On April 10, I attended the PFA’s screening of BB Optics. This screening involved a presentation by Bill Brand of a number of works he has been responsible for preserving through his company, BB Optics. The six short features shown were the Nixon White House Super-8 Films, New Left Note, The Fallen World, Fire in My Belly, Home Avenue, Black and White Film, and Daffodils.
The Nixon White House Super-8 Films were created by members of Nixon’s cabinet who were given video cameras to record whatever they chose to. The majority of the film focused in on Nixon attending political events. The film lacked sound, making it extremely boring to watch. I didn’t understand the point of filming Nixon giving a speech when you aren’t able to hear what he is saying.
The next clip shown was New Left Note. This clip consisted of mostly scenes of political protest. The editing was extremely jumpy and disjointed. As Mr. Brand discussed, the clip left out the leaders, choosing instead to focus in on the common people involved in the protests.
The Fallen World was the artist, Margie Keller’s intimate portrayal of her husband. The first shot focused in on a huge stone sculpture. A classical music soundtrack accompanied the clip. The video followed a middle-aged man as he walked around to different sites, including a graveyard.
A Fire in My Belly focused in on scenes from Mexico. The film started off by cutting between newspaper articles and scenes on the street of Mexico. Next, the film showed two wrestlers fighting along with scenes of a cock fight and a bull fight. Finally, the film ended with scenes from a circus, showing a person on a trapeze and a monkey doing tricks.
The next three films shown by Mr. Brand were described as portraying intimate situations. The first film, Home Avenue, involved a women retelling the story of how she was raped in college. She discussed each event at the same locations that each event took place. In the next film, Black and White, we watched in black and white as a woman undressed and then slowly covered parts of her body with black paint, making them disappear to the audience. The final film was Daffodils, which was intimate showing of Mr. Brand by his wife.
Overall, I was disappointed with the BB Optics showing at the PFA. I found most of the clips boring. This probably stemmed from the fact that I had no connection to the film archival process like many people in the audience did.
Philip Schmidt
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Announcement about Film and Event Reviews
The last day of class, May 2, is the deadline for posting film and event reviews to the blog for course credit. If you have attended something and not yet posted about it, be sure to do so over the next week!
There is a film 5/2 at PFA. Plus this weekend the San Francisco Film Festival begins, so you could try to see something in it if you still need to attend a film: www.sffif.org. Check it out even if not for class; there are some great things in the program...
There is a film 5/2 at PFA. Plus this weekend the San Francisco Film Festival begins, so you could try to see something in it if you still need to attend a film: www.sffif.org. Check it out even if not for class; there are some great things in the program...
Jim Campbell, Shadow
Jim Campbell’s artwork, Shadow, is an intriguing piece because the ability to see its details is impossible. The piece is seen from afar as a Buddha in a square glass box. Upon approaching it, smoke fills the glass box, making it impossible to see the intricacy of the piece, leaving only a shadow of the Buddha inside. Campbell describes his work as frustrating. It is this frustration that controls the interest of its viewers. Because the viewers would soon lose interest if they could outsmart the piece, Campbell dedicated most of his efforts to ensure there were no holes in the interface, which would hinder the viewer’s attempt to sneak up to the object. I found it comical that the Buddha is sitting atop a scientific journal article from 1993. This is ironic because it is impossible to get close enough to the piece to read it. As I stood in front of the piece I found myself running up to it, as if I could move faster than the smoke within the box. Campbell’s piece was extremely interesting because we are able to interact with it, but is also frustrating as he described.
Campbell also described his work as a, “one liner.” As I sat there, I became somewhat disappointed as Campbell seemed uninspired by his own work. Many individuals were enthusiastic, asking questions and finding new ways to interpret the meaning of the piece. I felt like everyone was looking too far into the piece, whereas Campbell saw it as just a Buddha in a box. Campbell’s lack of enthusiasm caused me to question the true meaning of art. Are we looking to far into it, trying to find meaning that does not exist? Or can it be interpreted in any way, differing with every viewer?
The video Campbell showed was attention grabbing, because you really had to look at what you were watching in order to understand what is truly there. The video started out as a blurry mixture of colors, but as I watched, it slowly began to develop into movement. Eventually I was able to see it for what it truly was, a boxing match. Campbell said that this type of art is very interesting because every individual who experiences it is different. Some take 10 minutes to see it for what it is, whereas for others it takes 10 seconds. These videos provided art in which the viewer can interact, making it more appealing as well as entertaining.
Campbell also described his work as a, “one liner.” As I sat there, I became somewhat disappointed as Campbell seemed uninspired by his own work. Many individuals were enthusiastic, asking questions and finding new ways to interpret the meaning of the piece. I felt like everyone was looking too far into the piece, whereas Campbell saw it as just a Buddha in a box. Campbell’s lack of enthusiasm caused me to question the true meaning of art. Are we looking to far into it, trying to find meaning that does not exist? Or can it be interpreted in any way, differing with every viewer?
