What makes visuals good?

[Lara]

This is a ridiculous question, inspired by this thread:

http://www.vjforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=3918

But how do you judge visuals when you are in a club? Is it just what you like? Do you like a message or a narrative? Or just that the visuals look good and add something to the atmosphere? Or to the music?

I like imagery, so I like it when the style and imagery suits the music, whatever genre it is. I like unusual styles, my favourite is graphics . . . cause I'm a designer.
What do you look for?

[Amukidi]

Thought you'd never ask! I guess we approach this are from diverse angles, but I'm after the following:
1.Composition - chucking all the paint at the canvas has its place, but what fascinates me is carefully considered composition, and all that entails and embraces e.g. Harmony, Dissonance, Balance, imbalance, visual dynamic, use of negative space - I consider all these things when working on my own clips - by the time I'm through, pretty muc every frame has been considered!

2. Use of colour, consideration given to the 7 areas of contrastthat occur every time you place two or more colours side by side, use of colour to create depth.

3. That un-definable "wow" factor - that element of visual surprise that stops you in mid sentence! Doesn't happen often, needless to say, but when it does.......bliss! Mind you, you've got to bear in mind that this is coming frome someone who gets the horn just by squeezing out a worm of scarlet paint!!! Passion I think they used to call it.
Lara - cool post:-)

[charlielangridge]

Originally posted by Amukidi
3. That un-definable "wow" factor

That'll be the "fuck-mine, that's fuckin kewl" as we call it south of London ;)

[Amukidi]

Sounds about right Charlie!!! Freddie Freakoutski once put it even better: "Well I'll be dipped in dogshit"!

[mondo]

whoa....
lemme think

generally the formal composition and arrangement is a starting point

organisational play - repetition, clustering, additive, subtractive, penatrative etc

clarity of objective from start to finish

use of imagery

use of space

quality of image - graphically or otherwise - ie. good contrast, balance, (mis)use of colour, luma/chroma,

good (mis) use of effects

narritive dynamic - slow/fast/paced well

amukidi said it best - that WOW factor - which only occurs now and then imho
er....and how well the vj is enjoying it i guess

personally i like the semi-anarchic/considered approach which has a performance style all to itself - but thats very subjective

[Lara]

Originally posted by mondo


organisational play - repetition, clustering, additive, subtractive, penatrative etc


Mond, what a good way to say this, I never had the word for it before.

[holly]

Yay, Mondo! "Composition" as a musical term works but is too easily confused with graphic "composition" or the way things are arranged on the canvas, so both meanings are confusing in a conversation about VJ.

Organizational Play is dead-on and in the right spirit of live jazz.

[eXhale]

personal significance...?

[Amukidi]

Surely Holly, they are one and the same - we are all arranging elements within some form of structure - one of the key things that links music and art.

[unjulation]

genraly when i'm at a club as a punter/munter the criticall facalities dont seem to be working as well as useawell, now theres a serprise, so it's genraly is a gut reaction to what i see, mind thats how i judge most things, so it go's down to wether i like it at the time, me shalow, no never ;)

[ecin]

something i can visually relate with that somehow adds to the overall feeling of that specific event and/or music. thought-out video, imagery or graphics with good use of color thats recognizable as a thing, object or person. i've be playing around with the use of color to evoke a certain mood or flow with the current music rather than blowing through a million different multi-colored clips as fast as my phat fingers can mash the keyboard.

i love run-on sentences :robot:

random colored eyecandy, blurry imagery & mirrored effects of anything seem to be the VJ cliche IMO - though they all have their place, they should be used sparringly.

audio/video synchronicity is where its at - i aspire to be an AVJ some day but just haven't figured out how to attach a third arm to myself yet.

[holly]

Amukidi sez:they are one and the same - we are all arranging elements within some form of structure - one of the key things that links music and art.

I just meant that when you use the term "composition" in music you refer to the way things develop, repeat, echo over time. When you refer to a painting's "composition" you refer to the way things are arranged within the frame.... We do both (arrange objects on a "frame" and develop over time), so while it is a nice way to encompass everything, it becomes confusing when you only want to refer to one or the other....

Unlike narrative film, our work is generally not viewed in it's entirety (almost no one will ever stare at the screen for a full 6 hours, not even us) so repetition without "developement" (or perhaps with limited development over much greater lengths of time) is much more valid for VJ, as well as sustained energy without direction, continuity, or release.... These are things that would be extremely irritating in a "narritive" film to the general public, but is actually very rewarding for us.

In comparison to music, we are less like the formal compositions of Classical Music, or the simplistic A-B-A-B-C-A-B-B structure of Pop Music. We are more like the continuous Eastern meditative, trance music.... Often we have more in common with the repeating structure of an ice cream truck's call then what we generally call music that you would hear on the radio. (Obviously, House/Trance Music has Eastern continuity as well, so before everyone flames me that VJ is based on club music I'm saying "yeah, it's that too.")

