Dammit. I Done Went and Vid-Meta'd: POV. What Is It Good For?

[sisabet]

Lots and lots of talk about POV today. I am not in a very vid meta-y place and for once this is a very good thing. I will say this:

Most songs that have lyrics already have a Point of View. As a vidder - it is up to you to determine how this will be interpreted. "I" and "you" lyrics of course can be easy indicators of this to your audience - but not always necessary. The point of view does not have to be a particular character. The POV can be God. Or a group of people. Or a bracelet. Or a sword. Or as Luminosity once memorably remarked when we were discussing a potential vid that I will still do to the Angel episode "Sleep Tight": "It is from the diaper's POV!"

Whatever it is - it is very important. Not to the audience - either they get it or they don't. Make peace with that now. Establishing where you are approaching this vid is important for *you* as a vidder. It gives you something to cling to. It gives you something to build around. It gives you a vehicle to drive the message home and to give meaning to your vid.

Is this vid going to be first person singular? It is. Okay - will we see the character talking? We will. Cool. Alright - will this be a tight first person vid? Will the vid only show the moments in canon that the narrator has witnessed? Or does he know everything? Is the POV first person omniscient?

And so on and on and on... the questions never stop because until you have a clear view regarding what your song is about (and the point of view of the song is one of those absolute core things that you just have to know. It doesn't have to be what the singer intended. It has to be what you know in your heart that this song is really and truly about) then your vid won't know what it is about, either.

And we can use these things and toy with them within the vid to greater highlight what we are doing. Will everyone notice? Nope. Maybe 2 people will notice. But a lot of the audience will get it subconsciously, but that is how most of us incorporate and distill information anyway, so YAY!

The song is your blueprint. Seriously. Blueprint. It gives you everything. If it doesn't and you can't mix it up enough or cut it or whatever to make it what you need? Then you are suffering from poor song choice my friend and there is nothing that can be done to save you. Trust me. It happens. I should post an example. I don't want to post an example cause then you will all know that I suck, but I should post an example.

POV - point of view - is the delivery mechanism. This is how you get whatever it is that you want to get across, across. Does it have to be a conventional POV? NO - but it has to *exist* - it has to be there otherwise you just get a bunch of pretty pictures that ultimately mean nothing.

And I said I wasn't gonna get into the vid meta and dammit. It is just... look - most people watching your vids are not gonna think twice about "Well whose POV is this?" anymore than most people reading your fic are gonna say "Aw man, I hate stories told in second person!" This is because most people just do not stop and think about everything. Some do.

So - some people are gonna read a story and comment that it had POV problems. Other people are gonna read it and say "Eh, I didn't like it" and that is that. Same for vids. The numbers are a bit more skewed but trust me. Subconsciously is the total way to go.

Comments

[elistaire.livejournal.com]

*nods*

I am putting this on my mental checklist for things to think about, definitely. I mean, I already thought about it, but apparently, I need to think about it *more*.

[elynross.livejournal.com]

Thank you, this is clear, direct, and for, absolutely on target. Can I post a link to it in vidding? Or you should. Whatever.

Then you are suffering from poor song choice my friend and there is nothing that can be done to save you.

Sing it, BobbyHobbes!

[luminosity]

Amen.

In the past, I've had several discussions with several vidders about POV, some of them enlightening and some of them, well, not so much. Some vidders have said to me that their vids have no POV. I've been tempted to say "and how!" A vid needs a POV. It doesn't *have* to be first person or second or third or whatever, but it has to be consistent. That doesn't mean that you can't switch POV's in midstream. You can, but you have to be clear and consistent. CONSISTENT. If you don't have a POV, even a third person omniscient one, you only have a string of cute little clips with nothing for the viewer to grab onto. [rant]Vidding is fun for the whole family and all, but there are rules of design and composition, and you can only break them with impunity if you know how to follow them first. [/rant]shutting up now

[permetaform]

Some vidders have said to me that their vids have no POV. I've been tempted to say "and how!" A vid needs a POV.

But does the POV have to be one initiated by the vidder? Could it instead exist just via what the audience brings to the vid and not also as an organizing construct used by the vidder to create the vid?

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

No. Yes.

Okay - you guys are totally overthinking this, okay?

Yes - what the audience brings to the table is important. But that has nothing to do with what you put on that table to begin with. You have to have intent when you vid - you have to know what is going on.

Now - I don't mean that you have to always *know* what you are doing while you are vidding and be able to articulate it with *words* - of course not. If we could *say* it we wouldn't *vid* it.

