza joints too, i hate when you don't get enough cheese or when they get all fancy....

Originally posted by holly
Current heir to the surrealist throne is Mathew Barney, and I can't imagine a more inflated ego, or more ponderous...you mean that creamsterbator dude??? no way! that sux. why??? imo the current heir is Ouchy The Clown (see pic)
serously he kicks Barney's ass. (www.ouchytheclown.com)

Originally posted by holly
Most men are still little boys seeking fartherly approval, and almost all of them are trapped by the dual (and dueling) need for motherly comfort and rejection of relationship commitment. ..most men (?) probably. however, most women on Planet of the Crazy People are equally f**ked up, no? (it can't just be the ones i know and love) partially from the patriarchal crap, partly for a plethora of other reasons (from the realitionships with their parents to the chemical stew we now call "air").

Originally posted by holly
VJing is what I need it to be: A trendy venue for my propagandistic tirades. Because I have schooling in film and self-taught knowledge of digital video, I choose to use VJing as a platform for my body and my ideas ? two concepts that don't fit comfortably in the moronicly boyish cabal of club VJing. in the clubs maybe, but at least here, the underground is full of people with bodies like yours (genderwise) and i dig tag teaming with them, or just watching the screens when they play-- the XX seem to have a different feel and sensibility than the XY (even though everyone is an individual). not to mention its a nice energy to be around... as for politics, refernces, imagery, go for it. if you only like to make trippy colours (i.e. not jams of ball kickings) thats your perogie but if you like to get your message across that's one of the beauties of this medium; that you can and that you can do it as subtly or as over the top as you choose
me, i'm into media-literacy activism, climate change, anarco politics, psychedelics, good (imo) music, and having fun (including but not limited to the above and/or sex) some shows (like vjing for Boy George) don't take too well for the politics, and some do, and when they do i can do more and when the show doesn't call for it i gotta be a little sneakier about it, but there's no way i will play at a place again, if the management tells me not to play something.... at the same time, i think i do it live mostly cause the process, the whole experience is still a rush.

Originally posted by holly
I don't care for the dry intellectualism and pomposity of art galleries,
me neither, but i hate feeling like no one "got it" at the end of a party. my fav. shows were still for GSYBE! where it was a band (no vocals) and people were starring quietly, mezmerized the whole night (their music could do that w/out any visuals). I wish there was some other venue........

Originally posted by holly
because I'm not sexually attracted to artsy/brainy-types. :shake:

Originally posted by holly
Believe me, controlling a man's body is a lot more useful and reliable than controling his mind. I've done both, and the brain is nearly useless. In fact, from the neck up he's all yours. i dunno holly, i've had both, and reliable, maybe, but at the end of the day... i get more mileage out of a mind.

Originally posted by holly
I'll use any media and any venue to punch holes in men's thin fabric of reality. There's a whole scary world outside the ecstasy bubble, and I'm learning through experience and experimentation the power of VJing to take you there.
i agree that there's a whole world outside.... a lot of it scary, but i don't get the point of going after such an easy target? does it make you feel better to punch holes, or do you also do the empowering thing at the same time? i'd guess that going in and out with a motivation like that would leave you angry, especially when you figure on how so many people are busy checking out people, scoring and doing other things than evenlooking at the screens....

MightyMouseLBC

3rd June 2003, 07:46 PM

"If a rose went by any other name would it not smell as sweet?"

That's from Romeo and Juliet.

Now I'm having a Philosophical Epiphany or anything like that. But names are names they can turn your art into something totally different, I actually think it is almost as important as the Art itself.

If the Mona Lisa, had been called "Unhappy Woman" I doubt that it be on every post card from Italy to Las Vegas.

The picture is what makes such work surreal, but I think that the Mystery behind the name gives it a lot of substance.

Such as: If you saw Dali's "Melting Clocks" for the first time you might say !Whoa that's pretty trippy! Then you see the name and you pause for a moment and develop you own realazation of what the picture could mean. At that moment (to me at least) something becomes surreal. Beyond just the look of it, it provokes a strange thought process that burns the painting in the back of your mind.

Just an oppinion ofcourse

littlecatalyst

3rd June 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by MightyMouseLBC
Now I'm having a Philosophical Epiphany or anything like that. But names are names they can turn your art into something totally different, I actually think it is almost as important as the Art itself.

