I'm not so sure I'm sold on this stuff yet. I like the idea of computer made art, and I even liked the idea of the interactive book (though I still think it would be too heavy and annoying to have a book made of screen pages...I'm not seeing this as being functional practically at all) But I must say, Ana's videos were horrible. Since when is art out of focus, low res images? I am in a film class right now that is all digital and published to the web, and we do whatever we can to get a good image. Why watch a film that is so low res that you can hardly see the picture? How is this art? I can see it as a true experiement with enough of an argument, but Ana's argument was not that great. Low res is the future of web technology? Hardly. Resolutions will get higher and cheaper! No one wants mushed images. It's called bad quality and I don't see that changing. Maybe if she had changed the film completely and made the low res work for her, it would be different...but she didn't. It was just another layered experiemental type video. Boring. I wasn't enlightened or challenged or even that interested.
Now as fpr using the computer for new media, I'm all for it! Websites, interactive games, even that interactive body thing were very cool. I can see these not onlt being art, but they can also be useful in everday life. This I like. It's hard to be creative in a new field, though. You have to be able to see new things, and then figure out how to accompish them. I loved the car with the screen on the hood idea. That's awesome! Why not try something like that? Or generate abstract colorful paintings in rames, only they'd be internet linked and can change all the time. Perhaps with your mood. How cool would that be? I saw that in a movie once. I loved it! I'd buy that. And I'd enjoy it, too. And can blogs be art? Sure. Anything can be art. Your face can be art! Girls, geez. Makeup is art, okay? All girls are artists. In my other film class we had to customize our blogs and make it beautiful and intruguing. This is art, whether it's truly free or not. Right now we are constrained to what the blogger code is and what we can do to manipulate within that code. If I was more computer savvy I'm sure I could figure out a way to make the blog really awesome. I have no idea how though. I am not technologically inclined, and neither am I all that creative. (unfortunately) Perhaps this is why I am interested in Hollywood film. I like a good story more than I like a colorful background and a carefully planned tracking shot. I like those things too, but I don't see them outside the story I have. Anything beyond that story is superfluous. Perhaps this is why I hate experimental film- I am not experimental or really even creative at all. It just isn't me. I can be, but I must have the story first.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm not artistic and I'm not saying I don't appreciate or desire to make art. I just see experiments strictly for art's sake boring. Especially if the idea of the project is "expose film in a purse."Um...nice thought and all? But I'd rather see the contents of the purse then. I'd rather see the story unfold...not see overexposed yellow and orange film. One person might call this artistic and axperimental, but I see it as a lack of story, and it causes me to have no interest in what I am watching. One person's experimental art is another person's rejected overexposed film. Failure. Next time I fail I'll smile, make up some stupid but educational story, and publish it as an experimental piece. Hey it's good for the ego, and some experimental buff out there may actually like it.
Sorry, I went off on a tangent. Alot of experimental, truly experimental, film I actually like. But Ana's video...I mean why? Just that. Why.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Gosha...I can't spell it
I've seen this film before, last year when I was in 102 class, and Carl gave me the option to leave early because I'd already seen it. Normally I'd jump at the chance for more free time, but instead I found myself rooted to the seat when the time came for me to leave. This had been one of my favorite films last year. I've seen a lot I liked this year, but once again this film has mounted the top of my list. Why?
I think my favorite part is the contrasting of cultures. I've seen several films that attempt this same idea, but Lockhart's use of basketball is a whole new, appealing approach. The culture contrast is evident in the film, but at the same time, the message is not forced in your face aggressively, it just is what it is. A fact, simple. Instead of focusing on the culture aspect, it focuses on the girls and the rhythmic movement, sounds, and use of space. When I watch this film I feel like I am watching a motion picture in the most tangible sense- a beautifully framed photograph that moves, almost to music, as it glides from one framing to another. The use of space is awesome! The camera does not need to move to give us the message.
Another thing I like is the stage in the background. Even if we are not told ahead of time that the girls are choreographed, we are told by the stage. It suggests a controlled movement, a putting on of a fake demonstration meant to entertain and be beautiful. The sounds of the girls running are perfectly in sync together and overwhelm your ears, like you are watching and hearing a military procession.
Once again, the culture is everywhere in this film. The girls speak in unison, they run together, they move together, and in the last segment they even trace the lines on the floor, in a sort of zen arrangement toward the camera. The girls are so used to working together that they even toss the balls together, as if working together is perfectly natural. How odd for us Americans to see, and what a great lesson can we take from this behavior! I especially love how they take a break and just lay on the floor in the middle of the workout, and later they massage each other. Americans would never do this! We don't care about each other that way, and we always push. The more you do, the more uplifted you are. The busier you are, the better person. Sometimes I hate America. At least what's become of it anyhow.
This is another film that inspires me. I'm not so inspired by the actual film itself, but the use of ideas and culture. This film is artistic and deep in thought. Every scene was carefully thought out and arranged. Every idea tied together, putting completely different ideas together to reach a certain synthesis. These are films I like!
I think my favorite part is the contrasting of cultures. I've seen several films that attempt this same idea, but Lockhart's use of basketball is a whole new, appealing approach. The culture contrast is evident in the film, but at the same time, the message is not forced in your face aggressively, it just is what it is. A fact, simple. Instead of focusing on the culture aspect, it focuses on the girls and the rhythmic movement, sounds, and use of space. When I watch this film I feel like I am watching a motion picture in the most tangible sense- a beautifully framed photograph that moves, almost to music, as it glides from one framing to another. The use of space is awesome! The camera does not need to move to give us the message.
Another thing I like is the stage in the background. Even if we are not told ahead of time that the girls are choreographed, we are told by the stage. It suggests a controlled movement, a putting on of a fake demonstration meant to entertain and be beautiful. The sounds of the girls running are perfectly in sync together and overwhelm your ears, like you are watching and hearing a military procession.
Once again, the culture is everywhere in this film. The girls speak in unison, they run together, they move together, and in the last segment they even trace the lines on the floor, in a sort of zen arrangement toward the camera. The girls are so used to working together that they even toss the balls together, as if working together is perfectly natural. How odd for us Americans to see, and what a great lesson can we take from this behavior! I especially love how they take a break and just lay on the floor in the middle of the workout, and later they massage each other. Americans would never do this! We don't care about each other that way, and we always push. The more you do, the more uplifted you are. The busier you are, the better person. Sometimes I hate America. At least what's become of it anyhow.
This is another film that inspires me. I'm not so inspired by the actual film itself, but the use of ideas and culture. This film is artistic and deep in thought. Every scene was carefully thought out and arranged. Every idea tied together, putting completely different ideas together to reach a certain synthesis. These are films I like!
Monday, April 16, 2007
Hamilton
I think the thing I enjoyed most about Hamilton was the realistic feel of the film. We talked about atmosphere, and I really think this applies especially. Most people in real life do not act, they are awkward sometimes, and more often than not there are awkward silences, muffed words, and long times of just being ourselves with no one caring. This film really felt like that. It was alot like a mode of theatre called 'realism", in which the play was not a play within itself, but actually a snippet of life, or fragment. It had no beginning or ending, and it had no moral of the story. It was just say, a dinner scene, and that was it. No one talked necessarily, it was just real life. Now this is interesting as a genre in film, but it's also boring. Even though I was captivated by several of the scenes, I couldn't help drifting from it at the same time. When I did pay attention I thought it was interesting that I filled in holes of the story with what I assumed was happening. Like when Joe was in the car with his mom, I assumed she was disapproving of him, even though no words were said.
My favorite scene in the film was when Joe got up to play video games. It really caught my attention because I have a friend who plays video games and has no life outside that and work. To me, this character of Joe was very much a personification of my friend. Because the storyline and character description was so vauge I was able to keep this impression. Perhaps you all know a guy like Joe, and you can fill in your own details that you've experienced for yourself. Perhaps this was Matthew's whole point. After all, his name is Joe.
Anyways, I was really engaged with this scene because of the girl. I felt bad for her, because he was so indifferent to her. It was like he didn't care at all that she would like to sleep. Even when she got up and put her head on his shoulder, I could tell she wanted to get his attention, and he didn't even acknowledge her. That's not a guy I would want to be with! Any other film and this idea would be forced on us, but this film made me come to this conclusion myself. There was no need for dialogue.
Now, that said, there's nothing wring with a film that tells you how to feel about a character. I like being told how a person is. This is the director's choice, and there's a point to the characters and how they all fit together and relate to the story. But for Matthew's film, his detatchment worked as well. I'm not sure I'd say I prefer this style, but it was definitely a style all its own and it was a unique experience because of it. I didn't even mind the open ending, which is very rare for me. The story was so realistic to life and you brought so much of yourself into the story that I could make up my own ideas of the ending without feeling let down. In fact, I was actually excited to feel that I could bring my own closure to the film. The ideas were scattered but no so far that it was ridiculous, and yet there was space for me to take ownership of the plot.
Finally, I really liked the imagery. To me, this was aa true art film. The camera work was interesting, moving from far off, stable shots, to closeups, and back to high angles and pans and tracks. I also liked the extreme closeups, especially in the bakery where Lena worked. When she was sharing photos with her friend, I felt like her, smiling politely at each picture, but not really caring about the content at all because I had no connections with any of them. I wanted to be there to share subtle annoyed looks with the unfortunate coworker. I liked how the photos were shown, and then the next camera angle was stable and looked like a photo because it was of a hill and far off. When Joe appeared at the top and walked down I almost laughed. He was portrayed as an awesome object, king on top of the world, yet far off, and he had followed my feelings of polite annoyance of the showing of the pictures. I got the feeling it meant Joe thought of himself as a very cool man, but really he was seen as annoying by his girlfriend, who maybe idolized him only out of habit. Now that she was mistreated by him and he obviously didn't care about her, why should she idolize him any longer?
My ovwerall impression was that this was a study of coming of age, and learning responsibility. Joe was still very immature. His girlfriend was more mature than him and had to put up with his immaturity, and he still fought with his mom and lived with her. I found the church scene especially interesting when Lena took the baby outside because he was crying. Joe looked annoyed and like he wanted to be anywhere else, even though they were in church as a family, like your typical perfect family...yet we know better from outside glances at their lives.
I really liked this sense of bordem I got from this film. it has inspired me to incorporate this idea into my feature film, which deals with bordem. But I want to be sure not to put anyone to sleep as well. I'll haev to see if I can experiment with his idea and see if I can make it work for me.
My favorite scene in the film was when Joe got up to play video games. It really caught my attention because I have a friend who plays video games and has no life outside that and work. To me, this character of Joe was very much a personification of my friend. Because the storyline and character description was so vauge I was able to keep this impression. Perhaps you all know a guy like Joe, and you can fill in your own details that you've experienced for yourself. Perhaps this was Matthew's whole point. After all, his name is Joe.
Anyways, I was really engaged with this scene because of the girl. I felt bad for her, because he was so indifferent to her. It was like he didn't care at all that she would like to sleep. Even when she got up and put her head on his shoulder, I could tell she wanted to get his attention, and he didn't even acknowledge her. That's not a guy I would want to be with! Any other film and this idea would be forced on us, but this film made me come to this conclusion myself. There was no need for dialogue.
Now, that said, there's nothing wring with a film that tells you how to feel about a character. I like being told how a person is. This is the director's choice, and there's a point to the characters and how they all fit together and relate to the story. But for Matthew's film, his detatchment worked as well. I'm not sure I'd say I prefer this style, but it was definitely a style all its own and it was a unique experience because of it. I didn't even mind the open ending, which is very rare for me. The story was so realistic to life and you brought so much of yourself into the story that I could make up my own ideas of the ending without feeling let down. In fact, I was actually excited to feel that I could bring my own closure to the film. The ideas were scattered but no so far that it was ridiculous, and yet there was space for me to take ownership of the plot.
Finally, I really liked the imagery. To me, this was aa true art film. The camera work was interesting, moving from far off, stable shots, to closeups, and back to high angles and pans and tracks. I also liked the extreme closeups, especially in the bakery where Lena worked. When she was sharing photos with her friend, I felt like her, smiling politely at each picture, but not really caring about the content at all because I had no connections with any of them. I wanted to be there to share subtle annoyed looks with the unfortunate coworker. I liked how the photos were shown, and then the next camera angle was stable and looked like a photo because it was of a hill and far off. When Joe appeared at the top and walked down I almost laughed. He was portrayed as an awesome object, king on top of the world, yet far off, and he had followed my feelings of polite annoyance of the showing of the pictures. I got the feeling it meant Joe thought of himself as a very cool man, but really he was seen as annoying by his girlfriend, who maybe idolized him only out of habit. Now that she was mistreated by him and he obviously didn't care about her, why should she idolize him any longer?
