Using yourself in visuals?

[Anyone]

Originally posted by Rovastar
There is a fine line between ego and art.

actualy, there's NO seperation between art and ego.
do you think collectors would have bought a picture of sunflowers for 23 million US
if it didn't have Van Gogh's signature at the bottom?

every kind of art, including VJing, is about names and people.
art=fetishism towards a person's work

this is partly why I chose Anyone as a artist name...
to reverse this truth, put it inside out and make it into an abstraction of itself.

ne1

[Rovastar]

Originally posted by Anyone
actualy, there's NO seperation between art and ego.
do you think collectors would have bought a picture of sunflowers for 23 million US
if it didn't have Van Gogh's signature at the bottom?

every kind of art, including VJing, is about names and people.
art=fetishism towards a person's work

this is partly why I chose Anyone as a artist name...
to reverse this truth, put it inside out and make it into an abstraction of itself.

ne1

I think you are mistaking marketablilty for art. You can a professional arty show without any reference to you at all.

People can enjoy it for the art without knowing who you are. If you marketed well though that is another matter.

And there ws me thinking Van Gogh had his sig there so he could die rich and happy..........He was driven by ego.

Anyway others may see not see the line between ego and art and the audiemnce are the biggst fans and crritics.

[lowRes]

Originally posted by Anyone
every kind of art, including VJing, is about names and people.

sorry .. don?t agree with that...

true that a lot of people think like that and i find that sad...

the same guys that would buy van gogh's sunflowers because of its signature wouldn't differenciatte it between a Munch's painting... and even if so.. do they understand it???

though m-ART-keting is rulling most of human's creations it's not the way....
ART is not money or recognition.. might b expression...

r_x
* )

[Anyone]

Originally posted by lowRes
ART is not money or recognition.. might b expression...

nice dream, wish it was a reality, really I do.
so I'm sorry to break this news, below.

the most basic definition of art:
art is what an artist produces with an intention,
anything else is an accident or a phenomenon of nature.

the most successful art in a capitalist society
is the kind of art that gathers the most capital.
(if you can read this thread than you are part of that society,
because computers are the ultimate expression of capitalism, ask Bill)


similarly, the most successful footballers are the richest, innit?

in a way, this is why this thread is so interesting,
because it talks about artists
that fuse the subject matter of art with its inner workings. (art about their authors)

Ne1

[holly]

(this was written before NE1's reply above and shouldn't be considered a direct response....)


These statements are all too general, too uninformed, and assume too much about (f)Art, it's monitary value, and who buys it.... Van Gogh's Sunflowers is currently in the National Gallery, London. I think they know the difference between Van Gogh and Munch!


Can we stick to VJing sometimes? You know, that thing where you show visuals in a club?

At the same time we can discuss why there is such animosity in the field of VJing of being exposed, recognized, or seen. Personally I feel this is due to the branch of VJing that comes from programmers/software heads. As was suggested by KillingFrenzy in a recent post about what's failed in StarWars (I paraphrase): xenophobic, antisocial programmers have projected their paranoid personalities onto the artistic project, and are making judgement calls about society, art, and in general what things "should" be, while they themselves don't realize how out-of-step they are with the (club) environment.

...but reading NE1's statement above, I fully agree that Art is intentional. Even randomness must be intentional. I generally catagorize art in 2 different criteria: like it/or not..., and developed/or not. I can appreciate something that is developed artistically and not "like" it (ie wouldn't put it on my wall at home). I can also "like" something that is half-baked, but not really consider it to be valued art.... And vice-versas, of course.

I think most of the pretentions to "high" art that VJs make of themselves is unjustified. The ones that value non-commercial art are undoubtedly the ones creating non-commercial art. The ones who make money are likely to have some aspect of commercialism in their work. I don't see this as either/or. Everybody makes a choice how much they want to sell out and how much they want to do their own thing.

edited to also add that I agree with Rova that it can be an artist's choice develop a "show" and reveal nothing about himself, just design or issue etc..., altho then there would be people who argue that showing NO self is still revealing much about self....

