Am I Making Art?

I don’t really know how to characterize the films I have viewed at the PFA besides saying they are “interesting.” The film I will be discussing this time is “Am I Making Art.” It consisted of four different sections.

The first segment was of a “salt and pepper” screen (black and white dots, like one with no signal) with the image of a mouth emerging at different intervals of time throughout. I think it is ironic (if not intended) or symbolic (if planned) that the piece is about communication barriers (according to Cha Hakkyung, the artist) since the screen appears to have no signal which represents no communication. I also found it interesting that most of the sounds were of nature rather than words. These are “signs” which people of all areas would recognize as opposed to particular languages which only a specific group in a particular space and in a particular time would understand.

The next scene appeared analogous to a photo shoot where a model moves a little bit (to give the photographer a different angle or shot) and then holds the pose, repeating this process until the shoot is complete. It was of a scruffy looking older man posing in front of what I assumed was a monitor (where he was looking at the replication of his image while he was “making art”). He was within a confined space, but was moving within this area. He was contorting his body into different positions and would then hold the pose and say, “I am making art.” The transitions between the different poses were not dramatic; in fact, it probably took him less than a second to go between positions. It appeared as though he was using a distinct appendage during each transition. For example, he moved his arm from his side to his shoulder and repeated the phrase then moved his leg from the floor to a 90 degree angle and repeated the phrase. It looked like he tried to isolate each one in his motions by hesitating and “striking a pose” in this fashion. The motions themselves were done quickly and then held for a comparable amount of time or a little longer (so that the phrase was said while he was “motionless”). It reminded me of people like Muybridge and how he tried to brake up movements into still figures to try to understand motion.

Another scene was of a man lying facing the camera. He was very close to the screen (or he at least appeared to be while we were watching, it could have been zoomed in on him). He was smoking, humming, singing, listening to music, and apparently seducing the audience. More likely, however (since this is a “piece of art”), he was trying to prove that the viewer is not within the same space or in the same time as the area and time where the art is being created, yet the individuals watching feel connected to or involved with the story plot and actors. This is similar to the point in one of the scenes from Video Drone (I think it was called) where the guy makes out with the television (literally making the spaces and times exist as one in the same). Until virtual reality, however (and maybe not even then), we will not be able to be in two times or places at once.

All in all I thought the points these scenes were trying to discuss were interesting, however, I wouldn’t like to watch the film again.