VJing as anti-narrative

I believe that the work of a VJ can be characterized as being an anti-narrative, which can potentially generate a "meta" level of interpretation. This "meta" level becomes a narration about the VJ, and of what she is doing in the context of her own images. Let me explain:

The work of a VJ goes against all the traits of narrative. It does not constitute an alternative form of narration, nor a protonarrative, since it systematically breaks all the grammatical constituents of narrative. In fact, it essentially destroys grammar itself. According to Jerome Bruner[1], the required conditions for a narration to exist are:

1. A means for emphasizing actions performed by agents to achieve goals
2. A sequential order that must be established and maintained. Events and states should be linearized in a standard way
3. A sensitivity to what is canonical, and what violates canonicality in human interaction
4. A narrator's voice or perspective

VJ'ing escapes from all of these four conditions. In a performance, the VJ's actions become meaningless under the absence of a goal. The images on the screen appear as a sequence to the audience, thus blurring the line between linearity and non-linearity. True non-linearity is not achievable by human perception: we can not experience more than one sensory environment at a time. Yet, the performer generates sequences of images which can potentially be ordered in many different ways, so the idea of a narrative order becomes useles. This absence of a normalized development through time, along with the meaninglessness of action, have the effect of vanquishing the narrator's voice. In fact, it is quite possible for the VJ to perform without appearing in front of the public, and even without any intention to engage in active communication with the audience. Indeed, this is what most VJs do. Finally, if we understand human interaction as a form of communication and encounter, we can say that the non-communicative nature of VJing breaks, either consciously or unconsciously, the canonical relations between performer and audience.

Bruner also argues that humans have a predisposition to enter and understand the world through narrative. We tend to construct narratives in order to explain (to ourselves or to others) our experience of the world. We even use narrative to create fictions. If it is true that VJing breaks all narrative conventions (and yet it is presented in a stage and is viewed by an audience), then we could think that people will still tend to construct a narrative around it. In this case, it will almost necessarily be a narrative about the VJ act, a narrative "meta" level that emerges from anti-narrative, and possibly defeats it. A VJ show, or VJ set as it is often called, can become a story in itself, with all the elements that Kenneth Burke[2] distinguishes as appearing in any dramatic discourse:

1. The act. Q: What happend? A: "The VJ got on the stage and started to play some images, along with music."
2. The scene. Q: Where did it happen? What is the background situation? A: "In a club, in an art show..."
3. The agent. Q: Who is involved in the action? What are their roles? A: "The VJ and we, the audience. The VJ plays, and we look, listen and imagine."
4. The agency. Q: How do the agents act? By what means do they act? A: "The VJ might be trying to synchronize image with music. Maybe he is using a special interface that allows the incorporation of gestural language in her performance... how does the interface work? What software does she use?"
5. The Purpose. Q: Why do the agents act? What do they want? A: "Maybe the fragments that the VJ presents are trying to tell us something. Why does she say that? Why is the performer doing this? Well, I think that ..."

My conclusion is that the audience plays an active part in VJing, but in a level which trascends the contents that are being played. I believe that the audience constructs a story about the act of VJing, within a context provided by the content. The audiovisual objects become a mere scenario.

But, of course, the audience is always free to just feel the images and drift away...

[1] Jerome Bruner, "Acts of Meaning". Harvard University Press, 1990
[2] Kenneth Burke. See: "Burke's Pentad", http://www.rhetorica.net/burke.htm

Interactive Ideology

[These are simply some notes prompted by David Rokeby's piece.]

It has become a commonplace assumption that when something is interactive, it is not only more democratic, but is also "open" as part of a general "questioning of authorship." Both these interpretations of interactivity may be not only inaccurate, bu specifically misleading, providing a mask for the reassertion of traditional modes of working while creating an illusion of the opposite.
Rokeby writes "The question of domination raises an important issue. For many people, interaction has come to mean 'control'. People look to interactive technology for 'empowerment', and such technologies can certainly give the interactor a strong sense of power. This is clearly the attraction of video games. In these games, the mirror transforms the interactor's gestures largely by amplification, but what is actually offered is the amplification of a gesture within a void, a domination of nothingness, the illusion of power. In particular, this is a fantasy of power bereft of responsibility. In the recent Gulf War, the video-game fantasy of power was reconnected to the power of actual armaments. In the process, the sense of responsibility was lost; the personal acountability of the pilots was cleverly amputated, dissolved by the interface.

"Interaction is about encounter rather than control. The interactive artist must counter the video-game-induced expectations that the interactor often brings to interaction. Obliqueness and irony within the transformations and the coexistence of many different variables of control within the interactive media provide for a richer, though perhaps less ego-gratifying experience." [1] It is unclear how the set of concerns with ironically divesting his audience of the sense of "control" that typically accompanies interactivity can be seen as other than an assertion of control by forces extrinsic to the audience--in this case, the author via an automated system. Expecting his audience to accept this passively is a basically authoritarian stance.

At the same time, we are expected to believe that interaction offers a breach to the apparent control and dominance of authorship. There is a paradox here that becomes evident at the level of praxis.

The big question we should be asking of all these "interactive" systems is in what way do they teach us to accommodate the status quo? Interactive systems are inherently domineering--they allow certain actions, disallow others and teach their users into positions of accommodation and adaptation to the parameters of a human-designed system that does not allow variances or enable most alternative uses. The image of artist within such a system is demiurgic (demagoguery) assertign its dominance while denying its presence.

Quotes to get us started

Quotes from "Transforming Mirrors", a text by Canadian artist David Rokeby (emphasis mine):

"Itsuo Sakane, the Japanese journalist and curator, suggests that interactive art is simply art that involves the participation of the viewer. But he goes on to remark "all arts can be called interactive in a deep sense if we consider viewing and interpreting a work of art as a kind of participation," an echo of Marcel Duchamp's famous declaration, "The spectator makes the picture.""

"McLuhan often referred to technologies as 'extensions of man'. But in fully interactive technologies, the flow of information goes both ways; the apparati become more like permeable membranes."

"Television expands the reach of our vision, while at the same time, filtering the content. We trade the subjectivity of our personal point of view for centrally collected and broadcasted images and information. Interactive media have the power to likewise expand the reach of our actions and decisions. We trade subjectivity for participation and the illusion of control; our control may appear absolute, but the domain of that control is externally defined. We are engaged, but exercise no power over the filtering language of interaction embedded in the interface. Rather than broadcasting content, interactive media have the power to broadcast modes of perception and action."

From this text, some questions arise for me:

How can VJs cultivate this "permeable membrane" between art and audience?

At what level do VJs give up this notion of control over material, and how can the audience figure into this?

If "the spectator makes the picture", how is this transformed in a context of live, dynamic creation?


(Read the full paper by Rokeby.)