But somewhere - you know. You do have an organizing concept and *that* is your POV. Trust me - this is not complicated. POV *is* the delivery mechanism. I don't mean you can't have a fluid POV that starts out very narrow and then widens, this is not meant to limit you. But without a point of view, you are just throwing random clips at the timeline.

So yeah - an audience might be able to eke out a meaning from those random clips but much like a Rorschach ink blot - people can do that for anything.

[permetaform]

You do have an organizing concept and *that* is your POV. Trust me - this is not complicated. POV *is* the delivery mechanism.

::squint:: character v. vidder POV you mean?

[permetaform]

more thoughts on the various POVs here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/permetaform/288863.html

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

character v. vidder POV you mean

I have no idea what this means. I suspect that y'all are using the term POV and applying it willynilly and this is part of the problem.

POV is Point of View. The person who determines what a vid's Point of View will be is the vidder as the vidder is God for that vid. The vidder can establish a firm first person POV and that is then a CHARACTER'S POV or an OMNISCIENT third person POV where the narrator is unseen and all knowing. Many universe vids (like End of the World as We Know It) are Omniscient Third Person POV.

Sometimes you can play with a first person POV in a vid and either strictly stick with *just* what that person knows or you can open it up and for this one time and one time only - your first person characer knows everything and you have an Omniscient First Person POV. In the case of "Without You I'm Nothing" the vid starts out as a narrow First Person POV (Lex) and in the course of the vid he deduces and figures out things he shouldn't know or see (in canon) only to LOSE it at the end. His memories are ripped away along with his knowledge and his hope. Does it matter to me that most viewers do not get that was my intent? Not at all. Most viewers get what they bring to the vid but that does not affect the actual POV of the vid. That is their watching experience.

In that vid I played with POV and I did so deliberately. This is not meant to limit you. If you have an organizing concept - THAT is POV. That is all POV is. You are just calling it something else. This is semantics.

[permetaform]

POV is Point of View.

On of the definitions, though, and not the most popular usage of it in the fandom and school circles that I've been mostly moving around in, with perhaps the exception of vidding fandom where I got totally confused.

Does it matter to me that most viewers do not get that was my intent? Not at all. Most viewers get what they bring to the vid but that does not affect the actual POV of the vid. That is their watching experience.

::nodnodnod:: that's what I was talking about in my post that I linked to too. I'm saying in it that I don't call vid or vidder's POV "Point of View", I call it authorial intent because to call it Point of View implies narrative.

If you have an organizing concept - THAT is POV. That is all POV is. You are just calling it something else. This is semantics.

Exactly, it *is* semantics, and I argued in the post I linked to that it's important to distinguish it because calling it POV when the term itself is both confusing and restricting is sometimes not so good.

[luminosity]

Yes, POV has to be one initiated by the vidder. Because the vidder has to have something to start with, to organize around. The vidder has to decide whether the "I" in the song is the vidder herself (yay meta!) or an omniscient God "I" or the character. The vidder has to decide whether the "you" is the viewer (yay meta!) or another character--or the planet! Whatever. The audience is going to bring something--God knows what--to every vid they see, and that really has nothing to do with what the vidder is doing. Yay if those things dovetail, but they don't always dovetail (e.g., I made a vid for HL [back in the Dark Ages], and I knew exactly whose POV I was vidding from. I got more than one piece of feedback stating that the viewer had seen it from the other character's POV. Even though I had been careful to consistently place one character's voice/face on "I" and the other's on "you." I can't say that I failed in that vid simply because someone in the audience saw it differently. You can't be responsible for the viewer's interpretation. You have to be responsible for yours.)

I've not seen any of your vids where I'd have to question the POV, so I wonder if we're not talking at cross purposes here--or maybe there's a semantic issue. Maybe my take on the POV isn't what you meant (I've long considered Lucky to be from the tape's POV *g*), but you *have* one in every vid.

I don't think that one can ignore the need for POV--at least as a starting point. The vids I've seen where POV is too liquid--to the point of not being there at all really--may be pretty, may have pretty music, but they are not memorable (Okay, I remember *one* and I'm not going to embarrass this now-great vidder by bringing it up) and they are not *good*.

[permetaform]

You can't be responsible for the viewer's interpretation. You have to be responsible for yours.

yes! I talked about this more here, but in essence I'm saying that the being responsible for your interpretation should be called something less laden with arbitrary restrictions that could hinder vid-making. A non-narrative vid is no less valid than a narrative one, and vice versa; there just has been less people able to make a non-narrative vid, and it seems like from what I've seen of a couple people's vidding patterns that the people with the most potential of developing a *good* non-narrative style mostly started making narrative vids, which is saddening.