...makes me think about Duschamp's mustchioed mona lisa.... it had the initials L.H.O.Q. on the bottome, said to solve the mystery of her smile.... much like Holly's natural born maniupulators, lhoq in french is pronounced ell-(h)ach-eau-que, which sounds an awful lot like "ell a chaud cue" or "she has a hot ass"

dunno, just though it belonged in the thread....

Rovastar

3rd June 2003, 08:38 PM

Arrh Hol I do understand what surreal art is. I have followed the scene. :) Just because I am good-looking rugged male (to hot for you to handle babe ;):p) doesn't mean I do not have a cultral, sensitive side.

Dali is overused and I prefer of older surrealist Yves Tanguy or someone. Still I like some of Dali's stuff and I have no problem with my sexuality.:)

Jaffa if I kicked Dali in the balls he would have probably loved it knowning that sort of bloke he was and his sexual tastes.:);)

More serious chat on this subject later.:)

Rovastar

3rd June 2003, 09:35 PM

DOes a surreal-ish picture have to have context and a title to make you think?

What about say this?

(obviously looks better moving :))

robotfunk

3rd June 2003, 10:56 PM

That is trippy, not surreal.
surreal is past real, something you could dream

littlecatalyst

3rd June 2003, 11:14 PM

yeah... that's trippy.

but what about "the thunderbirds" that old puppet tv show, i find that really trippy (especially is you start to bouce ghosts)...

and i never used any of these clips, but remember that christian show Davey & Goliath, the talking moralising dog (freaky claymation for a jesus show). i saw it a bunch of times back in college coming down off acid around 6:00am, and it was really trippy.

wellREDman

3rd June 2003, 11:46 PM

aaah this takes us right back to the old artschool or not debate

to the general public surreal is just another word for weird
to someone who is artschool indoctrinated "surreal" is a very specific movement taking in specific artists and probably a specific time period

who is right ?

who is to say who is right

context as always is everything

wellREDman

3rd June 2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by holly
controlling a man's body is a lot more useful and reliable than controling his mind. I've done both, and the brain is nearly useless. In fact, from the neck up he's all yours.

sweetie you obviously havent met the right man yet ;)

asterix

4th June 2003, 12:09 AM

Just make it make me feel babee!

Blow my mind with your graphics and I'll love ya for it! *lick*

eirenah

4th June 2003, 12:15 AM

yeah Holly why am i not surprised how you can turn every f&/()*# thread into sexist debate. yup we, females, especially the blond ones, controll the whole male population, we all know your attitudes about that, but it has nothing to do with surrealism, vj styles, or this thread.

vjrei

4th June 2003, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by littlecatalyst
...lastly; Rei: if you think trippy is a kick in the balls.... please do some mushrooms and close your eyes. lsd will also work. jackass is fun (i wish it wasn't; guilty pleasure) but is NOT trippy. at all. serioulsy rei.

Well, at list for me is trippy to see 3.000 people laughing in a rave party:D

I know it was a bad example.:rolleyes:

unjulation

4th June 2003, 01:56 AM

Woo-hoo! I'm pulling out my leather chaps and shit-kickers. Bring it on, boys!

holly you sure your not ***** in drag, lol, :p

KillingFrenzy

4th June 2003, 03:29 AM

"What about say this?
(obviously looks better moving )
Attachment: altars of madness (surrealist mix).jpg"

I'm sure it does look quite "surreal" to the kid that ate the glowsticks and yawned them onto the floor of the club.

BUT

That is about as surreal as a fingerpainting.
The definition just does not fit. You might as well call it impressionist, minimalist, or baptist.

I think the people who are effectively carrying the torch for surrealism are David Lynch and Jan Svankmajer (others died along the way.) I think the best Surrealist film-maker was Maya Deren. I think my favorite surrealist film-maker was Max Fleischer (of early Betty Boop Fame) I think Holly's critique of it being an introspective male sexuality trip applies fairly well to the boys' work, and probably applies to Deren's as well.

Now, instead of creating work that attempts to fit a definition, I challenge you to create work that defies it.

