March 20, 2006
EN: MIT Media Lab Europe: Designing an Instrument for Cinema Editing as a Live Performance
Its refreshing to see that even the MIT sees "Live Cinema" as a valid future artform and dedicates a course in its European Media Lab to the development of a Live Cinema Instrument.
The result is interesting as it gives a glimpse of how the future with transparent screens and kickass fast computers could give us - yet it is also a rip off of the fabled "Minority Report" movie interface where Tom Cruise is switching through millions of video shots like a mad man just with the movement of his hand.
This is exactly how the system proposed by the MIT Media Lab works. With gestural movements you move images over a half transparent screen and arrange them into an order - then you fire off cuts on a what they call "video drum". That is drum as in "banging loud rocknroll drum" and drum as in "drum for holding a roll of film". The drum is spinning and you can scratch with it - hitting it produces a cut hitting it hard produces a flash-cut. By being a nice concept that I would like to play around with I do not think that it would work for a purely narrative work - even so that was the goal in designing that system. It leaves little too much room for loosing the narrativity and gives to little room to change actual things - unlike a DJ which they use as a metapher I never found adjusting the timing of the video to the timing of the music through changing the speed of the video clip satisfactory.
Yet the accompanied document has a nice few tidbits in it that I would like to highlight as I think these are very important thoughts on the matter.
First of all the hilarious side kick to the normal VJ when they explain the background. They write:
The nature of the (VJ) visuals comes from the sampling culture, graphic
design, pop art and psychedelia.
this is then accompanied with the following graphic:
I thought this was fittingly funny.
Then they say something very intriguing that has been said so many times before but since I think its of utmost importance (yet something that has to be resolved through technology and no bitching whatsoever can help here - also not their solution to the problem) and can not be restated often enough:
The other problem, familiar to electronic musicians, resides in
using the laptop as an instrument. During our shows, most non-
specialist audience members assumed video was prerecorded and
did not understand the performer’s role on stage. We concluded
that the interface needs to be : transparent, because the audience
wants to see the process. It wants to see the performer’s actions
and understand what is happening behind the scene; and
performative, so that the audience can be engaged in the
performer’s effort and perceive how it is related to the images and
sounds produced.
Yes transparent screens will be a huge boost to VJ and Live Cinema and Live Electronic Muisc alike - it just goes length into showing the audience that you are not just a nerd that needs to bring his laptop in a club and that besides drinking lots of water you are actually sweating for a reason. The halftransparent OLEDs can not come fast enough.
Then the document rolls on with disecting the nonlinear editing bussiness today - while I do not agree with all of the claims - especially since the findings are based on the interview with an old time film cutter and I just know that they are a dying breed with an awkward "celluloid hangs in strips we need scissors and tesa tape" thinking that has no place in a digital world (the reasoning they use against mouse, menue, window, file doesn´t resonate with me at all). Yet two points I see as vital in a Live Cinema environment that haunt me in a normal nonlinear setting as well:
The screen real estate is obfuscated by too many one-use buttons
and information not relevant to the editing tasks ; the only
elements really needed are the images and a way to cut and paste
them. Important elements shoulds be visually emphasized.
Yes you see these multibillioniconinterfaces in nonlinear editing as well as in VJ application and it just takes up so much brainpower to decipher them all the time and press the right one that its really something to focus on when designing a new Live Cinema application.
Then they say:
Last, the importance of the accident is underestimated : coming
across lost rushes was one of the main sources for creative
combinations in the task of editing. The technological drive for
speed and efficiency has ignored that.
Uh yeah... accident driven performances have been a real winner in the past. There was this click that wasn´t supposed to come or you choose the wrong clip (something that was easy with one of the later VDMX versions which had this bug that always selected a clip below the one you originally wanted) and all of the sudden you had a composition that was somehow much cooler then you ever thought these two loops could look like together. So it shouldn´t be too much. VJing in itself with its 8 hour performances will lead to complete random "oh I run out of loops lets see what we can throw up" moments and then it gets chaotic, uncontrolled and stressy on the screen.
The comment that really run home with me was in the last paragraph and I would like to restate it because it sums up my thoughts when coming from a Filmmakers perspective rather then a VJ perspective:
With Live Cinema, we want to bring back the filmmaker
in touch with the audience; try to make film allographic, as art
theorist Nelson Goodman would call it, so that it would be
different every time it is shown. As a true performance, the film
would only exist in the presence of its author. Why live arts ? For
the contact, the act of gift between artists and audience; For
the risk, the thrill of the audience toward the unexpected, the
accident, the insight into the construction process; For
improvisation and open forms, because text and recording are not
holy and should be subject each time to reinterpretation and
recreation.
It just reminds me of this big discussion why the "VJ TV Show" we were prototyping for school needed to be live - the consent in the class was "Oh you record it and then broadcast it later". No record will give you that gift between artist and audience - that kind of interaction - even if the audience is only virtually present.
problem with the gift of live-performance is, that a big number of the videomixers come out of a hardcore use of digital technology. one phenomenom of the digital crowd is, they love to hide. to hide themselves behind nicknames, avatars, screens and all this fancy (inter)network stuff.
i think it needs lots of motivation to get these people in the social-supergau of a face-to-face stage,performance or entertainment situation.
