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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)