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.

Field Report #2

I was enticed by an article about stucco corpses painted on the walls of a Baroque church in Palermo and how artist Giacomo Serpotta could "impart life and motion to all unlikely entities, such as abstract virtues and tired old scriptural stories." This article (along with browsing some of the media and links) tipped the balance and made me choose... "Cabinet" @ http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/
as my field report journal.

Field Report #1

Robert Schaller’s “Traces of the Wild” film selections can be, in my opinion, described/analyzed by one word… MOVEMENT! Whether it is movement of the camera on screen (for example zooming in and out of trees in bright lighting conditions) movement of the focal point/subject of the film (the dancer in two of his films), or even physical movement of the projector or projectors themselves displaying the film. No matter the variation of movement it is exemplified brilliantly within Schaller’s work.

The movement of the camera reminded me much of “The Bear Garden” in the sense that by using some of the technical aspects/techniques of the machine recording the images, an illusion of a motion/movement is created to which the viewer experiences. The opening shots of someone walking through orange flowers creates this illusion of a bear meandering because of the technique of low angles and seemingly random directions taken during this journey. Schaller’s zooms and quick sequential rotation of branches share this same experience by making the trees come to life (what I noted as being the “spinning tree method”) by only using a camera technique. Schaller’s “My Life as a Bee” also demonstrates this method due to the fact that the camera technique makes the audience feel like they are living as if a bee would.

The movement of the subject matter or focal point demonstrated by dancers in multiple Schaller films was related in my mind to “5:10 to Dreamland.” Within that film multiple shots emphasize downward or upward movement by use of the subject matter on the film itself. The shots that first come to my mind are when the child puts a feather on to a heater and immediately it floats upward in the air and dances a bit and the archival footage of dashed lines of light bouncing around the screen. Schaller’s dancer subjects reflect this idea of movement within the frame (and sometimes out on to the next frame) by the subject matter itself.

The final concept of movement I thought Schaller demonstrated well was the actual, physical movement of the projectors. Most films have a standard one-projector system that show one box of light to which it can be viewed in usually a 4:3 aspect ratio. Schaller used three projectors and to make things even more interesting he tipped them on their sides flipping the aspect ratio. This physical movement is somewhat mirrored (or reminded me of) “Suspension,” In which two projectors were used and there was physical slippage of the images being projected. The physical movement of the projectors has to be precise for there to be better coherence and artistic display of what the director exactly intended. If not done correctly the images may not match up as well which may or may not lose the exact intention of what is on screen.

-Lydell Peterson

Response - April 28th - Viewing

I believe that “Duck Soup” is a narrative but “The Way Things Go” is not. While “Duck Soup” may seem like a series of gags that just pop up continuously throughout the film. I feel that “Duck Soup” had enough of a loose narrative and story (be it anarchist, chaotic, or interrupted) it still had a semi-logical A to B structure. Yes, the gags interrupt the narrative, but there is a definite beginning, middle, and end. Its intervention from the narrative structure (i.e. gags) is more structured like a cartoon in which anything can happen for any reason. Cartoons still maintain a narrative structure with bizarre, implausible gags why can’t a live action film accomplish the same thing?

I think that “The Way Things Go” however, is not a narrative. I see it structured more like A to B in small segments but not as a whole picture. Why, because there is no pay off at the end of the film. If the film concluded with reasoning and purpose that this Rube Goldberg-like contraption had then I can view it as a structured narrative. Instead it just feels unfinished (no ending). The broad structure of the film starts A but never finishes with B. (Yes, there are A to B segments within the film, but the broad structure never finishes that thought) I don’t see the two films as being very similar because of this broad scheme of structure. If “The Way Things Go” had a pay off ending (more like “Duck Soup”) then I would see them as being more similar.

