Online with artist, author and editor Ana Carvahlo of "VJTheory .net" and "visual-agency.net.""VJTheory intends to develop a community actively discussing and reflecting on philosophy and theory related with Vjing and realtime interaction.
It is apparent, during workshops and discussions at Festivals and symposia, that practitioners of both VJing and Interactive Installations will quickly move on from problems with the practicalities of production to more complex ideas of how and why the process has, for example, significance for the viewer.
There is a lack of written texts on the philosophies and theories related with VJing and realtime interaction.
This project and the associated book, aim to bring together work by some of the foremost practitioners and academics in the field.
We aim to produce a body of work which, for the first time, will address these theoretical issues and place the practices of VJing and Interactive Installation, into a useful context.
The website is a growing collection of articles, references and art projects in collaboration with contributors from the book and the growing community.
This is phase 1 of the project. New sample material from the book and complete texts specifically for the site will be available online as the work progresses."
5 comments:
I know that the video was very blurry on this one (which actually made it kind of distracting for me to watch), but my audio was a little messed up at times as well, I heard echoes and stuff when Ana was speaking...don't know if anyone else had that problem, but anyway...
One of the things Ana mentioned a little ways into the lecture was, in a response to a question (Stephen's, I think?) that artists should make their own art history, and that we shouldn't have someone who will review an artwork and write about how it is "right" or "wrong", but we must have more to it than that. Raph went on to add that sometimes you get critics writing about works that they haven't even seen. I have long had issue with the education system for over-intellectiualizing everything. The Honors college is a prime example of this, because we will read books and then pick them apart in class, ruining any and all poetic or aesthetic qualities of the book that might have been there. I feel like the same goes for art, that when people begin to nitpick, and say what is right and what is wrong, then they are overstepping their boundaries. If you are like Ana, and you write about your work not so much to explain yourself as to reflect on what you've done and make yourself more conscious about your influences and whatnot, then that's wonderful - but if you're going to explain, and tell someone what to think, and say "this is right" or "this is wrong", then that is ridiculous. And I think Ana was right, what she does is useful to herself as an artist, but it really is NOT about explaining yourself. let people get from it whatever they want to get from it.
As students, we are not at a level such as these artists- so we can only try and understand what it's like to have your work not fully represented or viewed in a way that you intended. Not only that, but to have it defined based on observation rather than experience; it must be agitating.
VJ Theory really is about the artists given a chance to communicate with each other based on experience, rather than interpretation or analyses. Being able to define what they do rather than having it defined for them.
I have never really heard an artist explain their work in terms of driving the viewer into what they should interpret (unless of course if you count cinema). They seem to explain their influences, but leaving it up to the audience the culminate their experiences and try and relate on some level.
It must be intimidating and awkward to have your work analyzed in depth and being told what it must mean based on x, y and z. A funny story I read was about John Lennon and when he recieved a letter from a highschool student who mentioned that his poetry class was analyzing Beatles songs and wanted to know what some of the lyrics really ment (after all, the class was based on interpretation). John Lennon had such a surreal moment in reading this letter that he wrote "I am the Walrus" which was suppose to have no meaning whatsoever, but infact it was influenced by a complete psychedelic experience and the riffs were inspired by intense sounds he heard from his New York City apartment.
(ie sirens, traffic).
I honestly do not think an artist can create something without showing any sign of influence or some level of conciousness that triggered some form of inspiration, but prove me wrong.
I found that when we are talking to VJ theory that a lot of interesting topics come up. I agree with you Steve that we are ignorant in our understanding of what it would be like to have people viewing your art, and that it is certainly most likely frustrating. However I also believe that art isn’t something that is meant to be stagnant, and that no mater what you are always going to have people who will have different interpretations of your work from what you were thinking when creating the piece. I think that if you re a good artist than you should be able to take in all reactions, and interpretations of your work, and gain some sort of knowledge from them, its about the reaction, and if you can understand that people are not all the same, and that people are not all from a similar background than you and your work that you do will be able to advance that much further.