So..., one of the reasons the two forms of "composition" are important to discuss (time and picture, let's call them) is that our "picture" can be stronger than narritive film's while our "Time" can be more free or expressive or juxtaposed. Since VJ is meant to be sampled in little bits, glances, peripherally, and subliminally, each "picture" is more likely to stand on it's own as a visual composition.

[holly]

The choreographer Alwin Nicholais broke composition into 5 equally important catagories (in no particular order):
Time
Space
Color
Shape
Motion
He lectured that any visual, time-based composition must address these elements to be successful. He was talking about dance, but it works on so many levels I've found it to be a good rule.

I've also read that all sounds our brains comprehend can be broken down into:
Rhythmical (structure built through repetition and variation of repetition)
Ambient (constant yet structureless and without rhythm)
Intermittant (occaisional "punctuations" of purposeful sound)

[wellREDman]

Originally posted by holly
or expressive or juxtaposed.


whoah now you dunnit :)

an old punk once taught me,
rather than never trusting a hippy,
you should never trust someone who can use the word juxtaposition, in context

[evomedia]

I look for creativity, and design. But at the end of the day visuals work best when they suit the music. Really busy visuals can work great with very busy music, but then look terrible if your listening to ambient stuff.

Its all about matching visual noise to audio, and it doesnt matter whats the content as long as it suits what your hearing. I have clips that just dont work in most situation but then you get that track play that you just know is going to bring that content to life.

I've been in some wierd situtaions on nights where all of a sudden your trying to match images to bizarre sounds and its then when the visuals either shine or jar. Prime example of wierdness when dj stuck on what sounded like romainian folk music with a beat, I ask you, but you'd be suprised what content suddenly comes to life just at that moment when the rest of the night it wouldn't.

[mondo]

LOL
thats made my w/e

holly - i completely agree with your breakdown on compostition with added TIME - and i'm begining to agree that vjs are free jazz jamheads (incl class A drug action)
the essence of performance is always intuitive in my book.
the licks/melodies (?) are the ones that you spend ages rendering and keep repeating/re-visiting throughout teh night

(thinks - miles davis - kind of blue)

btw - we are doing the annual "erotic" ball here 2mrw in london. itll be interesting to see how a very "cultured" crowd play to the compositions/arrangements we are planning.

there is only so much obvious play that can be had on the sex theme that this gig will be interesting in terms of 'shape' and 'motion'
;)
ps how i wish i had some of your dancing clips now!!!
pps can i get away with a camcorder???

[Amukidi]

"I just meant that when you use the term "composition" in music you refer to the way things develop, repeat, echo over time."

Bit of a broad generalisation here, but fundamentally, this is how I work with visuals too! Also, if we take a broad spectrum of music, even classical (or evn especially classical) there are few rigid "rules". I feel that the bulk of our work is less "chaotic" or "spontaneous" than we'd like to believe - but when I talked about composition in music being principally the same as in video/film work, I meant it in the broadest terms. The 5 elements that you mention - Time, Space, Colour, Shape and Motion can IMO equally be applied to music! BTW, I have always argued that time is an element within still visual work as well. I've had many a long drunken session chewing these issues over with the composer Roger Eno, who is equally interested in the visual arts as well as I am in music. I guess this explains why I am so keen to work with specific musicians, as a relationship develops, a greater understanding of each other's craft arises and the differences become less and less significant.

Lara - I cannot think why you called this a ridiculous question - I would expect that everybody should have something to say on this one, which makes it the "perfect" post in my book. Mac or PC? Now that's a ridiculous question!!

[bluntfaktory]

make it look good and the message makes it's self .

[Lara]

Yeah I thought it would be too difficult to answer john, but very rewarding. Between Mond's 'organizational play' and the freeform Jazz analogy of Holly's I'm thinking in a whole new way . . . ;)

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by holly
Time
Space
Color
Shape
Motion
Rhythmical
Ambient
Intermittant


awesome thread :nod:
not sure how to say this, it isn't quite context; as in does the vis meet well with the sound. But more how the images (esp. non-abstract and/or symbols) create a context, and then what you do with --or to-- them, to explore it... can become a narrative, but doesn't have to be, i remember the term "collage-montage poems" from filmskul, it's not the only thing at all, but time space couour shape motion deal with form, but content also has rules, right?

[Psychoptik]

I believe no one has mentioned one very important and essential part of any form of art or creative expression be it visual or musical or whatever, i think this part would be imagination i think it plays a key role , both in the way you create, use and mix your clips or videos, as in the way you percieve them when you are in a club or party as a spectator.

