Your definition of A/V

[Mbazzy]

What's everybody's definition of A/V artist???

Out of some threads I saw that some consider an A/V artist someone who eg. DJ's and mix' visuals while his DJ trax are playing ... [ DJ has all the time to do this I guess while he's playing a track ... ] ... This approach still falls for me under "supportive visuals" ...

Myself I consider an A/V artist more as someone who mix' audio-/&/or visual content to a new standalone, original A/V creation.

[joncates]

i think some "A/V artists" would place an emphasis on "realtime" which for me is a useful distinction + allows certain historical connections to be made w/ppl from the early video art moment (http://www.experimentaltvcenter.org/history/).
jonCates

[psychodude]

AV means Audio visual, right?
An artist is someone that makes art.
So a A/V-artist should be someone creating ART using audio-visual means. Now, one could discuss the value, quality , ... of an artist, but I feel that to be personal.
An cartoon-animator is a audio-visual artist aswell as the maestro that created an video-installation with sounds. A VJ could be an A/V artist if that VJ creates ART. Which could lead us to the Art-discussion (maybe another thead).
My point is : no matter the name, you're good or not, people like what you do or not. If you call yourselve A/V-artist, VJ, supporting visuals-man or king of the hill if your work doesn't do it, your name won't make a difference (so if you're a DJ with winamp-visuals you can title yourselve A/V artist but you shall remain a DJ with little fantasy and poor means)

[Kriel]

Originally posted by joncates
i think some "A/V artists" would place an emphasis on "realtime" which for me is a useful distinction + allows certain historical connections to be made w/ppl from the early video art movement

Agreed. Much of the early experimenting by artist in video art concerned what it meant to have a camera liberated from the studio, what it meant to shoot and reproduce in real-time, etc. As the start of a conversation: for associations, I'm thinking that the closest ties are with:

1) early percussive video editing experiements (with digital keyboard driven VJ performance now); and
2) current live camera work (with live video performance work around, say, the Kitchen, late 60s)

??

To add to this, for anyone in the UK, there is an OUTSTANDING exhibition documenting the early history of video art (that is, the first generation of video artists) in the US and Europe, currently on show at the ICA in London. Long overdue in the UK, and highly recommended.

[vjnixmix]

Bishop and I play an A/V act as some of you may have seen at AVIT NA.

We often consider ourselves A/V because I go to great lengths to syncronize Bishop's DJ Set with my Video. We spend a lot of time in preparation and planning to produce the set so that it matches during the performance. And also during performance it takes on a real-time magical way with about 6 more added sources and the majic of manual sync by ear that I apply when mixing the visuals.

Bishop usually just mixes records allthough he is a producer as well. In performance while DJ'ing he will often incorporate effects racks/units and samplers making it more "Live PA" style. While he does have the ability to play all his own tracks and bring out piles of equipment and do it live ... I don't think anyone could pay us enough to make it worthwhile. My rig plus his rig if was totally live would take up a whole ryder truck!

it is more feasable and more fun for us to implement the DJ aspect into things. We are getting more into the whole midi sync of things but the way we usually perform ends up being quite sycronistic and majikal
:)

[littlecatalyst]

...ahh! just found an old ('95?) tape with one of the jams that i used to play in this band "technopest". we had 3 people, a drum guy (808, 303..... NO LAPTOPS) a sound guy who had loads of sequencers and samplers, and the videoguy (me). the thing i dug about this gigwas the integration of everything... so this tape i found who's theme could closely be summed up as: pee wee herman = adam horowitz = prince (as opposed to our regular themes of drugs, animals having sex and science)
the cool thing about it (and the one thing i find really relevant here, asside from the fact that it was an av act) the cool thing was sending the sequencer dude my sounds... each vcr had it's video rca going to the mx5 and the sound rca going to Mr. sequencer (ahh the '90s ... life was so simple). so when Prince would give a yell (scratched back and forth: sound + vis) or Pee Wee would say something concise, i would signal it to the sound guy and he woudl start adding it into the mix (adam horowits already talks too much-- he just got to dance around no sound-- but i swear they are the same person...)

NEway the poiunt im trying to make is that i don't think it matters as much what form you are using (dj/pa/entrancer.....) as like Nix was saying; getting the A and the V to work together.... thats where it gets all maji.....
i find that this is easier with sampler folks' material than with 100% orriginal material folks, but this may just be on the surface... as soon as you sinc your visuals with sound, and then import that back into the mix for a live output you are back in the av game again.... i guess for me it just seems like a no-brainer that it will be cool to see talking heads yammering away with their voice all distorto and delays... i can see mirrors on the V4 working great with an actor doing a line and then throwing that through a pitch shifter... i am really hoping to have something i'm working on now ready for avit... i'm calling it the "scarface symphonette" and i want it to be a full-on AV take on those piles of cocaine and the famous "you must be talking to me..." (jeeezuz i seem to blabbering ADD boy today, i think i have to just relax)

I don't think a cartoon is an AV piece; and i think the realtime and live aspects are pretty important (PAV?) but not 100% necessary, i think there could be stand alone AV discs that you pop into your dvd player just like you would a vj dvd........ so the bottom line afaik:

AV ==> the V has to influence the A as much as the A influences the V.. aside from that.... go wild!!!

[Mbazzy]

AV ==> the V has to influence the A as much as the A influences the V.. aside from that.... go wild!!!

Very well said ...

[neoteo]

well ... an AV artist ... ive never done anything live for a start ...
i started " composing " in 1995 with cakewalk 3.05 and did 200 musics in 3 years ... at that time no video on my 486 66mhz 8 ram and a sound blaster 32 AWE with 8 ram for sound fonts witch was my unique instrument ...

one day i found adobe after effects and my video art starts coming out ... mixing layers with diference transfer mode , using echo and all the effects i could ....

at this time i was dreaming of a program witch i could make midi music and video composition ... or even better 3D animation , something that i could create sincronize instruments with 3D objects at the same time ...

so , i would make a music and the video at the same time as a composition .. not in real time ... of corse

i say all artists that use music and video in real time or offline , in solo or team , with VSH or CPU , drums or technics ..........are AV artists

greetings and salutations

[scientifikent]

I fully agree with Mbazz + Littlecat -
but to elaborate, I'd say you have to be able to see what you are hearing and hear what you are seeing... not that they just go together, but that there is a concrete element that you see & hear at the same time.

Here's a simple example from the AV room at AVIT Brighton thanks to Exceeda: they scratch the word 'Fresh', and you read the word on the screen simultaneously. Everytime you hear fresh, you also see it.

When you walk down the street, you can see a cab drive by. You also hear it, and feel it, and maybe smell it. That's true AV! Your brain has been trained to recognize it from a very young age.
By using this to our advantage, we can make something that people perceive as being 'real'.