Wayne's Avant-Garden

mia makela

2008-04-27T22:26:00.003-04:00

Summarize Mia Makela's five essential elements of Live Cinema, and relate these elements to the Live Cinema Explosion during Avant-Garde Night at the Lumina Theater.

1. Space - The physical area that the event takes place in, the area of performance, and the area which the projection takes place upon.
2. Time - the duration of the "event", i.e. real time.
3. Performance - The actual visuals and sounds of the event.
4. Public - The audience and their participation.
5. Projection - the area and means of projecting images upon a screen, wall, etc.

During the Live Cinema Explosion, we ran into all these elements. Our space was the Lumina, a pretty big area with plenty of spots for projection. The time of the Explosion was about 15-20 minutes, I'd say. The Performance was the use of VJ software mixed with a live DJ and also several projections of loops onto surrounding walls. The Public element was the audience began mostly sitting, with noisemakers distributed beforehand for them to participate in the Explosion. By the end of it, several audience members, came down and joined the Explosion, either on the keyboard or the VJ software. The Projection was a theatre-sized screen along with the walls.

What are the challenges facing "laptop performers" in relation to audience expectations about "liveness" and performance? How are some artists addressing these challenges?

Laptop performers face the challenges are the fact that a lot of the loops and visuals are prerecorded and only mixed live. The audience usually expects liveness, like at a music concert where instruments are played live with no prerecordedness (unless its a rap concert but that's not music anyway). With VJing, an audience doesn't really know what is live and what is not, they could be watching a DVD for all they know. Some VJs have overcome this problem by using dual projectors to display the desktop view and the results of the mixing like "Slub" has done. Others have steered away from using only laptops, like AVCENTRALEN who mix colors and water with a live camera recording it all and projecting it.

Well, that was fun. Maybe I can focus on this analysis thing now.

What I Thought!: Avant-Garde Cinema Night

2008-04-20T16:50:00.000-04:00

When we first got the handouts about the AVG Cinema Night, I really didn't know what to expect. I figured there'd be some films that somehow we'd all agree on and really didn't expect much of a turnout. As it... turned out, it was the complete opposite and I was thoroughly happy of the final results, especially the Explosion de la Cinema.

My favorites were Uso Gusto and Light is Waiting. I'd seen most of Uso Gusto online but seeing it with a crowd on the big screen was a completely different experience. The trip sequence, which I somehow hadn't seen, was definitely my favorite part as I love when films just freak out and have acid trips onscreen. All films should be required to have one tripped out sequence. Which brings me to Light is Waiting: totally not what I expected but still awesome. I went into it thinking that it'd be more comical and visual based, but really it was so much more. I really dug how it started like an average episode of Full House until the TV smashed, and then it was like the film was being shown on that smashed TV. Completely awesome. It was hard to focus on the images while looking at the horrified expressions on some of the older audience members' faces, especially the guy in front shielding his face from the screen. Excellent! I almost want to watch it with 3-D glasses because of all the pulsating red and blue light. Definitely a cool choice, whoever chose that...

What I thought didn't work as well was David Gatten's What the Water Said. I was expecting more than his other work I'd see before, but I didn't get that. The images were cool, I'll admit, but with the scratched soundtrack, it just got annoying quick much like his Dividing Line stuff. Does he actually make “films” worthy of viewing? I just don’t see what’s so great about his work.

And of course, I liked the Live Cinema Explosion. The mashing up of different sounds and images everywhere was very chaotic but somehow soothing when it was all happening. I've looked at my footage of it and it really doesn't do it justice, but I think my friends that starred on the screen will get a kick out of it.

And that, folks, is... What I Thought!TM

Lara Croft: She Puppet

2008-04-09T17:38:00.002-04:00

What are the general claims about the film as a rejection of modernist aesthetics? (anti-art, feminism, etc.)

The first general claim is that instead of using everyday people or friends (“nobodies”) much like other of her works, Ahwesh uses a well-known video game heroine, Lara Croft, and uses the video game images to comment on the game’s ideals in return. While basically all of the films we’ve seen “star” regular people, not models/celebrities, attempting to act or just being themselves at times, She Puppet uses the basically ideal model of what society(at least the video gaming world) believes a woman should be and look like.

