The overall importance of the VJ presence.

[oxygen]

hmm holy,
what you are saying is that when u project
a video in a club it's not art
and when u place it in a museum it is???

[holly]

No way, Oxy. The complete opposite!!

I'm saying that the content I'd create for a museum is not at all like the content I'd create for a club! WHERE it's projected changes my intent and workstyle. I'm saying I wouldn't waste my serious art on a club, and I wouldn't be half as giddy in a gallery! There's a big difference in the energy of a party and the energy of a gallery!

In a museum I would expect people to sit and watch a bit. I would explore some deeper themes and basically expect a viewer to have a longer attention span so I could really hope to take them on a cerebrial journey somewhere intimate and personal. A thinking place....

In the clubs I totally design my images to go along with the THUMP THUMP THUMP of dance music - easy obvious themes and high-energy graphics. Things that make you want to move and dance. They generally don't play pumpin' house tracks at yer finer galleries around town.

I make the distinction between art and entertainment. I don't pass a value judgement on either one, but obviously I plan for the environment in which my work will be experienced! Don't you?

[charlielangridge]

Originally posted by cat
[BAhh but a baby has been listening to the heat beat since it grows ears, so i think hearing comes first! the heart beat being the one conection between body and dance and music. 120bpm for disco has a reason! [/B]

Maybe when a magic stimuli - like the 120 bpm, is found for visuals, things might change, but for now in a club situ, the music takes presidence, ....for now....

[oxygen]

holly ,
ok i see your point, and YES, there is a differende as you say...
but....
I don't think there should be 'necesarelly' made a distiction in the approach of how you create or present your work for both places.
in fact, making those interchangable might leed to surprisingly good and more interesting results.
As ppl expect entertainment (eyecandy) in a club and more serious dedicated art in galleries I find it most challenging to play with those expectations.
I think it's very important to make pple react on art and vj-ing in general .
Not to make them bored because of the idea that
something doesn't belong on a certain place.
I have made installations and images for purposes in galleries, same
time i have shown them on occasions in clubs.
I am not saying it will always work, but thats what you're an artist for....
(to make it work or adjust it to make it work).
Few years ago there was a dutch museum wanted to have a modern "imago"
and made an exhibition with videoclips and vj art. It was totally bollocks.
But that was because they're idea of showing video/vj art inbetween some old paintings was too simplistic.

[peet]

I completely disagree. An appreciation of music must be developed just as an appreciation of visual art must be developed. Studies have shown that a newborn baby can recognize and respond to a human face within hours of birth. Certain visual stimuli is primal, probably more so than sound.

Maybe I wrongly phrased what I wanted to say but what I mean is;. visual art AND vj as art will ALWAYS stay inferior for the OVERALL audience. Ofcourse if I watch visual art, I qualify it as just as important to me as music or other artforms. But that's because I'm interested in it and have depthened it to it. Most people are not. If you would sell CDs with video art on them in a store, some might buy 'm but they wouldn't be sold as good as music CDs would. It's not as common as music. That's what I mean.

And it again totally depends who you are. I love watching art. I love watching visual video art, graphical visual art. If I go to the movies I most of the time choose for an arthouse film. I'm interested and I enjoy it. But does the rest of the world? No.

That's what I mean.

[asterix]

Peet - you're a lunatic!

- More people go to cinema's than dance parties - I think music's already fairly weighted against a visual experience. On that note - why is music used in cinematography? (Thats a rhetorical question)

- For FUN , would you rather eat a bowl of icecream - or some festive bowl of chocaholic cocktail from a upmarket gelateria with all the trimmings? Delish! Apply to your nighclub.

- People are 80% visual beings. We catalogue emotionally, and remember visually more often. Ask anyone how their weekend was - I bet they'll tell ya what they saw

- I go out soley for stimulation (and fun). The more stimulation - the better bang for my buck I reckon.

- Take away all the elements in a nightclub aside from music. People, lights, visuals, alcohol... sounds like vanilla icecream to me

[oxygen]

The visual is a product of the commercial and technical world we live in today.
since music has become commercial the visual has followed .
And even better, the visual has been (and still is) evolving as an artform because our way of life and perception has radically changed since MTV, internet and the pc. The thing is with visuals...they make us believe(in an illusion) or can make us see the world from a different point of view.
Now, 'art' is a kind of sophisticated subject, not all humans are interested in.
The discussion wether visuals are art yes or no, is interesting but not worth fighting for. As long as visuals 'can' be art is what matters.
Wether music or visual is more important all depends in what context u place them and wether you are willing to accept there is a lot of crap in this world and there is a lot of great creative spirit too. u do the match.

[spaceman]

Visuals are always part of music otherwize why would "rock" bands bother looking so cool: Take Kiss for example, having smoke coming out of a guitar during a solo doesn't help making it sound any better but LOOKS sooo cool. If britney was short fat and ugly would she be so popular? Musicians always have been a VISUAL pleasure untill d.j.s came along.... How exciting is it to stare at some average looking block looking down at turntables, holding a pair of headphone to one ear!

This is exactly why I got into V.J.ing; coming from a music background (was playing in a punk band for 10 years), when I got into the whole party scene, althu i loved the music i really missed the show.
I think that v.j.s are actualy the new "Rock Stars", they provide the visual element to an otherwize incomplete show.

As for quality, it is obvious that some v.j. acts are more entertaining than others, you can't set a standard on quality, it's not like we're manufacturing car and have to conform to European Safety Regulations. This is art.

"visual art AND vj as art will ALWAYS stay inferior for the OVERALL audience. " is like saying "we're doing just fine with black and white T.V. why do we need colors"


.A movie without music is just as incomplete as a party without visuals.

[julez]

How exciting is it to stare at some average looking block looking down at turntables, holding a pair of headphone to one ear!

I think charlie said it best

"VJs...saving your eyes from ugly djs for twenty years"



I agree with u 100% oxygen. Who goes to the cinema to hear great music?? maybe a movie has a great soundtrack but like a vj in a club it only compliments the movie/dj

[eXhale]

Originally posted by peet
Maybe I wrongly phrased what I wanted to say but what I mean is;. visual art AND vj as art will ALWAYS stay inferior for the OVERALL audience. Ofcourse if I watch visual art, I qualify it as just as important to me as music or other artforms. But that's because I'm interested in it and have depthened it to it. Most people are not. If you would sell CDs with video art on them in a store, some might buy 'm but they wouldn't be sold as good as music CDs would. It's not as common as music. That's what I mean.

And it again totally depends who you are. I love watching art. I love watching visual video art, graphical visual art. If I go to the movies I most of the time choose for an arthouse film. I'm interested and I enjoy it. But does the rest of the world? No.

how pretentious and elitist... art should touch the heart, not the mind. if someone need to have studied 4 years at an art school to "understand" your visuals, maybe you're doing something wrong.