Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)