![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
[post provoked by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tartanshell's post here; I've written a subsequent post here]
So: Point of View in vids.
[edit: definition via Dictionary.com here, "The attitude or outlook of a narrator or character in a piece of literature, a movie, or another art form."
...I am referring to POV as a vehicle of vidding logic as used by a vidder, NOT to it's appearance or lack there-of in a vid, and not referring to possible POV of the vidder themself, which I label more along the lines of authorial intent. Major apologies for lack of clarity on this topic the first time around.]
Is it really necessary? (regaring the use of it by a vidder in the process of constructing a vid) 'Cause yanno, everyone makes POV out to be a big deal and yet if you ask audiences I bet that about 50% of the time more or less they get it wrong anyways, and yet the vid *still* works.
And if the vid still *works* despite the POV not being discernable, is point of view necessary in the creation of it? Tricky thing here is, of course, that about 90% of the detail and craft (? I don't know a better word for this that might sound less pretentious) in a vid is subconscious. There was that analogy awhile ago about fic-writing being like leading a blindfolded audience down a tunnel so that they might get to the end and then see the light. Dude, vidding? Vidding is like hurtling your audience down a black tunnel on a runaway train going at 100mph; most of the details that make the ride the most effective aren't even conscious; which, hell, no wonder most people are stumped while leaving feedback.
But that's another discussion.
Granted, POV *might* be inherent in vids just because of the nature of the music and the way most people listen to it. There's usually one singer and the POV is usually assigned to that one singer; but can't the vid be structured around something other than POV?
Is, then, POV just an organizing methodology?
'Cause I wonder too, if this methodology of most vidders is the best thing to have and/or advocate. And I use that term because organizing vids around a POV, for all it's usefulness, still simply a method, and thus still simply arbitrary. For all the usefulness, sometimes, of setting a specific POV for a vid, it's not really useful in the construction of semi- or completely omniscient vids. And it doesn't cover most non-narrative vids; it can't really help the character study, nor the meta vid, nor the multi-fandom vid, nor the mood vid, nor the movement vid.
'Cause not only are these vids based on different, but equally valid, aesthetics (which doesn't necessarily mean that the vid doesn't *work*, it just doesn't work the same *way*); but the process of organizing these types of vids around a defined, grounded, singular POV might possibly hurt them. In some ways I think that was part of why I was so completely frustrated with and destroyed over Gravity, because it was essentially a mood piece for my micro-fandom, or rather a mood vid with emotional arc. It's essentially a failure if you judge it in strict narrative guidlines, which for a long time I couldn't see beyond; and the only thing that allowed me to finish Gravity was by repeatedly giving up narrative and pretty much vidding in total abject despair of a decent product.
If nothing else, I think that, for me at least, I don't need a POV in the construction of a vid...but what I *need* is that end-reason or an end-goal or an end-feeling; that unshakeable *something* that is at the heart of a vid, and as long as that core reason is there, then I know how to structure the vid to get there. Because, see, for the most part I am assuming an audience at full rest and thus whatever vid I'm doing needs to take the audience to that end-reason. For The Fragile it's the feeling when Corbin shatters at the element pedestal, and they both get re-made into the weapon. For Lucky You it's that creeping shiver when the kid tells you it wouldn't end. For Sunburned it's the implosion of all effort and all color into empty grey. I'm not sure that the POV is so necessary as this knowledge of where the vid must go. [edit: on hind-thought I think what I'm getting at here is author intent]
Which is both a depressing realization and an invigorating one all at the same time; because even though it means un-learning and re-thinking my vid conceptualizing process, it means that there's more styles of vid now, to explore.
which: w00t!
[edited in multiple places on 7.8.5 for clarity]
Additional thoughts: Vidding without a POV doesn't mean that the audience can't bring a POV to the vid; it just means that it's constructed without one.
Second post here.
tartanshell's post here; I've written a subsequent post here]So: Point of View in vids.
[edit: definition via Dictionary.com here, "The attitude or outlook of a narrator or character in a piece of literature, a movie, or another art form."
...I am referring to POV as a vehicle of vidding logic as used by a vidder, NOT to it's appearance or lack there-of in a vid, and not referring to possible POV of the vidder themself, which I label more along the lines of authorial intent. Major apologies for lack of clarity on this topic the first time around.]
