Am I Making Art?

Cha's "Mouth to Mouth" was an interesting video where there's only static on the screen and sound. There were about 5 times when only her mouth comes into view and each time this occurs a variation of sound is heard. The first couple times where her mouth comes into view, I didn't notice a change, but the second time her mouth forms an "O" where you can't see her teeth, and the third her mouth forms the same shape but the noise dies down. The fourth appearance her mouth looks like it's making an "e" sound so that all her teeth are showing. Then she moves her head slowly from left to right. And for the duration of the film, the static was accompanied by sound that sounded less like static but more like quickly trickling water. And the fifth time her mouth came into view you could hear birds chirping and the static on the screen actually seemed to orient from her mouth and move outward. The host told she was pronouncing different Korean words, so I thought perhaps this film was commenting on language barrier, and I thought it was interesting that the sounds tended to be from nature.

Jon Baldessari's "I Am Making Art" took me through a process of emotions. He basically recorded himself standing and simply moving his arms and hands a few degrees and called each position "art." At first I was laughing because Baldessari is no "specimen of a man" in the Roman sense. He's not fit, he's not clean shaven and so I already felt like nothing he could do with his body could be considered art. Then I became bored with his monotone voice saying over and over again "I am making art." When boredom passed I began to catch the rhythm with which he was saying the same phrase. Every time he was moving his arms and hands to a certain position he was saying "I am making" and then when he paused at the position he would say "art." I thought, "Interesting, perhaps he means to say that making is the action and art is the form resulting from the action." But thinking this I felt somewhat angry that he should be insulting art with the idea that a simple result of some unplanned and unskilled action is art. Isn't art, at least in the traditional sense, more than just poses of transition shown through some kind of medium? Doesn't it include some refined skill and preconceiving vision used to convey particular meaning? I thought, "What's this guy trying to say about art?" Towards the end he started to play with how his body was composed in the frame by moving to one side or lying on the floor so only his arms or hands showed. I give him a little credit for some creative progress, but still, by the end I just wanted somebody to tackle him.

Vito Acconci's "Theme Song" was pretty interesting, entertaining, and creepy. He's lying on the floor so that his face is right up against the camera and takes up the right half of the screen. The left half is left empty and you can only see his couch in the background. He lays there smoking and changing songs on the tape while seducing the audience to come in and "fall into him" and let the moment take them both. He would say things like "Let my body wrap around yours" and then he'd bring his legs forward to fill the left half of the screen. At first this is all funny, but the sheer length of it and his persistent pick up lines make it creepy by the end. I thought it made an interesting statement about the way we interact with television. Sure his film made it really awkward, but what he was saying was true about other times we watch television. His comments about just letting things go, sinking into the television and the fantasy and the "lack of commitment" rung true about the way we let our minds sink into whatever drama is on and see it was a temporary escape from real life. The only difference here is that while television naturally seduces the mind into complacency and going along with whatever show is on, Acconci simply placed the seduction in the realm of physical lust. As forward and invasive Acconci's film is, it emphasizes how the mental seduction of "regular" television shows is less subtle and more effective.

The last film, "East Coast, West Coast," showing the two artists Nancy Holt ("Boomeranging") and Robert Smithson was really funny. Holt is a New York artist and Smithson is from California. He's visiting her in New York and the second he starts speaking you can tell there's a huge difference in their character. Holt keeps trying to discuss intellectual concepts of definitions, thought processes, and philosophies. She asks him why he's saying all these things like how he's going to go to India. And the whole time Smithson is smoking and answering in a "hippie" style that she's too hung up on words and concepts. He says all his art is just felt - like he sees the paints in front of him and he just makes what he feels. Then when she tries to engage him talking about how there's structure and composition like in the geometry of the Native American blankets he keeps saying, "You're a bad trip. I'm just a simple guy. I use simple words." As he's talking about sensations and going with the flow she keeps trying to bring him back to the real world to think logically about boundaries and distinctions. There's a complete communication breakdown and the west coast artists doesn't even let himself be engaged. With Holt sort of representing east coast artists and Smithson representing west coast artists, east coast and west coast seemed to be broken down into east coast characterized by being intellectual, "presumptuous," having definitions and systems, and always conceptualizing. And west coast seemed to be more sensual, going with the flow, having no system, basically just "feel it man." Overall it was really hilarious, the kind of comedy that can't be scripted, while presenting the conflict Bergson mentions about the mind not being able to both live in the action and see the overall concept simultaneously.