Survey

Filmmaking today is a wise man's guess at an obscure man's attempt.

Field Report #4 - (3rd go Round) pt. 2

Naturalmystic (Tomahawk #2) was another piece in the Haggerty that grabbed my attention through the use of sound. Filmed in a soundstage, a voice actor made vocal sounds of what sounded to be a dive-bomber or bomb falling from the sky. It is done three times (each a tad differently) and then the video repeats. It was hard for me to fully grasp the concept of this piece since I had no visuals that I felt related to the audio I was listening to. Why the soundstage? To me it looked like the behind the scenes of what a foley artist can do. I felt that this piece was stronger with just the audio by itself or if it had different visuals to better support the audio.

However, the audio by itself, I felt was fantastic. If it weren’t for the imagery of the soundstage I would’ve never known it was a human voice recreating these “dive-bombing” sounds. Maybe that’s the reason why this particular imagery was chosen? The artist wanted the viewer to know the audio was not from the real source, but still feel the “realness” quality of the sound as if it were from a real source. If that was the artist’s intention then I can better understand his choices.

This juxtaposition reminded me a lot of Kulbeka’s Our Trip to Africa only that in a sense it was reversed. Kulbelka takes real audio and juxtapositions it with an unrelated image creating a new meaning (like the sound of a gun shooting off a women’s hat) but Anri Sala takes the real image (soundstage) and juxtapositions it with a fake sound (man imitating a dive-bombing sound) to create a new meaning. What does this new meaning create in my mind? That I’m still debating. Maybe it’s a depiction of how the experience of war impacts humans and stays with them the rest of their lives? I’m not quite sure. Either way the experience of hearing human vocals recreating a real sound made me believe that the human had actually heard the real sound and it had impacted his life. His recreation to me was a way of sharing his experience as best he could much like a storyteller tells a story. Only this time the story was not in words but through sound.

Field Report #4 - Art Journal (3rd go-round)

Within In the Garden, writer Alan Jacobs comments about the age old biblical story of Adam and Eve and the concept of shame represented by the text and by art throughout history. The main concept that summoned my attention was the idea about how covering up the naked body by fig leaves is more of a deflection to Adam and Eve’s feeling of shame after biting into the forbidden fruit. Jacobs uses the term “pudenda” which literally means “the shameful parts” which references that now their genitals are in shame because of their actions. However, this shame (as Jacobs argues) is not equal between both Adam and Eve. Jacobs uses Masaccio’s Expulsion from the Garden of Eden to point out that while both feel shame, Adam covers his eyes out of shame with his Penis clearly visible and Eve covers both her breasts and vulva leaving her eyes open. This demonstrates how Adam’s shame is more of the traditional shame while Eve’s is the pudenda (or deflection to the genitals).

For me, this idea brings about concepts of the inequality between the sexes and how men are given superiority over women. If the biblical text is vague and just talks about both of them feeling shame and covering their genitals, why is it that Adam is then painted with his genitals showing (but covering his eyes) while Eve is not? My thought is that since a man painted it he might have had the concept of blaming women (i.e. Eve) for bringing forth shame to men (Adam) in the case of the fruit. Thus, putting the idea that men are above women represented by Adam still bearing his nudity and Eve covering her genitals.

Either way this shame is trying to be passed off towards someone else as if the individuals are not guilty themselves. Adam is trying to deflect his actions towards Eve and Eve to the serpent. While they do feel shame, they also feel innocent at the same time. (Maybe this is why their entire body isn’t covered up?) I think this is a relevant comment to society in that no one really wants to take responsibility for his or her actions. There is always some excuse to why somebody or something prevented him or her from completing the desired action or why they failed to complete a task that was intended. Was this human characteristic prevalent since the dawn of mankind? Jacobs leads me to believe that it is.