Secondly and more importantly, Ahwesh, by using the gameplay of Tomb Raider synced with voiceover, deconstructs the game itself to exploit its unconscious flaws(i.e. never ending violence, etc.) and also defamiliarizes the audience of mise-en-scene, works of drama, and the gameplay action. By utilizing these two techniques, Ahwesh creates a postmodernist/postfeminist viewpoint of how demeaning pop culture images can be and also how an virtual supermodel heroine can be controlled by the hands of a gamer, most likely a male.

These claims are supported by Wees by stating how things in the film are much different than they normally are in gameplay. Most noticeably, the sound effects and music(I forget if there is any in the game) have been removed or altered and replaced by feminist thoughts and passages read by a woman’s voice. Also, instead of running through the game, killing everything that gets in Lara’s way, the movements of the video game protagonist are altered most of the time to simply stand still to appear like she’s observing the world around her. In other sequences, the character doesn’t even put up a fight and gets killed several times in a row. With these images combined with the voiceovers, it really makes it seem as if we are hearing Lara Croft’s deep feminist thoughts as she runs through a male-dominated cyberworld.

To what degree does the analysis correspond with your own?

My analysis of the film was basically the same as Wees’s. The film really felt like a film to me and not just video game clips. Having played the game in the late ‘90s, I was familiar with the Lara Croft character and the controversy surrounding her image and role in video games. Knowing this, I was surprised that I hadn’t seen something like this before that exploited Tomb Raider’s sexual themes. Viewing the gameplay as a film with voiceovers of seemingly Croft’s inner thoughts, it really made me look at it from a different perspective and gives a whole new meaning to the game. It was actually interesting to see the game “played” differently to give Lara a whole new personality, one of feminine values and not just eye candy for gamers.

"The Offenders: No Wave Cinema" response

2008-04-04T17:00:00.003-04:00

What are some similarities and differences between the American avant-garde of the early 1970s and the Punk or No Wave filmmaking in the late 1970s? Address the following areas:

Aesthetic similarities and differences
Production-wise, the films of the No Wave were focused more on producing a finished film, and not reliant on production value, much like Warhol or Ono’s work. Since the filmmaking theory at the time was “fast, cheap, and easy to learn”, the Punk films were poorly shot and acted but easily produced. Much like Warhol who cast his own friends in films, the Punk filmmakers cast mainly musicians of the time since they had already built up a reputation within the community, Lydia Lunch being an example. Exhibition-wise, instead of art houses and galleries, the Punk/No Wave films were often exhibited in music clubs like CBGBs and often shown in between bands setting up. Exhibitions of these films often included an audience who were drinking, smoking, and yelling back at the screen, creating a totally different viewing experience than those of art houses.

Technological similarities and differences
During the 1970s, technology changed a bit, allowing for more people to become filmmakers. The main film stock had changed from 16mm to Super 8, which some felt was too low of quality to be projected onto a big screen. This did not stop the No Wave filmmakers as they seemed to like the unpolished feel that the films ended up having. Super 8 also allowed for image and sound to be recorded at once, allowing films to be made and shown more quickly. Also, since sound was now easier to produce, filmmakers like Vivienne Dick often just put the microphone anywhere, allowing for friendly audio mistakes to be added into the film.

Economic similarities and differences
The Punk/No Wave scene was in no way rich and instead relied on lesser technology readily available to any aspiring filmmaker. For this reason, Super 8 was the perfect medium for the Punks and they used it well. Also, since the filmmakers had little money, they couldn’t and didn’t rely on financial backers to produce their films, allowing for films to get started and completed worlds faster than higher budget films of the time.

Social similarities and differences
The No Wave era was a social reaction to the elitism of the structuralist filmmakers and also to response of the counter-culture against the mainstream beliefs/values. The films contained images and sounds that were directly reflective of the Punk culture and music of the period. Filmmakers like Dick and Kern tried to be as controversial and offensive just to spite the populist crowd. Much like the punk musicians of the time, filmmakers would pick up cameras and shoot gritty films that were in complete rejection of popular culture, but punks recognized the films to be similar to the music. In She Had Her Gun All Ready, the style and clothing of the Punk era is displayed with the main characters’ style.