Well a half transparent interface screen would draw a lot of attention to it already away from the geeks ;)
even if they hide they are still doing lots of mouseclicks and so are performing - just not playing the clown on stage. a lot of musicians in an orchestra are also geeks hiding behind their instrument yet they are still contributing to the over live-performance. As said in the bigger article before this -> its an additional media if performers don´t like to participate they can continue their normal vj sets without any problem. also its not to "create vj stars" its to bring content on the screen and have recipients that actually see and appreciate it and bring a ground rule of musician/visualist cooperation.
my comment had been more a general thought about the will of a (lets say) clicheevj to think about performance. you know that i'm far away from creating stars. i think your musician example doesn't fit very well. a musician is used to catch attention from the first tone he ever made on his instrument, just because he makes a noise. very few musicians start learning an instrument with headphones on. the digital technologist learns from the very first moment that its better to hide some things. what to publish and what not, is one of the first decision-patterns he has to face.
the discussions about laptopjams and how to make it more enjoyable for the crowd gave me the impression that a lot of vjs don't see the need for it on the first hand, the screen is their stage appearance. for musicians on the other hand its totally obvious that they have to show themselves, show their body working with a tool.
I'm on your side "its to bring content on the screen and have recipients that actually see and appreciate it". additionally i think its not only about designing the screens, its also about designing the performance.
Da wir ja im Moment hier alleine diskutieren und das eh nen zweisprachiges blog ist erlaube ich mir mal die sprache zu wechseln damit wir nicht aneinander vorbei reden.
Verstehe ich dich richtig das du denkst das die VJs mehr rumzappeln sollten auf der Bühne?
Ich meine bei den DJs macht das irgendwie noch sinn -> die haben nicht so megamäßig viel zu tun und haben zeit da auch noch "die hands in die air" zu schmeissen. aber schon bei audioliveacts finde ich es teils mehr als peinlich wenn das gesicht gebannt auf den screen starrt um den 4 pixel button zu treffen und die linke hand sich bemüht irgendwie für stimmung zu sorgen - ich denke echte live performances geben einem nicht die zeit mit dem computer als tool noch glaubwürdig faxen nebenbei zu machen da man ja schon jede menge faxen mit der maus veranstaltet - dann vielleicht doch ne videogitarre? :P
Die leute die behaupten live music machen und dann ganz viel rumspringen haben meist fast 100% fertige sets wo sie dann noch hier und da mal an nem controller ne frequenz verändern oder mal nen "loop knopf" drücken -> also semi live. Ich denke das "live cinema" auch ein wenig in die "semi live" richtung geht und dem performer ein wenig mehr freiraum für rumhampeleien gibt. Trotzdem finde ich das wenn man dem vor einem stehenden publikum zeigt das man ja mit dem mauscursor rumhampelt schon viel für die performance gewonnen hat.
ah sehr gut deutsch ist immer noch ein bisschen einfacher. nein es geht mir nicht um gezwungenes rumzappeln. ich will eigentlich nur dem publikum eine chance geben mitzukriegen was wir da tun. ob das über zappeln, tools zur softwaresteuerung oder spezielle setups geht ist dabei völlig offen. beim dj sieht man wann er zwei platten mixt, wann er scratcht, wann er im mixer an den efekten schraubt. bei bands ist es das gleiche du siehst wie die musiker arbeiten, du siehts den introvertierten bassisten der souverän seine linien spielt, du siehst den singenden gitaristen wenn er vom mikro zurücktritt um sein solo zu spielen. du siehst ob ein geiger heftig in die seiten streicht oder mit spitzen fingern über das griffbrett fliegt.
das ist was leute dazu bringt sich konzerte anzugucken sie sehen den menschen der seine kunst präsentiert, und sie sehen wie er es macht, ob es ihm leicht fällt, ob er konzentriert ist, ob er arbeitet und schwitzt, all das ist meiner meinung nach wichtig für den genuss von live-events. bei den bildermachern hat man oft das gefühl das sie einen dvd-spieler beim dvd-abspielen betreuen. ich finde das schade weil soviel arbeit und vorbereitung in visuals und noch viel mehr in avsets steckt. und ich finde schade das es unter den künstlern kein bewußtsein gibt für dieses problem, der musiker weiß intuitiv das er sich mit seiner erscheinung auseinander setzten muß, da er sein instrument im normalfall mit dem ganzen körper spielt. wir haben dieses wissen nicht, weil das einzige was wir bewegen müssen um unser instrument zu bedienen die fingerspitzen sind.
ich denke wir müssen uns vielmehr damit beschäftiegen wie wir uns im setup kontext gestalten, vielmehr darüber nachdenken wie man uns sieht. sich auf eine bühne zusetzen und mit dem arm zu winken ist sicherlich eine möglichkeit, wenn auch eine ziemlich platte.
na ich hoffe das führt nicht zu weit weg von dem artikel....
is schon ne relevante diskussion auf die ich auch eh noch zu sprechen komme. und ja ich stimme mit dir vollkommen überein - aber das rumzappeln ist weder meine noch deine art und weise auf der bühne zu stehen denke ich. Ein wenig abhilfe schaffen tut sicher ein wenig midi equipment - aber das ist ja wieder mehr technik zum durch die gegendschleppen und das wollten wir ja eigendlich auch nich so wirklich.
Halbtransparentes Display hilft sicher wie auch hier im Artikel benutzt. Touch screen weiss ich nicht so unbedingt gerade weil die im Moment doch ein ganz klein wenig zu träge sind (die haben einen ganzen rechner in dem setup aus dem artikel der sich nur mit dem interface beschäftigt und einen zweiten der das bild dann mischt und ausgibt) Hab auch schon mal drüber nachgedacht mit ner kleine kamera das bild abzufilmen und das dann auf nen monitor der in richtung publikum schaut zu packen... ich weiss aber auch das der mauszeiger vielleicht zu klein ist um eine bewegung zu sehen... Ich meine so laptopaudioliveacts machen ja eigendlich auch nix anderes und da isses den leuten auch wurscht... (meistens ist das ja auch nur besseres playback)... irgendwelche ideen?