AMV Meta-Review #44: AMV Critiques

[BasharOfTheAges]

I'll post because i was asked too but i really couldn't read through more than half of this thread.

There are several factors that steer people away from commenting on the non-technical aspects of a vid. I'm playing devil's advocate here.

1st - When taken as a whole, the vast majority of vids here you watch do not have any reaching artistic value or meaning beyond that which is painfully obvious to begin with. Why change your review style to discuss a handful (tiny %) to begin with?

2nd - People that don't spend their time analyzing literature or art for fun find it difficult, boring, pretentious, foolish, pointless, etc. to bring such matters up when they don't think their grasp on the subject is on the level of an art student that wastes their lives on such things.

3rd - The idea that if platitudes of 'warm fuzzies" are bad because they're useless opinions, why then do reactions on how the video made one feel (emotional impact), which are solely individualized and therefore no more than personal opinions in their own right, have any legitimacy?

[Emong]

On a side note as a lot of people say there's no artistic value in most vids: what does the "art" in a video actually do? Or better yet: why is a video with "artistic value" better than a video that doesn't have it? Just because there's been debate earlier whether AMVs are art or not.. Does it really matter whether a video or a painting or whatever is art or not? I mean, is it any relevant in any other way than subjectually? (As in, if you're commited to your own definition of "art" and feel like it matters to you whether a work falls into the category of "art")

(slipping, slipping, slipping....)

[CodeZTM]

On a side note as a lot of people say there's no artistic value in most vids: what does the "art" in a video actually do? Or better yet: why is a video with "artistic value" better than a video that doesn't have it? Just because there's been debate earlier whether AMVs are art or not.. Does it really matter whether a video or a painting or whatever is art or not? I mean, is it any relevant in any other way than subjectually? (As in, if you're commited to your own definition of "art" and feel like it matters to you whether a work falls into the category of "art")

(slipping, slipping, slipping....)

Art is what you make it out to be. Nuff said.

[Emong]

Art is what you make it out to be. Nuff said.

Yes, that's what I think too, and that's why I feel like it's pretty much pointless to debate on what is art and what is not :O

[Fall_Child42]

Critiquing an AMV is a very difficult thing for others to do. It would seem that it would be a simple thing, but there are many factors to critiquing a video than most don't think about. AMV critiquing really fall into two categories, technical and artistic.
The technical critique is generally the one most people use because it is slightly less subjective then the other option. The reason people and the op form itself is focused on technical aspects is because these are the things we can identify as being done right or wrong, people who watch AMVs generally can identify what the creator is trying to do from a technical standpoint, and judge from a fairly non subjective standpoint if the creator accomplished this. They tried to lipsynch, did it look good?, the tried to cut to the beat, was it accurate? this is really the only way for watcher of the video to have any substantial or accurate feedback on a video.
Now during the preceeding paragraph I have stated that the technical aspects are mostly non-subjective, but the problem with critiquing videos is that most of the things we can critique are completely 100% subjective, we can only tell our opinion on it. With the technical aspects for one, Mabey some people like lipsynch that isn't exact, or the may feel that videos that arn't mechanically percise on beat synch have a certain charm who are we to say that those people's preferences are wrong?
The artistic aspect becomes even more subjective, which is probably why it isn't on the op form. People will come into a video with a certain amount of past experience, biases ideas, and no matter how hard you try, it's going to affect how you judge a video. A point quadir made earlier illustrates this pretty well, if a amv creator makes a video that is very specific to the show characters or slight nuances then people that do not have such experience with the show will not be able to have the video impact them the same way. Kionon's suggestion about a "heart" category is kind of pointless due to this subjectivity, mabey a video has an impact on you kio because of something you know or something that happened specifically to you, but it won't have that impact or have an entirely different impact on anyone else, The impact can also be completely different than what the creator intended. Another point to consider is that people like different things, and if people like bar effects naruto and linkin park, there is nothing to make their opinion invalid. The book Alien Island is about a group of aliens coming to visit earth and the people of earth offered them the finest food the finest wines but the aliens did not like that, they preferrred the $12 wine and the shitty food, but people kept telling them they were wrong that stuff is no good, they should like the good things. I feel we have the same situation here especially while trying to critique videos, somewhere along the line people agreeed that this way was the only way and this way is good, and if your video doesn't do it this way then it is wrong and inferior, and if you like that video that is done wrong then you are stupid.
The only thing we can do as critiquers is offer our opinion, but our opinion is worth no more or less then any other except one person. The one and only person that can properly critique a video is the person that made it. If that person is happy with the effects, the quality, the music, or the meaning they think it has because thats how they made it, then they are the only ones that can say, I didn't like that part I should do that sort of thing differently next time. Noone else can say with any proper authority that YOU DID XYZ THIS IS WRONG which is what we tend to do, we only can say I DO NOT LIKE XYZ Personally.

In conclusion

<a href="http://ia300106.us.archive.org/1/items/ ... n.mp3">Dan Deacon</a>

thanks to quadir for bringing me to this place (he's my daddy)

[Douggie]

The two types of opinions I find it the most interesting to seperate is:
- opinions from editors
- opinions from people who don't edit at all

Editors seem to be nitpicky on the technical stuff (but sometimes not at all when they really like a video). The problem with this is the way most editors look at AMVs: when looking at one, they see all behind-the-scenes work, making it harder to let emotions run through them by AMVs (if that makes any sense). I'm guilty of this too, mostly because the magic is spoiled. It's like trying to believe in Santa again, while you know he isn't real. I don't know how to do that again. Of course, this might not be true for every editor, but most people I've spoken to it is.

