vidding, POV, why naming things is a tricky business (and Picasso)

[permetaform]

[compelled by discussions stemming from previous vid thoughts post]

From discussions it has increasingly become clear that the issue of Point of View in vids has been mixed up into various things:
1) the Point of View of the characters in the vids
2) the Point of View of the audience (ie. 50% of a vid*)
3) the Point of View of the creator (ie. the other 50% of a vid. ie. artistic intent)

*_{What I mean by 50% of a vid is that a piece of art is both the created product and the viewer's response to the product, one cannot exist without the other. A vid, as a artistic product, exists in that space between the artist and the audience. (or as my roommate quotes: "God exists not in one man, but in the process of connection from one person to another")}

And dude, all these three things are NOT equal. The 'Point of View of the audience' cannot and should not be absolutely controlled by the creator (which could also be called "literalism", the *bad* kind). The 'Point of View of the characters' is an artistic construct, it's a narrative device, it's arbitrary; there exists forms of art that do not demand Point of View in it's construction, such as certain music and some genres of the painting and poetry and the like. A 'Point of View of the characters' is part of a narrative style and is internal to the story-world (the diegesis) of the artistic product.

What I am, in the end, tripping over and flailing myself into icky inksplats in vidding discussions is the bit regarding the 'Point of View of the creator', that other 50%, and the exact naming of it. It's, of all three, the most necessary (I think) and inherent in art itself; there would be no art if no artist felt that they did not have a worthy thing to convey. (Which is probably why most successful artists are somewhat arrogant assholes and aren't delicate flowers, but that's a discussion for another time.) But thus the 'Point of View of the creator' is so inherent to art itself that I think it's taken mostly for granted in discussions of artwork, so when Point of View is usually spoken of (in most discussions of art that I participate in) it's in regards to the characters within that artwork and *not* to an external awareness or outlook such as either an omniscient or an artistic Point of View.

Usually in general fandoms, when there's discussion of the 'Point of View' of the creator, it's usually labeled something like author or artist 'intent'.

And it's the naming of the vidder's intent as 'POV' that tripped me up in the end in vidding discussions.

The problem with calling it 'Point of View' instead of vidder 'intent' is that not only that at least lierdumoa and I got massively confused during discussions of vidding Point of View, but that Point of View practically implies narrative and a narrative logic to the vid. This is crippling when you're attempting to make a vid non-narrative; it's crippling when you don't naturally work in strict narrative format. It's the round peg into a square hole syndrome; it just won't work unless you're willing to let it hurt.

(luckily I'm a vidding masochist, as lierdumoa can attest)

The specific labeling of vidder's authorial intent as "Point of View" was actually detrimental to me for certain stages of a couple vids; in fact some of the most fun vidding I've had is probably from my first vids where I didn't worry about vidding rules and in Hero vid which I'd conceived as a visual kata and not really as especially narrative. (The narrative I've pieced together only after I had a chance to sit back and take a look at it.)

Incidentally, this is why I'm almost afraid to give newbies advice sometimes, because for every new vidder who has an element to their style on which I can give decent advice there's about 2 or 3 vidders for whom I *know* that any advice I might give them will steer them towards choices that might make *me* happier, but might not be the best for them or their vid or their vidding style.

'Cause, really, I would rather see a kick-ass unique vid that makes me like the vid despite myself rather than seeing a mediocre vid that's panderingly similar to what I usually like. And the kick-ass vid would be kick-ass *because* it would be in that vidder's own style, *because* that's where their artistic soul/inclination/intent resides, *because* creating things in one's own style brings out the absolute best in one's creativity and talent.

Just look at Picasso.


Meanwhile, I'm off to rail at vid some more. (t-minus 2 days. _{and counting})

[edit] Note, just because the vidder didn't give the vid a narrative and didn't give the vid a character POV doesn't mean that they don't exist. It just means that narrative or the character POV might be in that 50% contributed by the audience.

Comments

[klia.livejournal.com]

but that Point of View practically implies narrative and a narrative logic to the vid. This is crippling when you're attempting to make a vid non-narrative; it's crippling when you don't naturally work in strict narrative format. It's the round peg into a square hole syndrome

I think part of the confusion over POV came from people (waves at lierdumoa making up their own terms for things when terms already existed. ;)

But also, you keep talking about how crippling and constraining an established POV is, and I honestly don't understand why. Consistent POV is vital to any kind of storytelling, and omniscient POV -- sort of a god's-eye view -- isn't the least bit limiting, because you're not specifically in any character's head. How is that limiting?

The other thing is, the only songs that don't already have some sort of established POV are *instrumentals*. Otherwise, whether you like it or not, lyrics, even very vague ones, contribute to the story. And even if the lyrics aren't easy to understand, you can bet people in your audience (like me) will look them up to see how they fit into the story. You can ignore them, of course, but I always wonder why anyone would use a song and pointedly ignore the lyrics. To me, that's just bad song choice.

