[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: LOOPERS and VISUAL ARTISTS
Title: Re: LOOPERS and VISUAL ARTISTS
At 1:19 PM -0500 12/6/04, ArsOcarina@aol.com wrote:
As long as semi-hi-quality dependable video projection
units
costs about as much as a second-hand Eventide I won't
be
able to afford one of those
either.
This and other posts stress the economic restrictions on doing
video projection, and this is a very real problem for most of
us.
I've never worked with video projection but I have used multiple
slide projectors and theatrical lighting instruments on a number of
pieces. I've also seen a lot of high-impact, low-budget media
performance.
In my pieces (a half-dozen fairly large works over a half-dozen
years during the 1980s) I used what I liked to call the "Egyptian
method." That is, in the absence of a lot of unaffordable
multi-image automation gear I used a bunch of borrowed slide
projectors and a bunch of human operators. The maximum setup, for a
professional (but still low-budget) theatrical run used a dozen
projectors run by six people. I also used multiple projection surfaces
(one static wall screen and three mobile screens in one piece, even
more movable surfaces such as chunks of fabric in another). I used
hundreds of slides, and I played around with movement and variable
focus of the projectors. I used a combination of front, rear, and side
projection, and I combined projected images with shadow play. I also
used costumed performers, simple props, and staging elements.
None of this was at all high-tech nor was any of it particularly
expensive. It could also be fairly compact and efficient to produce.
For instance, I did a couple of pieces with just a small number of
projectors (2 or 3) and a small company of technician/performers (4 or
5) to produce some very effective work.
I think the key element in the success of this was the
"cleverness factor." It's always possible to make a big
impression by throwing lots of fast-moving images at an audience, but
much can be done with simpler means if one is very judicious in the
selection and preparation of the images and if one is "crafty"
in the presentation. That's why Laurie Anderson has always been so
effective, even in her earliest period when she had almost no budget
and was working with the simplest of technologies.
Making a connection to another thread in a current discussion:
When a minimalist performance element (repeating rhythm patterns were
considered) becomes a primary determinant of the art experience the
mind begins to cast about for other details to focus on. An invariant
or slow-evolving performative focal point can serve as a mandala or
mantra for the observing (meditating) mind while other subtle
and more "punctual" elements can produce stronger effects
than they might if they were in competition with denser and more
energetic elements.
This can work in a variety of ways. Something need not be static
to seem invariant (think of the way we tune out very active crowd
noise are tune in on simpler messages that are "swimming" in
the chaos). The main thing is to play on the mind's adaptiveness to
those things that change and those that do not, and to explore our
perceptual pattern-making behaviors.
--
______________________________________________________________
Richard Zvonar, PhD
(818) 788-2202
http://www.zvonar.com
http://RZCybernetics.com
