1.Deleuze begins by explaining the cause of the need for change in cinema after the war. The war caused, “…unsteadiness of the ‘American Dream’ in all its aspects, the new consciousness of minorities, the rise and inflation of images both in the external world and in peoples’ minds…” (206). “The soul of the cinema” no longer makes ASA and SAS films, “the soul of the cinema demands increasing thought” (206). In my opinion, modern films seem to be a succession of sexy images. Not only in film, but television, advertising, and everywhere. We are certainly an image-based society. Being image-based requires a change to image literacy. A literacy that is able to follow a “dispersive” image that includes several characters, settings, and plots. Deleuze calls for a “new kind of image” to “identify in the post-war American cinema” (207).
2. The answer to Deleuze’s “new kind of image” is neo-realism, which is a “build-up of purely optical situations and sounds…which are fundamentally distinct from the sensory-motor situations of the action-image in the old realism” (2). The difference between neo-realism and realism is the setting. Realism has a sensory-motor setting that presumes an action. But the optical or sound situation of neo-realism takes place in an “any-space-whatever”. Again, Deleuze uses a phrase from Bergson and flips it upside down. Bergson uses the “any-whatever” to describe an instant, and Deleuze takes Bergson’s idea of an insignificant, “whatever” and applies it to space. I imagine this idea of an “any-space-whatever” to be an everyday situation.
3. Deleuze believes that we perceive clichés not the images for what they really are. The viewer does “not perceive everything, so that the cliché hides the image from us…” (21). This brings me back to the idea of not directly viewing the world, but viewing a representation in the mind. It is as if we do not see images for their reality but we see images as our mind represents them. To solve the problem Deleuze thinks it is “…necessary to make a division or make emptiness to find the whole again” (21). He thinks we should “rarify” the image and take away everything that is added on that makes us think we see everything. In general, there are many things happening in a scene, there are background actions and sounds that make it seem like we are seeing the scene in its entirety. But in order to really see each image we would, like Deleuze suggests, have to divide. We would have to take a close look at everything that is happening, then we would see each image for what it is.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Pine Flat
Pine Flat is a film by Sharon Lockhart comprised of twelve different shots divided by an intermission after the sixth shot. It is filmed in color and each shot is ten minutes long. The idea behind the film was to make a film with kids who live in a town called Pine Flat and record them doing everyday things kids might do. What is interesting about this film is that each shot is ten minutes long and there is no camera movement at all, only movement made by the kids in the frame and nature itself is apparent. However, even though there is no movement at all, the camera uses ump cuts to move between time (seasons) and space (locations). This is evident because there are shots with snow as well as shots that represent more of the summertime or spring seasons. Lockhart stated before the screening that the film was made over a period of three years so this implies that there is the possibility of great change to be seen between each shot.
The first set of six shots is comprised of a single child doing any random activity in nature. What I found interesting about these shots was that nature sounds primarily made up the sound of the shot, excluding the boy with the harmonica, but during each scene there would be some type of acousmatic sound that would draw the child’s attention. For example, the sound of the howl in the very first snowy scene, the sound of an airplane flying overhead in another scene, and the sound of gunshots in another scene. I thought it was interesting she chose these scenes in which something outside of the child and nature itself presented itself.
I will admit I did not stay for the entire second half of the film because I was not happy with the film. However, I found that the scenes in which the film had children interacting with each other were somewhat more bearable to watch for ten minutes straight. Watching them interact with each other seemed noteworthy yet I still cannot say I am happy with this type of filmmaking. I understand that experimental film is popular and unique. It also presents us with new aspects of film techniques but I do not like that people can praise a film such as this. I am not saying it is completely bad but had I known what the film was about I would not have gone to see it.
-Joey Ponticello
The first set of six shots is comprised of a single child doing any random activity in nature. What I found interesting about these shots was that nature sounds primarily made up the sound of the shot, excluding the boy with the harmonica, but during each scene there would be some type of acousmatic sound that would draw the child’s attention. For example, the sound of the howl in the very first snowy scene, the sound of an airplane flying overhead in another scene, and the sound of gunshots in another scene. I thought it was interesting she chose these scenes in which something outside of the child and nature itself presented itself.
I will admit I did not stay for the entire second half of the film because I was not happy with the film. However, I found that the scenes in which the film had children interacting with each other were somewhat more bearable to watch for ten minutes straight. Watching them interact with each other seemed noteworthy yet I still cannot say I am happy with this type of filmmaking. I understand that experimental film is popular and unique. It also presents us with new aspects of film techniques but I do not like that people can praise a film such as this. I am not saying it is completely bad but had I known what the film was about I would not have gone to see it.
-Joey Ponticello
Monday, March 12, 2007
Pine Flat
Each ten minute clip in the film Pine Flat were more like photographs than actual clips. One way to describe having to watch a boy sleep for ten minutes (or what felt like eternity) is boring. A film clip is supposed to encompass action and that is what differentiates it from the stillness of photography. However, there is no action at all in watching a boy sleep. In another clip, a boy is waiting for a bus in the country-side, but you never actually see the bus stop to pick the kid up. This again results in this clips lack of action, which makes this clip more about observing the nature around the boy as opposed to focusing on the boy’s character or problems—producing more of a photograph than an actual film.