Obviously compositon, balance, timing, motion, shape, etc. are all important parts of any artistic expression but where would those be without that creative/imaginative urge we probably all share as an engine that drives us into delving deeper for correct ways to channel our imagination to really say something meaningful...imagination and creativity imo are what make a good visual set, synchronization, content, color, composition, effects, speed, etc. should all spwan from here and join to create a different sensory experience for those doing it and those watching it.

Oh yeah and having a brain to interpret all this helps as well....nice thread!
:wow: :confused: :crazyeyes

Viva la Raveolucion!!
PLUR

[eXhale]

I have a similar point of view as psychoptik, you can make perfectly-designed visuals but if you fail to stimulate something in others' (and your) imagination / psychocosm, it will just be acknowledged as "nice" without really leaving a mark.

This reminds me of an old guy in a talk radio saying that TV had killed people's imagination because, when there was only radio, people had to make efforts to imagine the situation (for example in news) and everyone was perceiving things in a different way. Now with TV "reality" is provided from Above and people forget how to imagine and consequently lose touch with their inner reality. This makes even more sense if you know that TV puts us into "some kind of sleep where the dreams are provided" (quote from a researcher on TV advertising)

Translating this into a club's environement, I sometimes wonder if visuals are not killing one of the last place where people can freely explore their inner reality? Which reminds me of pixy's thread (http://vjforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=3100):

In real Jamaica dance hall's, (I.E. not the tourist clubs) you will often find very little lighting, and quite a few uninhibited, sexy dancers.. (prolly because when it is dark, you can let your body move freely without the worry of what you look like or how well you dance).Maybe also because visual deprivation is the best way to have "visions"? :confused:

Either way as a VJ I feel I have a certain responsibility regarding what I display while others are in a receptive state such as trance. I don't want to just provide boring content for their trance/dream, which will further alienate people from themselves. Instead I want to use this opportunity to stimulate their own imagination, help them raise their consciousness (or whatever you want to call it) and, when appropriate, make them think.

But that's assuming that art should have some change-inducing value in it, which I know not everyone agrees with :) (but, hey, the way the question is asked makes the answers quite relative, not that I mind!)

[stevefromNewcastle]

For me one important issue I am looking at is now well visuals are produced. This discussion is great on ideas of compostiontimeing etc, but for me it is as important to carry on that thinking into execution and use skill to shoot, edit and design great meida.

[Lucidhouse]

Good to see a thread that's asking these questions, sure the technology is important, but to draw a comparison... - a top of the range camera with all the gizmos does not make a good photographer; I'ts the person behind the lense that realy makes the difference.
:idea:
As I've said before the main focus should be easthetics, pushing these boundries in our art form is what's going to create the most impact, no one cares what knobs, buttons or switches we are twirling and pushing to achive a certain result; it's the result people care about.

[fluchtpunkt]

the wow-factor surely is most important: i.e. the 'i know immediately that i think this stuff is great, but it'd take me hours to figure out exactly why'-factor or even the 'damn why didn't i come up with that, ...but i'll never be this good anyway'-factor.

composition is important because usually everything you do afterwards is only polishing the edges & everything you do before is only working with bits & pieces of a whole. (on a side note: ) i thought 'composition' quite literally described the end product of a process of putting 'things' together (from latin com-ponere: to put together)...(?) - whether that be fine arts, classical music, chemistry, jazz, politics ...or video. rather than explicitly having a different meaning for every context.

a vjs mixing skills & ability to go with the vibe & flow of the music, the crowd & the venue.

humour.

catchyness.

'eloquence' ...on screen.

consequent use of styles.

coherence.

dynamics.

originality.

diversity.

...(the more i think about it, the more stuff springs to my mind)

[agsystems]

a few more things...
yea composition shape space colour tone time etc... are all factors of composition, and i'm sure there's many more, but what is it that makes each of those things 'good'?

everyone likes different things, 'good' is totally subjective, it comes down to taste in the end doesnt it?

-I like full on glitch, scratchy clunky energetic, I want my eyes to be terrorised,- but lots of people wont like that i guess...-

someting relevant to your audience then, well executed

|thought|passion|energy|

[holly]

Yes, well, terms like "imagination" are a bit subjective so how do you know when you are being imaginitive...? Having a composition checklist is just that, a checklist. If at the end of your clip you can run through the checklist and say, "Does it do this? Yep, Does it do this other? Yep." That is the way you can just sort of double check and make sure the images are ready to go out and be seen. I'm not sure how you could look at a piece and say "Is this imaginative?" because once you have created it, does it still peak your imagination? Maybe you have to remember if you were actually inspired when you did it or if you were just farting around and hit on a lucky combo.... Often I think kaleidescopic feedback is "Pretty" but I guess I wouldn't consider it "Imaginative".

Obviously, anything is valid if it works for you. I have a problem with images that I think are too much in my "formula", which I suppose would tick off the "originality" checklist.... But then there is something to creating and reinforcing your own style, so maybe "originality" is less a personal issue and simply wondering if it looks too much like someone else's work....