My genitalia feel a bit bruised just from reading this thread. Lots of testicles being bandied about (more than a Barney flick)

Amukidi

4th June 2003, 07:30 AM

"My genitalia feel a bit bruised just from reading this thread. Lots of testicles being bandied about (more than a Barney flick)"

Word KF!
Too much testosterone floating about here! We are, unfortunately,speaking two languages here - one real english and one the homogenised version that is spoon-fed to people who watch too much TV and read too many asshole magazines. But if push comes to shove, I'm totally with holly on this issue - her argument has substance, the rest is a reactive reposte based upon soundbites.

Rovastar

4th June 2003, 09:30 AM

Ummh. SO you all belive that surreal HAS to have substance and deeper meaning. Why is that?

If I painted a picture just like say Dali or otheer surrealists. melting timepeices, apples for peoples heads etc, etc the normal cliches and called it 'surreal pic 1' Are you saying it is not in a surrealist price of art?

Why is surrealism seamingly singled out here. If I painted in a cubist or minimalist style are you saying that it cannot be callled that because the name is wrong or another pompus art reason.

One of my favourite artist for the last ten-twelve years when I first saw his work at 16 or so is DAn Seagrave http://www.danseagrave.com/

I think some of his work is surreal (and the altars of madness series I producted recently are of I suppose homage to him) He might not claim to be a surreal artist but if say Dali, etc produce some the act same pictures would you say they were not surreal.

Rovastar

4th June 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by eirenah
yeah Holly why am i not surprised how you can turn every f&/()*# thread into sexist debate.

Maybe Hol is confused about her sexuality or something. ;):);p

Amukidi

4th June 2003, 10:15 AM

"If I painted a picture just like say Dali or otheer surrealists. melting timepeices, apples for peoples heads etc, etc the normal cliches and called it 'surreal pic 1' Are you saying it is not in a surrealist price of art?"

Yep.

Rovastar

4th June 2003, 10:44 AM

:)

Ce n'est pas un poteau

Rovastar

4th June 2003, 10:45 AM

btw don't blame me if the translation is wrong blame babelfish. :);)

zap25

4th June 2003, 11:14 AM

http://www.dmi.ubi.pt/~desousa/logica/pipe.jpg

Amukidi

4th June 2003, 11:27 AM

Ha Ha! Nice one zap25!!

Rovastar

4th June 2003, 11:46 AM

That was another of my points with my "this is not a post" comment. That post can be classed as surreal. Overused MArgiette (sp?) true but having a title 'this is not a pipe/apple' makes that art 'surreal'. So Jaffa why doesn't my fictional pic of cliched surreal art melting timepeices, apples for peoples heads etc, etc if was called a name that made you think it would be a surealist peice of work??

Title: Ce n'est pas un peice surr?aliste d'art
Artist: Rovastar

Amukidi

4th June 2003, 12:00 PM

Firstly - I said "nice one zap" cos I saw a blank post (the image hadn't appeared, so when it did, my comment became null and void! On your question Rov - cos it'd be socially and historically out of context, derivative and unoriginal, I could go on....;-)

Lara

4th June 2003, 12:55 PM

Rova>>
"If I painted a picture just like say Dali or otheer surrealists. melting timepeices, apples for peoples heads etc, etc the normal cliches and called it 'surreal pic 1' Are you saying it is not in a surrealist price of art?"

Jaffa>>
"On your question Rov - cos it'd be socially and historically out of context, derivative and unoriginal, I could go on....;-)"

Imo, work is not 'art' just because you decide it is, that's ridiculous. Can I decide I'm an architect and that my latest graphic is the plan for a building? No way, and I wouldn't want to. The term 'style' is the root of our problem here imo, 'style' is a standalone term in society, but has more specific uses between the world of art and design. Just aping the style of an art movement and labelling your work with that tag is LAME. Where is the evolution in that view, for goodness sake. To appreciate art is certainly different than to create, and critique it. And for me, very few vjs are 'artists' and most are designers, creating and sourcing footage specifically to play a particular purpose in a particular environment. As designers we rely on a unity of 'form' and 'function' or 'style' and 'substance.' As Red says, context is everything. Style is relative and should be original- visuals are a unique medium to really discover your own aesthetic. Why don't we all just do whatever we want and instead of wasting energy justifying claims of 'artist' or even 'vj' concentrate on making work that is quality and that progresses our own creative sensibilities and the role/field of vjing.