Is it possible you're somehow confusing POV with linear
storytelling? That you think an established POV means you can't mess with time, or explore several ideas, or something like that?

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

I think part of the confusion over POV came from people (waves at [info]lierdumoa making up their own terms for things when terms already existed. ;)

YES! Thank you.

::collapses exhausted::

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking this is a generation gap thing. I picked up that particular usage of POV from fellow newbie fic writers when I first joined fandom three years ago and was reading BtVS and HP on ff.net. It's not my own personal vocabulary. I *did* know the proper English terms before I ever started using POV in that way. It's fandom slang from a particular subset of fandom that started up at a particular time. I got so used to seeing it that I incorporated it into my regular vocabulary.

This is what I meant earlier when I said I wrote my post in shorthand. I was using fannish abbreviations from a fandom dialect that you were unfamiliar with. Once I realized that most of the people reading my post were not familiar with the shorthand, I rewrote my post in longhand.

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

I don't know that this has anything at all to do with generation gaps or what have you.

In vidding we have worked to develop a standard vocabulary - a vocabulary that exists mainly so that we can *talk* to each other about these things.

But there are still terms that exist as they, well as they exist. They mean the same thing regardless of the medium. Point of view is one of those terms.

From now on - if you hear or read a vid meta post about POV (or any other literary device or musical term appropriated for vidding discussion) - assume we mean the proper English terms as I can't think of any situations where those terms have been appropriated and redefined. It is just too confusing.

Actually, the only missappropriation I can think of fandom wide is calling a fan fiction story - "a fic" which is not correct but is understood and widely used. Terminogy has also developed as needed (slash for example) but usually the terms mean the same thing that they always mean.

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

From now on - if you hear or read a vid meta post about POV (or any other literary device or musical term appropriated for vidding discussion) - assume we mean the proper English terms as I can't think of any situations where those terms have been appropriated and redefined. It is just too confusing.

Of course! I pick up slang and then forget that it's slang. I don't mean to be confusing, and I apologize for any past misunderstandings.

[elynross.livejournal.com]

There was some incredibly annoying stupidity in PM when I was reading it, where writers (and I use the term loosely) would label a story as "POV" when it was a first-person story. As if there was no POV if it wasn't first-person.

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

But also, you keep talking about how crippling and constraining an established POV is, and I honestly don't understand why. Consistent POV is vital to any kind of storytelling

But what if you're not telling a story? Rather, how do you define a story? You mentioned that a narrative can be linear or nonlinear. Both of these terms imply some sort of passage of time.

I've seen vids with no discernable time flow in any direction (backwards, forwards, circular, etc.). These were successful vids, in my opinion. Their sole purpose, it seemed, was to create a mood, or atmosphere if you will. The vids then elaborated on that atmosphere and give it nuances over the course of the song. linzeems' Porcelain comes immediately to mind, as does carr0ts1979's Drinking in LA.

Porcelain could have been in an omniscient POV, an outside observer of the subject, Scully. It could have been in the POV of the subject of the vid. Perhaps if you were to watch the vid, you would be able to come up with a definitive answer. For me watching it, however, POV didn't matter. POV wasn't vital to my enjoyment of the vid. linzeems came from a fanart background, and described her vid (a very apt description, I thought) as a moving collage. One wouldn't generally look at a piece of fanart, like a collage, and ask whose POV it was in or if that POV was consistent.

carr0ts1979' vid, I think, did have a definitive POV. It was from the viewpoint of the character Justin (though this vid's interpretation of that particular character is very different from anything else I've seen in the fandom). Though it was in his POV, I didn't detect a narrative of any sort. It was as if the vidder were trying to bring the viewer inside of Justin's head for a moment -- as if the vid was about Justin's state of being instead of his experiences.

I wonder if I perhaps asked the wrong question earlier. Maybe it's less a question of how we define story as a question of how we define vid. Is a vid that does not have a narrative or a consistent POV or a POV at all still a vid? If it is a vid, can it be a successful vid?

Perhaps it isn't by your standards, or even by my standards, but I know a shitload of anime fanboys who'd disagree with the both of us.

;-)

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

A story does not have to occur in a vid. A point though - a point needs to be made. This, of course, is my opinion.

There is a reason I don't hang with (many) anime fanboys (I kind of have to deal with one on a daily basis, though). There is a reason that I feel like a lot of vids online are absolute dreck. That reason is usually that the vidder either didn't have a point to make or an idea what she/he was doing or just didn't care. Usually she didn't care and was sloppy.

Sloppy vids are not enjoyable - to me. I am not here for that. I'm really not here for something that looks pretty but has no meaning. I don't think the vidder has to consciously know the meaning while working on a project (often? I don't. Or I do but I am not able to verbally explain it)

I think, however - that we are arguing about two different things at this point and it feels like we are just going in circles. A narrative that is nonlinear does not have to imply the passage of time - but dude - time is passing in your vid. Trust me. It has to pass. We reach the end. The vid show is over. Time is integral to a vid - otherwise we call it a still picture.