My ovwerall impression was that this was a study of coming of age, and learning responsibility. Joe was still very immature. His girlfriend was more mature than him and had to put up with his immaturity, and he still fought with his mom and lived with her. I found the church scene especially interesting when Lena took the baby outside because he was crying. Joe looked annoyed and like he wanted to be anywhere else, even though they were in church as a family, like your typical perfect family...yet we know better from outside glances at their lives.
I really liked this sense of bordem I got from this film. it has inspired me to incorporate this idea into my feature film, which deals with bordem. But I want to be sure not to put anyone to sleep as well. I'll haev to see if I can experiment with his idea and see if I can make it work for me.
Monday, April 9, 2007
PORN
Gotta love that title, hey?
At least it got your attention.
Let me put it this way- I am SICK and TIRED of being forced to watch crap like what we had to watch today in the name of "art" and our grade. If it weren't for the fact that I could potentially need to have seen this video for the final, I would have left the class. I probably should have anyway, and then told Carl that he better give me whatever questions he would ask on the final as automatically right answers. I am a Christian, and I pride myself on remaining pure in thought and deed. The Bible tells us to meditate on things that are good and lovely and pure, and this video was anything BUT.
Now, if I spend my life avoiding things like this, why should I have to watch them in class for a grade? Was this prescreened? We had to watch a porno last year and that was bad enough, but this video was even WORSE than that, and that's hard to believe. It not only was openly sexual, it was openly sinful, degrading, and disgusting. I wanted to throw up, and I mean that literally.
So, this is art?
I was having this discussion with one of my friends from the class, afterwards. We were discussing sin and how it permeates anyone's art who is bound by it. If it was drunkenness, most people would laugh at the person's antics. I know a friend who is an alcoholic, and he sits alone at home, depressed, and knocks back hard liquor all night. If he made "art" what would it be? Probably something dealing with drinking. It's the same with sexual sins, like homosexual behaviors. It permeates a person, because they are stuck in their sin. Sin is bondage, and without Christ, you cannot be released. This sinful bondage was so strong in Jennifer's videos that it was like a disgusting and unclean spirit fell over me as I watched it. It was as if I could feel the bondage leaping off the screen.
My friend was saying that most experimental film is not true experimentation, but rather a divulging of a person's innermost sins. Most people will not watch them and they are not mainstream. They are basically lost people, crying out in pain through a medium called film. They don't even realize how lost they are. They think they are just "expressing" themselves, but really they are pushing their sins on us. They know they can't put these things in mainstream media, because it will be rejected. The world doesn't want to see your lesbian acts. I don't want to, and I can guarantee the kids in our class didn't want to. Maybe a few of them, perhaps struggling in sins of their own, enjoyed it, maybe even thought that this woman was brave for "being who she was" but ultimately they are just looking for a way to justify what they know is wrong. They want to reason it away. After all, this artist does it, so it can't be bad. Everyone says her art is "good".
Everything can be relative by us sinful humans, but God is NOT relative! Sin is sin and I am not in school to join in your sin. Keep it OUT of my FACE thanks! The Bible says to hate the sin and love the sinner, but He never said I had to love the system that condones that sin. If we go through this program thinking sin is "art" because our teachers and other artists say so, we are teaching ourselves to think the same way. We are being molded into disgusting immoral "experimentalists".
So what is experimental film? True experimentation is difficult to find. Most experimental films as a growing genre within itself, is merely an excuse to keep living in sin, and convincing other people that they are okay to live in their sin as well. People who make films like these are only called artists because other lost sinful people enjoy having their sins exposed and condoned.
So why was this "artist" in our class? I'd really like to know, honestly. I certainly didn't learn anything artistic from her. There was nothing original or experimental or even ARTISTIC about her films. And she's a teacher? What exactly does she teach her students? How to make pornos? How to be a lesbian? How to make everything about sex? Not even sex, but the degradation of something that God originally created to be beautiful and perfect? How does one person mess something up so horribly! And I still can't believe she was allowed to SHOW that! What a sickening glance at our fallen culture!
At least it got your attention.
Let me put it this way- I am SICK and TIRED of being forced to watch crap like what we had to watch today in the name of "art" and our grade. If it weren't for the fact that I could potentially need to have seen this video for the final, I would have left the class. I probably should have anyway, and then told Carl that he better give me whatever questions he would ask on the final as automatically right answers. I am a Christian, and I pride myself on remaining pure in thought and deed. The Bible tells us to meditate on things that are good and lovely and pure, and this video was anything BUT.
Now, if I spend my life avoiding things like this, why should I have to watch them in class for a grade? Was this prescreened? We had to watch a porno last year and that was bad enough, but this video was even WORSE than that, and that's hard to believe. It not only was openly sexual, it was openly sinful, degrading, and disgusting. I wanted to throw up, and I mean that literally.
So, this is art?
I was having this discussion with one of my friends from the class, afterwards. We were discussing sin and how it permeates anyone's art who is bound by it. If it was drunkenness, most people would laugh at the person's antics. I know a friend who is an alcoholic, and he sits alone at home, depressed, and knocks back hard liquor all night. If he made "art" what would it be? Probably something dealing with drinking. It's the same with sexual sins, like homosexual behaviors. It permeates a person, because they are stuck in their sin. Sin is bondage, and without Christ, you cannot be released. This sinful bondage was so strong in Jennifer's videos that it was like a disgusting and unclean spirit fell over me as I watched it. It was as if I could feel the bondage leaping off the screen.
My friend was saying that most experimental film is not true experimentation, but rather a divulging of a person's innermost sins. Most people will not watch them and they are not mainstream. They are basically lost people, crying out in pain through a medium called film. They don't even realize how lost they are. They think they are just "expressing" themselves, but really they are pushing their sins on us. They know they can't put these things in mainstream media, because it will be rejected. The world doesn't want to see your lesbian acts. I don't want to, and I can guarantee the kids in our class didn't want to. Maybe a few of them, perhaps struggling in sins of their own, enjoyed it, maybe even thought that this woman was brave for "being who she was" but ultimately they are just looking for a way to justify what they know is wrong. They want to reason it away. After all, this artist does it, so it can't be bad. Everyone says her art is "good".
Everything can be relative by us sinful humans, but God is NOT relative! Sin is sin and I am not in school to join in your sin. Keep it OUT of my FACE thanks! The Bible says to hate the sin and love the sinner, but He never said I had to love the system that condones that sin. If we go through this program thinking sin is "art" because our teachers and other artists say so, we are teaching ourselves to think the same way. We are being molded into disgusting immoral "experimentalists".
So what is experimental film? True experimentation is difficult to find. Most experimental films as a growing genre within itself, is merely an excuse to keep living in sin, and convincing other people that they are okay to live in their sin as well. People who make films like these are only called artists because other lost sinful people enjoy having their sins exposed and condoned.
So why was this "artist" in our class? I'd really like to know, honestly. I certainly didn't learn anything artistic from her. There was nothing original or experimental or even ARTISTIC about her films. And she's a teacher? What exactly does she teach her students? How to make pornos? How to be a lesbian? How to make everything about sex? Not even sex, but the degradation of something that God originally created to be beautiful and perfect? How does one person mess something up so horribly! And I still can't believe she was allowed to SHOW that! What a sickening glance at our fallen culture!
PORN
Gotta love that title, hey?
At least it got your attention.
Let me put it this way- I am SICK and TIRED of being forced to watch crap like what we had to watch today in the name of "art" and our grade. If it weren't for the fact that I could potentially need to have seen this video for the final, I would have left the class. I probably should have anyway, and then told Carl that he better give me whatever questions he would ask on the final as automatically right answers. I am a Christian, and I pride myself on remaining pure in thought and deed. The Bible tells us to meditate on things that are good and lovely and pure, and this video was anything BUT.
Now, if I spend my life avoiding things like this, why should I have to watch them in class for a grade? Was this prescreened? We had to watch a porno last year and that was bad enough, but this video was even WORSE than that, and that's hard to believe. It not only was openly sexual, it was openly sinful, degrading, and disgusting. I wanted to throw up, and I mean that literally.
So, this is art?
I was having this discussion with one of my friends from the class, afterwards. We were discussing sin and how it permeates anyone's art who is bound by it. If it was drunkenness, most people would laugh at the person's antics. I know a friend who is an alcoholic, and he sits alone at home, depressed, and knocks back hard liquor all night. If he made "art" what would it be? Probably something dealing with drinking. It's the same with sexual sins, like homosexual behaviors. It permeates a person, because they are stuck in their sin. Sin is bondage, and without Christ, you cannot be released. This sinful bondage was so strong in Jennifer's videos that it was like a disgusting and unclean spirit fell over me as I watched it. It was as if I could feel the bondage leaping off the screen.
My friend was saying that most experimental film is not true experimentation, but rather a divulging of a person's innermost sins. Most people will not watch them and they are not mainstream. They are basically lost people, crying out in pain through a medium called film. They don't even realize how lost they are. They think they are just "expressing" themselves, but really they are pushing their sins on us. They know they can't put these things in mainstream media, because it will be rejected. The world doesn't want to see your lesbian acts. I don't want to, and I can guarantee the kids in our class didn't want to. Maybe a few of them, perhaps struggling in sins of their own, enjoyed it, maybe even thought that this woman was brave for "being who she was" but ultimately they are just looking for a way to justify what they know is wrong. They want to reason it away. After all, this artist does it, so it can't be bad. Everyone says her art is "good".
Everything can be relative by us sinful humans, but God is NOT relative! Sin is sin and I am not in school to join in your sin. Keep it OUT of my FACE thanks! The Bible says to hate the sin and love the sinner, but He never said I had to love the system that condones that sin. If we go through this program thinking sin is "art" because our teachers and other artists say so, we are teaching ourselves to think the same way. We are being molded into disgusting immoral "experimentalists".
So what is experimental film? True experimentation is difficult to find. Most experimental films as a growing genre within itself, is merely an excuse to keep living in sin, and convincing other people that they are okay to live in their sin as well. People who make films like these are only called artists because other lost sinful people enjoy having their sins exposed and condoned.
So why was this "artist" in our class? I'd really like to know, honestly. I certainly didn't learn anything artistic from her. There was nothing original or experimental or even ARTISTIC about her films. And she's a teacher? What exactly does she teach her students? How to make pornos? How to be a lesbian? How to make everything about sex? Not even sex, but the degradation of something that God originally created to be beautiful and perfect? How does one person mess something up so horribly! And I still can't believe she was allowed to SHOW that! What a sickening glance at our fallen culture!
At least it got your attention.
Let me put it this way- I am SICK and TIRED of being forced to watch crap like what we had to watch today in the name of "art" and our grade. If it weren't for the fact that I could potentially need to have seen this video for the final, I would have left the class. I probably should have anyway, and then told Carl that he better give me whatever questions he would ask on the final as automatically right answers. I am a Christian, and I pride myself on remaining pure in thought and deed. The Bible tells us to meditate on things that are good and lovely and pure, and this video was anything BUT.
Now, if I spend my life avoiding things like this, why should I have to watch them in class for a grade? Was this prescreened? We had to watch a porno last year and that was bad enough, but this video was even WORSE than that, and that's hard to believe. It not only was openly sexual, it was openly sinful, degrading, and disgusting. I wanted to throw up, and I mean that literally.
So, this is art?
I was having this discussion with one of my friends from the class, afterwards. We were discussing sin and how it permeates anyone's art who is bound by it. If it was drunkenness, most people would laugh at the person's antics. I know a friend who is an alcoholic, and he sits alone at home, depressed, and knocks back hard liquor all night. If he made "art" what would it be? Probably something dealing with drinking. It's the same with sexual sins, like homosexual behaviors. It permeates a person, because they are stuck in their sin. Sin is bondage, and without Christ, you cannot be released. This sinful bondage was so strong in Jennifer's videos that it was like a disgusting and unclean spirit fell over me as I watched it. It was as if I could feel the bondage leaping off the screen.
My friend was saying that most experimental film is not true experimentation, but rather a divulging of a person's innermost sins. Most people will not watch them and they are not mainstream. They are basically lost people, crying out in pain through a medium called film. They don't even realize how lost they are. They think they are just "expressing" themselves, but really they are pushing their sins on us. They know they can't put these things in mainstream media, because it will be rejected. The world doesn't want to see your lesbian acts. I don't want to, and I can guarantee the kids in our class didn't want to. Maybe a few of them, perhaps struggling in sins of their own, enjoyed it, maybe even thought that this woman was brave for "being who she was" but ultimately they are just looking for a way to justify what they know is wrong. They want to reason it away. After all, this artist does it, so it can't be bad. Everyone says her art is "good".
