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?