Academia vs. Avant-Garde

2008-03-26T16:18:00.003-04:00

What have been the major critiques of the "academization" of the American avant-garde film? Give your own response to these critiques in relation to the films and readings from our class.

These major critiques listed are the ownership of avant-garde's style(everyday artists or elitist intellectuals of academic institutions), the focus of canon-formation(the power of being highly favored by those filmmakers/professors already established), and avant-garde's move from theaters to classrooms.

First, concerning the ownership of the style of avant-garde, in the reading it states that the shifting of the avant-garde style of the 1960s to 1970s was hindered by the formalized thinking of the academic world. In the 1960s hey-day of avant-garde filmmaking, the film culture was rebellious, untamed, and free to try whatever. However, once put into a highly tamed, academic world, full of predetermined thoughts on what film should be, the movement was highly tamed and harmed. I agree with this because college's structure is very much with the Establishment, but avant-garde filmmaking is very much ruleless and unstructured. As we've seen in class, many films, especially Warhol's stuff, do not really have a narrative structure nor do they inherit the film characteristics(i.e. composition, lighting, editing) that we've all learned about in introductory film courses. When put into an academic environment, these films are practically a smack in the face to all the films/filmmakers we've learned about over the years, but its also introduces a brand new way of looking at filmmaking, a more liberating view.

Second, another critique is the canon-formation of avant-garde cinema, i.e. the organization of jury members to all decide collectively on what is essential and what is forgettable when it comes to the avant-garde. This goes very much along with institutionalization because college is built upon members of the elite and intellectual type whom all decided what should/shouldn't be taught. As UNCW film students, we all have learned that Hitchcock was a groundbreaking director, even if we don't believe it (personally, he's overrated). But the fact that many film scholars have all concurred with certain ideals means every student must learn about it. In this class, we've watched many films that are part of Anthology Film Archives and praised because of popular opinion. It is these archives and institutionalization of a free-spirited artform like avant-garde is one factor that led to its downfall.

Finally, the last critique is that the screenings of avant-garde films went from theaters open to the public to classrooms open to only the students registered. Not only were the films not open to the public, they were now being taught to students to be tested on. The physical viewings themselves have also changed as a result of academization. Once, they were solely shown in galleries at art shows, or socials where people could view the works, socialize, and enjoy some adult beverages. Now, it seems one of their main venues is solemn classrooms by students bound to desks. A good chunk of these films' viewers nowadays do not view them at their own leisure but rather are required to in order for grading. Of any of the films we've watched so far, I can't imagine one filmmaker actually imagining that his or her work would be shown in a college class. Kren would probably grin ear to ear if he knew his "art" was being shown in classrooms to unexpecting students.

Week 9 Filmskis

2008-03-23T14:48:00.004-04:00

The films shown this week were definitely the most interesting we've seen as we begin to drift into the avant gardeness of the '70s. I can already tell the filmmakers of this time were starting to experiment more with film, thinking outside the box so to speak.

Line Describing a Cone- This was pretty incredible to finally see in person. I remember hearing about it last year and trying to think about how it would really look. My predictions were basically correct, but it was awesome to see especially in such a small venue. This "film" really exists outside the screen which is an amazing thing since most films rely on the screen to get the images across. I've tried to imagine this film without the fog/smoke and have come to the conclusion that there'd be no cone but a really boring circle being formed. I also thought the doubled class size helped as more people were able to alter the cone's light, which made it ultra interactive. What stood out to me that maybe was a mistake was the quick bursts of small light beams caused by tiny scratches on the filmstrip. As a result of this film experience, I almost want to fill a theater with fake fog and watch some Blockbuster movie thats out, just to see what happens. And I'm sure glad that it was a cone being described and not a shark! (insert cheesy laugh here)

7 Days- This film was pretty cool and had a mediative feel to it in parts. I really enjoyed the film having the preface in class that a "gizmo" had created the images and something was happening causing it to film certain things. About a couple minutes into it, I realized that the sun was being covered by clouds and when the grass was being filmed, the sun was out because you could see the camera's shadow. The ambient sounds of the sky mixed up with the sounds of water created a cool soundtrack that reminded me of those sleep sound devices(as mentioned in class).