Everything can be relative by us sinful humans, but God is NOT relative! Sin is sin and I am not in school to join in your sin. Keep it OUT of my FACE thanks! The Bible says to hate the sin and love the sinner, but He never said I had to love the system that condones that sin. If we go through this program thinking sin is "art" because our teachers and other artists say so, we are teaching ourselves to think the same way. We are being molded into disgusting immoral "experimentalists".
So what is experimental film? True experimentation is difficult to find. Most experimental films as a growing genre within itself, is merely an excuse to keep living in sin, and convincing other people that they are okay to live in their sin as well. People who make films like these are only called artists because other lost sinful people enjoy having their sins exposed and condoned.
So why was this "artist" in our class? I'd really like to know, honestly. I certainly didn't learn anything artistic from her. There was nothing original or experimental or even ARTISTIC about her films. And she's a teacher? What exactly does she teach her students? How to make pornos? How to be a lesbian? How to make everything about sex? Not even sex, but the degradation of something that God originally created to be beautiful and perfect? How does one person mess something up so horribly! And I still can't believe she was allowed to SHOW that! What a sickening glance at our fallen culture!
Monday, April 2, 2007
Jackie Goss
Well the films and videos we watched today weere not as inspiring to me as the last few visiting artists have been. It makes me wonder if perhaps watching a film some guy once did once is as interesting as having the actual artist there in person. I don't think it compares at all. I think the artist's passion for his ir her work is probably the most important aspect of engaging in any kind of art. Perhaps this works well for galleries, then. When it comes to Hollywood film, no one cares really who made it, because it isn't about that. In experimental film, however, I find myself bored to tears because I don't get the meaning behind the films as well as if I had the artist there to tell me and show me with how they talk and such. Imparting one's passion to another is a wonderful experience, and it can be just as fun from the receiving end. But just watching a film just isn't the same.
That said, I did enjoy Jackie Goss's animation. Unlike her last animation, this one was engaging and actual animation. It really made me think, too. I wondered over and over how she made those scarey characters. Was is paint? Illustrator? An animation program? And how did she get all those interesting camera angles in the video game? How did she even edit the video game into a video at all? If she had been there I could have asked those questions and learned about her new techniques. I probably would have been as inspired as I was with Vladmir, but I was not quite as interested because I had no one to ask.
I also liked the subject matter of her video. I am personally very interested in the direction our government is going, and I can see it isn't positive. I thought it was intriguing that Jackie would use this approach to the new government's rules, like US Visit. They do some crazy things to immigrants! And because we are not immigrants, we do not know what our government is doing. I have a small idea, but I have not experienced the big picture. If I was inspired by anything today, it was this. I could make a video like this, too- a subtle way to figuring out what the government is up to, and a way to expose it to a close-eyed public.
And as for the Jane Fonda video...well....I liked the idea, but in application I thought it failed miserably. Perhaps it was the poor use of font, or seeing the filmmaker's scrawny body in tight pants, I'm not sure exactly. The music was engaging and the constant change of sceenery was timed to the music, which helped you stay interested, and I loved watching the big group of people try to copy the moves behind the filmmaker, but other than that, I was just disturbed. There was no image on the tv's he was dancing to, he was dressed in disgusting outfits, and the text was just ugly. He should have scratched onto film or used a different color or integrated it better somehow. I'm not sure exactly how, but he could have split the screen or something. It just didn't work. The text did not add, it took away. I liked the idea, it was just not artistically put together.
That said, I did enjoy Jackie Goss's animation. Unlike her last animation, this one was engaging and actual animation. It really made me think, too. I wondered over and over how she made those scarey characters. Was is paint? Illustrator? An animation program? And how did she get all those interesting camera angles in the video game? How did she even edit the video game into a video at all? If she had been there I could have asked those questions and learned about her new techniques. I probably would have been as inspired as I was with Vladmir, but I was not quite as interested because I had no one to ask.
I also liked the subject matter of her video. I am personally very interested in the direction our government is going, and I can see it isn't positive. I thought it was intriguing that Jackie would use this approach to the new government's rules, like US Visit. They do some crazy things to immigrants! And because we are not immigrants, we do not know what our government is doing. I have a small idea, but I have not experienced the big picture. If I was inspired by anything today, it was this. I could make a video like this, too- a subtle way to figuring out what the government is up to, and a way to expose it to a close-eyed public.
And as for the Jane Fonda video...well....I liked the idea, but in application I thought it failed miserably. Perhaps it was the poor use of font, or seeing the filmmaker's scrawny body in tight pants, I'm not sure exactly. The music was engaging and the constant change of sceenery was timed to the music, which helped you stay interested, and I loved watching the big group of people try to copy the moves behind the filmmaker, but other than that, I was just disturbed. There was no image on the tv's he was dancing to, he was dressed in disgusting outfits, and the text was just ugly. He should have scratched onto film or used a different color or integrated it better somehow. I'm not sure exactly how, but he could have split the screen or something. It just didn't work. The text did not add, it took away. I liked the idea, it was just not artistically put together.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Vladmir
I was really impressed with this artist. I had just as much fun as the last time, with the camera obscura. I was genuinely interested and had real questions and once again got inspired. I doubt I'll actually decide to engage in this art, but I think it's very cool that she can actually sell her work. That's difficult to do in art! She's lucky. It's hard to find a medium in art that will encourage people to buy. It has to be functional art. Basic drawings and paintings just don't do it anymore. Very few people will buy that kind of art. It makes me want to finally give in and adapt my art to something functional and buyable, so I won't have to live in a box when I graduate lol! Or rather, live at home until I'm fifty. That's really not cool, either. (not gonna lie)
One thing I specifically enjoyed about this art was how engaging it was. Much like watching a film in a theatre, it engaged an entire group together. We fed off each other's laughter also, which I really liked. The silly short stories seemed to encourage people to laugh, as well, and by extention caused us to engage with each other even more. At the same time, however, the experience was entirely personal, since we each had our own viewfinder. I found that this made the stories more engaging because each picture had to manipulated by you. You had to pay attention all the time to hear the noise to change the pictures. It ensured your engagement with the subject matter. Once again, I was pleasantly surprised to engage with true experimental art, and I enjoyed it and was inspired.
Another thing I liked about it was the stories themselves. They were often childlike, bringing back memories of being a kid, when we watched these viewfinders as little 7 and 8 year olds. I found that I felt younger and wonderfully immature, laughing at silly kid stories and actually enjoying being immature for once. Carefree almost. Perhaps these can be marketed as good stress relievers!
At the same time, I could see how the stories could be made more artsy instead of childlike as well. I like this versatility. "Fear and Trembling" was great! It was not childlike at all. It had true artistic aspects to it and was not so big on the laughter side. I liked it because I had no idea what was going on but the images were vibrant and interesting and the noises used were almost foreboding in manner. I liked the contrast of foreboding music vs the bright very normal images or the dinner table and girls' shoes. It was interesting to see how the sounds impacted the images and changed the story so completely. It made me realize how important the sounds were to the piece. After all, as kids we had no sound, just the pictures.
It's pretty amazing that this artist has been able to put together history, remeniscence, and usefullness into a brand new, yet old art. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
One thing I specifically enjoyed about this art was how engaging it was. Much like watching a film in a theatre, it engaged an entire group together. We fed off each other's laughter also, which I really liked. The silly short stories seemed to encourage people to laugh, as well, and by extention caused us to engage with each other even more. At the same time, however, the experience was entirely personal, since we each had our own viewfinder. I found that this made the stories more engaging because each picture had to manipulated by you. You had to pay attention all the time to hear the noise to change the pictures. It ensured your engagement with the subject matter. Once again, I was pleasantly surprised to engage with true experimental art, and I enjoyed it and was inspired.
Another thing I liked about it was the stories themselves. They were often childlike, bringing back memories of being a kid, when we watched these viewfinders as little 7 and 8 year olds. I found that I felt younger and wonderfully immature, laughing at silly kid stories and actually enjoying being immature for once. Carefree almost. Perhaps these can be marketed as good stress relievers!
At the same time, I could see how the stories could be made more artsy instead of childlike as well. I like this versatility. "Fear and Trembling" was great! It was not childlike at all. It had true artistic aspects to it and was not so big on the laughter side. I liked it because I had no idea what was going on but the images were vibrant and interesting and the noises used were almost foreboding in manner. I liked the contrast of foreboding music vs the bright very normal images or the dinner table and girls' shoes. It was interesting to see how the sounds impacted the images and changed the story so completely. It made me realize how important the sounds were to the piece. After all, as kids we had no sound, just the pictures.
It's pretty amazing that this artist has been able to put together history, remeniscence, and usefullness into a brand new, yet old art. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Monday, March 12, 2007
Camera Obscura
This marks the first artist's work that was not only interesting to me, but also inspired me. Ethan's work was so original and appealing, experimental in a sense, but not as a genre...rather his work was true experimentation. I like how he dug into the fundamentals of film itself and was fascinated by those basics, and used them to his advantage. It reminds me of how I love 80's clothing, but I only certain kinds. Yes, nothing is as good as the original, as they say, but the original doesn't fit this new world we live in without a small twist of some sort. Just like we wear 80's clothing with a twist of new century style, Ethan used the old thought processes of ancient cameras and went back to the very basics of what film is- light sculpture- and gave it a modern twist. I loved his work, completely and totally. Shocker!
First of all I really enjoyed the installation aspect of his work. I like being immersed in the work, feeling part of it and almost as if I am partially in control of it...much like the sphere film we saw in 102 last year. We were able to manipulate the experience each time, with new groups of people. It encouraged us to be just as creative as the artist. This time, for this work, we joked around in front of the lens, so the others inside could laugh and watch our antics from inside. We were able to manipulate the art. It was also different every time we interacted with it.
Second, I really enjoyed his time lapsed photography. That work in itself was a whole new art form for itself. It was a film made of photography shots. You could almost call it film animation. Yet, it was documentary, catching the people as they reacted with the work. It was almost a study of frames, much like Robert Breer. You could better understand the whole film if you could experience the frames separately. To me this is a whole new medium, and I could see him making real use of this idea. For once, as I said before, I was inspired. I might even try to do this myself! Here are the ideas I got from the session:
1) Screensavers, to make money
2) Framed screens (I've seen them before) showing recorded video from his time lapsed photography-it's like a live photo- it will engage you over and over every time you see it
3) Installation museum works, recording the camera obscuras and projecting them into a space, so you feel surrounded by the picture and it will not get obscured with bad weather-also easier to show without all the setup work
4) Projecting into spaces with white objects in it, sculptures almost...like you could put several oddly shaped squares in the space and project the camera obscuras that were recorded from all different angles, coating the odd forms
5) Sound could be added to the framed works, to help people sleep or to set a mood for a nice dinner at good restaurants
6) Make time lapsed photography that correlates in theme... maybe even stage objects to come by the lens or people, etc, so that the space reflects and matches what the light sees in the space...them take a photo or a time lapse series and that way it works together instead of being always random
7) Make recorded time lapsed photography sessions of a space several days in a row or longer, then put it all in a gallery space as several recordings, using the dual projector idea, showing the different times side by side so you can compare the differences
8) Another gallery idea, take time lapsed photography of the camera obscuras and put them along the walls and let people walk around the space, experiencing each one separately or being able to walk tot he center and look around at all of them, completely surrounded- some could be live as well...you could have some on the ceiling and floors also, to be completely engaged
9) Make the time lapse photo series and project them one over the other with the dual projection system, with camera obscuras from the same place or closely related places, or completely random places, like a racetrack with galloping horses superimposed over an ocean scene or sky scene, so they look almost like they are galloping in the clouds or in the ocean
10) Have live performers outside as they engage with the viewers inside...make them interact in the space almost like theatre, only in a whole new way...almost like a moving photograph. Could also be done as a theme, the camera obscura happening inside the theatre as the actors act outside. The viewers could watch from the theatre inside but they are not watching the stage, instead the camera obscura outside where everything is ether scripted or improv. Would make a great theme for time lapsed photography.
Awesome stuff awesome! This is true experimental cinema- opening people's eyes to new ways of doing things by true experimentation. Good stuff.
First of all I really enjoyed the installation aspect of his work. I like being immersed in the work, feeling part of it and almost as if I am partially in control of it...much like the sphere film we saw in 102 last year. We were able to manipulate the experience each time, with new groups of people. It encouraged us to be just as creative as the artist. This time, for this work, we joked around in front of the lens, so the others inside could laugh and watch our antics from inside. We were able to manipulate the art. It was also different every time we interacted with it.