The video Campbell showed was attention grabbing, because you really had to look at what you were watching in order to understand what is truly there. The video started out as a blurry mixture of colors, but as I watched, it slowly began to develop into movement. Eventually I was able to see it for what it truly was, a boxing match. Campbell said that this type of art is very interesting because every individual who experiences it is different. Some take 10 minutes to see it for what it is, whereas for others it takes 10 seconds. These videos provided art in which the viewer can interact, making it more appealing as well as entertaining.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Response to Berkeley Dance Project 2007
The piece The Reception, featured in the Berkeley Dance Project 2007 at UC Berkeley, is an examination of “cyber culture” and “corporeal presence” through a crossing of choreographed dance and what they described as tele-immersion technology. The thirty-minute Reception included actual dancers who interacted with people that were filmed and then either televised on a monitor, or projected onto a screen. The narrator, who also physically participated in the show, asked the audience to examine their own notions of presence, and whether the lack of physical presence can be replaced, and equally so, through cyber-incarnations. These questions echo the notions of Mark Hansen in his article Seeing with the Body.
In the first segment, a female dancer dances with a cybernetic partner projected on a large screen in front of her. A web camera captures the image of the dancing girl, and, remotely, sends the image to a program in another building on campus, which reinterprets the image, transports it back, and projects a pixilated dancer on the large screen. The result is a sort of digital shadow. As the process of capturing the image, transporting it, and transposing it takes a few seconds, there is a slight delay between the dancer and her digital shadow. The actual dancer reacts to this delay, and tends to repeat herself, in order to present the illusion of dancing with an actual partner, or perhaps just her reflection. From this, arises the dichotomy of whether the digitization is supposed to simply be a sort of reflection (ballerina practicing in a mirror), or the replacement of a human, creating a new dance partner that will never break synchronicity.
The second segment questioned the notion of presence, and the lack thereof, in connection with digital replacement. The narrator muses on a distant lover, and his desire to see her and be with her. He then interacts with a “talking-head” (the head and shoulders) version of his lover playing on a monitor from a pre-recorded video. They converse back and forth with one another, presenting a believable interaction. Two questions arise from this. Firstly, from a personal standpoint, if our ideas on “what is real” are merely reinterpretations of our perceptions of reality, then does a digital reincarnation of someone suffice for their absence if we perceive the digitization to be real? And secondly, from an audience standpoint, and through a similar reasoning, is there a difference between watching two real people interact, and a real person and a digitally portrayed person interact if we can ignore the presence of digitization?
The questions raised in The Reception are tackled by Mark Hansen in his article Seeing with the Body. Hansen claims that digital reinterpretation, such as that featured in the dance piece, creates a “plane severed from a human observer”. (58) He believes that this in no way mimics or suffices for human presence. The existence of digital medium blocks reality-based human perception, as we are cut off from the “real” emotions of physical contact.
Eddie Berman
In the first segment, a female dancer dances with a cybernetic partner projected on a large screen in front of her. A web camera captures the image of the dancing girl, and, remotely, sends the image to a program in another building on campus, which reinterprets the image, transports it back, and projects a pixilated dancer on the large screen. The result is a sort of digital shadow. As the process of capturing the image, transporting it, and transposing it takes a few seconds, there is a slight delay between the dancer and her digital shadow. The actual dancer reacts to this delay, and tends to repeat herself, in order to present the illusion of dancing with an actual partner, or perhaps just her reflection. From this, arises the dichotomy of whether the digitization is supposed to simply be a sort of reflection (ballerina practicing in a mirror), or the replacement of a human, creating a new dance partner that will never break synchronicity.
The second segment questioned the notion of presence, and the lack thereof, in connection with digital replacement. The narrator muses on a distant lover, and his desire to see her and be with her. He then interacts with a “talking-head” (the head and shoulders) version of his lover playing on a monitor from a pre-recorded video. They converse back and forth with one another, presenting a believable interaction. Two questions arise from this. Firstly, from a personal standpoint, if our ideas on “what is real” are merely reinterpretations of our perceptions of reality, then does a digital reincarnation of someone suffice for their absence if we perceive the digitization to be real? And secondly, from an audience standpoint, and through a similar reasoning, is there a difference between watching two real people interact, and a real person and a digitally portrayed person interact if we can ignore the presence of digitization?
The questions raised in The Reception are tackled by Mark Hansen in his article Seeing with the Body. Hansen claims that digital reinterpretation, such as that featured in the dance piece, creates a “plane severed from a human observer”. (58) He believes that this in no way mimics or suffices for human presence. The existence of digital medium blocks reality-based human perception, as we are cut off from the “real” emotions of physical contact.
Eddie Berman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
