Time for a updocdate!
So at the end of year one I had a structure that went like this:
An Artist encodes their personality into the character of the artwork through a process of mimesis. The artwork can then be decoded by a receiver by use of a shared code, which is art culture. What is Art? It is a codec. It is a basis shared between the two people involved in the exchange. A chair is a chair. But a chair made with the intention of being an artwork requires the viewer to draw upon their expectations of what an artwork means. I’m not going very far outside basics here.
If accepted, we could measure the character of the artwork as a representation of the artist’s personality. As a representation, it does not break the rule that only a person can have a personality. So we say the ‘music is sad’, the ‘sky is angry’, knowing that representational language is at work. The measurement is not of the artist’s personality but that which they ‘put’ into the work. Woolly words, need more thought.
There are 5 factors which have been shown over an extended period of time to be useful in describing personality. We can use these to retrieve an artwork that has the matching representation. Performance!
So many problems.
Here’s a critique: in the study of moving image a current discussion is about caricature. This is variously defined but involves a payload: the caricature (carry cart) carries a message, often political. It involves exaggeration of the distinctive features of the subject. The exaggeration can be described as subtracting the difference of the subject to an ideal, then multiplying the difference by a factor. So if somebody has a nose larger than average, portray them with an ever larger nose. Or remove everything but the nose.
In media the politics is usually less important than determining which individual differences are required to convey the person.
plus
equals
In fact you probably recognised the character only when the exaggerated features were presented. The moustache, eyebrows and cigar are more effective than the original person. In animation the skill is in finding just those facets needed and no more. (There is a discussion here about peak stimulus that I won’t get into.)
Ok so then is this a caricature?
I am really not sure; I think not.
Here’s another problem. I am dealing with motion graphics. So far my discussion has been around images, which is definitely the right place to start but we can’t stay there forever. Caricature certainly includes motion. My performance instrument not only shows moving images but moves between them. So it is animation, which is creating a representation of life (anima, animal). That aligns with my argument which is a great relief. But it demands the whole work be considered as the sum of motions (motivations) of a personality. If the segments wiggle, my performance is of a wiggling entity.
Suffice to say I haven’t got an answer just yet. But I think my intuition at the very beginning was correct – the personality of the composer is involved. A VJ selects clips and performs them – it’s her personality that animates the work. I may not have to code this any more than a piano has to write its own melodies.
Worse. The procession of images requires that I account for montage. The Kuleshov Effect:
The preceding image has a defining effect on the next, and so no segment can be viewed in isolation. Show a depressed segment, followed by a neutral segment; the neutral segment takes on the depressed hue. So then, is my machine misrepresenting the emotional contour? Again, no. Paint doesn’t have to change colour to conform to the furniture – it’s the designer that makes the compensation in their viewing…
… BUT …
the device must allow that the clips be seen in context, so that the operator can make that call.
In fact my sin is to be confused between the personality of the elements and that of the operator. If I am confused I had better make sure the examiner isn’t!
