[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

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I'm just representing those who think it's a bit odd to take this hobby that seriously.

This is one of the comments that I must say made me feel a bit uneasy. You say that you are representing those who think this way. I can't tell if you really feel that there are many of these people and they need representation or if you are simply afraid to say directly that you in particular find this an odd hobby to take seriously. Are you worried that if you state your opinions as your own you will be attacked for having them? Perhaps I'm being overly suspicious.

In any case, I can understand where your coming from. I think most people find it odd to take a hobby seriously unless it is a hobby that they themselves take seriously.



It's not that I look down as much as it is I just don't get it. Why refer to oneself as "pretentious" and "elitist" in all these icons I see if you're not trying to put yourself (general "yourself") in a lofty position where you can look down at others?

I had a similar reaction to yours the first time I saw those icons. I was kind of uncomfortable how they were worded. I figured it was probably an in joke and so I asked one of the people who had them what they meant. I was pleasantly relieved to find that the women who had them were not really pretentious or elitiest or bitchy, at least no more than anyone else I'd met in fandom.

There are two kinds of in jokes -- the kind that grow out of a humorous situation, and the kind that grow out of a miserable situation that people are forced to find humor in. In this case, these women were told that discussing vids in a serious and intellectual manner automatically made them pretentious and elitist. They were still determined to have intellectual discussions. People will still do what they love to do even when they are ridiculed for doing it. So they made the icons as a bitter sort of joke. Eventually the bitterness faded, and we all see them as rather silly.

I'm sure they'd be surprised to find you took them this seriously. Frankly, I was surprised to see you taking them this seriously. We may choose our icons to represent us, but really all they are is little picture squares. Rarely could they tell you anything meaninful about the person who owns them.



And when I see the same names pop up over and over in these types of discussions, I just lose interest and wonder why the cliques? and where's the fun? Just me.

I'm not sure what you mean by cliques. There aren't a lot of people who enjoy really in-depth vid discussion. It's not surprising that when these people want to have in-depth vid discussion they end up, more often than not, having it with each other. I suppose you feel that it is impossible for you to take part in these discussions by their very nature. I hope you don't think that anyone is intentionally excluding you.

Again, I'm feeling somewhat uncomfortable with your comment here. You talk about such vidders as if we were all the same and as if we were one big exclusive group of friends. Again, perhaps I'm misinterpreting this. I know that I am not friends with all the other vidders in this discussion. Even my friends list isn't really a friends list at all, but a list of acquaintances who talk about the same things I like to talk about.

Where is the fun? I think in-depth vid discussion is fun. That's why I'm in this post in the first place. Do you feel you can't talk to vidders who have these kind of discussions because you don't care about vid meta? If you don't share this interest with them, I don't see why you would want to talk to them.

I think I can understand where your coming from. Livejournal is a public forum. We often forget that livejournal is, at it's core, a system for journaling. Honestly, how often do we actually think about who's going to read our posts when we write them? I know when I talk about vids on my journal, I just want somewhere to put my thoughts. I never think about who might be reading it and whether or not they will understand everything I say. If I did, I'd feel like a prisoner in my own journal.