Lara

4th June 2003, 01:06 PM

I think there can be a lot of 'meaning' or 'content' in visuals subtley without it being some screaming propaganda or patronising rant :)

Aw, I love all this contentious bollox! Yip, clearly inspired by the return of ***** :eek: :alien: :alien: :alien:

Rovastar

4th June 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Lara
Imo, work is not 'art' just because you decide it is, that's ridiculous.

Sadly the art world see it exactly the oppisite. If you decide it is art it is art. Look at most 'modern art' pop down the Tate or look at the Turner prize entries over the past x years.

I don't agree but if an 'artist' says something is 'art' then normally it is. A pile of bricks on the floor or a rolled up ball of paper or whatever.

Oh btw when did ***** return?!

Amukidi

4th June 2003, 01:28 PM

"A pile of bricks on the floor"

Oh FFS Rov - not this old chestnut again! God, if I had a quid every time I stood up for Carl Andre!! Have you actually seen those bricks? Have you seen Andre's other work, leading up to and following on from the "Bricks"? You are really begining to show your ignorance if you cite this work as an example of the art world going up its own arse. I expect this sort of rant from the "Daily Mail" (spit) shame on you pal ;-(

Rovastar

4th June 2003, 02:09 PM

lol Jaffa I HAVE seen the work. Saw them at the tate modern not too long ago. I DO understand teh symbolism,etc, etc but

Or maybe I was refering to KLF's parody of the bricks and other art (or was it burning a million pounds) they entered for the turner prize.

I have an interest in modern art sadly the decent stuff in in saatchi private collection, etc and the public does not see it.

LOL will you make up your mind you are defending 'artists' saying there stuff is 'art' if I imply my stuff is 'art' (I do not see myself as per sa) I am not allowed to.

holly

4th June 2003, 03:46 PM

Yee-haw. This thing is all over the place....

I agree with Rova (not about him being a manly stud:rolleyes: ) and Lara (reading between the lines), there's this perception that "art" is a noun, like something you conveniently hang on the wall or put on a pedistal.... It use to be as simple as that. You were an artist if you went to The Academy and churned out what was considered appropriate art for the day. Even average portraits were called art if they were painted by an "official" artist.

We have the unfortunate timing of growing up in a period when "what art is" has already been broken down, almost to nothing. Reputation and funding makes art these days, not craft or ability or the way it moves you. (There's also that thing where if you make it really BIG it's instantly art because everyone can see that it's really big and therefore has no practical use than to occupy space in a very large gallery....) I really like some of the early Dadaist collage art (Duchamps' bicycle wheel on a stool), but by the time of Rauschenberg, it really starts to look like random pieces of crap from a garage sale. As a generation, we really don't have much of a sense of what art is or why something is surrealist or impressionist (etc) because we come after a generation of artists who rejected everything that came before. They had their reasons for rejecting formalism, and emotion, and meaning..., but it doesn't really do us any favors when we can't see what it was they were rejecting.

The reason this turned into (well, I guess I made it) a sexist debate, is because "surrealism" was/is very sexist at its core, and "surrealism" is specifically mentioned in the thread's title. A recent surrealism exhibit at the Metropolitan in NY confirmed it's sexist pinnings (it's not just my opinion) and some critics wrote articles about it from today's post-feminist perspective (not my perspective, btw). Yes, Eirenah, I point out sexism when I see it and am very unapologetic about it. I would point out racism when I saw it to, or religionism (is that a word?). Since we've been hosting the EyeWash parties and have been seeing a LOT of VJs all in a concentrated time, there is definitely a trend along sexual lines. The guys put up a lot of psychedelia ? very abstract, graphic, and non-contextual. The women are no less visual, but there is more concentration on (their) body, characters, social context. Neither is right or wrong (and it's a generalization, neither is 100%), but there is a noticable difference when they are all lined up one after another. Some of the female VJs have even commented on the guys having "all fx and no content". If the guys have said something similar (all video and no live fx), they haven't said it to me. The differences between men and women go waaay beyond plumbing, and the whole premise of this thread is sexist at it's core ("shouldn't everyone be more surreal", recalling the ultimate ***** premise: "shouldn't all VJs be male or at least pretend to be"). Answer: not everyone wants to.

