The animated film, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, was comical and exciting to watch. The creators generated comedy by using simplistic dialogue. For example, Makato (main character) finds that her sister has eaten her pudding and travels back in time to prevent this from happening. When she does this, she looks at the pudding and pauses; the audience anticipating what she will say finds it funny when she finally utters the obvious, “pudding”! I found it interesting that something so simple could produce humor. A scene that was also very comical was when Mankato’s friend, Chikoti, asks her to date him. She leaps back numerous times to prevent this conversation from occurring. Each time becomes more and more of a joke. She first tries to change the subject completely, which makes no sense whatsoever. The second time she decides to just walk away as he is talking to her. These are both examples of the simplistic nature of the film that ultimately made it humorous.
I also thought the format of the film was very well planned. At the beginning of the film we see random scenes, where Makato runs into some problems. Although these were funny, I had a difficult time understanding the significance of these scenes. Later in the film, these scenes come into play as Makato travels back in time. The creators used them to give Makato a motive to use her time traveling powers to go back in time and change her clumsy acts. The first half of the movie was very straightforward, and was easy to follow, but as the film progressed, conflicts were unveiled.
Makato’s aunt mentions the possibility that others around her may be losing as she gains from time leaping. This caused the viewer to question how safe Makato’s time leaping really is. I thought the creator(s) of the film did a great job of setting up the main conflict, and presenting it in this way (through another character’s observation). Later in the film, Makato realizes that her friend Kosuke and an innocent girl could die because the breaks on her bike had been broken. I found myself wondering if Makato would ever figure out how to fix the mess she was in. Conflict in a film adds to its depth and makes it more appealing. I did not want Kosuke and the girl to die, which caused me to continue to watch due to suspense. The film used a simplistic style at first to create humor and set up the major conflicts, which ultimately make the film more fascinating to watch.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Midterm Paper Revision
Hi everyone. Just a reminder that the final revision of the midterm paper is due tomorrow in class. Be sure to attach the graded first version of the paper that we handed back to you--especially the typed comments you received. If possible try to staple this all together. You can detach the 10-on-1's and paraphrases at this point. I've pasted below a reminder of the format:
"Unless otherwise specified, all non-digital assignments must be handed in typed, printed, and stapled, and must include your name, the date, the course title, and an assignment title on the cover page. Papers must be formatted in black Times 12 font, double spaced, one-sided, with 1” top and bottom margins and 1.25” left and right margins. Please use a header or footer with page numbers and your last name since sometimes pages become detached. "
Also, here is some last minute advice about introductions and conclusions. They are always the last things to be sorted out!
Good luck, and don't be afraid to really rewrite instead of just 'editing' or 'revising'--we will be more forgiving of a major, yet imperfect, effort than of minor manicuring. In other words, if you just left things the same for this time around you would not get the same grade: we expect your writing and thinking to be more polished, or, if this is not the case, that it is because you reconsidered your argument and wrote an almost new paper.
FEEDBACK on Midterm Paper:
Introductions and Conclusions
Your introduction should introduce a problem or question. It should not try to contextualize the paper’s theme within broad categories like all of history or ‘mankind,’ but should instead articulate a modest and realistic scope for its exploration. The introduction does not need to present or summarize the essay’s entire argument, and it should not present a list of what will be discussed in the paper. It should present something as an interesting question, or a problem worth thinking about, and set the stage to begin this thinking. The conclusion should return to the problem or question raised in the introduction in such a way that it is clear the essay has ‘ended up’ somewhere different from where it began; it should not repeat the introduction, but reconsider the question or problem in a more nuanced way than was possible before the detailed readings that the paper offered. But, the conclusion should not claim to ‘wrap up’ everything or solve everything or offer the total and final truth about anything. It should not add new, large claims or expand to broad concerns such as the nature of art, society, the human mind, etc. It could, however, add a slightly changed emphasis to some argument or claim you have made, raising a small question or admitting that something could be seen otherwise or perhaps developed further. It may help to imagine that your paper is one chapter in the middle of a book you are writing: even though this one ‘chapter’ could stand on its own as ‘complete,’ and could appear in an anthology all alone and make sense, this ‘chapter’ feels like it begins by picking up an existing set of concerns (rather than starting from scratch) and feels like it ends by opening up avenues for thinking that would only be addressed in the next chapter.
Good introductions from your papers (modified):
From 1925 to 1931, Alfred Stieglitz photographed clouds. He accumulated a collection of these photographs, giving each image the title “Equivalent” despite the fact that each represented a different scene captured at a different time. What equates these photographs may be their collective attempt to freeze the movement of a cloud, always in flux, into the instantaneous form of an image. With this photographic representation of movement, Stieglitz continues the exploration begun by early motion photographers Edweard Muybridge, Étienne-Jules Marey, and Anton Bragalia.