The Girl Chewing Gum- It was also great to finally see this in its entirety because I really enjoyed what I saw the first time. On first viewing, I didn't realize that a street was simply being filmed and it was not a movie set like the narration implies. It wasn't until the clock was zoomed in on that I realized I had been fooled, but I was fine with that. It reminded me of a Monty Python type sketch because they always seem to do clever things that mess with the viewer's perceptions of what film should be. If you just look at this on paper, its simple, a "director" is directing people to do everyday things. But really it is everyday life being filmed, which would be boring to view without the clever fake directions. Then, when the director guy started making assumptions about certain people(i.e. the guy who just robbed the bank) that's when it was even funnier because you began to see people in a different light. I remember as a kid, I would get bored easily when in public and start looking around at people, coming up with theme music or how their voices might sound, all in my head. This film to me was a lot like this childhood concept.

Art and Objecthood

2008-03-16T20:30:00.000-04:00

"The answer I want to propose is this: the literalist espousal of objecthood amounts to nothing more than a plea for a new genre of theatre; and theatre is now the negation of art. Literalist sensibility is theatrical because, to begin with, it is concerned with the actual circumstances in which the beholder encounters literalist work."

The question to which Fried is proposing an answer is "What/Why is it that the idea of objecthood is the antithesis to art?" He's saying that by adopting the idea of objecthood(i.e. art being an object open to interpretation of its beholder) has created an art form of its own by making art situational to everyone who experiences it. It takes away from the actual piece of art itself and instead makes a art contextual experience. Someone viewing a photo of a graveyard may admire the beauty of its time period, landscape, etc. and react positively to it; however, if the same someone had just lost a loved one, the art may make them react completely different.
Fried rejects objecthood because he feels that it degrades the work itself and that sculptures and paintings are much more than just objects. Like Greenberg's argument that "what is art?" is no longer the main question but rather "what is good art?" Objecthood takes away from the original expression of the artist and instead gives it a context in the present day and values/beliefs of the time and beholders. In the sense Fried rejects, no longer is art just a way of expression but now its all in the eye of the beholder to get what he or she wants out of the art, which is antithetical.

What I Thought!: Lives of Performers

2008-03-10T17:14:00.002-04:00

After sitting through the viewing of Lives of Performers today, I had a hard time grasping what all was shown and what it all meant(if anything). Like many of the films we've seen in class, the length could've been cut down drastically and still have the same(if not more) effect. I wouldn't say that I hated the entire film, but most of it I just couldn't get into at all. First, what I didn't like was the weird off-screen narration over the still images, I just didn't see the humor/point in that. I understand the juxtaposition of the weird tales of Mt. Olympus with the still photographs of people doing odd things, but it just didn't translate well to film in the end.
What I did like was the part where the narration was describing the two girls and the guy who kept switching between the two. I thought it was pretty excellent because it was telling a story we've all seen countless times in films, but it was in almost the simplest form possible; Narration with very minimal performance. I also liked the idea of the end shots but I think it went on a little too long as well. Rainer could've cut down the number of the end shots and it would've been a little more humorous. I did like the idea of people posing in photographic poses for extended periods of time and how their faces became tired pretty easily.
As for the imdb comment, I don't completely agree with the guy (he does have a hell of a writing style though), but I do see where he's coming from. I did love the part:

And yes, I expressed the opinion to the film-maker herself, but she shrugged me off by saying, "Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but if you were familiar with the history of cinema, then ... (blah blah blah)." Lady, I don't need to know anything about the history of cinema to be able to call a spade a spade.

I would've loved to be there for that.