Is it really necessary? (regaring the use of it by a vidder in the process of constructing a vid) 'Cause yanno, everyone makes POV out to be a big deal and yet if you ask audiences I bet that about 50% of the time more or less they get it wrong anyways, and yet the vid *still* works.
And if the vid still *works* despite the POV not being discernable, is point of view necessary in the creation of it? Tricky thing here is, of course, that about 90% of the detail and craft (? I don't know a better word for this that might sound less pretentious) in a vid is subconscious. There was that analogy awhile ago about fic-writing being like leading a blindfolded audience down a tunnel so that they might get to the end and then see the light. Dude, vidding? Vidding is like hurtling your audience down a black tunnel on a runaway train going at 100mph; most of the details that make the ride the most effective aren't even conscious; which, hell, no wonder most people are stumped while leaving feedback.
But that's another discussion.
Granted, POV *might* be inherent in vids just because of the nature of the music and the way most people listen to it. There's usually one singer and the POV is usually assigned to that one singer; but can't the vid be structured around something other than POV?
Is, then, POV just an organizing methodology?
'Cause I wonder too, if this methodology of most vidders is the best thing to have and/or advocate. And I use that term because organizing vids around a POV, for all it's usefulness, still simply a method, and thus still simply arbitrary. For all the usefulness, sometimes, of setting a specific POV for a vid, it's not really useful in the construction of semi- or completely omniscient vids. And it doesn't cover most non-narrative vids; it can't really help the character study, nor the meta vid, nor the multi-fandom vid, nor the mood vid, nor the movement vid.
'Cause not only are these vids based on different, but equally valid, aesthetics (which doesn't necessarily mean that the vid doesn't *work*, it just doesn't work the same *way*); but the process of organizing these types of vids around a defined, grounded, singular POV might possibly hurt them. In some ways I think that was part of why I was so completely frustrated with and destroyed over Gravity, because it was essentially a mood piece for my micro-fandom, or rather a mood vid with emotional arc. It's essentially a failure if you judge it in strict narrative guidlines, which for a long time I couldn't see beyond; and the only thing that allowed me to finish Gravity was by repeatedly giving up narrative and pretty much vidding in total abject despair of a decent product.
If nothing else, I think that, for me at least, I don't need a POV in the construction of a vid...but what I *need* is that end-reason or an end-goal or an end-feeling; that unshakeable *something* that is at the heart of a vid, and as long as that core reason is there, then I know how to structure the vid to get there. Because, see, for the most part I am assuming an audience at full rest and thus whatever vid I'm doing needs to take the audience to that end-reason. For The Fragile it's the feeling when Corbin shatters at the element pedestal, and they both get re-made into the weapon. For Lucky You it's that creeping shiver when the kid tells you it wouldn't end. For Sunburned it's the implosion of all effort and all color into empty grey. I'm not sure that the POV is so necessary as this knowledge of where the vid must go. [edit: on hind-thought I think what I'm getting at here is author intent]
Which is both a depressing realization and an invigorating one all at the same time; because even though it means un-learning and re-thinking my vid conceptualizing process, it means that there's more styles of vid now, to explore.
which: w00t!
[edited in multiple places on 7.8.5 for clarity]
Additional thoughts: Vidding without a POV doesn't mean that the audience can't bring a POV to the vid; it just means that it's constructed without one.
Second post here.
Tags:
no subject
I'd say that the majority of my vids have a single-character POV, but that that's determined by the pronouns used in the song rather than anything I'm doing especially consciously. If the song says "I", then it's in that character's POV. If it's "we" or "he" or "they", it's omniscient. Usually. *g* "Wouldn't It Be Nice" is the most obvious exception -- it's a first person plural song, but the POV for the vid is omniscient, and I think the fact that it's a multi-fandom vid is what makes this comprehensible.
(Which makes me wonder if vid POVs can be broken down even further: first person singular, first person plural, third person, omniscient -- how would you distinguish a third person "he" in a vid from an omniscient "he" in a vid? Someone smarter than me needs to weigh in on this!)
