[viddish] Gattaca WIP, Connecting with audiences, and Other thinkyness

[permetaform]

lierdumoa and I knew that we shared scary scary vidding brain wherein we knew roughly 80% of what the other was thinking in regard to vid-like things and to test this out we vidded for a weekend with the same fandom and the same song.

It is of great amusement to both of us that we came up with entirely different vids; granted, part of the reason is because I was experimenting with a totally different style.

How Soon | 640x480 (.wmv, 30 Mb)
_{Source: 'Gattaca', owned by Columbia
Song: 'How Soon Is Now' by Love Spit Love
Summary: unabashed WIP}
Extras: Vidder process notes.

I don't think I ever would have the urge to rework this into something tighter, so I present the following to ya'll as a WIP (or is that a VIP? Vid In Progress?). It's a lot more loosely beatwhorish than my other vids, although it still makes me vaguely happy, probably because I can see in my head what the effects are supposed to look like. And the effects-only-I-can-see give me enough glee that I'm less compelled to actually render them in the vid, especially with new and shinier things on my to-vid plate.

Long story short, I'm still curious as to what ya'll think of this vid style, 'cause it's so different from my regular one. To be honest, I thought I'd get bored of watching it, but I don't, and I'm not sure why.

I'm also wondering if there's...how should I say it...disenfranchised viewers out there? ie. vid viewers who are disappointed by today's fanshionable vids because it doesn't connect to them somehow?

If so, what is missing in our current attempts to connect to the audience? Is it the fact that the song is not connecting? Are the clips moving at too fast a rate? Is it the fact that the vid is too ivory-tower avant-garde-ish? Are the songs too long?

The reason why I ask this is that my personal view on art is that its purpose is to connect with people. That's why it is perfectly reasonable for me to view entertainment as art, and it's facinating to me what captures people's attention and what doesn't.

How do I communicate with you?

Or rather,

How do I, as a vidder, communicate with you, as a viewer?

And specifically communicating to a viewer that is not part of the echo-chamber that is all too easy to fall into in all walks of life; how do I communicate with the Other, that does not already see eye-to-eye with me?

Is this communication even *possible*?

I'd like to believe that it is.

For instance, poison_pagan has a totally different vid aesthetic than me, and to be totally honest I read poison_pagan's reviews for the ones that she rates 6 or below, 'cause those vids I tend to like the best. It's simply a different aesthetic.

Question is: is it possible to vid to both aesthetics simultaneously?

Also: *should* it be a goal to vid to both aesthetics simultaneously?

[edit] addendum via thought from laurashapiro: this is a false binary, but here for now for the sake of argument. There's multiple audiences, but can they be communicated with more than one at a time? [/edit]

To borrow morgandawn and laurashapiro's metaphor (god, I love how those ladies makes me think ::blows kisses::), one cannot and should not expect a person who likes PWPs to absolutely adore long angsty epics; they *might* also like it, but it's not a certainty.

And to be honest, fic-wise, I really usually love only the short stories. It's the rare long-fic that I am able to like/invest in. Why should it be different for vids and vid watching?

...

wow, that was rambly. Feel free to respond to any or all parts of the above. ::hugs flist:: Connecting with one's audience is such a fickle matter; wickedwords tried to start a conversation about this last VVC (::gives major props::), but it got choked by the challenge vid-show. She is absolutely right, however, that this conversation should probably take place and I adore her brain for realizing this and bringing this realization to people's attention.

For reference, laurashapiro's great Connecting With Audiences panel notes.

[edit] and her thoughts on vidding Farscape (aka. vidding for multiple levels of viewers)

[edit2] I don't want to be totally catering to the audience, but the fact is that you can't connect your piece with your audience unless you understand your audience enough to understand what they *don't* know, and be able to fill in those gaps. The step that takes them a bit beyond what they already know is, then, the second half of art; it's connecting them back to *you*. Full circle.

[edit3] OHHHH, cathexys' comment, from lierdumoa's made me realise that some of the flashier effects in vids actually *looked* more complicated than they actually are and thus get applauded more. ::headdesks:: This is what you get for being in an echo-chamber, I was totally confused as to why people were so ga-ga over the effects in the Oz version of "Chemicals Between Us".

[edit4] sockkpuppett's brought up a really good point: how do we define an audience? Personally, after these discussions, I'm thinking that an audience is a group of people with a similar knowledge and/or aesthetic base.

The reason why this is important is because a vid that you plan to show a particular audience has to both fill in their gaps of knowledge AND recognize what is already common knowledge and shorthand that.

One of the most brilliant shorthanding's I've seen is shalott and melina's The Mountain vid, wherein they used one perfectly placed shot (of Boromir rubbing his sword handle while Aragorn watches, or was that the otherway around...) to summarize the Aragorn/Boromir relationship, which OMG, was more effective than a complete vid.

[edit5] by elynross:To me, taking the audience into consideration is something that comes in, in part, during the beta process, and involves making sure that to the best of your ability, you've communicated what you want to communicate

[...]

What matters to me is the care and concern of the vidder involved, the intentionality, the skill and/or the signs of talent that can be hidden in the vid of a less-skilled vidder.

[edit6] by musexmoirai: "I think the different expectations often arise from the fact that songs in comedic vids tend to be specific and removed from the fandom shown, so there's a sense of 'wow, that's clever,' when someone is able to find a particularly good match of song/image. Whereas more emotional, serious songs with slower beats tend to have more universal lyrics because of the emotions expressed. So I end up looking for interpretation and it gets a little boring when every kiss is a kiss."

