If technology is mirroring us, then what does that say about us? Are we deliberately turning ourselves into machines? Are machines turning into us? An old question, I know, but one that's not been satisfactorily answered in my view, and one worth asking again, specifically in this context of Vjing.
Roker's piece, and even some dictionaries (see definitions below), for the most part define interactivity as having to do exclusively with technology. Do people interact with each other? Do VJs interact with spectators?
VJs specifically, interact not just with spectators but with DJs - sound primarily affecting visual (though in some of my work recently I've been exploring the idea of reversing this (by default) hierarchy) and visual primarily affecting spectator; can the spectator's response to sound in turn affect visuals and vice-versa, making the spectator, the non-wired, purely receptive human, a conduit for the audio and visual signals to reach each other transformed, and in turn transforming the wired, active "player"- acting as go-between in the relationship between sound and vision, and in turn synthesizing the two within him/herself (synaesthesia)? Here I would tend to say "of course", but on the whole, as far as spectator affecting VJ, my own observation is that VJs are usually intently focusing on their own computer and/or the projection screen(s) to determine whether the image jibes with the sound they are hearing- or maybe not even that, in the extreme cases of ego self-involvement, but the question arises for me nonetheless of whether, if we lift our heads up to watch the audience (vidience?) watching our work, whether there is another dimension of observation and intuitive reaction we can tap into that can be explored through this medium. Just a thought...
INTERACTIVE:
1.acting one upon or with the other
2.of or pertaining to a two-way system of electronic communications, as by means of television or computer: interactive communications between families using two-way cable television.
3.(of a computer program or system) interacting with a human user, often in a conversational way, to obtain data or commands and to give immediate results or updated information: For many years airline reservations have been handled by interactive computer systems.
American Psychological Association (APA):
interactive. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved September 12, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interactive
Chicago Manual Style (CMS): interactive. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interactive (accessed: September 12, 2007).
Modern Language Association (MLA): "interactive." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 12 Sep. 2007.
INTERACTIVITY:
the extent to which something is interactive; the extent to which a computer program and a human being may have a dialog
American Psychological Association (APA):
interactivity. (n.d.). Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7). Retrieved September 12, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interactivity
Chicago Manual Style (CMS): interactivity. Dictionary.com. Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7). Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interactivity (accessed: September 12, 2007).
Modern Language Association (MLA): "interactivity." Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7). Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. 12 Sep. 2007.
INTERACTION:
1.reciprocal action, effect, or influence.
American Psychological Association (APA):
interaction. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved September 12, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interaction
Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
interaction. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interaction (accessed: September 12, 2007).
Modern Language Association (MLA):
"interaction." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 12 Sep. 2007.
2 comments:
what the mirror says about us is that our technology and our art and culture can only reflect the mechanical use of the brain we are subject to.
vjing in spirte of its great flexibility will only reflect the conciousness of the brain driving it.
the pertinent novel by the overlooked and
misunderstood novelist Mary Shelley. (frankenstein)
examines this quite thoroughly.
the convenient definition of interactivity relative to tecnological exclusivity. is both fallicious and
exploitive.
the third paragraph is a perfect example of the
shortsightedness of "our" limited theorums.
this discourse has been amply proven and
demonstrated. especially throughout the course of 20th century culture . the jazz era of the 1920s which reintroduced so many missing elements to western culture especially dance and most especially the DRUM.
without this it is secure to say that there would not have been rock and roll and certainly not electro music and therefore most probably no vjing.
all of this has been shown ad infinitum...
by ragtime ,swing blues ,gospel etc..
what of those receptive human conduits
working for their whole lives 16 hours a day..
was not "the blues" an interactive conduit ??
and as for visuals how did all those black bodys swingin from trees effect the artistic mediums?
for me we are overlooking solutions which have been hard earned . i think it is a crucial error.
my point here being that it is specifically the participatory nature which has already been amply demonstrated (but not acknowledged) of primarily< african -american art forms .that have already given the solutions to these problems.
the main problem as i see it is that ,
vjing has been so tied to the dj.it has at his point limited the form. for no matter how talented a dj may be he /she is still representing secondary information.in general not produced by themselves.
this of a matter of course does not allow for participation in any real sense. from the dancers in particular.
as a dancer all my life and one with much experience in afro-american and afro-cuban
forms. i have seen and felt first hand the real participation and real interaction between sources
whithin the same proximity .its why i have always disliked the fake tribal of electro . ersatz at best .
this
is not to say that i dont like dance floor and electro... but as something to really support and nourish....??
so i feel that vjing has been fortunate to be financially supported by this.which has allowed
it to flourish-- but until it really deals with other ways of thiking it will probably remain as djing is to music source ... a loud seductive medium shiny and persuasive on the outside and ever so empty within.. this would be really unfortunate and i say that heartfully because it really has such a rich potential....
that is a very specific and narrowing definition to start from in the post....it is problematic to limit narrative to such a singular and quite non-universal (within the history of its analysis) framing and definition
others are actually quite close to vjing ..... that if one moves from one point to another in perspective or amount of information and a change occurs that transmits a new perspective and sense of the information that this is a "narrative" I also teach English
and can think of many narratives that are even very traditional within the canon that would be able to be seen as this......especially the use of the bookend effect of beginning with a certain scene and or key image and it gradually shifting and expanding in its associations through each new scene and shift in language and story as it progresses (much like shifting song to song/visual dialect(s) to dialect(s) within the frame of a performance....
most importantly this is absolutely not to say that this is being brought in as one to shoot down the other previous explanation of narrative.......quite the opposite......
Post a Comment