I've not seen any of your vids where I'd have to question the POV, so I wonder if we're not talking at cross purposes here

=D There you go! The POV is brought by the audience; the most and fastest progress I've made on my vids were either before I started worrying about POV (Why, The Fragile) or when I gave up on it all-together (Hero), every other vid stalled until I literally gave up on them; it's perhaps telling that the vids I was stalled longest on is After Midnight (my Saiyuki vid) and Gravity (my PotC vid), both fandoms which I cared the most about and was most loathe to give up on.

The vids I've seen where POV is too liquid--to the point of not being there at all really--may be pretty, may have pretty music, but they are not memorable

ah, no...see, those are just bad vids. They probably didn't have enough room for the audience to extrapolate in, or they didn't have intent.

And yes, I *am* arguing semantics, because words have power and defining things locks away some meaning. By calling authorial intent 'POV' restricts the vidder to thinking about the vid in strict narrative terms, which is at times inhibiting and non-condusive to creativity.

[klia.livejournal.com]

What Lum said. I get all ranty when I see vidders brag that their vids don't have a POV (I'll pass on them, then, thanks) or when they pooh-pooh establishing POVs as some sort of old-fashioned constraint passed down by old skool vidders. As others have said, consistent POV is vital to good vidmaking. Period. Otherwise, it's all random clips thrown at the timeline.

Thanks for the excellent post!

[permetaform]

the questions never stop because until you have a clear view regarding what your song is about

ahhh, see, here's the sticking factor in it for me...'cause I get this first. And on a conceptual and organizational level thinking about POV literally stops me from being able to vid until I get to a point where I start ignoring about that issue. Especially thinking about audience input, I believe that an audience can bring a POV and a narrative to a vid that's constucted almost totally without it.

The song is the blueprint, yes, but does the delivery mech have to be POV?

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

If you know what the song is about, then you know your POV. Wait - not your POV (although you control it). Your vid's POV. You might get hung up on this - so stop thinking about it (which seems to work for you).

Seriously - this is not complicated but you are making it complicated and confusing yourself and while a little bit of meta is a good thing - massive amounts and circular thinking is NOT.

Everything that exists to impart something has a POV. Paintings, songs, stories, television shows. This is not a limiting device - this is part of our world and how we deliver messages. In order to make a good vid, painting, story, television show, hell - in order to create ANYTHING - you have to approach it some way. Point of View. Otherwise - meaningless.

[permetaform]

Your vid's POV. You might get hung up on this - so stop thinking about it (which seems to work for you).

Yes and no. It kinda worries me that it's being called that, I mean, yhlee's response kinda was my response too when I figured out that what you meant was the vid's point when you talked about POV. Semantics matter, if only so that we can talk about these issues at the same time.

Everything that exists to impart something has a POV.

Yes, but it's not called that. It's inherent within the medium.

[morgandawn.livejournal.com]

Song lyrics tell a story (there are words and they say something).
Music supports the story.

Then the viddder comes along - he/she has something to say (even if you are saying nothing, that is something).

Since we lack rules of grammar for vids, we (viewers and vidders) have to make them up on our own. Ex. Clip of Mulder on I = vid is from Mulder's POV. Without these rules - or conventions or shared concepts -- the viewers will only see an MTV style jumble of clips.

You as the vidder have to choose what the someone/something is.

If you look at vids from a literary perspective then think on this: one of those conventions is that the vid (aka the song) is being told from someone's perspective. Jack, the sword, God, the little green man etc. It can even be the vidder him/herself (this is what I think/feel about the show). But songs are sung by a singer about something or someone. There is a story being told to the listeners.

If you think of vids as painting , then perhaps POV is not what drives the vid. Still, you need some perspective, balance, shape in the vid/painting. There may even be a story buried in the painting. But you need to have some tools/technique or approach that helps the viewer to understand what you (aka the vid aka the painting) is saying or the mood you are trying to create, otherwise, you're doing Pollack or Picasso style painting -- and that style is much harder for someone to absorb in an only 3-5 minute space of time. ("Quick open your eyes, stare at a Picasso painting, close your eyes and then tell me what it means. And no peeking.").

I would argue that keeping a narrative structure or POV (in vids with lyrics) helps the viewer absorb your meaning/goal/intent better. So yes, the delivery mech should have some POV - unless you are aiming for an impressionistic painting shown at light speed. In which case, dude, pass me bong.

[permetaform]

There is a story being told to the listeners.

Exactly.