Second, I really enjoyed his time lapsed photography. That work in itself was a whole new art form for itself. It was a film made of photography shots. You could almost call it film animation. Yet, it was documentary, catching the people as they reacted with the work. It was almost a study of frames, much like Robert Breer. You could better understand the whole film if you could experience the frames separately. To me this is a whole new medium, and I could see him making real use of this idea. For once, as I said before, I was inspired. I might even try to do this myself! Here are the ideas I got from the session:
1) Screensavers, to make money
2) Framed screens (I've seen them before) showing recorded video from his time lapsed photography-it's like a live photo- it will engage you over and over every time you see it
3) Installation museum works, recording the camera obscuras and projecting them into a space, so you feel surrounded by the picture and it will not get obscured with bad weather-also easier to show without all the setup work
4) Projecting into spaces with white objects in it, sculptures almost...like you could put several oddly shaped squares in the space and project the camera obscuras that were recorded from all different angles, coating the odd forms
5) Sound could be added to the framed works, to help people sleep or to set a mood for a nice dinner at good restaurants
6) Make time lapsed photography that correlates in theme... maybe even stage objects to come by the lens or people, etc, so that the space reflects and matches what the light sees in the space...them take a photo or a time lapse series and that way it works together instead of being always random
7) Make recorded time lapsed photography sessions of a space several days in a row or longer, then put it all in a gallery space as several recordings, using the dual projector idea, showing the different times side by side so you can compare the differences
8) Another gallery idea, take time lapsed photography of the camera obscuras and put them along the walls and let people walk around the space, experiencing each one separately or being able to walk tot he center and look around at all of them, completely surrounded- some could be live as well...you could have some on the ceiling and floors also, to be completely engaged
9) Make the time lapse photo series and project them one over the other with the dual projection system, with camera obscuras from the same place or closely related places, or completely random places, like a racetrack with galloping horses superimposed over an ocean scene or sky scene, so they look almost like they are galloping in the clouds or in the ocean
10) Have live performers outside as they engage with the viewers inside...make them interact in the space almost like theatre, only in a whole new way...almost like a moving photograph. Could also be done as a theme, the camera obscura happening inside the theatre as the actors act outside. The viewers could watch from the theatre inside but they are not watching the stage, instead the camera obscura outside where everything is ether scripted or improv. Would make a great theme for time lapsed photography.
Awesome stuff awesome! This is true experimental cinema- opening people's eyes to new ways of doing things by true experimentation. Good stuff.
Monday, March 5, 2007
http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com
Well, I'd like to start off with saying that of all the works we explored today, I liked Brent's the best. I think it's rather cool to be able to say your former TA's work is your favorite out of all the works you are presented in an art class, no matter what medium. Go Brent!! I hope I have time to see his work as installation. For some reason I really like the idea of installations works. I think if I must watch experimental film, it just seems better...perhaps more suited to the genre... if it is seen on a monitor. Why? I'm not sure. I guess my generation is so used to seeing Hollywood film projected, that monitors are now out of date for us in a sense, at least when it comes to art. So to me, in my film generation, the monitor seems more interesting and untouched as art, therefore rendering it more interesting for artistic purposes. Brent's piece was certainly still good to watch in the double projection idea, but I could see it being much more effective as an installation. I could see myself standing between the two screens, having the pictures fill each and seem bigger than they did in class, pounding at me from both sides. I can see myself barraged, looking back and forth, hearing the banging and really getting into it, as if the sound were to attack me in the center. I also think it would look better in a completely dark room, with no projection light. It would seem more jarring and fast.
Then I checked out the "Learning to Love You More" website. I found it very interesting and I wish I had time to do more with it. Maybe once summer comes I can do a more involved one. For now, I settled for a rather simple one...the flash photo under your bed. I keep all of my toiletries under my bed because I have no closet, a tiny room, and among three people only one bathroom, which is also tiny. So I have to cram all my stuff under my bed in baskets. I have my hair stuff (brush, pins, clips, bands, etc) in one handheld basket, and the other two contain my other stuff like makeup, extra contacts, lotions, facewashes, creams, curling iron, blow dryer, fake hair, etc. Behind that I have my old collection of small rubber horses in a plastic bag, as well as things that ended up there randomly. For these pictures I took one of the stuff I have in the baskets, then I pulled them away and showed pictures of what was behind them.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Reactions to Laura Marks
First off, is it just me, or did we not get to see any of her works? Did she have part in these works at all? Or did she just expose us to them? Granted, I liked the works alot, better than most experimental works I've seen all semester, and I liked her alot. She was easy in front of a crowd, knew her subjects, and presented ideas without nervousness or poor speaking. I liked her alot. But the works were not hers. Why did she present them then? Did I miss something? I know she was there because I read her letters home, but none of these works were hers.
Second, like I said before, I really liked the works she presented.
"Vacuum" was the first experimental film I've ever seen that made me laugh. Most experimental films dig deep into depressions of the human mind, buried unspoken words brought to the surface in emotion climax. I like that idea in general, but after awhile it wears on the spirit. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed these pieces. Like Laura said, they are a sad people, but they hide it well. This is evidenced in their videos. In "Vacuum" we were able to explore cultural differences and copmare them in an interesting and fun way, unlike most depressing films.
"Les Egeres, The Lost Ones" was a little more sad in a way, but it also showed how they hang on as a culture. Even though they looked lonely,as if they were the few taking on the world's strife, the people standing on the rooftops of the cathedral seemed as if they were saying they might endure hardship, but they stand on their beliefs, their god, and in so doing they can face anything. They seemed incredibly heroic to me. Even though their lives stood very close to the plummeting edge, they stood firm, often walking even and only holding on for support every once in a while. The camera angles seemed to encourage the idea of instability in regard to the people, especially the girl that was lying on the doorframe; yet, the camera shifts so that we see the men standing tall on the cathedral, as if they are strong and mighty and unafraid fo the height. It is a deliberate hero shot with the camera low to the ground, making the people seem bigger than they are, and making them seem as stable as the cathedral. They draw their strength from their religion and weak as they are, they carry on, despite hardship. I loved the duality of frailness to strength. In a sense thee film said to us that fraility is what makes us heroic, because we are made to stand against it. This was my favorite film, probably because I too am religious.
Another video I really liked was the patterned work by Alshaibi. I felt absorbed in the work, as if I couldn't pull away from it. It had a certain amount of control over me, as if it were trying to hypnotize me. We've seen several patterned films in this class, but this one actually drew me in. I think it was the regularity of the circular patterns and the music. The music made it more interesting to me. Our culture emphasizes music greatly, and I'm sure that's part of it. I didn't get the spiritual sense from it, but I can see how it relates to the spiritual nature of their culture. For me, religion has nothing to do with patterns and music, so I didn't get the connection until I was told.
Finally, I especialy liked thee animation we saw. It was rather depressing, but the point was brought across well. I don't kknow much about Arabic culture, but after getting the background story from Laura I was able to make more sense of the animation. You could see how the man was constantly trying to be happy but it was always eluding him, and how he kept trying anyhow. I was interested by the water face, how he saw his face happy in the water, and then bottled it. Why does the water make him happy? My idea was that he was considerinig suicide when he saw the gathered water, and the thought of escaping the sadness through death was appealing for him and made him smile. Yet he knew killing himself was not he answer so he tried to conserve the happy feeling and leave the suicide. I have no idea if that waas the intention, but that is how it struck me.
Second, like I said before, I really liked the works she presented.
"Vacuum" was the first experimental film I've ever seen that made me laugh. Most experimental films dig deep into depressions of the human mind, buried unspoken words brought to the surface in emotion climax. I like that idea in general, but after awhile it wears on the spirit. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed these pieces. Like Laura said, they are a sad people, but they hide it well. This is evidenced in their videos. In "Vacuum" we were able to explore cultural differences and copmare them in an interesting and fun way, unlike most depressing films.
"Les Egeres, The Lost Ones" was a little more sad in a way, but it also showed how they hang on as a culture. Even though they looked lonely,as if they were the few taking on the world's strife, the people standing on the rooftops of the cathedral seemed as if they were saying they might endure hardship, but they stand on their beliefs, their god, and in so doing they can face anything. They seemed incredibly heroic to me. Even though their lives stood very close to the plummeting edge, they stood firm, often walking even and only holding on for support every once in a while. The camera angles seemed to encourage the idea of instability in regard to the people, especially the girl that was lying on the doorframe; yet, the camera shifts so that we see the men standing tall on the cathedral, as if they are strong and mighty and unafraid fo the height. It is a deliberate hero shot with the camera low to the ground, making the people seem bigger than they are, and making them seem as stable as the cathedral. They draw their strength from their religion and weak as they are, they carry on, despite hardship. I loved the duality of frailness to strength. In a sense thee film said to us that fraility is what makes us heroic, because we are made to stand against it. This was my favorite film, probably because I too am religious.
Another video I really liked was the patterned work by Alshaibi. I felt absorbed in the work, as if I couldn't pull away from it. It had a certain amount of control over me, as if it were trying to hypnotize me. We've seen several patterned films in this class, but this one actually drew me in. I think it was the regularity of the circular patterns and the music. The music made it more interesting to me. Our culture emphasizes music greatly, and I'm sure that's part of it. I didn't get the spiritual sense from it, but I can see how it relates to the spiritual nature of their culture. For me, religion has nothing to do with patterns and music, so I didn't get the connection until I was told.
Finally, I especialy liked thee animation we saw. It was rather depressing, but the point was brought across well. I don't kknow much about Arabic culture, but after getting the background story from Laura I was able to make more sense of the animation. You could see how the man was constantly trying to be happy but it was always eluding him, and how he kept trying anyhow. I was interested by the water face, how he saw his face happy in the water, and then bottled it. Why does the water make him happy? My idea was that he was considerinig suicide when he saw the gathered water, and the thought of escaping the sadness through death was appealing for him and made him smile. Yet he knew killing himself was not he answer so he tried to conserve the happy feeling and leave the suicide. I have no idea if that waas the intention, but that is how it struck me.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Ankerman's D'Est and Michael Snow
One of our questions was to see how Michael Snow's work is reflected in D'Est, because Akerman listed him as an influence in her art. I decided to take that further and explain how Michael Snow's particular film Wavelength and D'Est are the same.
One I saw was the colorizations. One of my favorite parts of D'Est was the color scheme, and the same goes for Michale Snow's Wavelength. My favorite shot was a man in a red tank top sitting on a green bench against a wall of the same color. The bench and the background both were stripes, but they went at opposite angles, making them alike and yet disalike at the same time. It was like a photograph, but the character was moving. Wavelength used color in a similar way, but also different. The lone chair, I believe it was yellow, stood out from the background and it also looked like a photograph in it's own right. Yet, while Michael Snow used colored filters over his film and colored the entire film odd and alternating colors, D'Est stayed all one color scheme. It was all realistic colors, but it still seemed to flow together as one. The parts with the Russians standing in line or lying in the train station were a brownish, old-time feel and the scenes in the cook's room was all warm colors and warm ambient light.
Another aspect that was similar was the sense of stageplay in the film. In D'Est the characters seemed staged even though it was supposed to be real life. The one woman took forever to put on makeup and she also took very careful stock of her cooking. It also took her forever to turn on the record player, just standing there like she was completely frozen or such. In Wavelength, there is a murder portrayed, but it is also very fake. The death scene is incredibly staged. I think this is the point in both films, actually. Both are focused more on the art than the acting. The whole point is the colors and the staged aspect of "real" life.
I thought another aspect was similar, but it is more abstract. The camera usage was also, I felt a correlation between the films. In Wavelength the camera was a continuous zoom for 45 minutes to the other end of the room, ending on a photograph of water. The camera was jerky, however, and the film stock and filters changed often. This idea was also in D'Est. The camera was quite uniquely used as opposed to other films. It would be stable, then do a tracking shot for 5 minutes straight. There were never any very interesting or unique shot angles, but the closeups versus the long shots, the stable photograph- like shots versus the extremely long tracking shots, all made interesting use of a very basic idea...the tracking shot and the closeup. Wavelength did this also, by using a very basic idea of the zoom, yet using it artfully and in a new way that no one else had ever done.
One I saw was the colorizations. One of my favorite parts of D'Est was the color scheme, and the same goes for Michale Snow's Wavelength. My favorite shot was a man in a red tank top sitting on a green bench against a wall of the same color. The bench and the background both were stripes, but they went at opposite angles, making them alike and yet disalike at the same time. It was like a photograph, but the character was moving. Wavelength used color in a similar way, but also different. The lone chair, I believe it was yellow, stood out from the background and it also looked like a photograph in it's own right. Yet, while Michael Snow used colored filters over his film and colored the entire film odd and alternating colors, D'Est stayed all one color scheme. It was all realistic colors, but it still seemed to flow together as one. The parts with the Russians standing in line or lying in the train station were a brownish, old-time feel and the scenes in the cook's room was all warm colors and warm ambient light.