[edit7] from this thread by lierdumoa: "I think the vast majority of live action effects are designed to be subtle. You're not supposed to see them -- you're supposed to feel them. [...] I think anything that's put in to tie the vid together rather than break it apart is going to be harder to notice for someone who's not looking for it."

[edit8] discussion on clean aethetics

[edit9] by hannahrorlove: "I think knowing the fandom is important to 'getting' a vid, but not completely necessary. If the vid-maker has a goal in mind and is able to communicate that - "this is a tragic love story," "this is just too silly to be believed" - then they succeeded in their goal. [...]

You cannot communicate with everyone who might see or interact with the vid, but you can try to reach out to most. This is probably done by just making the vid clear in terms of what its message is."

NOTE: these highlights are not comprehensive, nor complete

Your thoughts?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps that was a poor example. I was trying to make a point that the overall language used when discussing the vidding process can sometimes be a bit much for the average viewer or the newbie vidder. What are viewers supposed to think when they want to watch a vid but feel like they have to read a primer on basic vidding techniques and concepts, not to mention pages of notes, in order to understand them? It's a little off putting.

[adrienneherbst.livejournal.com]

So I've been reading your replies in this thread, and hey! You appear to have dropped the whole Using Capitalizations To Achieve A Nasty Effect tack! Hurray!

Anyway:

1.) "But can't we just be honest about the whole thing? It ain't high art."

You seem to be implying, in this, that taking vidding seriously (or intellectualizing it) is dishonest-- that the meta-talk and analysis that you're complaining about isn't simple arrogance but actual pretension in the strictest definition of the term, e.g. the "Very Important Vidders" are faking all of this for some suspect reason that probably has something to do with making people think they are smarter than those who don't engage in the kind of discursive analysis that they do. I think that this is a misconception and a sad one-- as permetaform said, the meta-talk really is a huge amount of fun for the people who participate in it. This is their hobby-- if it weren't fun, they wouldn't be doing it. (Also, keep in mind that this particular vidding community has a very high fandom content, and fandom tends to have a ton of overlap with academia-- people who do this sort of thing for fun are basically endemic, and, no, they're not faking it-- they're nerds, in an internet nerd community. They really do do this for fun.)

2.) "What are viewers supposed to think when they want to watch a vid but feel like they have to read a primer on basic vidding techniques and concepts, not to mention pages of notes, in order to understand them?

Erm, well, I would say that if they just want to watch vids and have fun with it, they certainly shouldn't feel that they have to understand technique etc, nor should they feel that this lack of information precludes giving feedback. However, if you're asking if "viewers" and "newbies" should have a basic grasp of technique if they want to participate in analytical discourse, then I would say, certainly so. When dealing with people who create things-- and want to talk about the creative process with them-- it's probably a good idea to know what you're talking about. This is just the way creative communities work.

3.) "I would agree the conversation was intelligent, but I didn't read any comments that addressed those in the audience who might not want to read the meta, the notes, and the general discourse of vidding. They just want to be entertained..."

Permetaform already addressed this at length, but I have to say, it puzzles me as much as it does her. You seem to be asking, essentially, why nobody bothered to tailor this discussion to people who, as a rule, don't want to read this kind of discussion anyway. The implication of this is that you, speaking for the "viewing" portion of the vidding community, expect the creative component of the community to direct /all/ aspects of their vidding presence to further your entertainment-- i.e. "it's unfair and mean for you to be talking about stuff I don't enjoy reading!"-- but that's such an unbelievably selfish and churlish attitude that I think it would be beyond impolite to accuse you of harboring it. So, assuming that this is /not/ what you meant by your observation that there were no "comments that addressed those members of the audience who might not want to read the... discourse of vidding", what did you mean? Do you think that the creative community is prohibitively technical and should be making more efforts to integrate those who are unfamiliar with terminology into their discussions-- that they should be helping n00bs and "the average viewer" to catch up, but aren't, and are therefore being elitist creeps? That would be a valid complaint, but I'm pretty sure that the community of veteran vidders has been trying to address this-- people are working on making such a primer, and I believe there's a wiki in the works. Is that what you meant?

[adrienneherbst.livejournal.com]

The gist of all of this is that it seems like you are arguing that it is somehow unfair for the people who create vids to be more invested in them (emotionally, intellectually, etc) than those who just watch them. I don't really understand the logic behind this-- you are talking about a community of creative hobbyists. The amount of time and effort put into making something-- anything! is automatically going to mean that they're into the creative process, and especially more than someone who is just a casual connoiseur of the products that they create.

It's a little off putting.

Okay, I could (and probably should) have scrapped this whole post and just asked the simple question-- WHY is it off-putting? I'm definitely getting the vibe that you, and whoever you're speaking for, feel that all the meta-talk somehow interferes with simply viewing and enjoying the products of that meta. This is not something that makes sense to me. Would you mind explaining?

[(Anonymous)]

WHY is it off-putting? I'm definitely getting the vibe that you, and whoever you're speaking for, feel that all the meta-talk somehow interferes with simply viewing and enjoying the products of that meta. This is not something that makes sense to me. Would you mind explaining?

I tried to do that here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/permetaform/268498.html?thread=3685842#t3685842). How successful I was in explaining is subjective. I appreciate all you've given me to deliberate.