Response - April 21st viewing

My first reaction to the viewing was to the viewing of the “STEW” cable access channel. I found it absolutely hilarious what these guys were doing to intervene with the public by controlling the airwaves of this particular channel. I found it as a great method of intervention because it forces the viewing to step aside from how they normally view television programs and interact in this sort of farce or parody of regularly scheduled type shows. Specifically they parody (or transform to their own mold) the “home shopping” or infomercial type of programs that have viewers call in. This parody (like having a caller play cards as the 4th person in a card game) is a great invention and comment on how these call in shows are somewhat ridiculous. They take events that you would never think would make it on the air and televise it with viewer interaction, thus intervening in their lives. Using a Quija board on air to answer people’s questions (with some viewers taking it seriously) is a great example of how this intervention (which is basically a giant joke) can be misconstrued by the viewers by the mere idea that “what’s on the tv has a certain sense of reality/authenticity to it.”

Going along those lines, I believe the “Media Burn” film sports that same type of idea. It’s a great intervention and comment on how the media feeds the public and sort of controls them by this sense of authenticity when in actuality the facts may not entirely be authentic or true. It may be biased or slanted. The intervention of crashing a car through the televisions helps demonstrate how biased and slanted the media has become and how it needs to be reconstructed and freshened up (like rejuvenating a prairie by a controlled burn) Thus, the title “Media Burn.” However, the Media Burn idea relies on the very thing they are trying to comment on (the media) to send out the message. It is a paradox that is very intriguing and witty. My question is, “Why would you send a message denouncing something through that very method which is being denounced?” Doesn’t that kind of conflict the point trying to be made? Also, (this is minor) but I think if I were trying to send the message of denouncing the current media, I would use images of the media on the televisions instead of having them turned off/blank. A blank tv is actually in favor of the message they are trying to create. Destroying a blank tv is pointless. It’s the media they are trying to destroy/change not the tv itself. However, I can understand that the tv is merely a symbol that conveys the media message, but I think it would have been stronger if the televisions had images displaying the media.

April 15th Outside Viewing - Craig Baldwin

After viewing the Craig Baldwin film "Mock Up on Mu" I was amazed. The Meticulous nature of using found footage to tell this wonderfully complicated narrative of real people in a fictional context (although during the Q and A Baldwin claimed it was based on a true story). The most remarkable part was the editing of the found footage and having it both further the story and add in depth curiosity to what was being shown and where did he find that certain image. I found myself trying to guess which film Baldwin had taken the certain image from (Most often unsuccessfully). In this very way I believe that Baldwin’s creation relates to being an intervention art. By using pop culture references as well as real people it forces the viewer to analyze where these references are coming from and create a higher awareness in relation to the narrative. Whether the narrative is true or valid or not I found it giving a creative proposition and opinion to a under-heard story of Scientology. People hear about Scientology all the time but don’t know much of what it really stands for or is. Baldwin creatively voices his take on the matter. In this sense Baldwin is intervening and crafting his own “fictional” narrative based on contexts real in nature (to a degree). I also wondered while watching this film about copyright laws and policies versus using copyrighted material for parody and artistic expression. Many of the images shown I guarantee were copyrighted and yet Baldwin used them. How did he get away with that? Either way it was a great artistic achievement especially through searching out these hidden gems of clips and editing them together. I could easily tell that continuity was broken (having different actors play the same role) but because of the way it was edited I went with it and it never bothered me. I think that achievement is a huge audience intervention and in itself is amazing.

Response April 14th - Sonic Outlaws

For this week's blog response I choose the "Barbie Liberation Organization."

Fact 1) The BLO bought and then took apart Barbie and G.I. Joe dolls that had voice capabilities and switched the "insides" thus producing changed stereotyped voices in each doll. They returned them to the store shelves where they were bought by the public.

Fact 2) The target/goal of this action was to change how the public views gender stereotypes as well as a comment on superficial consumerism. This process of "commerce jamming" was to send a message to the public in a clever way to get their attention (very much an intervention).

