I'm as much against bad sampling as reactionary anti-sampling rants (and forum discussions on the matter). There *is*, I believe, far to much trite sampling in VJing these days as an excuse for mediocrity and just not making the effort. On the other hand, sampling I see as an extension of montage which has long been accepted as an art practice.
"But is it art?" is always the wrong question. I prefer "Is it good?" and why.
I actually got the metropolis juxtaposition concept right away. I think it's a nice concept and simple enough to be picked up on by the punters too. My criticism for all it's worth (take it or leave it we're all grown ups and I think we should all be able to take it from our peers) is that it was just too much metropolis to the point where I felt it was being re-presented to me in itself. I think more could have been made of the modern day counterpoint aspect to make it more coherent, as it was it seemed a bit discontinuous and to drown under metropolis. It just didn't stand up, but that's the danger in mixing your own work with one of the greatest most visually sumptous films ever made.
That's after watching it closely - I honestly think it'd be perfectly good VJing and sometimes these reels are a bit self defeating for the reason that VJing, i think, is a spontaneous and ephemeral performance and not a document. It becomes something else once you render it as a clip, doesn't it?