I think that what VJ theory is doing with having this place for artist to write about their own work is an important progression from the world of just being viewers interpreting the art into a world where people are able to see what it really is that the artist was thinking of when they are creating works. Its funny that you talked about John Lennon and the letter that the student wrote him, because I had an experience similar to that, where one day in class we were ripping into an author and his book I want to say that it was the book A Day No Pig Would Die by Robert Newton Peck, and I asked the question of the teacher, “well yeah that’s all fine and I understand what you are saying, but how do you know for certain that what you are saying is really true about the book”. The teacher didn’t really like that so much, and was more or less like, “I just know, and its also what everyone else has said about it too”, everyone else being other teachers and what not. It’s a memory I will remember forever because I really was tired of reading into what I was being told to, it didn’t make sense to me, it was something that just made me think.
With digital work the way it is, and with having it be so new and undocumented and it being in such a raw format, having a resource such as the one that Vjtheory is establishing is cutting a new path for the way to establish ideas, and understanding of works of art. It is in the understanding of where the work comes from that we are able to better relate to the work, and the less we need to work to find the “meanings” behind pieces the more we are able to think about the piece and how it relates to us on a whole.
Learning from an artists point of view is always the most in depth way you can understand their art. There are songs, and poems and paintings I don't always understand, but when I hear the history or the back story to it all it makes sense and I can appreciate the piece so much more. To have VJTheroy writing about their pieces makes perfect sense. Not everyone is on the same thinking wavelength as the artist, and those people might not understand what the artist is trying to communicate.
"However I also believe that art isn’t something that is meant to be stagnant." I agree with that Brian because art is supposed to convey an emotion, or a story, or an event, and an artist can do this in an abstract way, and the viewers could never understand it. If art became stagnant then the whole appeal of it would go right out the window.
I think that VJTheory is doing a great thing by having the artists write because it's their voice we really need to be listening to.
In response to something Stephen said about misinterpretation -- this is always a risk no matter what the art is. In traditional forms (painting, drawing, etc.) unless a piece was obviously abstract - purpose, form, etc. could be communicated wrong. That's both the good and bad thing about any art. In some ways you want your original intention to be portrayed correctly (that is the reason why you created this art), but the user has their own bias and experiences - similar images, varying defintions, etc. Therefore, art is like spinning wheel of fortune - sometimes you will get a couple hundred (agreement of intention), sometimes you will get the 10,000 (your portrayal seems to be one of the only), but sometimes you go bankrupt and maybe a piece about families looks like a piece about brothels (!). I think New Media presents a multi-faceted way to combine mediums in such a way that communication can happen on many different levels.
This is why VJTheory is rather interesting. VJing is normally a medium where one or a few people work on a set and there is not a lot of user participation. I really like the way new media artists such as VJTheory are approaching how to work with viewers. Traditional art does how a pretentious brow about it which assumes that if someone doesn't interpret the piece in a certain way that they are "uneducated" and "unrefined" -- those are stereotypes, but I have been to galleries and there seemed to be a certain staleness in the air about these events where people have to look at pieces and say "ohhhhh yaaaaa" as if there was ever one meaning for anything. People can look at a tree and interpret it differently, so something as diverse in intention and communication as art could have endless possibilities. That is another reason I like new media because by creating new types of mediums, there are no solid answers, so people have to look within themselves for the answer and maybe create their own discussions. I think this is something that VJTheory connections very literally with on the view - though I am not sure driving them through the experience is always the first and best method, but nonetheless gives new possibilities.
Intention is a thought process that I care very highly about -- even outside of art. Intention is everything because it creates clear definitions about ambitious topics. Now, boundaries are not always good by any means, but it helps give some sort of guidance. It could be argued that within art, one should not have boundaries, but in speaking on intention a question about purpose is proposed. Is art made for others or for yourself. If art is made for yourself -- there is usually a very explicit reason for creating that art (intention, reason, etc.) whether it be "I have an idea I am going to make a video installation) or it is "i'm going through a hard time about my divorce, I am going to create a video piece". Experience or outward thought can both produce these decisions, but if you are creating art for someone else, it lacks that passion behind the art.
Post a Comment