Another aspect that was similar was the sense of stageplay in the film. In D'Est the characters seemed staged even though it was supposed to be real life. The one woman took forever to put on makeup and she also took very careful stock of her cooking. It also took her forever to turn on the record player, just standing there like she was completely frozen or such. In Wavelength, there is a murder portrayed, but it is also very fake. The death scene is incredibly staged. I think this is the point in both films, actually. Both are focused more on the art than the acting. The whole point is the colors and the staged aspect of "real" life.
I thought another aspect was similar, but it is more abstract. The camera usage was also, I felt a correlation between the films. In Wavelength the camera was a continuous zoom for 45 minutes to the other end of the room, ending on a photograph of water. The camera was jerky, however, and the film stock and filters changed often. This idea was also in D'Est. The camera was quite uniquely used as opposed to other films. It would be stable, then do a tracking shot for 5 minutes straight. There were never any very interesting or unique shot angles, but the closeups versus the long shots, the stable photograph- like shots versus the extremely long tracking shots, all made interesting use of a very basic idea...the tracking shot and the closeup. Wavelength did this also, by using a very basic idea of the zoom, yet using it artfully and in a new way that no one else had ever done.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Gangsta Feet
Ya ya it's cheesy...but I couldn't resist. I actually planned on watching a movie for this blog but I ended up being too busy again. (I left home at 4:15 AM, worked, did some animation at school, then went to a club meeting, and just got home at 9:10 PM and I have to get up at 3:30 AM again for work all day tomorrow so I can't stay up late) So I was rather frantic, wondering what I could possibly blog on instead. Then I got home and I checked my facebook account. Everyone's activities are followed on facebook now, and someone had posted a link to a remix of Happy Feet. I thought it looked cute so I checked it out. After I watched it, I realized I had just interacted with art, almost without even thinking about it. YouTube has become a rather regular part of our lives. Just like most everyone is either on facebook, myspace, or, as in my case and many others, both-many people are beginning to see YouTube as a normal occurance to online activity. More than the quality of the movies it represents, the website is more about artful interaction. It makes art a part of life, instead of some intangible "filmmaker" thing. Anyone who has a camera and the internet can create something.
Now in a way this is a good concept, because it helps everyone get in touch with their creative side. It also connects artists online, which is a vast untapped universe of filmmakers connections. Out of these random, distance-separated and otherwise unlikely relationships come new ideas and applications of ideas. Perhaps some ideas one never would have ever actually tried to make come to fruition may actually happen because that one person met one other online that helped him realize his ideas were worth the time to make. Perhaps they created the listening, caring mentor role, or they may even have helped with technical difficulties. The point is, filmmaking is about connections and support, and the internet provides this well. In the case of YouTube, filmmakers are a dime a dozen. People that may never have thought of themselves as the next big director may suddenly realize an online video blog sounds fun...and that feeling grows and gets developed in a fun and easy way, until they realize they are more creative than they thought. A friend they met on YouTube may tell them that one of their videos was artistic and suddenly a new filmmaker is born.
There is another aspect to YouTube that I find interesting. It creates an environment of truly experimental film. Not experimental in the sense that we see in class, but true experimentation of the media. After all, who cares what people think of a video blog? A friend's birthday party? It isn't like the film is going to a festival. So the filmmakers hidden in their safe rooms and playing around with the video camera and fun and brand new editing techniques, are completely unhindered by society's wishes. They make exactly what they want. Whatever feels fun or creative to them, they do. There are no expectations. So why not?
So then you come up with random funny and totally off the wall videos like this Happy Feet remix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcreSuOfYYQ
No, the video isn't especially good, but that isn't the point. The point is, whoever this filmmaker was, he wanted to make a spoof of Happy Feet. He probably saw the film and felt he could make it better, or at least better according to what he personally wanted to see. He wasn't hindered by legal rights for use of footage from Happy Feet, or rights to the music he used, because he has no interest in selling his work. He made it simply for his own enjoyment. And personally, as I watched it, I could sense this kid's passion, and it made the video that much more interesting to watch.
Now in a way this is a good concept, because it helps everyone get in touch with their creative side. It also connects artists online, which is a vast untapped universe of filmmakers connections. Out of these random, distance-separated and otherwise unlikely relationships come new ideas and applications of ideas. Perhaps some ideas one never would have ever actually tried to make come to fruition may actually happen because that one person met one other online that helped him realize his ideas were worth the time to make. Perhaps they created the listening, caring mentor role, or they may even have helped with technical difficulties. The point is, filmmaking is about connections and support, and the internet provides this well. In the case of YouTube, filmmakers are a dime a dozen. People that may never have thought of themselves as the next big director may suddenly realize an online video blog sounds fun...and that feeling grows and gets developed in a fun and easy way, until they realize they are more creative than they thought. A friend they met on YouTube may tell them that one of their videos was artistic and suddenly a new filmmaker is born.
There is another aspect to YouTube that I find interesting. It creates an environment of truly experimental film. Not experimental in the sense that we see in class, but true experimentation of the media. After all, who cares what people think of a video blog? A friend's birthday party? It isn't like the film is going to a festival. So the filmmakers hidden in their safe rooms and playing around with the video camera and fun and brand new editing techniques, are completely unhindered by society's wishes. They make exactly what they want. Whatever feels fun or creative to them, they do. There are no expectations. So why not?
So then you come up with random funny and totally off the wall videos like this Happy Feet remix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcreSuOfYYQ
No, the video isn't especially good, but that isn't the point. The point is, whoever this filmmaker was, he wanted to make a spoof of Happy Feet. He probably saw the film and felt he could make it better, or at least better according to what he personally wanted to see. He wasn't hindered by legal rights for use of footage from Happy Feet, or rights to the music he used, because he has no interest in selling his work. He made it simply for his own enjoyment. And personally, as I watched it, I could sense this kid's passion, and it made the video that much more interesting to watch.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Filmmakers
So I did the E-Reserve readings (I figured out how to do it from home!!!) and I really liked this quote from the first reading: "I got crazy about movie immediately and I decided to make movies that same night...." Apparently she got inspired by Jean-Luc Godard, and off she went into the business, with no prior interest. Within a year she had gotten a film made, and three years later, she was recognized for her work. it says she went to film school and traveled to Paris at a theatre school as well. Once she decided what to do, she ran and did it. I think film is a passion quite like that. I did the same thing. My entire life I had no idea what to do with myself. I had never even considered film, because as interesting as I found movies, they seemed to be in a world all their own, and making one never seemed possible. If there is one thing I've learned though, it's that you have to have passion for this medium. Alot of people settle on film because they think it might be fun to be famous, or maybe it seems like less work than a science degree in its stead. But true filmmakers are those that realize the hard work behind it. They set goals and do whatever they can to realize them. Even if they are sidetracked for a few years, or arent' recognized for several years, they press on. I've had the same troubles when I started out, but I also had the same goal- get out and make a film! Practice, connect, learn, work! Film is exciting, but it's also incredibly hard work and takes much focus and diliberate intention.
The other quote I want to discuss is this: "I think it's the same, narrative and non-narrative. I've done both, I know it's exactly the same. When you do both, you know you are dealing with the same problems anyways."
I like this quote. As much as I hate experimental film, I have come to see that many of them do in fact have a narrative. Perhaps I am coming to a turning point. No, I may never like experimental film, but I think Akerman is correct in this. After all, just because you don't like one film doesn't mean you won't like another. I hate drama usually, but I loved Phantom of the Opera, and a few others as well...you can't lump everything into one category. A filmmaker has artistic decisions to make at all times, whether Hollywood film or experimental. You have the same basic decisions to make, the same locations and actors to deal with, and sometimes even a script to write...as wel as the age old hated budget. These things relate between both types of film. You are dealing with the same storyline ideas, basic concepts, and thought processes of the films, whether narrative or non-narrative. Perhaps experimental could be called a new genre of film, just like a horror film, a documentary, family, or drama. Then again, that leaves out their many differences as well, perhaps even dumbs the very idea of experimental films down...but at the bare bones issue, they are essentially the same.
The other quote I want to discuss is this: "I think it's the same, narrative and non-narrative. I've done both, I know it's exactly the same. When you do both, you know you are dealing with the same problems anyways."
I like this quote. As much as I hate experimental film, I have come to see that many of them do in fact have a narrative. Perhaps I am coming to a turning point. No, I may never like experimental film, but I think Akerman is correct in this. After all, just because you don't like one film doesn't mean you won't like another. I hate drama usually, but I loved Phantom of the Opera, and a few others as well...you can't lump everything into one category. A filmmaker has artistic decisions to make at all times, whether Hollywood film or experimental. You have the same basic decisions to make, the same locations and actors to deal with, and sometimes even a script to write...as wel as the age old hated budget. These things relate between both types of film. You are dealing with the same storyline ideas, basic concepts, and thought processes of the films, whether narrative or non-narrative. Perhaps experimental could be called a new genre of film, just like a horror film, a documentary, family, or drama. Then again, that leaves out their many differences as well, perhaps even dumbs the very idea of experimental films down...but at the bare bones issue, they are essentially the same.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Blog based on Corpse thing haha
I forgot what the game was called now. But usually it is done with drawings, where you can't see what other people are doing in the space before. This time we had to write questions and answers and write new questions from the answers we saw. It was difficult and really made you have to think deeply about what they were saying. Usually if I had to form a question from an answer the answer would be really vague and not even mention the movie, so I had to greatly improvise on the way. It was really very fun though, and challenging. My favorite one we read out loud was the one about Everyday Bad Dream. The whole kid's entertainment character turned nightmare was a good idea as it was, and it made for some great discussion. But the page I got to report about was about Data Diaries and Fist Fight, so here goes:
The original question was: "In Fist Fight, what instruments or objects could you make out during the film?" I think this is a really vague question to begin with, and not conceptual at all. Fortunately the next person in line (I know who it is but I'm not sure he'd want me to say?) answered: "Not quite sure, it felt like an acid trip mixed in with animation from hell, and I'm sure just about any imagery can come of that." I actually laughed out loud in class when we were still writing, as I was next in line. Keep in mind, I never saw that first question. Yet, I didn't need any explanation as to which film was being talked about. Yes it may be a crude way to talk of film, but it really gets down to the bare bones of the issue after all. The film was fast paced, hard to follow, and had many unrelated images thrown together. The animation was not as bad as hell, but it certainly wasn't Disney. I especially remember the Santa that came on screen as shapes, the shapes fell apart into their sections, and then the Santa formed again as the shapes came together again. I personally felt this was a metaphor for the whole film- the film was using the idea of frames being pieces of a film, just like in animation especially, where every other frame must be drawn. As an animator himself, Robert Breer knew of this especially well and liked to explore it in regular film. The Santa was in pieces, the came together, and fell apart again. Creepy, yes. But a great way to show in a few seconds what he was trying to bring across throughout the whole film. As for the images thrown together, I think it's very interesting and after knowing the director was an animator, I have new respect for why he made the film. Being an animator myself, I can really see where he is coming from. But I still liked the comment.
So moving on, I then asked: "What concepts, if any, are common between "Fist Fight" and "Data Diaries"? and the next person in line answered: "That the viewer is getting drowned in a sea of information that was unclear to us." I like this answer on a certain level, but I think it could have been explored much deeper. I don't think "getting drowned in information" is a concept. A feeling you get while you watch both films, sure, but not a concept. I was thinking more along the lines that a common idea between both films was that the director was breaking things down to a smaller level in each film, so that we could understand the whole better. Robert Breer was breaking his film down into frames because he wanted to explore the smaller version of the whole, and Corey Archangel was breaking down a computer's system into small, visible pieces, images and sound, so we could see them clearly and in a new way.
The next answer I liked was this: "The point of Fist Fight was all about insanity of the situation. There is so much flying at you, the fists, the situation, emotions, all in one piece until it explodes...then you get a fist fight."
I don't really think there's much to add to that statement. He pegged the idea well! I think that if Robert Breer was thinking at all about a narrative, this may be exactly what he would say to describe that narrative.
