Live cinema, as Mia Makela described, is similar to VJing’s works when they are shown in places where the audience sit down and pay attention to the performances, such as in a theater or a museum (85). This is part of the reason why it’s called live cinema, because the performances characterize the classic cinema situations, according to Christian Metz (85). But at the same time, live cinema loses narrative continuity and a fixed spatial arrangement (87). When compared with VJing, live cinema seems to be more artistic. Makela’s understanding of VJing and live cinema suggests “a sort of hierarchy of values in the realm of audiovisual performance” (93). Audiovisual performance is a general category that includes both VJing and live cinema.
Toby Harris, who has worked as a VJ for several years, created the live cinema documentary. Harris presented his process of creating the live cinema as a “deconstructed, exploded kind of filmmaking that involves narrative and storytelling” (89). However, Referring to his experience of working as a VJ, he describes VJing presentations as wallpaper in nightclubs, while for the live cinema, the audience sit down and watch and listen. Live cinemas are created in the interactions with the audience and in the sense of art, however, VJing could be considered as more commercial or as a tool to exaggerate the atmosphere at nightclubs. Live audiovisual performances could include both kinds. This kind of performance can take place in a theater, a museum, or a club. For example, Max Cooper performed in a club before, but he also made installations for Granary Square in London.
Menotti, Gabriel, and Carvalho, Ana. Live Cinema and Live Audiovisual Performance from the Audiovisual Breakthrough, Fluctuating Image, 2015.
Leave a Reply