"Eloquence" seems subjective again, and I'm not sure what it means. Is it sort of an efficiancy of design? A "saying more with less"?

Nice topic Lara.

[Lara]

I think that quality is to some extent objective- otherwise how would we all agree on the 'great' works of art or literature. Its an interesting discussion about you 'style' and how to develop it. For me, design (or art) is about progression and exploration, so I like to develop a style and spend a long time playing within it before moving on. I think you have to get to know yourself a bit as well tho, and learn to recognise when you start to rely on your own (or someone else's) visual cliches. If there is still playful exploration then perhaps it isn't time to move on from an image or theme.

I had an interesting discussion at ContactEurope Milan, with Jon from av_dv, and we were taking about the difference between traditional ways of creating art and visuals. Many artists narrow their focus on one aspect/detail/theme/image/technique, whereas vjs seem to have a much more eclectic array of imagery. Where I am not criticising this, and I know that you need to have variety when playing on the fly, but I can't help thinking that we lose out on a bit of development or evolution that constant exploration of one thing would give. I dunno really. That's why its so good at avit to see workshops in content and technique developing that are contentious and do allow people really to specialise.

[Anyone]

an important thing to remember is that most of the time
(let's hope) we are not making visuals for other vjs but for the punters.

also context is everything

doing visuals in a club is very different than doing visuals in a cinema or for theatre or for a band or in a rave.

so if the question is about visuals in a club than
the only possible answer would have to be:

"more of the same that is already there"

or more precisely

"good visuals enhance the general mood that the club is already creating with the music, lights and decor"

IMO, in clubs, contrast is NOT good.

ne1

[LEVLHED]

Originally posted by agsystems
-I like full on glitch, scratchy clunky energetic, I want my eyes to be terrorised,- but lots of people wont like that i guess...-

You'd be suprised :crazy:

[littlecatalyst]

Oli, ru sure the quetsion is about club visuals? or is it about what makes visuals good... because your answer is cool if its just for clubs (but if thats the case and its a techno club, whats wrong with some zebra high contrasts when the night is peaking?).
like you said, context is everything, and i think hopefully there will be more contexts thans just clubs, for vjing in the future. (already i know of people who hang out and put on a mixmasters dvd, and they have nothing to do with vjing) so what makes visuals good-- while as open-ended perhaps as the definition of "VJ" should. please, go beyod restraints/aesthetic bonds of the club.
if you're doing visuals for a band i am sure you still want good viuals.....

[julez]

originally posted by anyone
an important thing to remember is that most of the time(let's hope) we are not making visuals for other vjs but for the punters.

also context is everything


exactly ne1 i couldnt agree more...so far this thread has pretty much focused on what we as vjs think of other peoples art. This reminds me of that thread about originality and post-modernity.

Often it is the people who are going to respond to our visuals who make the greatest impression.

Also its hard for us to judge what makes "good" visuals although we can all agree on a "well constructed" set. It's the difference between fine arts and popular culture. Many vjs play for the crowd while others create amazingly relevant and artistic visuals...which one is better?

[Lara]

This thread is about how vjs rate other vjs work- I needed to understand more about how we look at each other's visuals in order to draw up that questionnaire for avit (check sister thread), but it is totally true that sometimes form gets sacrificed through the use of a particular message, and vice versa.

But why can't we have both? Work can exist on a number of levels, and can be appreciated as such. Some of the greatest design and architecture can be admired on a purely visual level, on a thematic and conceptual level etc etc etc. What's wrong with having this in visuals? I think if we don't innovate for ourselves and let it feed down through our club work we become a bit creatively impotent.

Considering visuals completely as design, that still doesn't mean that the 'motion graphic designer' doesn't have an opportunity to make radical work- as long as it functions well in context and the people are happy. Design is an agent for social change whether it is radical or mainstream! Think of the impact of advertising on society and culture. This thread is about how and why work functions on a parctical level . . .

[Lucidhouse]

I've seen veejay's who's work is no more than a glorified light show, sometimes distracting from the music itself, for me that's redundant stuff easily replaced and surpased by automatic sound reactive computer programs.

On the other hand I've seen veejay's who realy put their soul into it, the images, colors and pacing used are relavant to the musical mood, they trigger emotional impolses in people and amplify the music and atmosphere.

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by Lara
but it is totally true that sometimes form gets sacrificed through the use of a particular message, and vice versa. But why can't we have both? Work can exist on a number of levels, and can be appreciated as such

reminds me of the best quote i got from any teacher in artschool. he said that the form has to always equal the content. a
nd i think that is superfly, a) what is the content of the space (club/gallery/dirtyalley/rave) the content of the music (house/psytrance/indyrock/classical), all the punters, and then lastly the content of your viuslas (esp. nonabstract images)... (so theres a content selection isuue before this, of chosing your content)

..then there's the formal treatment, and (according to the professor) thats where one has to chose treatments that are similar to the content.

damn, feel like i just wrote one of those one hand clapping ?hings...