Fact 3)

PLO - Work in progress

Response - April 7th (viewing)

After viewing “Love’s Refrain” my quantitative evaluation revealed to me that the film was about the heat (hotness or coldness) of color. Every shot seemed to either have a hot or cold feel to it expressed in reds or oranges or cool blues. Was it helpful in advancing my understanding of the film? Maybe, I’m not exactly sure why the auteur chose this course of action but I would like to think it represents the hot and coldness of love (basing that observation off of the title of the film). In this way it does take you into an understanding of the film. I think through this relation and use of patterns and reflected imagery it marks a playful gleam at the little beautiful observations in life. The heat of the particular shot helps emphasize this beauty whether it is a subtle green for the grass or hot orange reflection this heat corresponds to the concept of love being based of the little things in life. I think Kevin’s observation for the film is valid (to a degree), but if that is valid then theoretically every film is about a projector sound if it can be heard. Thus, every film that is projected is about tiny celluloid frames being seen. I think this is stretching the concept a bit thin and reaching out too far. If the projector was functioning other than what it is normally built to do or playing variations of sounds I think it is more valid, but if it’s just doing what it is intended to do I think saying the film was about the projector sound is a stretch. I think that the sound of the projector really doesn’t relate to the film at all and is much like a person coughing or sneezing during the film. It’s just an outside sound that happens to be going on during the film. If the projector sound was recorded and tampered with though, then I think it relates completely since it was the artist’s decision to use that sample of sound. So basically what I’m saying is that the sound of the projector can be valid if it was recorded and used, but if it is just the machine functioning how it normally functions it is less valid and relates less to the piece.

Response - March 31st (Viewing)

After viewing Benning’s mathematical demonstration my immediate thoughts (like many people in the class) were, “how does this apply to filmmaking?” While I had some ideas it didn’t entirely make sense until I thought about it more after the performance and during the group discussions. One great point brought up was that after a certain point in math it becomes more of an intellectual curiosity than a proven thing. Benning’s demonstration of infinity and imaginary numbers were a great example of that. Like math filmmaking (and art in general) is all about theories and concepts that aren’t always totally solid and are sometimes more abstract in terms of thinking. Sometimes in order to try and understand something there needs to be an abstract idea presented because there is no solid explanation in life. That makes me ponder about life’s mysteries and how the human culture uses abstractions to explain questions they don’t know how to answer. Take religion or the concept of God for example. As humans we don’t know how things came to be or makes the world tick, so we use abstract ideas with logical explanations (well sometimes logical) to explain what we don’t know. In many ways math and filmmaking do the exact same thing. They are the explorations into discovering the hidden abstract ideas that we are trying to solve. All this pondering makes me think of the movie “Pi.” The contemplation that math is the solution to all of life’s mysteries and that there is some interconnection between everything (i.e. mathematical beauty/symmetry in leaves and nature) helps further this notion that Benning was presenting. Often Benning would stop and say something like “look at the symmetry in the equation, isn’t it beautiful.” I believe there is a great connection between math and filmmaking (and life for that matter) and Benning’s demonstration helped exemplify that.

The demonstration itself also made me think of the concept of intervention art and live performance. Each equation was like a new chapter and concept being illustrated like in a performance. Which made me wonder, “isn’t all teaching a form of performance art?” I mean think about it every chalkboard demonstration is partially rehearsed (sometimes spur of the moment) but it has a background to it. It’s presenting a concept and forcing the on looker to think about what is being presented. (Whether abstract or not) Each equation is fresh and new even if it turns out the same (do too the formulas of math). This freshness is shown because mistakes happen altering the performance and adding new depth and possibility to what is happening. Either way teaching is a performance and an intervention into the on looker’s life and Benning helped demonstrate that concept to me.

Reponse - March 31st (Reading/discussion)

After reading MacDonald’s article on James Benning one line stood out the most to me as I connected it to his work and all the discussions revolving around his work. “Probably no filmmaker has been more involved with exploring and documenting the American landscape and cityscape than Benning” (MacDonald, 220). There have been tons and tons of documentaries of the American landscape/cityscape but how true to detail are they? Even the documentaries of wildlife and nature shows put a narrative aspect to the film to add entertainment. Benning is a purist and purely documents in a more observational quality. Documenting the same place over different periods of time or of only trains going by with no narrative aspect help define this statement. Instead of trying to capture some action and then transform it into some story Benning takes the small (less noticeable) things and brings them into the light. It makes me think of the tag line to the film “American Beauty” which is “…look closer.” Benning is the epitome of looking closer and finding the beauty in observation. As I heard about Benning’s class and how he takes students out in random places to observe I thought this truly is what exploring a landscape/cityscape is all about. Immersing yourself in your surroundings and finding all the little things you wouldn’t normally notice. In this sense it’s the little things that create the big picture. I believe as a filmmaker one should aspire to showing the audience a concept, idea, or observation new and fresh that sheds new light to something. Finding the little things in life is exactly the right way to do so.