-Lydell Peterson

Field Report #4 (3rd go-round) - pt. 1

Fountain, by Patty Chang, allured me the most when I visited the Haggerty Museum of Art. Maybe it was because it was one of three pieces I first encountered stepping into the museum or maybe it was because I couldn’t fully comprehend it? I was first drawn to the visual imagery of the girl slurping up water and later was engulfed by audio when I put the headphones on. I chose this piece to write about because of how the audio affected me in relation to a comment brought up during class. I believe the comment came from Carl actually, and the question to Glenn Bach was something along the lines of “What is noise? How does one differentiate between noise and sound?” Glenn’s response was that he really didn’t have one. He said something like “there really is no such thing as noise, it’s an interpretation.” This concept really made my mind think. I had never completely considered it but Glenn is right. Noise is an opinionated term categorizing something to which one person finds unpleasant to the ear. It’s along the same philosophy as “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” This for me tied right in with the concept of acoustic-ecology and how “noise pollution results when man does not listen carefully,” (Schafer’s argument in “The Tuning of the World” (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977). One person may hear the incessant drive-by of cars during a time of high traffic and feel that this is excessive noise pollution droning out the natural world’s audio beauty. A different person however, may see this “noise” as instead a collection of beautiful sounds layering to the natural world’s audio creating a symphony that can never be repeated.

This ties into Fountain for me because the whole piece was a lady slurping up water. If you consider traditional manners and acting polite through the Western world, the slurping of a liquid is considered improper and an obnoxious noise. Once again here is the opinionated term “noise.” For me I didn’t find this slurping to be an obnoxious noise but instead the sound of a lady trying to save herself (be it through literally drinking water to stay alive or to save herself from drowning through the reflection). I guess if someone heard the sound of a murder happening next to him they could consider it “noise” too, but most people don’t. So what truly qualifies as noise? Does noise have to be a boring action or does it have to be dependent upon the outcome of the event after it’s been analyzed? If you ever watch a tennis match you’ll probably hear the sound of a grunt. Is this grunt a sound of relief from hitting the ball or the player exhaling in pain? Does the context really matter to determine whether it’s a noise? I say no. I don’t think there is such as thing as noise, it’s all an opinion. My opinion is that the SOUND in Fountain helps drive home this concept of noise versus sound among many other comments that can be taken away from this piece both visually and through sound.

-Lydell Peterson

Field Report #3 - Art Journal (2nd go-round)

From assessing "Cabinet" I am drawn further and further to the idea that it alludes and promotes the historical aspects of media, but connects those concepts to more futuristic or contemporary ideas that we find today. The article "The Origins of Cybex Space," (Carolyn De La Peña) and its inquiries in the idea of the first gym being a mechanical horse type contraption is a great example of how this blending and mixture of historic ideas are tied to a more contemporary concept (I.E. working out on a personal gym contraption). It also in my opinion, ties in a very scientific outlook upon the art or media exemplified. Nearly every article (if not all) has some sort of scientific relation or backing. This portrayal leads me to believe there is a great connection between both with art and science and that art is simply a branched out version of scientific concepts. If you consider filmmaking for example, it makes sense. The camera technology such as lenses and chemical exposures is directly reliant on a scientific discovery or background that was molded in an artistic fashion. "Cabinet" examines these relations and brings out the scientific roots to a more historic art/media.

Most of what is being brought forth is in the form of articles. The recipient reads the article and connects via the mind. However, there are other multimedia formats such as still images, sound files, and web movies. These short web movies are small tastes (or in some cases entireties) of pieces of artwork. An example is “Untitled” by Bigert & Bergström + CM von Hausswolff, in which three guys use a string/fuse and cup to play telephone. One guy lights the fuse and all three wait in horror of the approaching fire, until one (and eventually all) drop the contraption. This intimate web movie is a small little gem that can provoke highly philosophical concepts from something very simple. For example, in my mind I viewed this as “the danger of a child’s game” or “how danger/violence are in essence only a child’s game.” Did the artist intend this to be a statement on war/violence? I’m not sure but it was highly thought provoking.

