From: jaime cleeland (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Dec 14 2008 - 01:22:05 PST
In reference to what James Cole says "it doesn't seem to have much to do with cinema in general; the editing is very basic, repetitive, and usually not all that thoughtful. And the imagery is even worse than the editing, more often than not."
I can only speak for my own art work when I say the editing I think is no more basic than many films - in my own small way I have spent much thought on what I do - many of the images I use I draw from scratch. I do not perform at dance events and use the tag Vj art as it is more appropriate than experimental video artist. I also see no reason why Vj work cannot be interesting.
www.myspace.com/ethnomitepux
--- On Sat, 13/12/08, James Cole <email suppressed> wrote:
From: James Cole <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: Vj Art
To: email suppressed
Date: Saturday, 13 December, 2008, 9:07 PM
It seems like there has been an uptick in VJ stuff around these parts lately, which raises some interesting questions about how VJ media relates to the more established forms of avant-garde cinema (although the use of the word "established" is pretty generous even in the cases of people like Deren and Brakhage; but that's a different discussion).
I tend to not be very charitable in my appraisal of VJ media; for several reasons. Primarily, because it seems like it is mainly intended (indeed, best suited) to accompany electronic dance music; I can't see myself wanting to go into a cinema, sit as the lights go down, and watch two or three hours of VJ media. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to have much to do with cinema in general; the editing is very basic, repetitive, and usually not all that thoughtful. And the imagery is even worse than the editing, more often than not. The times I've seen VJ performances, the imagery seemed more like an extension of a club's usual strobe lights and fog machines; much more atmospheric than expressive. Maybe VJing is just bad in Boston?
On the whole, though, when I hear the term "VJ art," it strikes me the way people talk about "video game art," or "sneaker art" It's obvious someone with a high level of skill made something that demonstrates their high level of skill, at times it's pretty aesthetically breathtaking, but it doesn't strike me as something that anyone will be, or ought to be, interested in a few years down the line.
To be totally honest, the video that you sent looks like it could have been produced by a computer program; I can't read any thing into it, and I can't get anything from it. I'm not trying to be nasty; I'd really like to know how I'm supposed to approach something like that. It certainly resists the sort of approaches one would use at a film by Su Friedrich or Hollis Frampton or Ernie Gehr or whoever. Instead, I end up reading it as a type of decoration; Christmas lights for bad music, which is probably way too dismissive. At least, I'm sure isn't how people interested in VJ art would look at it. The fact that you're sort of asking for feedback suggests that you see it as more than that (after all, people who design Christmas lights probably don't have any desire to show their work and ask for feedback).
So I'm asking you, and anyone else who wants to take up the question; what am I missing? How should I watch this? How does it fit in with the type of film this list usually discusses?
-James
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 3:21 PM, jaime cleeland <email suppressed> wrote:
can be found here:
http://www.archive.org/details/EraseYou
Thank you for your interest.
__________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.