But what is a story?

And can't you learn someone's story by simply being around them, instead of forcing them to *speak*?

Still, you need some perspective, balance, shape in the vid/painting.

Yup! And I'm arguing that it's called 'intent' rather than POV 'cause POV implies narrative.

But you need to have some tools/technique or approach that helps the viewer to understand what you (aka the vid aka the painting) is saying or the mood you are trying to create, otherwise, you're doing Pollack or Picasso style painting -- and that style is much harder for someone to absorb in an only 3-5 minute space of time.

Yes, and I think that by restricting 'intent' to narrative terms restricts the tool-box you have available to convey information.

I would argue that keeping a narrative structure or POV (in vids with lyrics) helps the viewer absorb your meaning/goal/intent better.

And I don't disagree with this argument, I'm just saying that it's not the *only* way. POV isn't necessary, it's arbitrary.

...

dude, I feel like I'm arguing against my parents. ::wry grin:: or for women's lib.

Perception is reality.

[morgandawn.livejournal.com]

Deep into meta here. I agree with you that the narrative form/story form is only one way to communicate with people. Music can be non-narrative. Art can be either. Free form poetry etc.

In a music vid, with its time constraints, you are limiting your reach/appeal by leaving or abandoning the narrative form. So rather than viewing this as an either/or or even as a discussion where the POV/narrative approach is somehow forced onto vidders & viewers, think of it as a descriptive discussion. We are describing cause/effect or the impact our choices can have.

With every choice we make, we shape our audience communication. Can you make a non-narrative vid? Yes, you can. Is POV (narrative) necessary. No it is not 'necessary' - but without it, you leave a large portion of narratively focused viewers behind Is that a bad thing? No. You may get a lot of 'huh' reactions.

Please bear in mind that unlike written media where the viewer/reader can go back over and over at their own pace, until they are satisfied with their level of understanding, a music video is bound to be communicated at 30 frames per second and is over within 4-5 minutes.

Looking back, I see a thread that is as old as writing/art/music itself - how to balance the art form with audience communication. It was an issue in the 60s where many artists wrestled against conventional story-telling methods. And it will continue to be a discussion you will have with the next generation when they point out that your approach to art is too restrictive or linear- now that we all have those nifty implants in our heads so that meta tag info can be shared on multiple levels.

Perception is reality. At least in quantum mechanics it is.

Re: Perception is reality.

[permetaform]

In a music vid, with its time constraints, you are limiting your reach/appeal by leaving or abandoning the narrative form.

Agreed. But my argument is that by maintaining the narrative form's supremacy is sometimes limiting. Both narrative and non-narrative forms are valid, but narrative form shouldn't be the only form of communication in a vid that is appreciated.


So rather than viewing this as an either/or or even as a discussion where the POV/narrative approach is somehow forced onto vidders & viewers, think of it as a descriptive discussion.

...but...that's not really why I started the discussion. I, in my original post, was talking about process and about conceptualizing that process. The way that process was being defined is sometimes too restrictive for what the process needed to do.


but without it, you leave a large portion of narratively focused viewers behind

Not necessarily. What I'm thinking of here is laurashapiro's vids, which she says in my initial post that she rarely considers POV during the construction of the vid. I believe that a good non-narrative vid has the flexibility to allow the audience to give it a POV should they want/need one.


Please bear in mind that unlike written media where the viewer/reader can go back over and over at their own pace, until they are satisfied with their level of understanding, a music video is bound to be communicated at 30 frames per second and is over within 4-5 minutes.

yeah, and thus because of that same time limitation, alot of the information of the vid is transmitted subconsciously, and sometimes the best way to communicate subconsciously isn't narratively.


Perception is reality. At least in quantum mechanics it is.

Hee! And when you percieve something, you sometimes change it, too.

Re: Perception is reality.

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

To clarify (again): I meant that I don't *have* to think about it, because the song gives it to me. Everything I do once I know what the song is doing is instinctual and subconscious. That doesn't mean that I don't put the POV into my vids -- I do. I just don't have to wonder about it at length, because it's inherent in the song. That has a lot to do with the kinds of songs I choose.

[laurashapiro.livejournal.com]

The song is your blueprint. Seriously. Blueprint. It gives you everything. If it doesn't and you can't mix it up enough or cut it or whatever to make it what you need? Then you are suffering from poor song choice my friend and there is nothing that can be done to save you.

Liz, I will love you forever for this paragraph. If new vidders can take away just this from your post, just this and nothing else, you will have done a lasting service to the community.

If I used sig files, I'd be sigging this.