The original question was: "In Fist Fight, what instruments or objects could you make out during the film?" I think this is a really vague question to begin with, and not conceptual at all. Fortunately the next person in line (I know who it is but I'm not sure he'd want me to say?) answered: "Not quite sure, it felt like an acid trip mixed in with animation from hell, and I'm sure just about any imagery can come of that." I actually laughed out loud in class when we were still writing, as I was next in line. Keep in mind, I never saw that first question. Yet, I didn't need any explanation as to which film was being talked about. Yes it may be a crude way to talk of film, but it really gets down to the bare bones of the issue after all. The film was fast paced, hard to follow, and had many unrelated images thrown together. The animation was not as bad as hell, but it certainly wasn't Disney. I especially remember the Santa that came on screen as shapes, the shapes fell apart into their sections, and then the Santa formed again as the shapes came together again. I personally felt this was a metaphor for the whole film- the film was using the idea of frames being pieces of a film, just like in animation especially, where every other frame must be drawn. As an animator himself, Robert Breer knew of this especially well and liked to explore it in regular film. The Santa was in pieces, the came together, and fell apart again. Creepy, yes. But a great way to show in a few seconds what he was trying to bring across throughout the whole film. As for the images thrown together, I think it's very interesting and after knowing the director was an animator, I have new respect for why he made the film. Being an animator myself, I can really see where he is coming from. But I still liked the comment.
So moving on, I then asked: "What concepts, if any, are common between "Fist Fight" and "Data Diaries"? and the next person in line answered: "That the viewer is getting drowned in a sea of information that was unclear to us." I like this answer on a certain level, but I think it could have been explored much deeper. I don't think "getting drowned in information" is a concept. A feeling you get while you watch both films, sure, but not a concept. I was thinking more along the lines that a common idea between both films was that the director was breaking things down to a smaller level in each film, so that we could understand the whole better. Robert Breer was breaking his film down into frames because he wanted to explore the smaller version of the whole, and Corey Archangel was breaking down a computer's system into small, visible pieces, images and sound, so we could see them clearly and in a new way.
The next answer I liked was this: "The point of Fist Fight was all about insanity of the situation. There is so much flying at you, the fists, the situation, emotions, all in one piece until it explodes...then you get a fist fight."
I don't really think there's much to add to that statement. He pegged the idea well! I think that if Robert Breer was thinking at all about a narrative, this may be exactly what he would say to describe that narrative.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Blogging Every Day
Let me just say that this assignment is a good idea in theory, but not so great in practice. It forces people to become creative even when they are not feeling creative, so it trains you to be creative, yet it also assumes that we have what absolutely NO college student has, and that is TIME. Yes, we should make time, for school assignments. Bu let me give you a rundown of my day, and perhaps you will change your mind.
2:30 AM: Wake up, get ready for work
3:15 AM: Leave for work
3:50 AM: Arrive at work
4:00 AM - noon: Work
Noon- 1:30: Drive home, go to the post office to pick up a COD package
1:30 PM- 1:45 PM: Change, check email, quick shower
1:45 PM- 2:15 PM: Drive to bus stop, get on bus
3:15 PM - 5:15 PM: Dance class
5: 20 PM - 6:30 PM: Bus home
6:30 PM - 7:00 PM: Drive to Bible study
7:00 PM - 9:30 PM: Bible study
9:30 PM - 10:00 PM: Get home, check my Panthermail for the email from Carl to do a reading and blog, only to find that the readings he wants us to do are back at school on EReserve, and the one that is supposed to be on D2L is not there.
10:10 PM: current time.
This is the busiest day of my week and I think it's ridiculous that when I finally do manage to get the time to do my blog, the readings are not made available. Therefore what I am I supposed to write about? I haven't experienced any art today. Maybe dance class, or some of the artwork at Trader Joe's. But no film art, certainly. And I have no photos to share.
So I guess I'll go to YouTube real quick. There's no way I'm staying up 24 hours today, so this better be quick.
So here goes. I'll do a search for experimental films and see if YouTube has anything interesting to react to.
Okies this one looks interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6X6R4inM08
I liked the beginning because it reminded me of a film we watched in I believe it was 210 class...it was called Man With a Movie Camera. I can see the resemblance between them because both dealt with the use of machinary; however, Man With a Movie Camera compared the human body to that machinary, and this one does not. Man With a Movie Camera was a film and this one is video. Also, Vertov (I think that was his name) wanted his camera to be the eye of performance. He used the idea of the "kino-eye" or "camera eye". He wanted to remain on the outside of the film, wanted the camera to see everything. Unfortunately no one can truly have no control over a film, because he still chose where to put the camera, so he still had say in what the camera saw, no matter how much he tried to stay out of it. But this YouTube video doesn't try to stay away from interaction. The video is altered in funky colors, so you know that whoever edited it was interested in the special effects a computer editing software program can offer. He tested those waters in many interesting ways. I really liked it. I didn't think it was as artistic as Man With a Movie Camera, but I liked it better because it was in color and more contemporary to my time.
Then again, once the actual dog and rap video part of it starts, it all goes downhill. You can tell right there that it was not made with artistic intnetions, but rather was made just to be funny. Alot of things are considered funny that I just stare at and think "What the H was he thinking"? That's definitely what I'm thinking now. This is experimental? No, this is a home movie by some loser who thinks he's funny. The rest pf it is a little more interesting, branching off into odd colored planes and slightly distorted images of everyday things like cars and buses. I even sort of liked the dancing pigeons. In a way, it is a contemporary version of experimental films, with all the special effects of video. I just think that whoever made it needs to try to focus on staying artistic, instead of putting in weird "funny" things. (like the rapping dog or the kid going down the slide) Or real images that make no sense, like burning the dollar bill. I mean, why? And the kid doing a weird hip hop dance, and the break dancers. This is an experimental film. We are not here to watch a kid dance, not unless there is something new in the way we are made to view it. But there was nothing interesting about those shots. I felt rather taken out of the film there. Instead of being artistic and experimental, it was very home movie. In the end, there were moments I enjoyed and I liked how it had a steady theme of hip hop, but if it was to be considered a good artistic video it would need major improvements. Then again, rules are always being broken in experimental film, and for all I know this kid could become famous and this could be his signature work. Ya.
2:30 AM: Wake up, get ready for work
3:15 AM: Leave for work
3:50 AM: Arrive at work
4:00 AM - noon: Work
Noon- 1:30: Drive home, go to the post office to pick up a COD package
1:30 PM- 1:45 PM: Change, check email, quick shower
1:45 PM- 2:15 PM: Drive to bus stop, get on bus
3:15 PM - 5:15 PM: Dance class
5: 20 PM - 6:30 PM: Bus home
6:30 PM - 7:00 PM: Drive to Bible study
7:00 PM - 9:30 PM: Bible study
9:30 PM - 10:00 PM: Get home, check my Panthermail for the email from Carl to do a reading and blog, only to find that the readings he wants us to do are back at school on EReserve, and the one that is supposed to be on D2L is not there.
10:10 PM: current time.
This is the busiest day of my week and I think it's ridiculous that when I finally do manage to get the time to do my blog, the readings are not made available. Therefore what I am I supposed to write about? I haven't experienced any art today. Maybe dance class, or some of the artwork at Trader Joe's. But no film art, certainly. And I have no photos to share.
So I guess I'll go to YouTube real quick. There's no way I'm staying up 24 hours today, so this better be quick.
So here goes. I'll do a search for experimental films and see if YouTube has anything interesting to react to.
Okies this one looks interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6X6R4inM08
I liked the beginning because it reminded me of a film we watched in I believe it was 210 class...it was called Man With a Movie Camera. I can see the resemblance between them because both dealt with the use of machinary; however, Man With a Movie Camera compared the human body to that machinary, and this one does not. Man With a Movie Camera was a film and this one is video. Also, Vertov (I think that was his name) wanted his camera to be the eye of performance. He used the idea of the "kino-eye" or "camera eye". He wanted to remain on the outside of the film, wanted the camera to see everything. Unfortunately no one can truly have no control over a film, because he still chose where to put the camera, so he still had say in what the camera saw, no matter how much he tried to stay out of it. But this YouTube video doesn't try to stay away from interaction. The video is altered in funky colors, so you know that whoever edited it was interested in the special effects a computer editing software program can offer. He tested those waters in many interesting ways. I really liked it. I didn't think it was as artistic as Man With a Movie Camera, but I liked it better because it was in color and more contemporary to my time.
Then again, once the actual dog and rap video part of it starts, it all goes downhill. You can tell right there that it was not made with artistic intnetions, but rather was made just to be funny. Alot of things are considered funny that I just stare at and think "What the H was he thinking"? That's definitely what I'm thinking now. This is experimental? No, this is a home movie by some loser who thinks he's funny. The rest pf it is a little more interesting, branching off into odd colored planes and slightly distorted images of everyday things like cars and buses. I even sort of liked the dancing pigeons. In a way, it is a contemporary version of experimental films, with all the special effects of video. I just think that whoever made it needs to try to focus on staying artistic, instead of putting in weird "funny" things. (like the rapping dog or the kid going down the slide) Or real images that make no sense, like burning the dollar bill. I mean, why? And the kid doing a weird hip hop dance, and the break dancers. This is an experimental film. We are not here to watch a kid dance, not unless there is something new in the way we are made to view it. But there was nothing interesting about those shots. I felt rather taken out of the film there. Instead of being artistic and experimental, it was very home movie. In the end, there were moments I enjoyed and I liked how it had a steady theme of hip hop, but if it was to be considered a good artistic video it would need major improvements. Then again, rules are always being broken in experimental film, and for all I know this kid could become famous and this could be his signature work. Ya.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Pixelvision
I went to D2L to find the info we are supposed to read for the feature length film next week, but I didn't see the reading he talked about. I did, however, see a reading by Michael Almereyda, who used a pixelvision camera to make an hour long film after seeing Sadie Benning's diarylike films. His ideas are pretty interesting, and I think it is cool that he is willing to break free of traditional cinema to try something new. For his next feature he says he plans on using 35 mm and pixelvision together. Now that's something you don't see in a theatre. And yet, he says he still wants to do a regular film. I got the idea that he wants to be a bigtime director in Hollywood film. I can understand his passion. Apparently he's tried over and over again but can never get funding. I'm glad he is still trying, despite the hardship. It shows he truly loves film! If he had made it in the Hollywood film business, more than likely he wouldn't have pursued pixelvision. Well, if you can't cut it in the bigtime, you can always go experimental, hey? (sorry, I can't help it I guess...anyways, I do admire his efforts. His creativity is not his problem apparently. He just needs practice on convincing people that he can make money in the box office. And heck, if his blend of 35 mm and pixelvision works for him, that'll be his way in. We all know how hard this business is.)
Anyways, I wanted to share this quote I got from his pixelvision story:
"A final confession. I still harbor vast hopes to direct big-budget films. Films with lavish sets, spectacular action sequences, actors everybody knows. Films that feed and reflect the immensity of pop culture. Basically, I want Tim Burton's job. But what is cinema, anyway? 'Love. Hate. Action. Death. In one word: emotion.' Sam Fuller's blunt inventory makes sense to me, and pixel- vision can cover those bases as well as the usual high-priced machinery. So there are days when I'm content. Days when I can pick up a pixel camera and leave my stunning future behind. Film makers, after all, are born free, but are everywhere in chains. The PXL 2000, if you can get your hands on one, remains liberating, spell-binding and inexhaustible."
I see alot of myself in this guy. He has a big dream and he's working hard to achieve that dream, no matter what goes wrong. He rationalizes his dream in a way to stay happy (perhaps we could say he chooses to see the glass half-full) but he never relinquishes his dream. He hasn't reached it yet, but he is constantly working toward it. He is even trying a new medium, just to get a name for himself, to try to taste the future he wants for himself. This is one postitive guy and I believe he will go far with this attitude. He has a goal for himself, and he works toward it diligently; yet along the way he chooses to be happy with progress he has made, and therefore gives himself confidence in his artistry and accomplishment. He could easily choose to give up or say he must be doing something wrong, but he refuses to. Instead he pushes ahead, doing his dream in any way he can. I like this guy. Watch for his name in Hollywood- if he doesn't give in to experimental film, a guy with passion like this will eventually get what he wants.
And now, for a brief view of the videos we watched in class today.
I think the one I enjoyed the best was Data Entries by Cory Archangel. As annoying as it was to listen to the incessant noise and as hard to watch as it was, I still found it interesting. I had often heard computer noises before in movies. So where did these noises come from? Who decided what a computer sounds like? I never hear my computer make those noises! Did someone beat Archangel to this project? Perhaps while making a computer? Someone must know. I got annoyed with it after about 30 seconds and really I would have almost liked it if he had stopped it there. After that, however, the newness of the idea wore off greatly and I just got irritated with the aweful noise it made.