March 24th Entry - spiral jetty

For this week’s blog entry I was assigned to pick out an element of “Spiral Jetty” that I found to be the strangest and to relate that element into the remainder of the film. The part that I found to be the strangest was the many comments and focal points on dinosaurs, dinosaur bones/skeletons and reptiles. In particular the focal point pan of two dinosaur skeletons with a red tint on the lens. My initial thoughts were “how do dinosaur bones relate to a spiral road being constructed in shallow water in Utah?” I believe in connects in multiple ways after further contemplation. 1st, I believe there is a graphic match type quality of the imagery of the bony twisted-ness of the dinosaur fossils relating to the ridged-ness and swirling of the rocky spiral. The shapes of each of the designs seem to match together in a symbiotic fashion and relation. It’s as if maybe the dinosaur fossils inspired Smithson to create this rock formation. 2nd, the use of rocks and forming them the way he did may be a comment to the fossils themselves. Fossils are dug up from the earth out of rocks; maybe by putting these rocks back into earth in a formation he is creating an “artistic fossil” of his work. Basically, instead of taking a fossil out he is putting one in. 3rd, maybe the comment on fossils being a part of history ties into the random pages that were torn out and scattered, which relates into the giant picture of Smithson trying to leave a random mark in history by means of artistic sculpture/expression. His spiral jetty was his random mark in history much like the dinosaurs made their make through fossils. Lastly, the one thing I still am not sure about was why the red tint was used when panning with the dinosaur fossils? Maybe red signifies violence? Murder? Extinction? Maybe he chose to use red cause it was bold and stands out? I’m still not sure why he chose red for this particular scene. My most logical reasoning is that it was the closest resemblance to the reddish-brown muddy waters that the spiral’s rock created during construction. That way he was tying in the fossils both graphically (through images) and through relation of color.

Table Top Video - Entry after performance

I thought that my table top video went well for the most part. I think the main goal was achieved (see artist statement, deadpan/slapstick) even though a few things didn'g turn out quite as expected. First off, I felt rushed setting up the project since the projects before me ran long and the schedule was a bit off and we were trying to make up lost time. Secondly, someone knocked on the door interrupting the flow of the performance which made me lose concentration a bit. The sound of the knock in my video was not intended and not my fault, but what can you do sometimes. The only other thing I thought didnt't turn out as well or was hard to accomplish was keeping the masssive stack of cards within the camera frame. With that many cards being dealt it was difficult to keep them all in frame and many of them might have been out of frame. No matter how hard you practice just dealing with that many cards made it difficult. The things I thought turned out better than expected was the actual slap or "hit me" during the climax. I was really worried that the slap would look fake or rigid, but it felt very smooth and near perfect, so I hope it turns out on film as well as it felt. There was a good sound to it and my head moved well with the motion and landed nicely on the table. I think all the practicing of the REAL slaps paid off. I won't know exactly how well my head fell into the camera frame until I watch it, but I think it was a good landing. So overall, all the practicing and planning I think paid off and my project ran smoothly and turned out almost exactly how I wanted it to.

Table Top Video - Artist Statement

The purpose of my table top video project is to explore the deadpan and slapstick of two inexperienced people trying to play blackjack. The main goal is to play of the literal nature of how the game can be interpreted (especially by two inexperienced players who don't really know what they are doing). This is demonstrated by having the dealer purposely (for the video) accidently (in the storyline) deal the starting hand wrong (with a joker face-up) One, the joker shouldn't be in the deck at all, showing the inexperience and two, it shouldn't be face up (also showing that the dealer and player don't know exactly the right way of playing. This insight of literal inexperience shines throughout the whole demonstration by having the player continue to ask to be "hit" and not understanding that he is supposed to stop at "21." The dealer also goes along with it continuing to add the numbers showing that she doesn't exactly know what shes doing either. Finally, the climax of the player literally being slapped (or hit) shows the literal interpretation the inexperienced dealer may have trying to figure out what to do. This is a direct play on literal interpretations, deadpan, and slapstick humor. The main purpose is to bring out those qualities in this demonstration.