[eXhale]

Originally posted by Lara
I think that quality is to some extent objective- otherwise how would we all agree on the 'great' works of art or literature.I think you should replace the "we" by "the art and literature establishment". And this establishment seems more and more stupid and backward as we jump into the information age.

[holly]

Ok, after watching this thread sink into entropy (as all other "Art" threads seem to do here), I have to pull a 180 and say the first indication that visuals are "good" are production and image quality.

If it is cammy footage, is it well lit? Is the composition attractive? Is there some camera skill involved or does it look like a 14yr old shot it while trying to ride a skateboard? Is this just amature video?

If the cammy subject is a person/dancer, Is s/he attractive? Has the background been properly removed or am I seeing the rest of the room? Has a process been applied to polish the image (filter, color correction)? Was there some thought put into what the person would do on camera or is it an annoying last minute "Now do stuff! Go! Wiggle" attitude? If they are Dancing, does their movement "fit" with the tone of the animation or music? Does it look too Ballet? Too cheerleader? Too flygirl? Or does it look like someone unselfconsciously having fun?

Is the image high quality? Is it at least full-res video (640*480) or so well made that I can't really tell that it's less? Is the framerate smooth and consistant (I can tell the difference between intentional glitches and accidental glitches...)? Is it full 30fps? If it's only 15fps is it smooth enough for me to not notice? Do I look at it and say "Ohh. Laptop..." or do I say "Wow, great video!" Do I see codec artifacts?

If the image is computer generated, does it have depth? Perspective? 3 dimensions? Interesting motion? Full range of color or a selected palette of color? Does it have subtety? Is it chunky and rezzy? If it's wireframe (I'm struggling to recall if I ever saw a wireframe image that I was impressed by)? If it is "realtime" or AVS, do I think that it would have looked better pre-rendered? Is it rich and deliberate like a tapestry or an abstract painting, or is it just doodle-y and nondescript? Is the ONLY thing interesting about the image the fact that it is symetrical? Is there enough contrast in the image to make it work as "Op Art"? Do the elements feel controlled and deliberate or random and Pixeltoy-ish?

Is the subject personal or impersonal? If personal, am I seeing a deliberate or signatory style? Is the "message" clear or deliberately obscure? Or is it just sloppy? If the "message" is impersonal, what am I looking at? Do I care? Is it so impersonal as to make me ignore it or does it begin to feel more like design and tone? Does it look like generic tourist footage (anonymous crowd shots), or poor-man's commercial shots? Even worse: does it look like it was lifted from an equally impersonal stock footage site? Barakka or Quoyanosquatsi...? Is it using ethnic or "exotic" subjects in a patronizing way or is it fun, thought provoking, or attractive as design? Maybe most important of all, does it have an interesting mix of personal and impersonal imagery?

Can I recognize the software that created the images? Is that distracting? Am I more aware of the software than the image results? Is it just a pile of FX? Have randomizers been overused in hopes of a "happy accident"? Has the footage been culled or is it full of images that have no impact.

Is the VJ even *aware* of the audience or is he taking a smug-immature attitude that his "Art" comes first? Conversely, is their a strong artistic sense or are the visuals just a series of VJ clich?s and intended crowd-pleasers? Is there flow? Is there rhythm? If I look at the screens 10 minutes later will I see something completely different or more of the same? Does the VJ take me through moods and tones? Does the video stand on its own? Does it compliment or contrast with the audio, with itself?

[littlecatalyst]

wow. thanx Holly
that rocked :up:
(a little paranoid now that my stuff isn't good... eeek!)

[julez]

Originally posted by Lara
But why can't we have both?

Thats pretty much what i was suggesting. We do have both and all work can be analysed on different levels. (sry about taking this thread in another direction btw lara.)

But we have all these canons that are classed as great literature and who has judged them? the academics who are judged to be of enough stature to do so.
I agree with u holly but sometimes u can see a really artistic set produced poorly but it still looks reasonably good. I think this is the difference between a "good" set and a well produced one.

[Lara]

For me its all about the difference between art and design, designers have to evaluate the 'success' of their work on loads of levels and in relation to a real world 'use'- so all Holly's questions become really important. In terms of art, because it is of spiritual value it is not subject to the same critique on a practical level, and it isn't selling anything but the artist.

