[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

[nerdanel.livejournal.com]

Hello anon,

I was just linked to this thread and had a few thoughts; I hope you don't mind. I speak as someone who has never strung more than fifteen seconds of clips together in Premiere, but enjoys being in the audience and watching what others can do. So, I am not a Very Important Vidder and I do not use Very Important Vidding Terms :)

I think that with any "field", whether in academia, RL entertainment, fandom, whatever, there are going to be people who are more involved and less. The more involved are going to spend more time on it, have more discussions on it, etc. They're also going to seek each other out, because you can't go up to someone in Starbucks and strike up a conversation on most of these things, whether it's Supreme Court jurisprudence or vidding-related "false binaries". You have to find the people like you. And once you find people who "get it", you're going to cluster.

Is there anything wrong with this picture so far? I hope not.

It's axiomatic that other people are going to get pleasure from and want to spend time on different things than you are. And if you're not one of the ones who "gets it", one of the people who understands why they are this particular level of enthusiastic about this particular thing, you are going to feel that they are taking it "all too seriously". But, how is that for you to judge? That's their call, isn't it? Who cares whether people are enthusiastic about a derivative medium vs. "high art"? (even assuming that a derivative medium is automatically barred from the status of high art) It makes sense to them. It's fun for them. Why does there need to be more than that? If it's too involved to be fun for you (as it often is for me, given that I'm not even a vidder), just back off and let the people who want to be that level of involved talk at that level.

Honestly, my first reaction to EBVs was, "Yeah, that's too involved, c'mon." But then I thought, who am I to judge? I daresay they'd think I'm "too involved" in 10000 other things that I really enjoy, too. I think "too seriously" is something that only the people doing it can judge. If it's right for them, then it's all good. And if they are too involved, who cares if their discussions are elitist? (not my opinion, but I'm responding to yours) Presumably they are discussing at a level you wouldn't even want to be involved at.

/redundant, but I'm in a rush