Week 6 - March 3rd -Youtube Scavenger Hunt!

My first reaction/thought of seeing Alex Bag's "Untitled Fall '95" reminded me of this viral youtube clip that gained massive popularity awhile back. It echoes Alex Bag in the sense that it seems impromptu (Crocker's make-due blanket as background is much like seeing Bag's hand come into the frame while shooting with the stuffed animals) Both give the "confessional" direct address feel also, only Bag's seems very satirical and analytical, while Crocker’s actually seems serious. Both however aren’t completely clear as to whether or not they should be taken seriously. Bag frequently changes wigs/personas that gives a feel that “this isn’t authentic,” but at the same time the confessionals contradict that with how personal it sounds. Crocker’s confessional seems like it could be real but its absurdity of topic and over-emotional crying over that topic also make it seem less authentic and staged. Maybe Crocker was being serious; maybe it was all an act? Both Bag and Crocker flirt along the lines of “is this authentic, or am I staging this?” In some ways Crocker’s video could be seen like how Bag portrays her characters as this satirical stereotype. Maybe Crocker is just portraying the overly compassionate media-hyped/celebrity obsessed homosexual? I’m not sure. The main facts however of how they are similar remains in the use of direct address towards the camera and flirtation with authenticity, as well as the idea of persona.

Week 5 - Feb 25th (Reading/internet browsing)

I viewed the website “Learning to Love You More” and read about the assignments. I think this is a great way to force everyday people to become their own authors and create something based on a given guideline or restriction. One of the assignments that grabbed my attention and fed into the idea of “authorship” was the assignment “draw a constellation from someone’s freckles.” This concept makes me wonder, “Who is the real author? The person with the freckles or the person who connected the dots with the freckles?” In many ways the person with the freckles themselves is the author because they are supplying the material that is connected, thus the constellation was already there in theory, just not as apparent. On the other hand, the person that drew the connections of the freckles could be considered the author because before he/she drew the connections it was just a random assortment of dots that the body created. I find it as an interesting debate much like the debate of remix artists. Are they considered artists for using already produced material but by chopping it up in a new way or stamping their name on it, or are they just reproducing something that isn’t their work and credit should be given to the original artist. (I.E. it is the person drawing connections versus the person supplying the freckles).

Week 5 - Feb. 25th (Viewing) - "Author of Piece"

After viewing “Two Dogs and a Ball” I see that the authorship qualities fall greatly upon the person holding the ball off camera. I think this is a blunt demonstration of exactly how the director/cameraman can control the “actors” (in this case dogs). I think this same piece could be viewed as authored by the dogs themselves if the ball wasn’t revealed at the end showing that they in fact were locked in looking at that object held by the director. “One Black/One White” is a better example of how the dogs are more of the authors than that director is. In that film the dogs control what is happening and what they are doing whilst the director is simply observing their actions. This sort of control by the black and white dogs shows more of an author-like quality by the dogs themselves. The dogs fixated on the ball are being completely controlled by the director, who in this case is more of the author.

Feb. Outside Post (Feb. 20th)

For the February post outside of class I attended the Theater screening of the movie "Persepolis." There were two aspects that struck me that I could relate to the readings and screenings we've seen in class. The first aspect was the use of silhouttes and darkened black images all throughout the film. Many times for some of the more violent scenes or just to show background characters with or without emphasis the object was an entirely black image/shadow. This reminded me of the use of lighting/shadow in "Lemon." Just like the shadow in "Lemon" the darkened images helped either add emphasis to the character in focus or was used to emphasize that particular image itself. One prime example I remember was the shadowed tanks as they rolled in during a battle scene for a war. The second aspect that struck me was the use of a musical within the film. It is a short scene but the main character has an "Eye of the Tiger" montage to which she sings the lyrics in english. This musical interlude is somewhat laughable and reminds me Althea Thauberger's works. This musical caught me by surprise just like the opera style singing in "A Memory Lasts Forever." The debatable question however, is "Was Thauberger's singing within the film supposed to be intentionally funny?" I don't think it was, while I believe the "Persepolis" montage was supposed to be intentionally humorous. Either way that break from the structure of the film reminded me of Thauberger's work.