Julez, this thread rocks, I'm glad its gone in so many directions :jump2:

[holly]

Julez SezI agree with u holly but sometimes u can see a really artistic set produced poorly but it still looks reasonably good.
Ye-es, I'm willing to say that in very extremely rare cases something really shines through despite sloppy and amaturish construction..., but come on, let's be honest. How rare is that? Art is no excuse for bad video. Could you imagine a poet who doesn't command the language? Or an author who isn't any good at plot or character? How about a chef who burns his eggs? Does one good sauce excuse a bad meal? Yes, anything is possible in this disposable age of painting elephants and musical cats. I can excuse someone who is perhaps, just beginning their craft who has talent but not enough skill (yet), but being a beginner only excuses you for how long...?

I think we live in an age where artists are excused like children from creating mature and polished work. We allow for sloppy unprepared and low quality work if it has an Art label attached, and then what qualifies as art...? Who qualifies as an artist? Since we (actually the Modernists) have torndown and abolished all the definitions and qualifications that we used to accept as Art (qualities like mastery, study, talent, training, accomplishment) exactly when is something not Art? Basically everyone and everything is sacred, since even on these forums you are not allowed to break the holy sanctity of "Art". When does it end? How do we ever improve our image if the lowest bottom end is always sheltered from critique and displayed as if it were the best? We've gone from Art elitism to Art mundanity.

If I wanted clumsey unacomplished art that touches my heart I'll go to kindergarden and pick up a few crayola masterpieces for my refridgerator. From VJs I expect a little effort.

And please notice I'm not talking about how big the screen is or implying that working in HD makes you a better artist. Julez, if you meant that great art can be created with clumsey tools then I agree, but that only means the artist has even more mastery of himself and his art. I'm pointing fault with excusing anything that was intended to be art (simply because it is so named) as being above criticism or real-world values.

[InsideUsAll]

this reminds me of a friend of mine who did a college project back at school titled 'what is art'. I was only a kid at the time but i remember back then thinking, 'wow, what an impossible question to answer!'. I think deciding upon the criteria for classifying somebody's visuals as 'good' is almost as difficult as answering the un-answerable question, 'what is art'.

depending on ones background and cultural exposure we all have different standards and very different tastes. who should be given the ultimate decision as to who gets classified as 'good', an over opionated VJ forum member, the 'art establishment', the viewer or even yourself, any option is valid, and any option will likely give different results.

the conclusion my friend reached [at 15 yrs old] was 'art is whatever you want it to be'. That conclusion was far less than what the artistic establishment [the school at the time] considered to be valid and they failed that project. but it always stuck in my head 'art is whatever i want it to be'. From then onwards i was always looking for a way to become the artist i always wanted to be. I never quite knew how this hopeless techy, with an analytical and systematical mind with no drawing skills was gonna become an artist. then i found computer visuals - then boom!

now coming back in steadily toward the topic of what makes visuals good, being a techy i'm inevitably inclined to agree with hollys latest angle, in so much that for me personally i love to see smooth frame rate, nice image quality, depth, perspective, etc etc. but is my personal opion really valid in a sea of a community of people from un-imaginably different upbringings, cultures & environments?

i think the only quantifiable standard is 'opinion in context', if your 'art' recieves positive feedback in the environment & context it was designed for then I believe you can then consider it to be 'good'.

[brain]

in this interesting thread quite little has been said about the importance (or non-importance) of narration, "story", or dramaturgy in visuals. they are of course very different from narrative structures in - let's lay - movies, but they CAN exist and have their special rules.

let's take a random VJ loop, like the usual car driving by or the old POV shot from inside driving down a road. this is a rather boring image and it means nothing. noone would remember it if seen only once. by repetition it SEEMS to gain some importance. if this 5 second loop is repeated 2-3 times, the brain has recognized the repetition. from then on the mind starts to search for significance, message, details, anything that keeps it busy. the brain can not think NOT (like shutdown after the second repetition). its very much like watching clouds - after a while you SEE things because the brain creates information where it can't find any.

so it is quite easy to get away with loops that actually show "nothing". to me, this is
a) lazyness, because the VJ makes the viewer do the whole work
b) a wasted chance, because the VJ could have said something with the loop

this may apply not only to the above mentioned cliche loops, but even to more complex or totally different ones. very often i've seen loops that look quite nice, but are totally meaningless. of course pure formal play is ok, but if some imagery is shown, why not tell a story with it? by "story" i mean micro-storys, little absurd/funny/sexy/whatever-ones. telling a story starts by combining 2 (better 3) elements.

very bad example: you take the loop of a car driving by and cut to a face of someone looking amazed, back to the car, cut to someone driving and laughing madly. you got a instant story, which can be changed by re-arranging length and position of the clips. this is much more interesting to watch than pure repetition and gives the possibility to create different moods. if done cleverly, these micro-storys gain a lot of drive through looping and repetition, much more than the plain clip.

in a club context, these micro-storys can be consumed even in the short time that people watch the screens. and they are even better in a lounge situation where people sit and watch longer and would be quickly bored by plain clips.

i have some more thoughts on dramaturgy thoughout a night, but then this post gets so long that noone reads it anyway :)

[holly]

More, Brain! More! Yay!:jump:
This is a fresh take for these forums. It's lesson #1 in film school, but seems to be almost ignored here in favor of neuvelle-vague. Nicely put, and specific examples. Thanks!