Alfred Stieglitz’s Equivalent (1930) captures both the temporality and timelessness of clouds. As a single photograph, it conveys motion and stillness, intention and contingency. It both reproduces reality and creates something new. As one in a series of cloud photographs all titled Equivalent, it is just part of a larger project that initiates a new kind of photography, departing from a tradition that includes the chronophotography Edweard Muybridge and Étienne-Jules Marey, and the photodynamism of Anton Bragaglia. As a composition in both time and space, Stieglitz’s project bridges the gap between poetry and painting that Lessing explored in Laocoon. And, with a subject matter peculiarly between form and movement, this photography of clouds seems to embody and challenge Henri Bergson’s opposition between the creative flux of duration and the “snapshot” views with which we capture and represent it.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, instantaneous photography seemed to offer new possibilities for representing time and motion. Anticipating the invention of cinema, Edweard Muybridge and Étienne-Jules Marey developed techniques of chronophotography, attempting to inscribe the trace of movement within a rapid series of photographic images. In the 1920’s and 1930’s, however, Alfred Stieglitz explored a different kind of serial photography, producing a body of work with a different representation of time. Photographing clouds over a span of about ten years, he created a uniquely delayed series collected under the general title “Equivalent.” While each photograph captures only one particular instant, the relationship between these photographs and the moments that they instantiate suggest that photography can represent multiple and complex temporalities.
"Unless otherwise specified, all non-digital assignments must be handed in typed, printed, and stapled, and must include your name, the date, the course title, and an assignment title on the cover page. Papers must be formatted in black Times 12 font, double spaced, one-sided, with 1” top and bottom margins and 1.25” left and right margins. Please use a header or footer with page numbers and your last name since sometimes pages become detached. "
Also, here is some last minute advice about introductions and conclusions. They are always the last things to be sorted out!
Good luck, and don't be afraid to really rewrite instead of just 'editing' or 'revising'--we will be more forgiving of a major, yet imperfect, effort than of minor manicuring. In other words, if you just left things the same for this time around you would not get the same grade: we expect your writing and thinking to be more polished, or, if this is not the case, that it is because you reconsidered your argument and wrote an almost new paper.
FEEDBACK on Midterm Paper:
Introductions and Conclusions
Your introduction should introduce a problem or question. It should not try to contextualize the paper’s theme within broad categories like all of history or ‘mankind,’ but should instead articulate a modest and realistic scope for its exploration. The introduction does not need to present or summarize the essay’s entire argument, and it should not present a list of what will be discussed in the paper. It should present something as an interesting question, or a problem worth thinking about, and set the stage to begin this thinking. The conclusion should return to the problem or question raised in the introduction in such a way that it is clear the essay has ‘ended up’ somewhere different from where it began; it should not repeat the introduction, but reconsider the question or problem in a more nuanced way than was possible before the detailed readings that the paper offered. But, the conclusion should not claim to ‘wrap up’ everything or solve everything or offer the total and final truth about anything. It should not add new, large claims or expand to broad concerns such as the nature of art, society, the human mind, etc. It could, however, add a slightly changed emphasis to some argument or claim you have made, raising a small question or admitting that something could be seen otherwise or perhaps developed further. It may help to imagine that your paper is one chapter in the middle of a book you are writing: even though this one ‘chapter’ could stand on its own as ‘complete,’ and could appear in an anthology all alone and make sense, this ‘chapter’ feels like it begins by picking up an existing set of concerns (rather than starting from scratch) and feels like it ends by opening up avenues for thinking that would only be addressed in the next chapter.
Good introductions from your papers (modified):
From 1925 to 1931, Alfred Stieglitz photographed clouds. He accumulated a collection of these photographs, giving each image the title “Equivalent” despite the fact that each represented a different scene captured at a different time. What equates these photographs may be their collective attempt to freeze the movement of a cloud, always in flux, into the instantaneous form of an image. With this photographic representation of movement, Stieglitz continues the exploration begun by early motion photographers Edweard Muybridge, Étienne-Jules Marey, and Anton Bragalia.
Alfred Stieglitz’s Equivalent (1930) captures both the temporality and timelessness of clouds. As a single photograph, it conveys motion and stillness, intention and contingency. It both reproduces reality and creates something new. As one in a series of cloud photographs all titled Equivalent, it is just part of a larger project that initiates a new kind of photography, departing from a tradition that includes the chronophotography Edweard Muybridge and Étienne-Jules Marey, and the photodynamism of Anton Bragaglia. As a composition in both time and space, Stieglitz’s project bridges the gap between poetry and painting that Lessing explored in Laocoon. And, with a subject matter peculiarly between form and movement, this photography of clouds seems to embody and challenge Henri Bergson’s opposition between the creative flux of duration and the “snapshot” views with which we capture and represent it.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, instantaneous photography seemed to offer new possibilities for representing time and motion. Anticipating the invention of cinema, Edweard Muybridge and Étienne-Jules Marey developed techniques of chronophotography, attempting to inscribe the trace of movement within a rapid series of photographic images. In the 1920’s and 1930’s, however, Alfred Stieglitz explored a different kind of serial photography, producing a body of work with a different representation of time. Photographing clouds over a span of about ten years, he created a uniquely delayed series collected under the general title “Equivalent.” While each photograph captures only one particular instant, the relationship between these photographs and the moments that they instantiate suggest that photography can represent multiple and complex temporalities.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Pine Flat
Pine Flat was extremely different from any film I had viewed up to this point in my life. Due to my past viewing experiences, I typically go into films expecting: action, dialogue, interaction of humans, plot, and editing ‘personality’ (cuts, different points of view, panning), amongst other things. For most of this 2+ hour film I did not get what I anticipated.