Other than that, my next favorite film was Thursday. I liked it because it was more narrative than experimental. The artistically framed images and the lengths of time we were given to inspect them really made it seem like a story. I especially enjoyed the use of the clear mug. It was experimental in that it was close up and we could see the fluid inside move, but the mug was used several times throughout the film, so we started to turn to it as a story builder. In the end we seemed to get the idea that we were watching the day in the life of a man in his house, how he gets up early, sits in his rocking chair, drinks some coffee, enjoys the beautiful weather, then washes his glass and goes to sleep. It was the most diarylike of them all, to me. The most explicit in theme.
As for "Gently Down the Stream", once again I am moved to anger that we are forced to watch crap like this. Yes I can see why you say it is artistic, but I personally find it rude and disgusting that we must watch a film that is sexually explicit. I happen to be a very moral person who is proud of being pure. I HATE having to watch this stuff. The entire thing gave me the impression of a lesbian dreaming about her sexual desires. The woman at the rowing machine and the women swimming and walking into the water were all sexual images, and accompanied by the sexual words and allusions to lesbian behaviour, the film became one big sex dream. Who makes stuff like this? Please don't comment about how artistic it was and how I should go into more detail of why the artist was successful and what her images and her words did to get her point across...because as much as I could talk about the art involved, I refuse to because the very thought of that film makes me feel dirty and sick inside.
Anyways, I wanted to share this quote I got from his pixelvision story:
"A final confession. I still harbor vast hopes to direct big-budget films. Films with lavish sets, spectacular action sequences, actors everybody knows. Films that feed and reflect the immensity of pop culture. Basically, I want Tim Burton's job. But what is cinema, anyway? 'Love. Hate. Action. Death. In one word: emotion.' Sam Fuller's blunt inventory makes sense to me, and pixel- vision can cover those bases as well as the usual high-priced machinery. So there are days when I'm content. Days when I can pick up a pixel camera and leave my stunning future behind. Film makers, after all, are born free, but are everywhere in chains. The PXL 2000, if you can get your hands on one, remains liberating, spell-binding and inexhaustible."
I see alot of myself in this guy. He has a big dream and he's working hard to achieve that dream, no matter what goes wrong. He rationalizes his dream in a way to stay happy (perhaps we could say he chooses to see the glass half-full) but he never relinquishes his dream. He hasn't reached it yet, but he is constantly working toward it. He is even trying a new medium, just to get a name for himself, to try to taste the future he wants for himself. This is one postitive guy and I believe he will go far with this attitude. He has a goal for himself, and he works toward it diligently; yet along the way he chooses to be happy with progress he has made, and therefore gives himself confidence in his artistry and accomplishment. He could easily choose to give up or say he must be doing something wrong, but he refuses to. Instead he pushes ahead, doing his dream in any way he can. I like this guy. Watch for his name in Hollywood- if he doesn't give in to experimental film, a guy with passion like this will eventually get what he wants.
And now, for a brief view of the videos we watched in class today.
I think the one I enjoyed the best was Data Entries by Cory Archangel. As annoying as it was to listen to the incessant noise and as hard to watch as it was, I still found it interesting. I had often heard computer noises before in movies. So where did these noises come from? Who decided what a computer sounds like? I never hear my computer make those noises! Did someone beat Archangel to this project? Perhaps while making a computer? Someone must know. I got annoyed with it after about 30 seconds and really I would have almost liked it if he had stopped it there. After that, however, the newness of the idea wore off greatly and I just got irritated with the aweful noise it made.
Other than that, my next favorite film was Thursday. I liked it because it was more narrative than experimental. The artistically framed images and the lengths of time we were given to inspect them really made it seem like a story. I especially enjoyed the use of the clear mug. It was experimental in that it was close up and we could see the fluid inside move, but the mug was used several times throughout the film, so we started to turn to it as a story builder. In the end we seemed to get the idea that we were watching the day in the life of a man in his house, how he gets up early, sits in his rocking chair, drinks some coffee, enjoys the beautiful weather, then washes his glass and goes to sleep. It was the most diarylike of them all, to me. The most explicit in theme.
As for "Gently Down the Stream", once again I am moved to anger that we are forced to watch crap like this. Yes I can see why you say it is artistic, but I personally find it rude and disgusting that we must watch a film that is sexually explicit. I happen to be a very moral person who is proud of being pure. I HATE having to watch this stuff. The entire thing gave me the impression of a lesbian dreaming about her sexual desires. The woman at the rowing machine and the women swimming and walking into the water were all sexual images, and accompanied by the sexual words and allusions to lesbian behaviour, the film became one big sex dream. Who makes stuff like this? Please don't comment about how artistic it was and how I should go into more detail of why the artist was successful and what her images and her words did to get her point across...because as much as I could talk about the art involved, I refuse to because the very thought of that film makes me feel dirty and sick inside.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Old VS. New Video
Hmm. Well this entry ought to be interesting! First off I'd like to talk about the old videos we saw today. I saw many of them last semester so it was nice to be paying attention to more detail this time around instead of trying to follow the meaning behind it like last time. One video I thought I'd hate but I actually ended up finding interesting was Lisa Steele's Birthday Suit. I liked it because it told a story, unlike most of the films we had seen so far. It wasn't out of focus, it wasn't random images, and even though she was nude she was frank and easy with her nakedness, not sexual at all in any of her movements. I liked hearing about each of her scars and it made me think of my own. I still don't know that I'd consider that film "art", however. Just like Vito Acconi's Theme Song. I can see the thought process and I can appreciate that he was trying to break the barrier of the screen, to allow us viewers into his space...but I couldn't watch it very long because I found him dirty and unnecessarily crude. I found his face and disturbing eyes much worse to watch than Lisa's naked body. I don't like being seduced by a creepy smoking dirty eyed so called artist. How is this artistic? Yes he improvised well, and I like his thought process, but there my interest dies.
I watched a few videos on YouTube and I found that they were not as artistic as the ones we saw in class today. Although old video and new video still have the same home movie feel, the older videos with their grainy footage and out of focus closeups add to the medium, making you feel close to the actors. I also like the grainy footage because like film with its flashing frames, it catches your eyes and keeps you attention. But these new YouTube videos, even though they have the same feel, were less personal in medium even though just as personal in feel. It seemed like an odd contrast to me, and one that did not work. It made me appreciate what we saw in class much more. For instance, I will compare two videos that I saw.
The old video is Sadie Benning's If Every Girl Had a Diary, and the new video is here: http://cogcollective.blogspot.com/2006/12/screen-dump-videos.html Click on the third one, "SadEyedAnimeGrl".
These videos were very similar, just two girls telling us a little about themselves. The old version was a pixelvision camera, and it was slightly blurry and details were washed out of the girl's face. She did closeups of her eyes and hands, and made her hand in strong black and white contrast, do random but every day movements. Even though we've seen them before, in black and white we saw them in a new way. In the new video however, Anime Girl was still artistic, but in a whole new way. The video she used was better quality but the lighting had the same high contrast as Sadie's, so her face's details were also lost. Her image was obviously doctored with special effects, which I felt was not a bad thing but made it more about the technology than the relationship of actor to viewer. This filmmaker made the video to be funny, as evidenced by her language and her use of special effects like fake glasses and random bursts of funky music. Just because it is comedy does not make it any less artistic, but I didn't feel any real connection to the actor like I did with Sadie's piece. Hers was almost haunting and it drew you in and explored new ways to look at the face and hands. Anime Girl's was an exploration of humor and color and special effects. I felt it was a great way to show how far we've come in video. Video can still be what Acconi said, if it is done correctly. But in our age and with all the technology out there, the images are far less grainy and the feeling that Acconci was going for is lost on the new era of video. Vicconci said his video should be about the idea more than the medium. Now I think with the rise of special effects we could say this focus could change from idea back to medium. Now that we can do so much with video there are more avenues to explore and more variety in results. I also think the personal one on one aspect of video can be dropped for a more artistic, perhaps abstract form. No, it isn't my preference, but video as a medium is so broad now and can be doctored so many ways that to not explore more of these avenues would be to cut short advancement and creativity. I personally think that not enough people have used these doctoring methods in video.
I watched a few videos on YouTube and I found that they were not as artistic as the ones we saw in class today. Although old video and new video still have the same home movie feel, the older videos with their grainy footage and out of focus closeups add to the medium, making you feel close to the actors. I also like the grainy footage because like film with its flashing frames, it catches your eyes and keeps you attention. But these new YouTube videos, even though they have the same feel, were less personal in medium even though just as personal in feel. It seemed like an odd contrast to me, and one that did not work. It made me appreciate what we saw in class much more. For instance, I will compare two videos that I saw.
The old video is Sadie Benning's If Every Girl Had a Diary, and the new video is here: http://cogcollective.blogspot.com/2006/12/screen-dump-videos.html Click on the third one, "SadEyedAnimeGrl".
These videos were very similar, just two girls telling us a little about themselves. The old version was a pixelvision camera, and it was slightly blurry and details were washed out of the girl's face. She did closeups of her eyes and hands, and made her hand in strong black and white contrast, do random but every day movements. Even though we've seen them before, in black and white we saw them in a new way. In the new video however, Anime Girl was still artistic, but in a whole new way. The video she used was better quality but the lighting had the same high contrast as Sadie's, so her face's details were also lost. Her image was obviously doctored with special effects, which I felt was not a bad thing but made it more about the technology than the relationship of actor to viewer. This filmmaker made the video to be funny, as evidenced by her language and her use of special effects like fake glasses and random bursts of funky music. Just because it is comedy does not make it any less artistic, but I didn't feel any real connection to the actor like I did with Sadie's piece. Hers was almost haunting and it drew you in and explored new ways to look at the face and hands. Anime Girl's was an exploration of humor and color and special effects. I felt it was a great way to show how far we've come in video. Video can still be what Acconi said, if it is done correctly. But in our age and with all the technology out there, the images are far less grainy and the feeling that Acconci was going for is lost on the new era of video. Vicconci said his video should be about the idea more than the medium. Now I think with the rise of special effects we could say this focus could change from idea back to medium. Now that we can do so much with video there are more avenues to explore and more variety in results. I also think the personal one on one aspect of video can be dropped for a more artistic, perhaps abstract form. No, it isn't my preference, but video as a medium is so broad now and can be doctored so many ways that to not explore more of these avenues would be to cut short advancement and creativity. I personally think that not enough people have used these doctoring methods in video.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Narratives in Experimental Films?
Well today in small groups we talked alot about the film Variations. People seemed to really like it overall, but nearly all agreed that it was strictly experimental, and had no notions toward narration. I can see their point and overall I agree, but I can also see how argumewnts can be made for both sides. The pictures were all random, untied images of everyday items, only viewed in a new way. I think some experimental films can have narration, but I didn't see anything in this one. Of course, then you get to the question, what is narrative? I took the liberty of looking up definitions online, and was interested to see that nearly everyone has a different opinion of this word! The simplest definition I found is this:
1) having a story or idea.
Simple enough; maybe a little TOO simple. For instance, WHOSE story is it? WHAT kind of story? I like this one a little better:
2)a descriptive account of a specific event or series of events
Except, does it truly have to be descriptive? Does this mean I have to tell everything that happens? Or can a narrative be implied? For instance, if I am talking about Variations, with tons of random images thrown together, there is nothing descriptive about that. Does that mean it is not narrative? I don't think so. I think you can have a narrative that is more implied than spoken or laid out for you, or in other words "described".
I felt this one was the best, and it seems to allow for a narrative in experimental film:
3) A complex term referring to a sequence of events organized into a story with a particular structure
In other words, a structured idea built by events. Variations didn't have much structure, since it wasn't telling a story, or at least not a story that we are used to hearing, but it was a sequence of events, and there was certainly a theme. The theme was appreciating the little mundane things in life and being able to see them differently. Perhaps even to show us that there is art in the world all around us, if we would only stop and look. We often go through life without paying attention to the wonders around us. Variations was trying to show us what we were missing. Is this not an idea, and are these not e vents? But there was no real structure of images throughout the film. (Or perhaps even that can be argued!) But I didn't see any in the film.
Now if we move on from here to other experimental films, like say Market Street, is there narrative there? I think so. This narrative was more implied than "described". It was structured as well, leading us through all aspects of the street, and even culminating in a brief long shot of the road that we had seen fragmented throughout the film. The events could be the pictures that were flashed before our eyes, but that could also be the patterns that were created with those pictures, creating circles and grids and lines. Maybe this wasn't telling a story outright, but it was a series of events in a structured order, and in a way it showed us Market Street. Is this any different than a documentary film that decides to tell us about Market Street outright? Is this perhaps not even more interesting to watch? In a sense we are made to feel how those on Market Street feel, to the extent that no other documentary film could ever make us feel just talking about the street. The harried pictures and the patterns created seemed to lead us to believe that Market Street was an important area, perhaps always busy, but still structured and not without purpose in the community. We could be told this through a strict "story" but we could also be implied this through a more abstract storytelling, like seen in experimental film. They both have their place, and both, I think are narrative.