[Lara]

Brain if you are coming to avit we are hoping to hold a 'narrative lab' talking about all these issues- which are pretty specialised, so perhaps not for this thread. But it is an interesting point that is contentious here- does narrative make visuals any better? I think it is another technique, just like the 'organizational play' we were talking about earlier- visuals can have no narrative and still be moving and beautiful, two aims which I consider VERY valid.

[Rovastar]

I am not going to enter the 'what is art' debate that this thread has decended into.

As many (??) of VJ have computer graphicsa s part f there show for me this is easier to judge what is good.

The tradition of the 'demo scene' to traditionally 'show off' the best in computer graphics and new effects.

What is 'good' is spread around by word of mouth and generally there is an understanding of what is 'good'.

Even now with the latest demo scene awards it was not to difficult to see what would win.

True more had a 'narrative' (lol) quailty to them and good too. (Raw Confessions by Cocoon & Halla by Moppi) but the winner Variform by Kewlers had no 'narrative' that extra 'wow' factor. (although to be honest I was not blow away with any of them)

I guessed before who would be the winners and would have thought that many fans and these in the scene would have agreeded. It is easier to 'know' it seems. Maybe as we could tell the 'I have not seen that before' or 'How do they do that' factors that are important for the 'pushing' of boundaries.

Maybe they are not 'arty' enough to get the VJ attention and still seen as a computer geeky thing..........

http://awards.scene.org/nominees.php

Anyway if you are going to do computer graphics in your sets for a chunk of people out there it is easy to see the boundaries being pushed. And what is 'good' now is not nessacarily 'good' in 3 years time. I think times of this is 'good' and have it place for years to come in history are not for the computer age. To be 'good' with this you have to be on top of your game at all times. I cannot stand to see 'loops' that look dated with what you can do in true realtime atm to me that then caeses to be 'good' as you can do 'better'.

(As for narrative being important I am not even going into that one......)

[Anyone]

brain and holly,

really good comments...

but about narratives in visuals, brain,
we seem to forget that
if at the time the elements of your story unfold,
I'm buying a beer at the bar,
I'll have missed some bits, and lost the plot,
and therefore narrative the way it is discribed in your post
will not work outside a "screening" situation,
where everyone is looking at the same thing, at the same time.

we need to consider the fact that visuals in clubs
are not looked at by everyone, not at the same time,
not from the same angle, etc.

like Brian Eno said about ambiant music,
visuals are for an audience with a low attention span
that are looking at the screen sometimes but not all the time,
and most importantly, the audience is looking at visuals
but also doing something else at the same time:
dancing, drinking, chatting, etc.

so how do you insert narrative in such a context?
again we can look at music for inspiration:
electronic music has created a break from
everything that came before
by creating meaning not by linear progression,
but through repetition.
so to use your term, micro-narratives,
i think this will work through repetition,
so if i dont see all the bits the first time,
by the n-th time I'll probably be able to reconstruct
the story in my mind...
that's not to say we need to loop the same thing over and over
until everyone saiz yes to the question, did you get it? did you get it?
but probably weave a few different narrative in and out
throughout the night...

holly,
I think context has priority over production value
we simply cannot play loops of
model type actors dancing against 30fps 3d ocean waves
if we're doing visuals for punk music or electro-clash...

also, we have to look outside the box a little,
not only content makes for good visuals,
but also delivery and performance.

classic example,
if the DJ stops the tune,
the lighting operator kills the lights,
the VJ needs to fade to black. full stop.
otherwise, if the vj keeps his/her screen full blast,
the momentum is not building,
and the crowd will hate the VJ for it...

I dont care how great the visuals are at that moment,
a VJ that does the above remains a bad VJ,
ever if he/she is a great content producer.

Ne1

[robotfunk]

I agree you shouldnt use fast rhythmic imagery during a break, but going black is a bit extreme IMO ..as a dancer I hate breaks, as a VJ I love them, this is where you get to shine as a VJ with a well chosen atmospheric visual, or better still, a composition with one or more parameters linked to audio in characteristics, these will look much prettier during breaks cos there is more dynamics, plus it helps the suspense when its almost silent nothing happens, but the visuals start to build as the music does, building the atmosphere and the strenght of the a/v integration ...

during breaks is also the most likely time that punters will look at your screen.
i wanted to type more esp make the point of image quality being less important than the strenght of the ideas behind it and what the images invoke but m y space bar is actingup