Week 4 - Feb 18th (Reading)

After reading about Althea Thauberger one main point kept arising in my head. The fact that her work is a voice of the ordinary girl reaching out to millions is what stood out in my head. The lines “They are ordinary. They are like us, and yet they are speaking subjects, empowered to tell what they have to tell. If we can empathize with them, if we can be moved, we must acknowledge that we too, have the power to move.” I think this line best demonstrates Thauberger’s appeal and gives a good insight to how her work differs from much of the work seen in today’s world. She keeps things simple and forces the viewer to relate to the characters in a matter to which it is believable. While adding a musical touch may sway some viewers into thinking it’s a satire, I believe she is just touching upon the old forms to which emotion was shown. Early on before tv and movies, people watched plays, theater performances, and operas. I think (especially “A Memory Lasts Forever”) is a comment on the old form of expressing emotion through the use of a musical and memory of an event that happened to her. I think because it was done on a reasonable budget and with unknown actors it appears laughable because we are so used to the big-budget fake realism. I think that in a sense Thauberger’s portrayal is more realistic but is just misconstrued as something that is unintentionally funny. I think too many people have widely seen satires so that is their impression of the film when in fact it is actually touching a upon a realistic event in the form of old means. I view this piece as an “internet opera.” A modern empathetic take on an old form.

Week 4 - Feb. 18th (Viewing)

Althea Thauberger as a guest displaying parts of her work was really interesting. While the debate over whether she intentionally made certain parts of her films with satire or a hint of comedy goes on, and is interpreted differently by different people, I’d like to point out how I interpreted her work. The first film “Not Afraid to Die,” was what I thought an interpretation on the notion of people being photographed. I continually had this idea in my head as the film went on in its “photographic” still-life style, that the camera was killing her (or at least that’s what she thought). It made me think of the early days of taking photographs and how some people (such as Indian tribes) thought that taking a photograph of someone was like stealing their soul. As the girl sat in front of the camera just staring or acting casually I felt that this girl was presenting herself to the camera because she isn’t afraid of her soul being taken away. I especially thought this when the Althea’s solo came into the mix furthering this notion that the girl “isn’t afraid to die” by sitting in front of the camera, thus stealing her soul (killing her). So this statement is the girl’s way of being courageous and bravely attempting to do something that is thought of as risky or threatening.

In “Songstress” I couldn’t help but get this music video feel. Even after Althea said, “this is not a comment on music videos” I felt like it was. However, there were a few key differences that influenced me away from thinking of it in a more music video sense. 1) There was little to no editing. The whole song played through in one camera take, (except one time) which is remarkably different from most music videos. 2) The performances seemed very improvised and not planned out. While some music videos are like this many aren’t. 3) The camera never moves. It was straight shooting no effects or technique. So while it may stray away from a music video feel, the music being played along with dancing and lip-syncing still brought that feel to the plate. In my mind, I view it as a “reality tv version of a music video.” The camera being fixed and in one take reminded me of the typical “confessionals” in most reality tv series. I think the fixed camera was used in this fashion to give the performer that confessional type of meaning to their work as they lip-synched. I think this was a great way to have the artist give their voice into the film. It also showed that these were up-and-coming artists that haven’t quite made it yet. It was a low-key video, for a low-key artist that was very personalized.