For me, seeing them online or reading in a publication is an international way of having a personal connection to the piece presented. While the publication may not be international, the online portions definitely are. This online presentation also enables greater interaction with the viewer. In many cases the articles (or parts to the site) can have off-shooting links that give the viewer more information (or higher detailed) and even blueprints to artwork they can complete at home or in a studio. One off site link takes the viewer to a site that has downloadable printouts of objects that the viewer can print out and build. (http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/02/download-print.html)
Other higher detailed parts to the article such as “The Museum of the Dead” by Robert Harbison; can follow the article with a photograph to better illustrate things for the viewer. There is one great line from the article that captured my attention: “In Palermo, however, corpses are treated as characters in a play.” This relation to seeing humanoid corpses (a real life bodied work of art) comparable to theatrical characters (a different more imaginary type art form) is somewhat hard for me to grasp. However, the photograph (and it’s “doll on a shelf” quality) help to better relate this concept to me and make things far more interesting.

-Lydell Peterson

Field Reports #3 (2nd Go-round) pt 2

2. "Deep Walls"

Experiencing this piece made me think of a security guard in a casino watching the public from the "eyes in the sky." It many ways this piece was a sensory overload. There were so many boxes continually playing and changing that I had a hard time focusing on them all. I seemed to pick out one or two and focus purely on their movements/silhouettes until I felt I had gained as much information from it as possible. The hard part was that people would walk up and do a motion and then the boxes changed. This made the gaining of information from it never-ending.

I found this piece to be the most interactive in my opinion. The concept of using silhouettes I think made people feel more comfortable with acting goofy or unique in front of the camera. As McKinnon put it, "anonymous shadows = safety." This in turn makes it a more interesting interaction between the public to the screen and then from the screen to new people just walking in. They will see these wild actions and no-identification (except on a personal level, as you can identify yourself in silhouette) and feel more prone to acting zany themselves, thus continuing the pattern and making this a wheel of interaction and physical communication with others.

This non-verbal communication illustrates the very basics of human interaction with each other. Certain motions can be viewed by others and their interpretation can be seen as "happy, bored, etc." With the group I went with, one girl did a back flip into the camera and immediately the screen showed the results with gasps of amazing by the surrounding crowd. This act of physical movement was gratifying to all who watched just as if people were watching a sports highlight on espn of an amazing baseball catch. Even if it was a simple gesture people could relate. This also made me think of polaroid instant pictures or photo booths and amusement parks. The action and immediate reaction by the technology add in a level of spontaneity and fun.

Field Report #3 (2nd Go-round) pt 1

1. "Untitled 5"

Experiencing this interactive piece is like becoming the brush in a painting. As I stepped on to the floor mat/sensor I immediately felt as if i were apart of a typical abstract painting with the exception that it was ever-changing because of my movements. My mind continued to sort out how my particular movements affected the visual aspect of the painting on screen. I wanted to be able to control my movements and have them reflect what I wanted interpreted on screen. To do this I had to discover the boundaries of the piece and the cause and effect of my movements.

This was not so easily accomplished. McKinnon suggested, "that there are no immediate clear perimeters" and that "it had no likeness of yourself to help guide." This made it take longer to figure out. After figuring out how to move my body and how the "on screen" brush correlated with me, the brush strokes changed shape and pattern and added a new variable to what was being drawn. It was as if a painter started painting yellow and then dipped his brush in red and altered the pattern with a new twist. The same basic guidelines remained intake (movement of my body to what happens on screen) but the variable of the stroke had changed. This spontaneous change was very welcomed and added a sense of wonder of what would next happen? Do I really have complete control of what is being painted on screen? I may be able to make the stroke, but I have no choice in what color or pattern it displays. While it is very interactive in a mobile/movement sense, I feel like the computer programed into it prevented me from having complete control as if a standard brush with paint on canvas would have.

Someday... I think that this approach will be an alternative to hanging static paintings as decor in one's house. Instead, guests at a dinner party will walk into a room and see a screen hanging on a wall interpreting their movements, making a unique painting every second. This ever-changing venue will provide a different experience every time, thus making the room more exciting than having the same non-changing painting hanging. I can see it now... the future of paintings.