Just because a POV could be one or the other (first person or third omniscient) doesn't mean that it does not exist. As long as whatever it is is consistent or changes with a *reason* you are fine. The vid will be okay (from a POV standpoint). POV does not imply narrative or genre.

How about this: Show me a vid that works and has no discernable (and that means 3rd person omniscient pov)POV.

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

There is a reason I don't hang with (many) anime fanboys (I kind of have to deal with one on a daily basis, though).

Ah, yes. Many of them are skeery aliens.

:P



I think, however - that we are arguing about two different things at this point and it feels like we are just going in circles.

That does seem to happen a lot with me. I think I live too much in my own head.



Show me a vid that works and has no discernable (and that means 3rd person omniscient pov)POV.

::confused again::

Are we drawing a distinction between the vid's POV and the vidder's POV? I'm thinking of Mudd's "In The Year 2525." If you ignore the author's POV, you're essentially ignoring the vid. The vid is a meta essay on technology and it's effect on the world. Or maybe that's not so much that the vid doesn't has POV as that the author's POV and the vid's POV are one and the same.

You know, I'm not sure I know what that paragraph I just wrote means.

I'm starting to think POV's are like aspect ratios. *g*

I have a certain fondness for the anime video "Stop the Rock" but I don't know if you'd define that as a vid that works. It works for me. It's a dancy vid that as far as I can tell has no POV, even omniscient, as it's only point is to look cool. That really depends entirely on what standards you're using to judge.

[permetaform]

A point though - a point needs to be made. This, of course, is my opinion.

yes, exactly. And in my post I argued that that's what art is, conveying a point to your audience.

I don't think sloppy vids are the same as non-narrative ones. They *could* be, but some narrative vids are sloppy too.

A narrative that is nonlinear does not have to imply the passage of time - but dude - time is passing in your vid. Trust me. It has to pass. We reach the end. The vid show is over. Time is integral to a vid - otherwise we call it a still picture.

yes, but that doesn't mean that the vid can't implode time and it doesn't mean that the vid can't sit outside time and it doesn't mean that time can't be warped within it.

Just because a POV could be one or the other (first person or third omniscient) doesn't mean that it does not exist.

Exactly, and I'm arguing that *sometimes* it exists in that 50% that the audience brings to the vid. And that by not allowing it to exist in the audience's 50% could inhibit creativity.


Show me a vid that works and has no discernable (and that means 3rd person omniscient pov)POV.

Wargh...there are multiple parts to your request. 'Cause you're asking me to show you a bad vid and that defeats the point of my whole argument. I'm saying that the vidder doesn't need to think about POV in the *process* of making a vid, and that a good vid will allow room for an audience to contribute a POV if they wish for one.

I don't quite know how to answer this request. I don't know exactly how my Sunburned, my Hero vid, worked for you on a mental and emotional level; but I didn't really think about POV when I was clipping and laying down clips and whatnot. It was only afterwards, after I could take a step back from the vid, that I sorta tagged it as the Emporer's POV and sorta meta-ed around what I already had made.

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

Your Sunburned and Hero vids do have a consistent POV. That was part of what I looked for in them. That was never a problem. You might not have known consciously what you were doing - but you did it.

I'm saying that the vidder doesn't need to think about POV in the *process* of making a vid, and that a good vid will allow room for an audience to contribute a POV if they wish for one.


ALL Vids allow the audience to figure out the POV. There is no such thing as Audience POV, btw - we are using this term incorrectly. The POV belongs to the vid and it is up to the audience to interpret. Your audience? Will interpret however they may your vid. Don't stress about that.

However I do think it is important to be aware that you are being consistent when you vid. I don't think you have to focus on it initially if it cramps your style but I also think that by calling about a gazillion different things POV (that are not) and arguing against them, we are doing a disservice to other vidders who might be looking to us for advice.

First and foremost - we should use our terminology correctly. You can have authorial intent and audience interpretation and NONE of that is POV. The POV only belongs to the Vid. Can we agree on that?

[permetaform]

Consistent POV is vital to any kind of storytelling, and omniscient POV -- sort of a god's-eye view -- isn't the least bit limiting, because you're not specifically in any character's head. How is that limiting?

That's sort of an inherent judgement on what a vid *is*.

Conveying information isn't necessarily storytelling. It COULD be, but it doesn't HAVE to. I can learn about someone just by being around them, they don't HAVE to tell me their lifestory.

By constraining a vid only to a being a story (a narrative), it's constraining the ways that the vidder is allowed to convey information. And I think all art is a form of one people communicating with another.

You don't have to communicate through words, you don't have to communicate through stories.

Is it possible you're somehow confusing POV with linear
storytelling? That you think an established POV means you can't mess with time, or explore several ideas, or something like that?

Nope, I'm saying a total *collaspe* of time.