As the reading explains, VJing is performative because although a VJ has a selection of sequences, VJing requires live manipulation of the video. Thus, the presence of the VJ is a fundamental component of this practice. This means that it is as ephemeral as any other live performance is. I actually like the term “visual jammer” better than “video jockey” because in addition to the fact that it sounds nicer, I think it is more aligned with what a VJ does.
As the essay says, “a VJ always visualizes something else” and it is rare to see a VJ performance by itself. I wonder what performance of the opposite would be like; audio representing the visuals. However, I am not sure if I would still call it VJing if that were the case. I guess the reason why Vjing is not seeing as art is because often times there is no conceptual meaning behind the visuals. But I do not think this is a bad thing. In my case, I genuinely enjoy creating and staring at visuals because although there might not be any conceptual meaning behind the them, they do take me to a meditative-like state, and I really appreciate this. And in the club scene, visuals really add to the experience, special in techno clubs and more underground settings.
Honestly, one of my “dreams” is to be a VJ at some point. I love when I go out and see cool visuals projected or played on a screen. I recognize the fact that being a VJ means that your work is not the central point of the event, but I would not mind VJing for some time. However, it is true that I would do this for fun rather than for a stable financial support.