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.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
What I Thought!: Avant-Garde Cinema Night
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
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Lara Croft: She Puppet
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 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.
Friday, April 4, 2008
"The Offenders: No Wave Cinema" response
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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Academia vs. Avant-Garde
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.
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.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Week 9 Filmskis
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.
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.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Art and Objecthood
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