Non-editors on the other side, can get those emotions more easily. But the drawback is of course, they have a hard time pinpointing what the faulty editing technique in your video is. Plus they have a tendency to find a lot of standard things cool, like stock effects, without knowing what effort has been put in there. Don't get me wrong, the effect to the viewer is all that counts, not the effort you've put in, but they shouldn't think you did in those cases.

Eventually, I like the following: When I review a video, I try to relax as much as I can and look at the video to let the emotion get through me. Everytime I get the feeling something is wrong (or good) I try to pinpoint what the feeling is and once I know that, I try to search what editing technique has been used to add up to that feeling. My list is very different than the .org: concept, built-up/pacing, timing (not necessarily sync), story/depth/scene selection and the use of editing techniques. I go through that list and try to see why it creates the feeling the AMV does.

For me, this brings out the effect of the editing that is done on the video. There are people who really nitpick on techniques and DON'T EVER discuss how it effects the feeling (this is actually what Emong sort of less said). You all know what comments I mean.

As for non-editors commenting, the best ones are the ones that express their emotions and thoughts throughout the video, because these people cannot pinpoint exactly why. Most of them are really short and is really an overall feeling (but can be useful nonetheless), but I've gotten one so far, which does that in YOKO. Once that process is known you can start to think for yourself what you've done wrong in your editing and what not, but of course, this can be a harder task to do so... Just remember that sometimes you're technically so correct it loses all the feeling in the video.

Just my two cents...

PS. I'm talking about feeling, but I meant that this can be everything that the video gives to the viewer, whether it is an emotion, a story or even understandability.

[Kionon]

On a side note as a lot of people say there's no artistic value in most vids: what does the "art" in a video actually do? Or better yet: why is a video with "artistic value" better than a video that doesn't have it? Just because there's been debate earlier whether AMVs are art or not.. Does it really matter whether a video or a painting or whatever is art or not? I mean, is it any relevant in any other way than subjectually? (As in, if you're commited to your own definition of "art" and feel like it matters to you whether a work falls into the category of "art")

(slipping, slipping, slipping....)

I did this. The art thread.

I consider myself an artist, not an engineer or technician. For me the chase is in making the artistic vision in my head into reality as closely as I can. Otohiko and I had a wonderful conversation where it was clear that my style comes from what I am: a writer. I approach editing videos the same way I approach my novels or my short stories. I outline, I storyboard, I develop the flow, and try to determine how I will express key points of my concept to give a coherent story, so that the viewer (reader) comes away with a sense of unity. That the work represented a whole with a beginning, middle, and end. With narrative driven, artistically motivated works, the question should be: Why?

I have met editors who DO think of themselves the other way. They don't care about the artistic value as much as they care "I thought I could do it, I wanted to do it, so I did it." For them, the chase is in the technical achievement. They are not so much trying to tell a specific narrative whole as much as they are simply trying to express a basic concept and see what amazing ways they can present that concept. The success is introducing a new way of accomplishing a technique to present that concept. With these videos the question is not why any longer. It is: Why Not?

In the first example you must look at the editing choices made and ask how they build the continuity and further the narrative. Why does it work? In the second example you must look at the editing choices made and find what detracts from the presentation of the concept. Why doesn't it work?

[BasharOfTheAges]

In the first example you must look at the editing choices made and ask how they build the continuity and further the narrative. Why does it work? In the second example you must look at the editing choices made and find what detracts from the presentation of the concept. Why doesn't it work?

Is it that simple to do if you think about it in the other way though? That is the problem... if you have lots of technical knowledge but are primarily artistic in nature, you can analyze both ways, but if you're purely technical it's difficult to judge artistically, so you don't bother because you don't feel the need or you don't feel qualified.

[Kionon]

Is it that simple to do if you think about it in the other way though? That is the problem... if you have lots of technical knowledge but are primarily artistic in nature, you can analyze both ways, but if you're purely technical it's difficult to judge artistically, so you don't bother because you don't feel the need or you don't feel qualified.

Then you need to try, I say.

Criticism isn't just important for the one being criticised, it is also important for the critic. I hazard to guess most of us here do not have degrees or certifications in English/Literature/Creative Writing and degrees certifications in Radio/TV/Film both. I happen to have a BA in English and a vocational certification in RTF, but I know I'm lucky. The latter only happened because a friend asked me if I wanted to sub at work for him one day in 1999... and he happened to be a cameraman at a local TV station that was taking on interns. It was a pure accident.

Having those two pieces of paper does not make me more qualified to ask those two questions over anyone else. It may mean I can articulate better, or be considered more credible in my responses to the answers the editor gives me, but that's it. Everyone has the right to ask those questions. Right? Nay, here, it's a duty.

[BasharOfTheAges]

You do have valid points, but it's slightly different for art, no? People that strive for degrees in art are the type that will accept artistic analysis - people that don't are more likely to see artistic analysis as a heaping pile of bullshit filled with jargon that's made only to make it's proponents seem smarter than everyone else. This being the reason most "average joe" types don't frequent art museums.