This of course, does not mean that every experimental film is narrative. I find that several are, but just as many are not. Some are strictly about artistic images and testing new technologies, whereas others are like a video poetry; they tell the story in a more abstract, almost hidden way. Sometimes this way can be better, just like sometimes poetry can be better than a book. Then again, as much as I enjoy writing poetry and will occasionally read a few poems (but not often) I will still pick up a good book over a poem any day. Perhaps it's preference and preference only. Perhaps not.
As for "can experimental show up in narrative"? I say, isn't this what we were just discussing? If we can say that experimental film is meant to show art and test new technologies rather than tell a story, but it can STILL have a narrative anyhow, then certainly narrative films can use experimental aspects in its narrative. In fact, what would narrative film be without experimental aspects? The very word "experimental" implied something untested, and unknown whether or not it will work. In other words, new territory. Granted, alot of Hollywood films would probably not want to use experimental aspects in their films because it IS untried, and they are about the guaranteed buck. But other films can be experimental and narrative in one. I truthfully still prefer Hollywoodized structured storylines, but this is because I love stories. I love to write them especially. I love creating worlds and situations and interlating all the characters. But this does not mean there is not room for experimental ideas in narrative film. Sometimes it can work. One film I felt did this well was one we saw last semester in Film 210. I think it was a Hitchcock film, but I don't remember the title. I just know it was not film noir but it felt greatly like it and it used the German Expressionism of abstract patterns and dreamlike sequences to show the man's fantasies. Things like this can truly add to narrative films. As long as there is a balance these two can coexist, but the balance has to be carefully maintained. Then again, if experimental film wants to stay random and daring and artistic like some of the films we saw in class, there is no room for something like that in narrative film. It would just make no sense, because narrative film has structure and experimental film can often have no structure. Therefore any random experimental images that are thrown into a narrative film become narrative because they must add to the overall story...or else it would no longer be a narrative film!
1) having a story or idea.
Simple enough; maybe a little TOO simple. For instance, WHOSE story is it? WHAT kind of story? I like this one a little better:
2)a descriptive account of a specific event or series of events
Except, does it truly have to be descriptive? Does this mean I have to tell everything that happens? Or can a narrative be implied? For instance, if I am talking about Variations, with tons of random images thrown together, there is nothing descriptive about that. Does that mean it is not narrative? I don't think so. I think you can have a narrative that is more implied than spoken or laid out for you, or in other words "described".
I felt this one was the best, and it seems to allow for a narrative in experimental film:
3) A complex term referring to a sequence of events organized into a story with a particular structure
In other words, a structured idea built by events. Variations didn't have much structure, since it wasn't telling a story, or at least not a story that we are used to hearing, but it was a sequence of events, and there was certainly a theme. The theme was appreciating the little mundane things in life and being able to see them differently. Perhaps even to show us that there is art in the world all around us, if we would only stop and look. We often go through life without paying attention to the wonders around us. Variations was trying to show us what we were missing. Is this not an idea, and are these not e vents? But there was no real structure of images throughout the film. (Or perhaps even that can be argued!) But I didn't see any in the film.
Now if we move on from here to other experimental films, like say Market Street, is there narrative there? I think so. This narrative was more implied than "described". It was structured as well, leading us through all aspects of the street, and even culminating in a brief long shot of the road that we had seen fragmented throughout the film. The events could be the pictures that were flashed before our eyes, but that could also be the patterns that were created with those pictures, creating circles and grids and lines. Maybe this wasn't telling a story outright, but it was a series of events in a structured order, and in a way it showed us Market Street. Is this any different than a documentary film that decides to tell us about Market Street outright? Is this perhaps not even more interesting to watch? In a sense we are made to feel how those on Market Street feel, to the extent that no other documentary film could ever make us feel just talking about the street. The harried pictures and the patterns created seemed to lead us to believe that Market Street was an important area, perhaps always busy, but still structured and not without purpose in the community. We could be told this through a strict "story" but we could also be implied this through a more abstract storytelling, like seen in experimental film. They both have their place, and both, I think are narrative.
This of course, does not mean that every experimental film is narrative. I find that several are, but just as many are not. Some are strictly about artistic images and testing new technologies, whereas others are like a video poetry; they tell the story in a more abstract, almost hidden way. Sometimes this way can be better, just like sometimes poetry can be better than a book. Then again, as much as I enjoy writing poetry and will occasionally read a few poems (but not often) I will still pick up a good book over a poem any day. Perhaps it's preference and preference only. Perhaps not.
As for "can experimental show up in narrative"? I say, isn't this what we were just discussing? If we can say that experimental film is meant to show art and test new technologies rather than tell a story, but it can STILL have a narrative anyhow, then certainly narrative films can use experimental aspects in its narrative. In fact, what would narrative film be without experimental aspects? The very word "experimental" implied something untested, and unknown whether or not it will work. In other words, new territory. Granted, alot of Hollywood films would probably not want to use experimental aspects in their films because it IS untried, and they are about the guaranteed buck. But other films can be experimental and narrative in one. I truthfully still prefer Hollywoodized structured storylines, but this is because I love stories. I love to write them especially. I love creating worlds and situations and interlating all the characters. But this does not mean there is not room for experimental ideas in narrative film. Sometimes it can work. One film I felt did this well was one we saw last semester in Film 210. I think it was a Hitchcock film, but I don't remember the title. I just know it was not film noir but it felt greatly like it and it used the German Expressionism of abstract patterns and dreamlike sequences to show the man's fantasies. Things like this can truly add to narrative films. As long as there is a balance these two can coexist, but the balance has to be carefully maintained. Then again, if experimental film wants to stay random and daring and artistic like some of the films we saw in class, there is no room for something like that in narrative film. It would just make no sense, because narrative film has structure and experimental film can often have no structure. Therefore any random experimental images that are thrown into a narrative film become narrative because they must add to the overall story...or else it would no longer be a narrative film!
Monday, January 29, 2007
First Response for Class Day Jan 29th
Well I've had some real annoying problems with Blogger, but I think it's working now? We shall see.
Anyways, my first blog on class stuff we watched today follows:
First off, I thought it was pretty enlightening to be able to see the difference between the 24 fps and the 18 fps that we saw today. It was pretty obvious when the film was only white, but once we saw the actual film it didn't actually look all that different to me. I guess that means I need more experience in watching film types projected. I should have been able to see the difference, but I couldn't.
Second, I really enjoyed "Market Place". I think I may have seen it before, at UW Waukesha, before I attended here. I was in a film class there also, and we saw his film, or something very like it, if it wasn't this one in particular. I don't remember going into much detail when we saw it at UWW, but here it seemed we made more critical thoughts into the processing of the film. For instance, we were not told that the film was shot frame by frame, and we were not told about the circles and patterns on the animation lens (I think is what Carl said). I noticed this in the film this time around, though. THe one segment where the circles were prevalent, the clock and the sign, etc all seemed to not only stick on the same circle, but masterfully the circle moved in a circle of its own as well, even while the circles themselves stayed together. I thought it was pretty cool. It was really the first time I've truly appreciated experimental film. Perhaps because this one actually seemed to take extra thought and genuine effort to pull off. I don't think art should be anything easy, and to me, nomatter how well you explain an abstract art, if it wasn't difficult to create, how is it art? Like the guy that took the random news footage and didn't do anything to it, but left it alone and called it art under his name. Who does that?! How is this claimed as art? Perhaps news is art in itself, a mofre practical art form of course, but still art...but just because random footage from rejected news issues was found by you, doesn't mean it's suddenly your art. Especially when you didn't even touch it yourself. That makes no sense to me, just like throwing undeveloped film into a purse and opening and closing the bag to light cannot be called art. Anyone can do that. Heck, I could have taken an unexposed film strip and walked it around in my semi lit closet and called it great art based on my closet. but it isn't art. You didn't plan anything really, and if you did it sure doens't look like it. I've done abstract art myself and I'vde done well at it...but I've also done greatly envolved paintings with elaborate colors and careful lighting. Which one do you think was harder to do? Heck yes. Anyone can slap paint on a canvas, even I can. That doesn't make it true art. True art is concieved over time, brainstorming, and careful planning. Yes, abstract art is still art. I just don't think it's GREAT art. You can stand before me all you want and tell me how cool your process was, but if all I see on the screen is a red and yellow overexposed blur, then I couldn't care less what you were thinking when you made it. I'd rather say what were you drinking....
Anyways, enough of that. My other favorite piece was the nature one in the woods. I forget the name, it was too wierd. Wot the Sod or something. But I liked it alot. It too was abstract, but you could tell more thought went into it than the others. She focused on the leaves and because she pulled so close and kept moving the camera like it was alive, the leaves seemed to come alive. One looked like a skull, and you could tell the filmmaker thought so, too because she kept getting new angles of it, and she seemed to like the shock value of its horrific "face". Another looked to me like a butterfly and it made me feel free and beautiful just looking at it. Others were also funny...the laughing leaves, in which the camera was used to help the illusion by moving it up and down in a laughing motion, the dragonlike faced leaves, adn the pinto horsehead. A few looked like insects. This abstract art I can appreciate because it truly DID do what it claimed to...make you see the forest in a whole new way. To me it seemed it glorified Christ, playing with your minds as it showed an inanimate object as having life, and often humorously at that.
Anyways, my first blog on class stuff we watched today follows:
First off, I thought it was pretty enlightening to be able to see the difference between the 24 fps and the 18 fps that we saw today. It was pretty obvious when the film was only white, but once we saw the actual film it didn't actually look all that different to me. I guess that means I need more experience in watching film types projected. I should have been able to see the difference, but I couldn't.
Second, I really enjoyed "Market Place". I think I may have seen it before, at UW Waukesha, before I attended here. I was in a film class there also, and we saw his film, or something very like it, if it wasn't this one in particular. I don't remember going into much detail when we saw it at UWW, but here it seemed we made more critical thoughts into the processing of the film. For instance, we were not told that the film was shot frame by frame, and we were not told about the circles and patterns on the animation lens (I think is what Carl said). I noticed this in the film this time around, though. THe one segment where the circles were prevalent, the clock and the sign, etc all seemed to not only stick on the same circle, but masterfully the circle moved in a circle of its own as well, even while the circles themselves stayed together. I thought it was pretty cool. It was really the first time I've truly appreciated experimental film. Perhaps because this one actually seemed to take extra thought and genuine effort to pull off. I don't think art should be anything easy, and to me, nomatter how well you explain an abstract art, if it wasn't difficult to create, how is it art? Like the guy that took the random news footage and didn't do anything to it, but left it alone and called it art under his name. Who does that?! How is this claimed as art? Perhaps news is art in itself, a mofre practical art form of course, but still art...but just because random footage from rejected news issues was found by you, doesn't mean it's suddenly your art. Especially when you didn't even touch it yourself. That makes no sense to me, just like throwing undeveloped film into a purse and opening and closing the bag to light cannot be called art. Anyone can do that. Heck, I could have taken an unexposed film strip and walked it around in my semi lit closet and called it great art based on my closet. but it isn't art. You didn't plan anything really, and if you did it sure doens't look like it. I've done abstract art myself and I'vde done well at it...but I've also done greatly envolved paintings with elaborate colors and careful lighting. Which one do you think was harder to do? Heck yes. Anyone can slap paint on a canvas, even I can. That doesn't make it true art. True art is concieved over time, brainstorming, and careful planning. Yes, abstract art is still art. I just don't think it's GREAT art. You can stand before me all you want and tell me how cool your process was, but if all I see on the screen is a red and yellow overexposed blur, then I couldn't care less what you were thinking when you made it. I'd rather say what were you drinking....
Anyways, enough of that. My other favorite piece was the nature one in the woods. I forget the name, it was too wierd. Wot the Sod or something. But I liked it alot. It too was abstract, but you could tell more thought went into it than the others. She focused on the leaves and because she pulled so close and kept moving the camera like it was alive, the leaves seemed to come alive. One looked like a skull, and you could tell the filmmaker thought so, too because she kept getting new angles of it, and she seemed to like the shock value of its horrific "face". Another looked to me like a butterfly and it made me feel free and beautiful just looking at it. Others were also funny...the laughing leaves, in which the camera was used to help the illusion by moving it up and down in a laughing motion, the dragonlike faced leaves, adn the pinto horsehead. A few looked like insects. This abstract art I can appreciate because it truly DID do what it claimed to...make you see the forest in a whole new way. To me it seemed it glorified Christ, playing with your minds as it showed an inanimate object as having life, and often humorously at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)