And that, folks, is... What I Thought!TM

Views From The Avant-Garde

2008-02-19T20:16:00.002-05:00

For my research and programming, I was given Views from the Avant-Garde, a strictly experimental and avant-garde “sidebar” that’s part of the lineup at the annual New York Film Festival. While the Festival just celebrated its 45th year, the Views showcase is only in its 11th year. Views is broken up into smaller blocks, much like Cucalorus’s shorts blocks, and the list seems to grow with the years. Avant-garde filmmakers celebrated during the history of this festival have included Ken Jacobs, Andy Warhol, and David Gatten, whom came to UNCW last year. At the festival two years back, Andy Warhol’s Blue Movie, originally titled Fuck (for reasons you can imagine), was shown, which is interesting knowing that in 1969 it was shown at the Factory and theater owners were arrested and/or fined.
Without further ado, here are my recommendations:

Stranger Comes to Town, Jacqueline Goss, 28 minutes, 2007. Its basically an ultra experimental project, documenting 6 strangers who come to America and their stories are told through video games/animations like World of Warcraft and Dept. of Homeland Security cartoons. http://www.jacquelinegoss.com/stranger.html

Light is Waiting, Michael Robinson, 11 minutes, 2007. Imagine an old episode of Full House mixed with “axial symmetry, violent strobing, and a tacit inquiry into the hidden geopolitics of TV tourism.” Yeah, they had me at Full House too.
http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs33/feat_sicinski_robinson.html

Eclipse, Jeanette Liotta, 4 minutes, 2005. Its basically a film of a lunar eclipse over NYC filmed in Kodachrome, bringing out colors and making it look pretty rad. After all, its already an eclipse. http://www.jeanneliotta.net/filmpages/eclipse.html (you can watch it here)

Views from the Avant-Garde website: http://www.filmlinc.com/nyff/program/avantgarde/avantgarde.html

la réponse à la lecture: Week VI

2008-02-18T11:13:00.000-05:00

In his lecture on the Diary Film, how does Jonas Mekas distinguish a written diary from a film diary? In what ways do his films document both objective reality and Mekas’s own subjective reality? Why are “non-professional” techniques important for this filmmaking process?

Mekas mentions its easier to write in a written diary at the end of a day because one has time to think back on that day and reflect on it to come up with an entry. A film diary, however, does not give you this option as you have to record reality as its taking place.
In Walden, this idea comes into play because we see random images basically of his documented life, much like a diary. However, nondiagetic music is added along with the visuals being sped up very montage-like, making it border on the subjective/objective line. In one way, it’s very much like a film diary of Mekas’s life events, but it also has an experience aspect to it. The party sequence, for example, is filmed in "party vision" basically. Its shaky and sped up, much like many of my recollections of parties end up. This was one of my favorite scenes of Walden because of that fact.
“Non-professional” techniques work very well for this process because its not about professionism, its about the person filming and their personal choices of shots. A professionally shot diary would be campy and almost look like it was a joke. Diaries are supposed to be completely unprofessional and more personal than anything.

la réponse à la lecture: Week 5ive

2008-02-12T21:56:00.000-05:00

According to Brandon Joseph, what effects did the Exploding Plastic Inevitable have on spectators? How is this similar or different from the films (such as Vinyl and Mario Banana) projected individually, as we have seen them in class?

The effects of EPI on those in attendance were “disruptive” and “layered”, as described by Joseph, and its not really hard to see why. As we’ve seen in class, Warhol’s films alone are hard to grasp, shocking, and/or just out there. Now, take these and project them all on several different walls with records and live bands playing along with light shows. Chaos. He mentions a reviewer, Michaela Williams, describing the experience as something that doesn’t leave the brain right when it ends and plants “flowers of evil.” I think maybe she just couldn’t handle the complete sensory overload and had to label it as a work of evil. Other spectators had called it frustrating and confusing and I can definitely see where they are coming from. Just in Warhol’s work that we’ve seen, it’s easy to get frustrated and confused with trying to find a point/meaning. I definitely had this experience with both Vinyl and Mario Banana. I could only imagine trying to digest all the films from all walls of the room with the Velvet Underground blaring in my ears. It almost makes Vinyl and the Mario Banana films seem a tamer and easier to take now thinking about how easy the class had it as spectators. A reviewer, Larry McCombs noted that at times the images, lights, and music synched up and it seemed perfect for a moment, but that moment doesn’t last long and confusion kicks in again. I have seen moments already like this in class, most recently with Christmas on Earth, where the random radio tunes and projected images synched up a little too well.