I like what Lara says about VJs being designers. That seems much more apropriate. Using text and cramming a principle or doctrine down clubbies throats seems a little clumsy (I've tried some text stuff, but wasn't happy with the way it killed the visual pace). I also think if more VJs thought like designers and less like wannabe artists, we'd see a lot less clutter (and the kitchen sink, and a hockey puck...) and hopefully, simpler, streamlined, looks that are more intune with today's aesthetic ? but there's no need to subvert meaning or context altogether. A little texture and a little "pop", not just one or the other. Variation is best so WE don't get bored. Some visuals make you think and some make you go ahhhh. Some make you want to dance or laugh or feel sexy. I don't want to fall into the cliche's of "hip hop requires urban skatepunks and graffitti" while "trance requires swirly and environmental" because that really stifles surprises and suggests that the visuals only confirm status quo when I think we really have the power to send you to a totally different place. Let the music take the backseat and become disposable. Let's make our visuals stand out and become the focus.

unjulation

4th June 2003, 04:07 PM

again a bit of topic but....

Let the music take the backseat and become disposable. Let's make our visuals stand out and become the focus.

i would refer you to http://www.vjcentral.com/article/show/397

this is only my perception but it touches on some basic elements that we need to take on bord re-why visuals will never take a front seat, when the basic desire of people comeing together has nothing to do with watching visuals its about pair-bonding, sory but i like understanding the basics and from that point we can then see the linige of how and what we now are

so from that i think we wil never be in the driveing seat when it comes to doing partys, yes we can create other spercific spaces like ne1 and the ica and all that, or we can take the a/v route but when it comes to partys per-say people are there for other reasons and watching visuals is quite low on the agenda

holly

4th June 2003, 04:21 PM

Mammalian pair-bonding? That's an over-simplification. I'm sorry Unj. but there's more to it than that.

Education, accelerated experience, the passing of values and knowledge from one generation to the next, social pecking order, exercise, entertainment, mental stimulation, spiritual and social harmonizing. There's more to life, even club life, than just pairing up and mating.

Lwin

4th June 2003, 04:46 PM

I just read a book about Margritte / and he has some great ideas of what surrealism is.
Its about the context of an object and how we are programmed to think something about that object.
For example take the picture of an apple and put the word chewinggum under it/ thats surrealism in its simplest form.

Amukidi

4th June 2003, 04:56 PM

"Yip, clearly inspired by the return of *****"

No - we're not there yet Lara! I take it you have read some of the discourse that went on in those days? By the way - lovely to meet you on Sunday, I have read your PM and will get round to a proper reply soon (when I've finished ranting over here!!).

littlecatalyst

4th June 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by holly
when I think we really have the power to send you to a totally different place. Let the music take the backseat and become disposable. Let's make our visuals stand out and become the focus.

:D:jump::nod::yep::D:jump::nod::yep::D:jump::nod:: yep::D:jump::nod::yep::D:jump::nod::yep::D:jump::n od::yep::D:jump::nod::yep::D:jump::nod::yep::D:jum p::nod::yep::D:jump::nod::yep::D:jump::nod::yep::D :jump::nod::yep:

Amukidi

4th June 2003, 05:08 PM

Bloody hell, I'm getting rant fatigue here! Got another one over on the mix content forum who reckons "Bryce" is better than shooting a real storm! DOH!

holly

4th June 2003, 05:48 PM

Education, accelerated experience, the passing of values and knowledge from one generation to the next, social pecking order, exercise, entertainment, mental stimulation, spiritual and social harmonizing. There's more to life, even club life, than just pairing up and mating. (yes, I'm quoting myself)

I totally forgot getting drunk and getting high! The real reasons we go out to party! As it was in the ancient days, so shall it always be....

KillingFrenzy

4th June 2003, 07:15 PM

Rovastar asks if painting a piece of derivative art can correctly be titled a style. For example; a hodge-podge of all the surrealist cliche's such as the melting clock, flaming giraffe, and let's update things and put in Tony Blair in a Teletubby outfit. I say it would be properly classed as surrealism. It could be derided as derivative, mawkish, uninspired, etc. But, it would still be proper to walk up to it and say "I say, what a great ball of surreal twaddle!"

