First of all, it is necessary to give a brief
history of the fast evolution in the music videos during the past
decades. In the beginning, music videos were recorded to visualise
the performance during which the song was sung. However, as one
can neither talk about singing in its real sense nor about a singing
performance in today’s world, music videos inevitably evolved
as a kind of motion picture, constituting a semiology for itself.
For this type of motion picture includes sociocultural links—such
as possible references to visualisation of motion picture and
fiction culture, symbols of currents of visual
culture, imaginary representation of music—one of the most important
characteristics of music videos is the fact that these are able
to reach various visual conclusions and transfer many concrete
and abstract narratives only through the music and its visual
matching even in short time units. When it is assumed that we
live in an age in which the importance of motion picture gradually
increases and voice is no less than a moving object, it may be
argued that music videos are one of the most important communication
tools of our time.
The images, synchronisation, integrity and incongruity
in Autechre – Gantz Graf’s music video is the proof of the pioneering
role of the music videos in terms of the development of the visual
culture. Alex Rutterford—who is an animator educated in graphic
design—claims that “GANTZ GRAF is, to me, a visual representation
of the music.” In fact there are still various opinions regarding
what might be the representation of music. However, what we understand
from Rutterford’s words is an ‘emotional, instinctive’ representation
of music. It is not quite right to think the emotiveness and instinctiveness
as undefined or indefinable; in its basic sense, it refers to
a perceptive integrity that seems right, harmonious and synchronised
to human physiology, i.e. human eye and ear.
One of the most important arguments about video can be expressed
by the view that “it’s all style, no content.” In fact, this critique
is probably one of the most important arguments that led me to
study video in this paper. It will not be wrong to say that content,
i.e. sequential and linear content is not included in today’s
theories of thought. What we actually discuss is the process of
content editing, that is, how the relations between the related
information bits are formed. When we look at the history of thought
and literature, it is clear that the sequential writings that
are based on time or relations or, by the same token, a written
form that is straight-line narrative was left behind quite some
time ago. In other words, an understanding that is based on non-sequential,
independent content and moreover on the fact that the relations
may change according to the agents has been persistent in the
world of literature. One of the best examples to this situation,
though in verse form most of the time, is poetry. The order of
reading the lines may be independent from the content and sometimes
unnecessarily repetitive. Or, when a part of the poetry is removed,
there may not be a loss of meaning regarding its entirety. Also,
the content may be perceived totally differently depending on
the reader or the audience—that is, depending on the reader who
defines the link of the relation.
On
the other hand, it is clear that it takes time to transfer the
difference and variation of this type of content editing to other
forms of art or sense. For example, sticking to a narrative story
or to short sequences that follow one another is an easier and
more common way in terms of content editing in motion picture
movies. However, as it is in written thought, what is thought,
understood and perceived is directly related to the audience,
his/her relations and even to his/her socio-cultural background
and experiences in visual thought. In short, it is not quite possible
to follow a visual image—either sequential or not—and to decide
that its content meant a definite one thing for everyone. When
we take into consideration the fact that the content of any kind
of image we see, especially the moving images, is not certain,
it is not possible to argue that there is no content.
When we come to the fundamental target of the
debate of content in videos, that is the abstract or indefinable
forms in videos, it may be said that the ideas these forms actually
define or represent are the archetypes. These archetypes may be
identified as the symbols in our minds that help us symbolise
certain visual thoughts. These symbols of visual thought may be
produced or analysed more easily than the symbols, abbreviations
or shapes in any branch of positive science. For example, the
symbols and numbers we use when solving a complex mathematical
problem are produced and used in order to reflect certain thoughts,
theories and operations; however, what they reflect and their
relations to it may be hard to comprehend; that is to say, the
bond between the symbol and the real thought may be loose.
On the other hand, a form that is symbolised, reduced to the essence
of the visual image has stronger bonds—like in the quintet of
a vertical rectangle, the middle finger, a skyscraper, a banana,
a penis. When the bond, symbol and archetype are considered, it
may be argued that the impact of the shapes and forms are not
different if not more than that of the content of a sequentially
edited or narrative video. Moreover,
it is a proven fact in visual perception science that repetitive
and non-realistic abstract images are more influential on humans
and refer to different thought each time when compared to the
images that directly reflect reality.