la réponse à la lecture: Week 4

2008-02-05T14:29:00.001-05:00

Re-visit Banes's discussion of Scorpio Rising and Greenberg's distinction between avant-garde and kitsch (p. 104-105). Why does she argue that the film is "neither fish nor fowl," meaning somewhere in-between avant-garde and kitsch?

In Bane’s discussion, she states that Scorpio Rising is “neither fish nor fowl”, a good metaphor saying that it cannot be described solely as avant-garde or kitsch, but rather a mixture of the two. I could not agree more after reading the description of the two styles and her (or Greenberg’s) arguments. First of all, the Kitsch style, according to the reading on pg. 104, is the popular, Hollywood narrative style that is responsible for killing high art and folk art and infected the entire world with its dullness. Like Hollywood films even to this day, Kitsch films are lifeless, easily digestible material, because we’ve all simply digested the same type of structure/style before over and over again. It poses as an art form but, in fact, is only a fake and possesses nothing really new or original. Avant-garde, on the other hand, is the complete opposite of Kitsch, allowing the freedom’s discussed in earlier readings to be used by the film artists of this genre to create something totally new and non-Kitsch whatsoever. In Scorpio Rising, there are several Kitsch characteristics, starting with the plotline. It is very much a narrative story of badass biker, on his way to a bike race. The film has a definite beginning and end and a narrative storyline in between. Another Kitsch aspect is the pop culture imagery decorating the wall of the biker that we are introduced to, who apparently has a James Dean fascination and is quite a rebel himself as a result. If that wasn’t enough, imagery of Jesus and Adolf Hitler are thrown in there as well along with a poppy soundtrack of all the best tunes from that time period, much like a Hollywood film would sound like. However, it is the juxtaposition of this collage-like imagery of pop culture, religious, and historical figures along with the harmless music that brings the true avant-gardeness out and sets it apart from another Kitsch film. Barely any dialogue is used so the film relies deeply on the soundtrack and the diagetic noises of the images to move the narrative along. Also, thought was definitely put into the music selection as some songs seem to fit perfectly(or vice versa) with the images, particularly the “Torture” song when the bike gang is causing ruckus upon other members/people(I forget).

Happy Ketchup Week!

la réponse à la lecture: Week 3

2008-02-05T13:38:00.000-05:00

On p. 168, Banes outlines four aspects of freedom advocated by Jonas Mekas in his writings on underground film in the Village Voice. What were those four aspects of freedom, and what obstacles did filmmakers face when attempting to pursue them?

The four aspects of freedom that Jonas Mekas described and promoted in the Village Voice were content of the body, low budgets, the rise of women directors, and technique liberation. Filmmakers of this time were starting to take hold and utilize all of these newfound freedoms of the cinema, many using several at once. The bodily freedom can be seen in just about anything we’ve watched as there’s an abundance of genitalia, more so than any other part of the body. Flaming Creatures definitely employed this aspect very freely throughout, as bare breasts are flopped around quite a bit. The freedom of low budgets allowed a lot of the filmmakers to just go with anything, using the influences of equality and how it celebrated the ordinary, instead of elaborate plots and sets. Vinyl, for example, is one shot, one location. The only real budget was the camera and film stock. Yoko Ono’s work was also low budget as well as being a part of the rise of women as directors.

Of course, with these new freedoms and the time period, there were obstacles when it came to exhibiting works. One main obstacle was censorship. Even though, filmmakers argued freedom of expression/speech, censors thought quite the opposite and began to shut down on this new wave of radical expression. For example, the Filmmaker’s Cooperative’s midnight screenings were shut down due to the idea that they were ruining theater’s reputation. Of course, controversy always leads to exposure and many of the artists began to come out from the “underground” and have their works celebrated in several magazines of the area.

la réponse à la lecture: Week 2

2008-02-04T16:08:00.000-05:00

In the chapter "Equality," Sally Banes outlines three ways in which the ideal of equality guided artistic activity in the Greenwich Village art world. Explain these three areas of influence (see subheadings for the chapter) and relate them to the films we've seen so far.

