by VJ Klaatu

Inevitably, when you start out as a VJ, you come across the C-word. It's unavoidable, so you've got to get thick-skinned. Deal with it.

The C-word?

CONTENT!

What is it? Where does it come from? How do you develop it? Why is it important?

We've all seen electrickery that is supremely accomplished, but end up feeling empty, maybe even a little sullied. Software alone won't provide you with anything except a kind of VJ painting by numbers. You've got to have some kind of content. I'm old enough to remember when Photoshop first came out and at dozens of art school degree shows up and down the country you'd see the same predictable use of filters. I'm sure all those students thought Lens Flare was the best thing since sliced bread, but once you've seen one, you've seen ‘em all. Just like if you're in a band, you won't get very far if you sound exactly like whatever is in the charts. (Actually that's probably a bad example that disproves the rule.)

In VJ-land, hang around long enough and you'll see the same effects, the same off-air imagery, processed in the same way by VJs who are just churning out Content-lite.

Don't limit yourself to other people's footage, whether it's broadcast news, cult TV shows or web clips. Conversely, don't shoot pictures of things that are already available. There are Image Libraries for that. Get the balance right. Escape the confines of recording off TV and DVD, of processing someone else's agenda.

Start shooting stuff for a different reason. It doesn't mean become a filmmaker, setting up carefully framed shots, paying attention to lighting and actors. But it might.

Think of the camera as another input device, like a scanner or modem. Have a healthy attitude to experimentation. There are folk who will happily manipulate and warp images in Photoshop but will get all stiff and starchy about defocusing the camera lens, or taking it off “Auto-Everything”.

Choose something really simple to shoot - too simple. In the PIXnMIX workshops we had video artist Jonathan Lee show us how he'd developed a visually stunning sequence from just dangling a multicoloured Slinky in front of the lens, lit against a black background. Adding a mirror effect (with a real mirror carefully placed, and an in camera strobe effect, and the result fooled a number of people into thinking they were watching complex 3D software. The trick was to start off with shots that weren't too complicated, and build up from there. Another series of shots featured bubbles side-lit against black. The point is that with a little bit of in-camera work and always the possibility of later manipulation, you lose the fact they're bubbles. The more abstracted they become, the less your brain can recognise, the more visually interesting. If Bubbles and Slinkys sound trite or naff, don't knock it till you've tried. Pick up some interesting objects and use them. Alter the focus, play around with exposure, gain, in-camera effects. Where does it take you? Then, if you've got the gear, re-shoot off a video monitor. Iterate the process, as many times as you want. Sure, some stuff won't work. Some images will be killed off.

This is kind of a parallel of what computer artist William Latham used to do with his Self Generating Genetic Computer Art. He'd set off the IBM machines to generate peculiar iterative 3D forms and sit back and prune his creations like a Gardener. His role as artist was to select the most aesthetically interesting, and kill the rest off.

The resulting images are interesting because they're unique; you couldn't get them by planning. They come from another place. Using library or found footage of bubbles wouldn't be the same. By starting with a simple form, you're more likely to surprise yourself and develop a look or style that software would never let you create, even though at first, much software can seem to blind you with choices.

By doing nothing but clubs, you are in danger of being labelled as Eye Candy. There's nothing wrong with working in Clubs, but maybe your work could breathe a bit if you looked elsewhere. Sooner or later some Brit Art artist will do a VJ set and sell it for vast amounts to Saatchi. But a VJ won't.

Public Art and Installations are seen as old hat, but hang on, isn't your work good enough? Don't these (and other) tired old formats deserve to be pepped up by a little Live Visuals? Look around you - the City is one big Club, why not project onto it? Think strategically. Is there an event or place that you can tailor make your work for? Approach your regional arts funders. Talk to institutions. Be an artist, not a VJ. Would your work look good projected at night onto the side of a grand building downtown? Or would infrared sensors triggering a projector down in the arcade bring your work to a new audience?

Think of a dozen projects, keying into the life of your surroundings. One might get through. Artists get grants, VJs don't. See Tactic Four.

A parallel: the UK has the third biggest Games industry in the world. The reason Games haven't got out of their adolescent themed ghetto is because it's too risky to present the public with something new and difficult, or something that doesn't conform to anything other than their rigid idea of who a games player is.

Clubs are a bit like this, either conservative or rigidly aimed at who they think their punters are. This will eventually affect (infect) your work.

At a VJ festival I saw at least 3 VJ acts use George Bush footage. Valid, but is it the only way of commenting on the state of the States? I come from an era when Video artists would juxtapose Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Cruise Missiles exploding, and scratch them up. Surely we're more sophisticated now? What NEW imagery can we find that is more effective?

Somewhere along the line VJs got labelled as hip, counterculture, underground. This never happened to interior designers or house painters, who do similar work.

Thus there is seen to be something tawdry about branding yourself and getting your PR sorted out. As gear gets cheaper and cheaper, more and more people can do this VJ lark. How will you stand out, especially if you're being undercut?

Get an image, a style, a handle. This may mean having to get out during the daylight hours as well as the evenings. We desperately need a VJ celebrity. We won't get it by doing great VJ work, only by getting to know the people in TV and Media who think Kerry MacFadden is the apex of talent.

There's a feeling that VJing is going to take off, but it's threatened ubiquity could spell homogeneity. VJ tricks can be seen in bank adverts and corporate presentations. VJs aren't getting rich on this, because they're not speaking to advertising executives or agencies. So, Soho agencies keep raking it in, and VJs stay poor. Think outside the box (whether it's a Mac or a PC – go on, rise above the debate) and see if you can be the ones to break the mould…

Notes: