post number eight: media burn

after viewing "media burn" as well as the assortment of STEW shorts from the uwm alum's, i think what made them so successful in my eyes was the sincerity.  they never broke character in either works so no one could discount them at all and say what they were doing was just silly or stupid.  if you never break character then people don't know what to believe and they have to take whatever you are doing seriously, but if they can tell it's supposed to be a joke then that's where people immediately can dismiss something.

even though the idea of driving a car through a wall of burning tv's is ridiculous, the fact that they pulled off the parody or homage to the classic patriotic july 4th event so well is what made it wonderful.  there was motorcade, secret service, jfk, etc., the only thing it was missing was fighter jets passing overhead during the national anthem.  i think what also made it so successful was that they weren't too preachy.  even though this is an event with a message (that many might not realize), during jfk's speech he didn't get too in depth and serious to the point where the crowd felt uncomfortable.  cause i'm sure not all of the crowd there were aware that this was a group of artists, many just really wanted to see a spectacle.  so if they were to show up and then see jfk ranting about how tv is killing the nation and that we're all slaves to imagery, etc. then i'm sure the first thing they're gonna wanna do is just take their kids and drive back home cause they might be a little weirded out.  it was also planned out well so i never questioned the "professionalness" of the event.  lastly, i enjoyed the multiple replays of the crash after it happened, because it definitely goes hand in hand with typical media coverage.  whenever there is some sort of spectacle or crisis occurring in the world (like 9/11 or a tornado) the media always has to replay it over and over again, sped up, slowed down, or multiple angles so that whoever may have just clicked into the news coverage can see what they desperately wanted to see.

as for nam june paik's "ruin" sculpture, it definitely resembles the wall of televisions used for the "media burn" event, but for hers i would say it isn't as much as a spectacle.  for "media burn" the televisions were there to be destroyed for visual enjoyment, whereas for "ruin" it of course is a work of art and is on display for people to appreciate.  it's also quite visually stimulating seeing the televisions balanced up against eachother in that fashion because many look like they are on the verge of tumbling over.  her piece is much more interactive with the viewer, while "media burn" wasn't meant to be interactive, in fact, the audience i'm sure was fenced away from the action to keep them safe.  for "ruin" they are allowed to get right next to the "wall" and experience what is being displayed on them.

post number seven: craig baldwin week

My blog will concern BLO... the Barbie Liberation Organization.

WHAT DO THEY DO?
In the late 80s and early 90s the BLO would procure Barbie and G.I. Joe dolls that featured voice boxes activated by a button or a pull string and they would replace the doll's voice box with the other's voice box. So a Barbie doll would feature a saying such as "Vengeance is mine!" or "Locked and loaded" and a G.I. Joe would say such things as "I can't wait to plan my wedding!" or "I love shopping!" They would then put the doll back into their appropriate packaging and secretly return them onto store shelves hoping that a parent would purchase it for their child.

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE?
The reasoning for all of this effort is to make a social commentary about sex relations in the world. They are trying to question the stereotypes that exist concerning boys and girls. They don't agree with the fact that boy's toys are always very aggressive and masculine and that girl's toys are feminine. What is wrong with a girl being able to play with a G.I. Joe figure or a boy playing with a Barbie? Not to mention what each doll entails. For G.I. Joe we see ridiculously aggressive men of action, which is nothing like the average man and for Barbie we have a female character who only concerns herself with shopping, money, and modeling, which for some could be considered rather degrading to women. Such a stereotype speaks a message to girls that that is what they should grow up to be instead of such professions as a doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.

BENEFITS?
BLO claims that there are many other benefits for all of their efforts. When initially procuring the dolls they do not steal them, they do purchase them, so because they are re-shelving the dolls and allowing them to be sold a second time they are actually helping out the economy. If a doll is purchased twice then there is twice the profit. However some might question that logic considering most people I'm sure immediately tried to return them and get their money back which would eliminate the secondhand profit. They also claim a benefit is that they consumer is getting a better product. That would be their own opinion though because I'm sure many families did not appreciate the alteration made to the doll even if they don't necessarily believe in the stereotypes being created by the toys. They simply just want to by a product without having it tampered with. Lastly they say a benefit is that they get their message heard, which is a definite benefit. This is because they would leave a label on the back of the doll with the organization's name to make it known who made the change.

post number six: frampton's formula

If I were to use frampton's formula to consider what Gunvor Nelson's "Natural Features" was about it would have to be "paint." The most prevalent aspect of this film in my option was the use of black paint or ink to muddy up the screen. Throughout the film we are introduced to many different images, sometimes it's a face or a figure and because so much of the frame appears to be dark and black it's hard to make out exactly what we are looking at but as soon as i was able to recognize the imagery, a paintbrush would enter the frame and color over it to fully engulf the frame in black.

This made me consider that possibly Gunvor wanted to hide as much from us as possible to appreciate the imagery that was actually being presented. I wouldn't say that this use of paint was helpful in understanding the film, but it definitely helped the film's movement. It was as if the director was presenting us with a blank slate every few seconds so that he could present whatever new information he had for us. Overall I think this use of paint as well as the imagery that he did provide gave a rather eery feeling. I can honestly say I was kind of creepy out in a few parts of the film. I don't think the use of paint had any big symbolism that to the overall theme of the film however. It was just something that complimented the overall mood as well as the imagery Gunvor presented to us. The soundtrack also contributed to this as we would hear random yells and dialogue entering the room from left and right side speakers.

The sound of the projection machine "breathing" behind me during "A Lecture" just brought some extra life to the presentation.  The sound of the narrator talking was a bit monotonous so seeing the presenter's hands entering the frame here and there as well as hearing the projection machine kept me attentive and interested.  Not that what was being said wasn't interesting, it's just that I really think you can only hear someone talking to you and analyzing a topic for so long before your mind starts to naturally wander.  The use of a projector also gives a feeling of nostalgia since that medium is becoming near extinct in our culture.

post number five: james benning

i was really excited for james benning's performance/speech to our class since i've now seen a few of his films and even though i can't say i was totally impressed, i was definitely curious what he'd have for us and what he'd have to say about film and the creative process.  when i heard he was going to do a math performance i was thinking it was only going to be 30 minutes at the most and then he would talk to us about filmmaking so i was a little disappointed when it ended up being only 90 or so minutes of math.  i felt like i was being cheated out of something or just provided with a lack of information as if this was some sort of intervention or joke.  did james benning really think most of us would find 90 minutes of math equations interesting and "beautiful" as he stated.  i can see where he is coming from saying these equations are beautiful but i constantly was hoping this was all going somewhere and unfortunately it didn't.  in fact, many times i don't really think he necessarily knew where it was all going as he'd pace back and forth between the white boards figuring out where he should go next.

this sort of reminded me of the andy kaufman performance at a college where instead of performing what was expected, a set of comedy, he would attempt to read to the audience the entire book "the great gatsby."  of course many would leave the theatre because most people only have so much patience and i can definitely say i was losing my patience with james' performance.  i almost felt bad too because i could see a person or two around me sincerely interested in it so i had to consider where they a rare breed of person entertained by this sort of thing or was i just being difficult and narrow minded?

post number four: spiral jetty

the specific element that i found perplexing when viewing smithson's "spiral jetty" was his looping voice over appearing at one point in the film. i don't remember what was being said exactly, but at one point the same sentence or phrase was being repeated over and over again, which in itself wasn't so much interesting but the relationship it played with the video being displayed at the time is what made it perplexing. as this same piece of voice over was looping, the camera was rotating above the spiral jetty causing the spiral pattern to create a hypnotic effect. i think we're all familiar with the black and white spiraled visual commonly used with hypnosis. so i found this very interesting that he chose to loop the same phrase while the spiral was 'spiral'ing as if he was trying to confuse the viewer.

this makes sense though and is interesting considering smithson likes to disorientate the viewer and create a revealing confusion. this idea of hypnosis and confusion could lead itself towards the fact that the spiral jetty itself is a place of mystery and confusion since i'm sure many in the area have heard of it, but not necessarily ever seen it. the great salt lake is pretty huge so i'm sure without proper direction and a map (which appears in the film) that the average person wouldn't be able to stumble upon it by themselves. i'm sure there's also plenty of mystery and confusion to the public concerning the origin of this landmark. there's also confusion concerning it's purpose. is it simply just pleasing to the eye or does it serve a greater purpose in the environment?

another interesting thought though is that if smithson likes the idea of his work prompting several different thoughts and opinions, well comparing that to hypnosis is the exact opposite. when you use hypnosis, the purpose is to cause the viewer to act and feel a certain way without allowing them to control their own actions and feelings. so why would smithson creating hypnotizing images to the viewer if he enjoys allowing them to go their own direction and form their own personal opinions concerning his work?

lastly i enjoyed in the film when the man (possibly smithson himself?) appears running along the spiral jetty towards the center. he almost seems confused and in danger as the helicopter up above where the camera is filming is following him. i couldn't help but feel a sense of stress or pursuit for the man running, as if he was trying to get away but had no idea where this trail was leading him. the viewer was only able to see a few feet of the jetty so they had no idea what it actually looked like. they had no idea that he was actually just running towards the center. it also appeared quite interesting because since the helicopter was following the trail, on camera, it actually never appeared that this trail was spiraling. it actually looked like he was just running along one straight trail. so once the man got to the center of the spiral jetty and the camera zoomed out to appear, i would've had no idea that he was actually running in a circular direction. that in itself was also quite pleasantly disorientating for me.

post three: table top video

For my table top video, I was interested in playing with the viewer's eye by performing a brief dialogue between two people, but filling the frame with different framing aspects such as profile and closeup. Even though I cannot move the camera or zoom in or out I can still give the feeling of such an effect by altering what I display into that camera.

I want to demonstrate that even with only one person and a stationary camera, which my seem quite minimalist, you can create some interesting visuals and make the audience still feel like they are being led along from many different settings. I am also interesting in tricking the viewer's eye by hiding certain parts of the frame from them, but then when they are then revealed, something unexpected was being presented in that hidden space. I also wanted to perform all of this while still entertaining the viewer with a laugh or two during the two and a half minutes.

I was unable to make my filming session so I cannot comment about how it went but I can discuss how the rehearsals went when finecrafting my tabletop video. When first writing my brief dialogue I felt it was way too short so I kept trying to find things to add to entertain the viewer more and to help fill up the time, however then when it came time to film I realized I had way too much material and the 150 seconds seemed to go by incredibly fast. That two and a half minutes seem to pass by faster than I ever expected. I was then performing the exact opposite task by trying to find what I could eliminate from the performance without making it any less entertaining and meaningful. I learned for something like this that not necessarily a narrative or dialogue is the perfect thing to perform. Maybe with an extra minute it would be perfect? I think something with more of a gimmick would be better for this. Such as performing something that lasts exactly two and half minutes no matter how many times you do it or possibly trying to accomplish a task for the viewer on the camera that is visually stimulating all while being able to be performed for that short amount of time.

post number two: youtube scavenger hunt.

at first i thought it would be hard to randomly find a relevant youtube video but i happened to be pleased by the first one i came across...

even though this film is clearly filmed in april, since we see a brief glimpse of the date in the short film, i still feel like it gives a feeling of early fall when art students go back to school. i feel this video goes along with bag's video because not only does it depict art students on and around campus, in fact we see a student carrying his portfolio, but it itself is also a piece of work done by an art student. bag clearly has issues with the overall art school experience, specifically, having to sit through work after work done by her classmates that are often grueling to watch due to their subject matter and/or quality. bag's video, to me, was also at times hard and painful to watch which works well. i would also have to say this youtube video i picked out is also painful to watch.

i think another interesting aspect that is apparent in both bag's video and this one is that they both are clearly dated. even though bag's work was only done a little over ten years ago, for me, it clearly is created with dated technology, and then obviously my youtube video is even worse considering the fact that it was done ten more years earlier. another aspect i enjoy in both films is the genuineness. no matter how bad a video is, i can always appreciate it if i can see that whoever created it is being genuine and clearly trying because who am i to say if something is bad if they really are trying the best they can and are dedicated. that kind of honest enthusiasm is wonderful in my opinion and i can see it in both bag's and this youtube video.

on a side note though, i can relate to the idea of some art student's works actually being "bad", as i'm sure most art students can. my objection though isn't about quality or anything of that sort. i'm fully aware that not everyone is as skilled as others (including myself), but i often find it vexing when it seems most every student picks the most serious and dramatic subject matter for their work. if i get a project in class i try to typically think of how i can have the most fun with it and hopefully challenge myself. i think it's slightly boring and depressing when i have to watch work after work that is incredibly serious and dramatic. life is too short and (sometimes) wonderful to create something depressing and blah unless there is some sort of beauty and goodness created within it that can be appreciated.

the long awaited first post: week of feb 25th

the idea of authorship is a very interesting one that came up for me when considering our guest speaker, ms. thauberger's, work.  when you're dealing with someone who enjoys working with others when creating work, who really is the author?  it was hard for me to decide who really were the authors of "her" work.  she naturally is the one who gets credit for the work even though when you think about it, what work did she really do?  she placed an ad and got some women to sing for her.  they were the ones singing and writing the material, she had the camera and the idea i suppose, even though having some people sing in front of a stationary camera in nature really isn't that grand of an idea in itself.

in her works with women singing i'd definitely say the authors were the women.  it's clear that thauberger doesn't necessarily think that, at least, she never really mentioned it.  the interesting thing was that she finally mentioned everyone else's efforts when it came time to point out her work's flaws.  she said that if her films seemed "funny" it was because she was not the cinematographer for her films and that she left the writing and singing up to the women, which is a lame and insulting thing to do in my opinion.  that is where i found the question carl brought out in his post to be interesting, "do they sacrifice control?"  i never considered that thauberger possibly purposely didn't want to have any control over the piece, but i think if she is going to claim herself as the author of her work then she needs to use the control she does have as an author and decide whether something is good enough or not in her eyes.  if the point in these films was to show how women can look humorous while sincerely singing then yes... sacrificing control is perfect for this work.  let the women run free and do whatever they want and look silly on camera, but when the point of these films is to create something beautiful and/or dramatic then she really needs to step in and make sure that that is what is coming off to the viewer, even if it means stepping in and bringing up some constructive criticism to the girls she's working with.   

there are plenty of director's out there that work on music videos for bands, so technically all of their works are collaborative with the bands, but you can clearly see where their work is.  look at spike jonze working with the beastie boys on "sabotage."  one of the most successful music videos ever made and you can clearly see his involvement in the work.  he didn't just say.. "hey guys.. i want you to do 95% of the work and then if the work is unsuccessful i'll use the fact that i was working with unexperienced actors and a weak film crew as an excuse for it being unsuccessful."  i'm sure he's worked with plenty of different people that were terrible actors and that weren't doing what he was envisioning necessarily, but i'm sure he stepped in and made it known because he knows that is his responsibility as the author of his work.  but who knows?  maybe he has been lucky in his career and has been blessed with wonderful actors and crew and has to do nothing.  i doubt it though.

what it comes down to is even though the women and camera crew clearly did most of the work on these films and should be considered the authors, she yes, is the actual author of them.  however, she did a terrible job at handling the responsibility and authority that comes into play as being the author.