These short clips also have to do with the human disruption of nature. One of the clips has a boy playing a harmonica, which disturbs the peaceful and natural scene of the creek. The sound of an airplane flying overhead also disturbs the peacefulness of the creek. This seems to be a reoccurring theme in these clips as shown by the clip of the two girls playing on a swing in an open field. The field itself feels very tranquil and calm, but the two girls start bickering and fighting.
-Christopher Melgaard
These short clips also have to do with the human disruption of nature. One of the clips has a boy playing a harmonica, which disturbs the peaceful and natural scene of the creek. The sound of an airplane flying overhead also disturbs the peacefulness of the creek. This seems to be a reoccurring theme in these clips as shown by the clip of the two girls playing on a swing in an open field. The field itself feels very tranquil and calm, but the two girls start bickering and fighting.
-Christopher Melgaard
Am I Making Art
The PFA never fails in providing very "interesting" array of films. Unlike Pine Flat, the Am I Making Art screening showed four films. This First was Theresa Cha's "Mouth to Mouth" which created a field of noise, mainly static and the sound a a running river, while bringing a mouth in and of of the picture. As it faded in and out, the month seemed for form different phonetic shapes. Although it was quite chaotic with the hyperactive static oscillating across the screen, the film was also sensual with the images magically appearing and disappearing at will.
The second film, "I Am Making Art" by John Boldesary, was a 15 minute single shot piece capturing a man creating different physical postures with his body. After each of the transitions to new positions he would say "I am making art". Each individual position created by the middle aged hippie man could represent a model posing for a sculpting class. The only exception is that Boldesary was not posing for a class, but rather the viewers watching his film. This piece seems to support the idea that there is beauty in movement. It was this idea that fueled the work of Muybridge, Marey, Bragaglia, and so many other photographers and film makers throughout history. Each of his movements are deliberate. As he bends like a contortionist, it represents an almost cinomatographcal vision because he holds each position as if they were captured in one of Muybridge's photographs of a galloping horse.
Next in the series came Acconchi's "Theme Song". On the superficial level of what is being recorded, a man lays in from of a camera attempting to seduce his viewers on the other side of the screen by using songs from The Doors and The Beatles to inspire and represent the emotions he was trying to exude. However in actuality, Acconchi was attempting to break down the space between the viewer and the performer. It acts as the inspiration for the movie Video Drone in asking the viewer to come into the film, and interact with the performer. Acconchi acknowledges the different worlds which are separated by the t.v. screen stating, in other words, that the film needs to work to become the same world as the viewer, allowing the viewer to enter into the film. However this is impossibly currently because "the world of film is not free." There are many constraints framing and trapping the performer within the box we know as a television or entwined amongst the rolls of film being shown through a projector.
The final film, East Side, West Side, by Nancy Holt and Robert Smithson captured a man and a woman (the woman from "Boomerang") talking at a table. The man is an artist from Los Angeles, and the woman an artist from New York. The two exchange a dialogue that plays with the cliche of the two types of artist at the time. The man represented the organic west coaster while the women played the role of the non instinctual East Coaster.
All of these films discuss the constraints on art, whether, location as in East Side, West Side, the idea of what art is, as shown in I Am Making Art, and even the technological constraints portrayed in Theme Song. These works also shares their connection with language. In the introduction of the films, the PFA curator stated that the series was created to commemorate Bruce Nalman's exhibit in BAM.
The second film, "I Am Making Art" by John Boldesary, was a 15 minute single shot piece capturing a man creating different physical postures with his body. After each of the transitions to new positions he would say "I am making art". Each individual position created by the middle aged hippie man could represent a model posing for a sculpting class. The only exception is that Boldesary was not posing for a class, but rather the viewers watching his film. This piece seems to support the idea that there is beauty in movement. It was this idea that fueled the work of Muybridge, Marey, Bragaglia, and so many other photographers and film makers throughout history. Each of his movements are deliberate. As he bends like a contortionist, it represents an almost cinomatographcal vision because he holds each position as if they were captured in one of Muybridge's photographs of a galloping horse.
Next in the series came Acconchi's "Theme Song". On the superficial level of what is being recorded, a man lays in from of a camera attempting to seduce his viewers on the other side of the screen by using songs from The Doors and The Beatles to inspire and represent the emotions he was trying to exude. However in actuality, Acconchi was attempting to break down the space between the viewer and the performer. It acts as the inspiration for the movie Video Drone in asking the viewer to come into the film, and interact with the performer. Acconchi acknowledges the different worlds which are separated by the t.v. screen stating, in other words, that the film needs to work to become the same world as the viewer, allowing the viewer to enter into the film. However this is impossibly currently because "the world of film is not free." There are many constraints framing and trapping the performer within the box we know as a television or entwined amongst the rolls of film being shown through a projector.
The final film, East Side, West Side, by Nancy Holt and Robert Smithson captured a man and a woman (the woman from "Boomerang") talking at a table. The man is an artist from Los Angeles, and the woman an artist from New York. The two exchange a dialogue that plays with the cliche of the two types of artist at the time. The man represented the organic west coaster while the women played the role of the non instinctual East Coaster.
All of these films discuss the constraints on art, whether, location as in East Side, West Side, the idea of what art is, as shown in I Am Making Art, and even the technological constraints portrayed in Theme Song. These works also shares their connection with language. In the introduction of the films, the PFA curator stated that the series was created to commemorate Bruce Nalman's exhibit in BAM.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