OTOH, as a *viewer* I often find myself paying way more attention to POV than I do as a vidder, I guess because it usually takes me a few seconds into a vid to understand what the vidder's trying to do -- in those initial seconds, one of the first questions I ask is "Whose story is this?", and POV seems to follow naturally after that question.
I have to say that I think a strongly-defined POV is important, because a lot of viewers get lost if the vid lacks that kind of specificity. I get twitchy when a vid seems to flip haphazardly around between two or more characters' points of view, if the "I" lands on multiple characters seemingly randomly, and so on. Who's speaking? How do I understand the story you're showing me if I don't know who's telling it?
no subject
OTOH, as a *viewer* I often find myself paying way more attention to POV than I do as a vidder, I guess because it usually takes me a few seconds into a vid to understand what the vidder's trying to do -- in those initial seconds, one of the first questions I ask is "Whose story is this?", and POV seems to follow naturally after that question.
I find I do the reverse. I'm very concerned with who is thinking/saying what in my vids. I see someone else's vid, I get a general sense of what the vid is saying about the character(s) and don't really worry about where the insights are coming from unless for some reason I find myself disagreeing with them.
Which makes me wonder if vid POVs can be broken down even further: first person singular, first person plural, third person, omniscient -- how would you distinguish a third person "he" in a vid from an omniscient "he" in a vid?
Ooh, tricky.
Is the thought one a character would have about him/herself (third person limited, then) or one that the vidder is having about the character in a meta context (third person omniscient, maybe) or one that a fellow character would have about that character (second person twice removed???) and the viewer makes a best guess?
Have to ponder this more.
no subject
Yes! This exactly! Whenever I start thinking about it my brain explodes; I can't use it as an organizing principle at all...I'm guessing that I use mood instead.
I have to say that I think a strongly-defined POV is important, because a lot of viewers get lost if the vid lacks that kind of specificity.
With this, I wonder if it's lack of a clear vision for where the vid's going? Because a vid's trying to take one from pt. A to pt. B; and as
no subject
'Cause if you can get from pt. A to pt. B without using the logical construct of a POV, in a clear and concise way, doesn't that make the method equally as valid?
Theoretically, yes, it's just that I have a hard time imagining what a vid that did that would look like. (: You may not consciously consider POV when you vid, but that doesn't mean your vids don't use it well anyway.
no subject
And thus you don't use it as a logical construct, which is exactly my point. =D
but that doesn't mean your vids don't use it well anyway.
yes! or that it's contributed by the audience
it's just that I have a hard time imagining what a vid that did that would look like.
Sunburned, my Hero vid =). I did no POV work or POV thinking or POV logic while making it, it played no part in it's construction until I finished it and sat back to look at it and found something that I could call it a POV of.
no subject
I'm not sure what you mean by "using POV as a logical construct". My not having to think about POV is simply because the song does it for me. You may not intentionally work with POV in your vids, but your vids still all have a POV, regardless of whether or not they are narrative, or whether or not they play around with time.
no subject
I mean about the construct thing in that I don't consciously use it when vidding; that while it might or might not be there, it does not define the order of the clips. It does not bear on the conscious, deliberate logic of the clips during vidding.
Gah, I'm probably explaining this bad again, umm...do you know about the theory of the Dominant? How all art have a sort of formulism and at one point or another the Dominant shifts?
Like for a long time, poetry wasn't considered worth crap if it didn't rhyme or if it wasn't in rhythm or if it wasn't a certain length. These are all types of a Dominant, that determines how one concieves of a "good" piece of art...and here I'm mostly trying to say that a "good" vid isn't necessarily a narrative vid. And by considering the narrative in the vidding processes Dominant it's overlooking the potential of other vidding styles.
This doesn't make narrative vidding less valid, it just makes it a bit less primary...and I seriously think that non-narrative vidding may not have been the best it could be, because they were trying to be narrative vids, and failing.
no subject
I'd love to look at your vid if you still want to show me. Email me today with download info.
Last time round about POV: I think POV doesn't define the *order* of the clips so much as *which* clips one uses. Have you considered it from that direction?
I'm mostly trying to say that a "good" vid isn't necessarily a narrative vid. And I agree with you. But non-narrative vids still have points of view.
no subject
=D You shall be post-production beta! =) tell me if it looks okay on a mac?
on the POV thing, I'll have to think on that a bit more, I think
no subject