What, then, these images might be telling to
us? There may be a couple of main arguments: first of all—if we
return to the ‘representation of voice’—these may be displaying
the sculpture or architecture of voice. Classical sculpture works
are often the imitations or replicas of the object we see and
perceive in real life. As music is something we cannot see but
perceive its sculpture cannot be produced through imitation or
‘copying’. Probably the most ‘logical’ solution is to refer to
the physical qualities of the music such as the beats, trebles,
basses, etc. while producing this sculpture. In short, the forms
we see in music videos may be evaluated as momentary demonstrations
of the sculptural execution of the voice we hear. This is a hypothesis
that increases and intensifies the experience of watching hundreds
of examples of these sculptures one after the other.
Another explanation is that this joint experience, i.e. audio-visual
experience, refers to a completely hyperreal experience. The notion
of hyperreal here may refer to several atmospheres: a scene of
a dream, an illusion created by a stimulant or drug or a cyberspace
experience. Most of the people—willing or unwilling— may have
experienced at least one of these and may have some visual thoughts
that are not fully and clearly defined and finalised. Video may
aim to concretise these visual thoughts, to produce its counterparts
in the mind or in the subconscious and it may contain the visuals
seen—or dreamed to be seen—in that hyperreal experience. The thought
and impacts triggered by such a presentation are beyond those
of an ordinary video or visual image.
When it is considered that the visual-aesthetical
era we live in is extremely digital and replicable, what easily
comes to mind is that video is also referring to this very situation.
The fact that the images displayed and, more importantly, the
music
itself is computerised as well as the fact that there is no definable
voice-face or instrument-object may be interpreted as presentation
of anonymity in itself. One of the most important indicators of
the fact that the concept of author is mixed up with other things,
rearranged and evolved is that the style of the computer/software
is displayed more dominantly than that of the author.
Whatever was the thought behind it, Gantz Graf is a strong music
video in terms of visual style it puts forth. If we leave the
perception or discussion of content aside, the most important
criteria for such an audio-visual presentation is generally the
originality of the experience we have during that presentation
or the enjoyment we have. Like it is in a well-shot photography
series or in a well-edited long movie, video continues to produce
its own consistency and style not by repeating itself but by adding
on new things each and every second. While this situation drags
the fluency in perception along, the experience it creates in
our mind provides the reflection and interaction to be continuous.
visual
culture, imaginary representation of music—one of the most important
characteristics of music videos is the fact that these are able
to reach various visual conclusions and transfer many concrete
and abstract narratives only through the music and its visual
matching even in short time units. When it is assumed that we
live in an age in which the importance of motion picture gradually
increases and voice is no less than a moving object, it may be
argued that music videos are one of the most important communication
tools of our time.
On
the other hand, it is clear that it takes time to transfer the
difference and variation of this type of content editing to other
forms of art or sense. For example, sticking to a narrative story
or to short sequences that follow one another is an easier and
more common way in terms of content editing in motion picture
movies. However, as it is in written thought, what is thought,
understood and perceived is directly related to the audience,
his/her relations and even to his/her socio-cultural background
and experiences in visual thought. In short, it is not quite possible
to follow a visual image—either sequential or not—and to decide
that its content meant a definite one thing for everyone. When
we take into consideration the fact that the content of any kind
of image we see, especially the moving images, is not certain,
it is not possible to argue that there is no content.
Moreover,
it is a proven fact in visual perception science that repetitive
and non-realistic abstract images are more influential on humans
and refer to different thought each time when compared to the
images that directly reflect reality.
itself is computerised as well as the fact that there is no definable
voice-face or instrument-object may be interpreted as presentation
of anonymity in itself. One of the most important indicators of
the fact that the concept of author is mixed up with other things,
rearranged and evolved is that the style of the computer/software
is displayed more dominantly than that of the author.