Week 3 - Feb. 11th (Reading)

After reading about (and witnessing in class a representation) Acconci's "Step Piece," my main thoughts/questions (like probably anyone/everyone that has witnessed this) was; is this art? I see a man stepping up and down on a stool. How is this art? What is the purpose trying to be demonstrated by this exercise? While I'm not entirely sure (as if anyone is) I think it can be art. I think if Acconci wants it to be art, then it is art. Acconci is putting hard work (well work) into this demonstration and attributes of the performance can be analyzed into the broader spectrum of things. For instance, I could view this demonstration as a metaphor for human struggle in everyday life. Every day humans continually do the same redundant things over and over again. We get up in the morning and follow a routine. Stepping up and down is like a comment on the human ritualistic redundancies that we continually do. That's how I viewed it anyways, but it can be argued otherwise. Which I'm sure will have its own validity.

Week 3 - Feb. 11th (Screening)

The screenings all dealing with the idea of deadpan were interesting. My intial response to "Mirror" was "why did Morris decided to use a mirror as a focal point/eye instead of just showing the scenery with the camera?" The entire picture was seen through the reflection of the mirror. Did this reflection have a deeper meaning as to how the viewer sees things? Was it a comment on how the audience views what the camera lens films and by using the reflective nature as a way to tease or bring light to a different way of seeing? Why did Morris show the reflection of the camera in the mirror briefly then? I think the use of the mirror is a direct comment as to how the viewer sees things.

"Lemon" the 2nd film we watched reminded me (like many other students) of a lunar/solar eclipse. It also reminded me of a sponge or paper towel soaking up water (relating to how the lemon seemed to be soaking up light with the movement of the lighting). The shadow on the lemon was like the water as it was absorbed. I think Frampton also made good used of the close-up to enhance the intricate details of the lemon. The texture was amazing and after staring at it awhile I even began to imagine objects (of human form) within the yellow and white of the lemon. This deadpan imagery of the lemon makes me wonder what was the purpose of the dedication? Was in paying homage in some way?

The best example of the deadpan idea I thought was exemplified in "Semiotics of the Kitchen." My immediate thoughts were "okay, she's saying the alphabet, like a children's show would." However, as she got further along a dark side (through the deadpan performance and actions) became much more apparent. Slashing the knife or pounding the meat tenderizer gave me the idea that this was a comment on the stereotypes of housewives and being "in the kitchen." The deadpan performance really made it clear that she didn't want to be in the kitchen, but still she went through with her rutine, like many stereotypical housewives do. The deadpan performance changed how I intially viewed this film to a much darker (even humorous) view. I believe each film had this quality of using the deadpan performance to change how the viewer sees things from their first impression or pre-conceived notion.

Week 2 - Feb. 4th Reading

The part that stood out to me after doing all the readings was Deren's comment regarding fixing the camera in one location and then editing the film to make it look like somebody traveled a great distance immediately. She says, "...I have used the integrity oh a human movement - its continuity of rhythm and pacing- to bind together locations which are otherwise unrelated. This is obviously a use of the time potentialities of film, in that it rest upon the rhythm of movement and upon the fact that two separate locations can be cut together on the strength of that rhythm." (Deren, 136). I believe this is a great editing "optical illusion" that can be used to make stark contrasts while maintaining this potentiality of movement in a fluid motion. My first thoughts were the on-going "multiple doors" gag used so often in slapstick comedies (and also Scooby-Doo). In which people are chasing each other in a hall full of doors and fluidly go from door to door with no problem when logic tells us there would be walls that would interfere with that. This technique provided the audience at first with a "how'd they do that?" but in later years became this on-going gag used for humor. People's development and understanding of film has increased so that it is found humorous and not thought of as this magical wonder anymore. I think many of the techniques used in the past have been altered or read differently nowadays to provide humor. An good example I can think of is wavy dissolve type of effect for a dream sequence. At first, it was this cool serious effect to show that the character is entering this surreal environment but now it's over-used for comedic effect (like in "Wayne's World" as an example).