I think that the cliche piece can be referred to as surrealism, whereas the example piece Rovastar provided (towers of madness) contains nothing that would tie it to a surrealist pedigree other than putting "surreal" into the title. It would be like taking an early Pink Floyd song, cutting out everything but the lead guitar, and calling it Astronomy Domine (Drum n' Bass Mix.) That don't make it Drum and Bass.

If you want to run around saying "my visuals are totally Baroque" go ahead, but don't blame me and everybody who understands what the word typically signifies, if you've come up with your own definition.

Definitions of words such as trippy, psychedelic, groovy, phantasmagoric are not tied to any manifesto, and as such are open for all sorts of interpretation. But surreal, dada and others are in their genesis tied to movements and ideas that have a specific context. To pull these words out and start broadening their meaning seems to lessen their value.

BrainStove

4th June 2003, 10:43 PM

Well, I?m very happy with the results of this thread (the fun is coming back again :cool: ), it really amazed me the huge quantity of Deep Clever, Smart, Sharp, Ingenious & Brilliant people sharing his/her thoughts in here.
It?s immensely gratifying to contemplate the most real inner essence the majority of you don?t show very often over here, so it?s very exciting watching your naked soul with just the right dosage of controversy in a thread. :)

Therefore it?s almost impossible for me to pick or quote to anybody in order to make some appointment or appreciation about your awesome comments, but maybe I?ll pick to MightyMouse to continue with the rest of this post.

I?m still totally puzzled why everybody has centered the focus of their comments just on Dali and absolutely nobody has said not even a word about Eisher or Quino to dig out a lil bit more what I tried to say in my 1st post opening the thread.

Originally posted by MightyMouseLBC
Such as: If you saw Dali's "Melting Clocks" for the first time you might say !Whoa that's pretty trippy! Then you see the name and you pause for a moment and develop you own realazation of what the picture could mean. At that moment (to me at least) something becomes surreal. Beyond just the look of it, it provokes a strange thought process that burns the painting in the back of your mind.
Exactly MightyMouse, you got it all... So suggesting & evoking (Surreal?) rather explicit speeching & lecturing always be the most powerful weapons for any VJ in a party enviroment.
As for the word "Trippy" used here so often, well everybody knows it?s more related to psychedelics and regarding visuals more related to randomly changing "abstracts" shapes... nothing to do when I mean SURREAL, so yeah I agree with wellREDman in his comment about the semantics troubles.

For sample a button... I?ll post a single capture frame below of one of my multiples 3D sound reacting animations always done LIVE (with Oozic Reaktor) I?m sure you?d love to watch the entire set sequence including the music which it is in synch ;)
And yeah tell me now it is "just trippy" :yep:

To Jaffa: No need for refraining of putting your minds up with total honesty man, hence don?t fear to piss off to someone or everyone with whatever you can say no matter how controversial it can be.
As a matter of fact, being you an old chap like me contemporary with my age, it?s precisely from that honesty from where we all can learn the most valuable things ;)

Rovastar

4th June 2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by KillingFrenzy
Rovastar asks if painting a piece of derivative art can correctly be titled a style. For example; a hodge-podge of all the surrealist cliche's such as the melting clock, flaming giraffe, and let's update things and put in Tony Blair in a Teletubby outfit. I say it would be properly classed as surrealism. It could be derided as derivative, mawkish, uninspired, etc. But, it would still be proper to walk up to it and say "I say, what a great ball of surreal twaddle!"

I think that the cliche piece can be referred to as surrealism, whereas the example piece Rovastar provided (towers of madness) contains nothing that would tie it to a surrealist pedigree other than putting "surreal" into the title. It would be like taking an early Pink Floyd song, cutting out everything but the lead guitar, and calling it Astronomy Domine (Drum n' Bass Mix.) That don't make it Drum and Bass.

If you want to run around saying "my visuals are totally Baroque" go ahead, but don't blame me and everybody who understands what the word typically signifies, if you've come up with your own definition.

Not exactly the pick I posted was based on Dan SeaGraves Altars of Madness album cover and the scene moves in a fluid like way more so than the others in the series I created. MOst of the others in the series are less like the orginal than that but anyway.

I didn't mean to post with the name of the scene so you can make up your own mind but that is what it is released as.

hehe stovey nice pic. :)