Equality:
1. Levels Differences
The first area of influence was that equality levels differences, meaning that there were really no classes when it came to art making, allowing everyone to have an equal chance. As a result, there was no star system which enabled anyone to be a star and this promoted amateurism in the Greenwich Village art scene. Another way of level differences was not only through diminishing classes but to also re-establish the relationship of the spectacle and the spectator, allowing the spectator to be a part of the spectacle. What really comes to mind from the readings is John Cage’s “Event” at the Black Mountain College where students were very much a part of the spectacle as some brought out coffee for the cups. 4’33’’ also comes to mind, however, usually it seems the audience just plays along with the silence instead of doing anything totally drastic and original to ruin the silence. Of the films we’ve viewed, Andy Warhol’s Vinyl comes to mind when I think about the lack of a star system, even thought Warhol began to create his own stars by putting them in a number of his films.

2. Celebrates the Ordinary
The second influence on the Greenwich artists was the fact that egalitarianism celebrated the ordinary and mundane, meaning nothing really had to be elaborate to be considered interesting and worthy of filming. Everyday activity was perfectly acceptable for a basis of a film from these days. For example, Warhol’s Kiss comes to mind because the whole film is people making out, a pretty normal activity. He changes the normality of it through switching up the people and camera zooms to sometimes trick the viewer into thinking a male and female are kissing when it is really two males.

3. Creates Model Structures
The final influence of equality on the Greenwich art community was that it began to create new model structures of films, breaking away from the narrative structure that everyone had become overly familiar with. By the newfound usage of collages and tampering with juxtaposition of images and sounds, new model structures became evident in the works of many of the Greenwich artist. Of the films we’ve seen, Scorpio Rising comes to mind first because of the radical combinations of shocking images and familiar, safe pop music of the 1960s. Throughout the film, the images get more and more shocking as pictures/clips of Jesus and Hitler are thrown in, all against radio-friendly tunes that most everyone can recognize.

la réponse à la lecture: Week 1

2008-01-27T20:04:00.000-05:00

Describe your response to the descriptions of the learning environment at Black Mountain College (Ch. 4 and Ch.8)

I believe that no college student could ask for a better learning environment that the one of Black Mountain College. With an enrollment that never passed ninety students, one was guaranteed a hands-on education without the clutter. I love the lack of requirements and rigidness because I feel that a learning environment is best at one's own regulation. Also, the fact that students were "expected" to have a voice is a very refreshing idea compared to nowadays where we seem to have little. I do agree with Rice with his arts in the curriculum idea. With today's pop culture-craved society, its tough to find real art anywhere unless you search hard. I blame this mostly on the lack of emphasis on the arts in college education and more centered focus on business (just take a look at the CIS building on campus). Yes, money makes the world go 'round, but what good is it without art?
In addition, I dig the idea that BMC was a place for original and unique students as well as professors, some whom didn't seem fit at other universities (i.e. Rice and Albers). This sort of open learning vibe seemed to have rubbed off on several artists such as Rauschenberg whom said he learned more from the environment than the classes themselves. Although it was before the Hippie counterculture movement, I believe that Black Mountain College may have been one of the birthplaces for it, especially in a free-spirited place like Asheville.

Describe your response to the description of "The Event" organized by John Cage.

As far as this "The Event" goes, it seems to me like one of those "you had to be there" moments, because the description on paper just cannot give the live presentation any justice. This had to have been on of the first installation experiences ever witnessed and I'm somewhat jealous of those who attended. The randomness of empty cups in all the seats was a cool idea and some students seemed to have caught on as they brought in coffee for the cups. It's really a bummer college is nowhere near the openness and spontaneity of events like "The Event".

this is only a test.

2008-01-16T22:47:00.000-05:00

"Techno Choosic" - Elf Wax(American for "avant-garde")