[mondo]

so

not only do we have to consider the art and design "qualititively" (and quality is like tao - an essence that works only for you in that timespace)

we have to consider setting and context

we have to consider performance

we also must recognise how WE are when we are observing since our mood coming to a gig and leaving the gig are the factors which act as the governing differential

ive seen my favourite rock band hundreds of times - but why did i like them "that" particular time - they played the same tunes after all. (same can be said of us vjs)

was it the venue, the setting, the other punters getting off on it, the familiarity, the drugs????etc etc.

imho - it is that VIBE when a majority of you walk away and go

"that was cool" ...when enough people say that you know "something" was right "somewhere" , "some/most" of the time
its just a shame vjs dont get that sort of regular feedback - maybe thats changing now?
we should all encourage ourselves more:love2:

[spark]

there was a very good quote at the first ICA VJ Culture, it was that the experience of a visuals set was similar to the afterburn of staring at a painting... which i take to mean at any one time you might be studying close up some brush strokes or watching some particular clip combination, but these moments are just fleeting in time and just a segway to some deeper looser impression that actually sticks (and up to a point, might have very little to do with what was seen frame by frame).

while its easy to kinda cliche that idea into 'the spirit' of the set, there is something about our particular game - its long form, dip in+out viewing, typical state of the people watching - that makes the 'afterburn' idea really work for me, and its certainly what i have going round in my head, building it up while i'm there and playing with it after. and so, i've come to think that actually most of my visuals are pretty naff in this way. they are often graphically bold, thematically coherent, flickering away to and through the music, but somehow i guess just not really making the afterburn they could. no humour, and personality expressed through a technological landscape not a human one.

but thats going to be of no use to your questionnaire =] if i were to say one thing, it would be 'something to hold onto', some hook that carries you through the set and makes you not want to opt-out, close your eyes and then go to the bar.

[spark]

micro narrative

following brain + oli + + +

i think the micro narrative idea is one of the best things going for the 'art of vj', its a unique scenario we have to explore. if visuals are for people with a low attention span, we have the power to shock them by making it compulsive on a micro-scale, and express ideas/narratives on a macro-scale that they take away without really directly knowing how we got it in their heads =]

toby

[Amukidi]

"if visuals are for people with a low attention span, we have the power to shock them by making it compulsive on a micro-scale"

Problem here is that everything will end up looking like MTV - i.e. no shot longer that 1 second allowed! This is chewing gum for the eyes!!

[Lara]

Yes, it would be easy for that to happen, but perhaps the techniques we use for this don't have to be fast-paced montage. I love the 'afterburn' analogy Spark, that's really beautiful, but it is an afterburn on the memory really, of an image at a particular locus in time and space, with a resonance that made it impact upon the viewer....

What was this resonance? The beautiful combination of two lovely images (eyecandy?), a powerful political comment, a triggering of a memory from childhood, the unfolding of a macro narrative?

The resonance created by the visuals is half the magic ingredient- the other half is perhaps empathy, or reaction or emotion on the part of the viewer.

There are many ways of creating this resonance we have discussed in this thread, humour, narrative, thematics, statements, aesthetics and organisational play, remix and cultural references. Perhaps the one thing we haven't mentioned is ourselves. What of ourselves do we put into our work? Our personalities, character, emotion, message, wisdom, humour? Has anyone really used visuals to get an audience to 'see' through their eyes?

[Amukidi]

"Perhaps the one thing we haven't mentioned is ourselves. What of ourselves do we put into our work? Our personalities, character, emotion, message, wisdom, humour? Has anyone really used visuals to get an audience to 'see' through their eyes?"


Lara, that's all I've ever tried to do in my years as an artist.

[mondo]

wow amukidi
you must be on some smart drugs then m8
any to share!!

[JeSs]

What was this resonance? The beautiful combination of two lovely images (eyecandy?), a powerful political comment, a triggering of a memory from childhood, the unfolding of a macro narrative?

Resonance is very important in visuals. It links the images to your memories.

2 weeks ago I played in a small festival on the Breton coast :
http://www.aux.arts.btinternet.co.uk/buisson.gif
View from the site.

And on the saturday afternoon was asked to do a small performance (5 minutes). To illustrate the place of culture in society. This was folowed by a debate... The french politics are destroying the culture scene at the moment. So there is a lot of these debates in festivals at the moment.

Anyway, because the performance was so short I decided to shoot a bit of footage on the site. Did half an hour of editing sent the clips to my VJ app. I then played one of my tracks and did a short mix with the images.
And all the organiziers of the festival came to see me to say who touched they had been by the mix. They didn't know that I was about to mix footage from the site. So I bet that was part of it. But I was suprized too. I didn't think it was going to work that well. It was more of a funny ideas for me, I didn't expected that reaction at all.
Its only then that I realized that they had a year of memories about the festival (organizing etc...) that had just be triggered and brought back to life by the images they had just seen. Great feelings for all of us :)