An example of the door gag.... Click Link!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TX5Gb8xSr8

Another example...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnmoBgfztJQ

Week 2 - Feb. 4th Screening "Pumpkins"

To start off with I wanted to make note of the amazing use of stop motion animation in Cohl's "Great Pumpkin Race." Although it's noticeable that stop motion was used it was still somewhat seamless and believable to the eye. During the entire picture I felt like these were magical pumpkins that could climb buildings and go over railings. This "magic" quality to the pumpkins gave me humor seeing as I knew that logically these pumpkins can't roll forever (let alone climb over objects and go through chimneys). So through the creative technical use of stop motion animation (along with reversing the film) Cohl made this entire little story believable but at the same time humorous because of the logic behind what was going on. My main question from seeing this film however, was "What is so important about these pumpkins that all of these people chase after them with strenuous effort?" My theory, as demonstrated by the pumpkin's ability to jump over railings etc. is that these are in fact magical pumpkins. It makes more sense as to why these characters tried so hard to catch the pumpkins. Wouldn't you try hard to catch a magical pumpkin?

Week 1 - Jan 28th Reading

After doing the readings, what continually entered my mind was the idea behind the "Freudian slip." The articles referred to how jokes and the unconscious tie into each other. At first the reading brought up the idea that what we may consider jokes to be are "any conscious and successful evocation of what is comic, whether the comic of observation or of situation" (Freud, 1). However, when seeing or hearing certain jokes the unconscious mind may play into the joke itself as well. What enters my mind are all the stereotypical racist jokes or jokes that judge whole groups of people that may or may not (usually not) fit into the categories that the joke is describing. While the joke may be funny to some it also stands as offensive towards others. I believe that telling these jokes may sometimes be like a Freudian slip as to the joke tellers personality and views of others. While it could be viewed as a social commentary it also may reveal that there are underground racist contexts to those thoughts. For example:

Why do (n-word)'s always have sex on their minds?
Because they have pubes on their heads!

This was a random jokes I pulled off the internet. While some may view it as a social commentary, most would view it as completely offensive towards African-Americans. While it may bring up laughter, underneath it all is the hate-fueled ignorance and racial division by the joke teller. The teller may or may not be a racist, but in my mind telling this joke is kind of like a Freudian slip signaling others that the teller does not fully appreciate humanity and it's differences among human races. I believe every joke (whether dirty or clean) has this sort of unconscious underground context that can be viewed either as funny or offensive and is viewed differently by everyone that hears the joke. This unconscious context can reveal more about that teller's personality as well as the listener if he/she completely understands the joke and how he/she reacts to it.

Week 1 - Jan 28th Screening

There were multiple questions raised while watching the screenings but the one that popped out to me the most dealt with Miranda July's "The Amateurist." The question I kept thinking about over and over again was "What was July's intention and purpose of using all of those numbers and comparing different angles and shapes made with the human body to those numbers?" The film made clear that July had a background in numbers but I didn't fully understand the connection to why she would explain these numbers using the legs of the woman in the tv screen. What further perplexed me was "what was the relationship of the professional to the amateurist (woman in the tv)? If you step aside from the knowledge knowing that July played both parts and look at it from a more narrative angle as two separate characters, where was the amateurist? Was she trapped in the same room modeling for the professional? Could she hear the professional instruct? The use of a B/W surveillance camera (as mentioned by a student) did give off this trapped-against-her-will, serial-killer kind of feel to the piece. July was a professional? A professional of what... holding people against their will forcing them to make numbers with their limbs?! While I may be way off with my analyzing this piece I felt that this piece represented a disturbing narrative of a psychopath (i.e. "professional" ) holding a scantily clad woman hostage. To make my point more persuasive look at what was presented.... 1) a scantily dressed woman in the same room with a camera pointed at her. When it comes to the stereotypical hostage holding crazy, the victim is usually a woman and she will usually be barely dressed or nude. 2) A person claiming to be a "professional" watching this woman over a surveillance camera. Once again the stereotypical hostage holder will have some sort of guard over the victim. 3) The so-called professional has an obsession with numbers. Many brilliant psychopaths tend to have obsessions that they feed off of. These three factors lead me to believe that this is not a film about empowerment or women's rights, but instead a short film about a hostage and a number obsessed psychopath. As for answering my own question, I believe this weird fetish with numbers and limbs is simply a disturbing ritual that the professional psycho feeds off of.