[KillingFrenzy]

Whereas, I'm from the school of hiding in the corner because I consider my art to be the projection on the wall, not me bibbling around. That puts me in the chinscratcher school of untheatric types that started with Miles Davis turning his back to the audience and concentrating on what he was playing. Does this mean I can't appreciate good showmanship? Hell no. I love watching my pals that jump around when they DJ. SketchyJ looked super-cool at the Avit retreat, and would be able to stand the glare of spotlights at any huge show. I would expect VJs to be as varied as the music they work with, and given that I think there's going to be many styles.
For me, revealing things about myself in my visuals come through playing old family footage (I have an art film my mom made in colledge of her pregnant with my stillborn half-brother that chills me). Or footage I've shot of friends and myself (less often, since I'm holding the camera). Putting these images on screen to strong music can be difficult and rewarding.

[bur1]

Use Yourself!
this is the best and the most original art one can create.
can some of you look at yourself and laugh.
for the ones that can't laugh take your mind out of you ass.......
it is not about "how pretty i am" or "i am too cool"
it is about the ego which is known to kill ones
create self.

think....... if any of you film people for your sets,
why not film yourself.....

in New York if you are seen by the police filming a train, building or what ever YOU WILL GO TO JAIL!
also filming other people designs make you a copyright criminal, no matter how many filters you use.

Stop white men from telling us what to do!

trashed_tv

[lowRes]

may b i'm too naif on art's thingys....
but just because most of the people think that the amount of money one earns shows his/hers quality doesn?t mean u have to agree on that.. or live like that.. may b your life will b much harder though.

NE1:: it's not only a dream! it's an attitude! may b that's the way the world we live in works (capitalism) but i think art also should be one of the engines for change and evolution in our society, so..

Holly:: of course i wasn?t talking about a gallery or museum.. talking about general public?!

let the vj talk continue..!

* )
r_x

[syzygy]

Originally posted by holly

At the same time we can discuss why there is such animosity in the field of VJing of being exposed, recognized, or seen. Personally I feel this is due to the branch of VJing that comes from programmers/software heads.

Where does your prejudice against programmers come from Holly?

I'm a programmer/VJ and I have no problems with seeking recogition for what we do.

The other programmer/VJs that I know are similarly keen to be associated with their work / build and name for themselves / get recognition.

I think the whole anti-recognition thing comes from a whole slew of sources:

* arty types who see seekin recognition as somehow 'selling out' and compromising their artistic direction

* people from a stage background who associate visuals with lighting etc - to be recognised within its own world but not directly recognised by the audience.

* people from other backgrounds (yes, programming is one of these, but not the only one by any means) who are not used to having attention focussed on them.

* people who genuinely think that their work has more power without being associated with a human artist

And to be fair, I think all of these people have a point to a certain extent. Personally, I want to be recognised for what we do. I want people to see our name on a flyer and come along to see what we do. I want people to be prepared to spend their hard earned money to own something we made. I want to be chased down the street by screaming groupies

That doesn't mean I think everyone should want attention though. Some fabulous work is made by artists who don't want the recognition that comes with it.

[holly]

ok, no one is ugly and no one is an artist earning $25mil so back to the VJs:

I want to go back to what Oxy was saying. She used her body, not to be famous, but as source material for filters and visual fx.... I use my body the same way, not to be recognized but to use it as a base for my "fx": lighting, costume, concept, shoot, production, etc. These are things I'm good at.

With Jeremy, it seems he is (often) recalling a famous era or persona/style (Ziggie Stardust, superhero costumes), but also these classic glampunk looks like the big blue spikes mohawk. It is like a study in styles, ....But also don't you use lots of other friends in your shoots, Alex? Like, is Jeremy also styling other friends for the shoots, or is he all: "Point that camera at ME, bitch!"

edited to add:
Syz, it is my baggage from experience with some local artists who think it must be a certain way to be in their club. Honestly it is a small minority but there is a clique of powerbook artists that are very rigid in the tools they use and the things they are interested in. They also seem to be aligned with noise/art and it is all very experimental and vague. Doing EYEWASH and supporting local shows our scenes (VJ and a/v art) obviously overlap and we make the party open to all performances.... My work is sometimes dismissed as "not art-enough" so I campaign (obnoxiously) that VJing is more than just the new filter, ...but what do I know, I'm only out there touring and earning a living with my art which obviously has no value other than the fact that someone is willing to pay for it. (*snifle*)

:P just a joke lowRes, I know you weren't saying Van Gogh is artisticly empty just because painting sell for $25mil.