It was a different way of watching/seeing than I am used to. I felt like I kept noticing little things and looking for similarities and differences because the action wasn’t brought/ presented to me. Since the film seemed so tedious, every little detail became a big event.
An example of this is the clip with the boy playing the harmonica. Since the nature within which he is placed is calm/ tranquil/ repetitive we don’t recognize its movement as action (as much at least); we are not surprised when the river keeps running or the grass keeps swaying in the wind. Human movements are also expected by us, yet not as systematically; we notice when the motions occur. The boy adjusts the way he is sitting. These are not simply motions like: up, down, up, down. He puts one leg up, stands, sits, itches his head, etc. Each motion is unique and new and at random intervals of time (not systematic) so each is noticed.
Throughout the film I closed eyes every once and a while to listen to what was occurring (trying to use my different senses to see if I could pick up anything else that was going on). Both with my eyes open and with them closed, there was no real sense of anticipation. This is, in part, because nothing was really happening (in an action sense); the only real sense of anticipation or anxiety I felt was waiting for/ hoping that something would occur.
In fact, there was only one time throughout the 2+ hours where I actually felt involved. This was when the boy in the forest pointed the gun at the camera. This scene provoked emotion within me and therefore made me pay attention to it. The rest of the film appeared to be more interested in our own thoughts of what is occurring in each scene. I think this is true because the author doesn’t really sway our opinions but changing the point of view or framing of the shots.
The frame for each clip was a set distance from the people and it was placed at a particular angle. The director did not zoom, scan, create different angles, or create cuts (within each 10 minute clip at least). There was not only very little action within the clips (done by nature or the individuals), there was also no ‘action’ or motion of the camera. All of these things, in my view, added to tediousness of the film.
The still, framed, character of the clips made them more like photographs than what we think of, at least today, as film. Closer yet, the clips are like a photo shoot, in which the artist studies a subject, focuses in on it, and waits to capture the pregnant moment or best frame. However, we (the audience) experience the whole “action” or duration of the subject (or the entire photo shoot) rather than just getting the pregnant moment that is captured and released by the photographer.
Part one was about individual kids. Each of these six clips has similarities. Each child was placed in the center of the screen while they were filmed. They were the focus of the shot and of the audience’s attention (for the most part). The centering of the child stresses their importance to the piece of work. They are thus seen as the central part of the work. Each child is also within a nature scene. Within this tranquil nature, however, there are unnatural elements (things that are not from nature, but rather man-made with technology and by mechanical means). These creations of mankind catch the attention of the audience because of their direct contrast with the peaceful sounds and sights of nature. Examples of these inventions that are seen within the film are: harmonica, book, gun, car, and airplane.
The six clips from part 2, about groups of kids, also have similarities amongst them. For one, they are more “typical” of what people expect from a film. There was: dialogue, interaction with humans, and some action (ex. shooting of each other with guns). All in all, the scenes from part 2 had more motion and far more variety in the kinds of motion. The ‘characters’ within these clips had interaction with humans rather than just nature. The clips appeared less tedious due to these additions.
There are many different forms of time within this piece. Some of them are: the time it took to film (and if the had to re-film), the time it too to edit, and the time it took for it to play (while we watched). These types of time are all mechanical and clock regulated, like in the Chaplin films. Each shot has duration and they are all the same. Ten minutes, the same amount of repetitive, aggravating time. On the other hand, the time is not mechanical. In this way, we don’t realize how much time has elapsed while watching it. There are no real indicators or references to time throughout besides the fact that we logically realize that time is passing.
There are also different spaces in which these times took place. There was the space/ location where it was filmed, the space where it was edited, and the space where it was screened, amongst others.
All in all I found this film tedious and would not like to see it again. On the other hand, (to give it some credit) it was a creative idea and it really made the viewer think while watching.
Laura Wood
It was a different way of watching/seeing than I am used to. I felt like I kept noticing little things and looking for similarities and differences because the action wasn’t brought/ presented to me. Since the film seemed so tedious, every little detail became a big event.
An example of this is the clip with the boy playing the harmonica. Since the nature within which he is placed is calm/ tranquil/ repetitive we don’t recognize its movement as action (as much at least); we are not surprised when the river keeps running or the grass keeps swaying in the wind. Human movements are also expected by us, yet not as systematically; we notice when the motions occur. The boy adjusts the way he is sitting. These are not simply motions like: up, down, up, down. He puts one leg up, stands, sits, itches his head, etc. Each motion is unique and new and at random intervals of time (not systematic) so each is noticed.
Throughout the film I closed eyes every once and a while to listen to what was occurring (trying to use my different senses to see if I could pick up anything else that was going on). Both with my eyes open and with them closed, there was no real sense of anticipation. This is, in part, because nothing was really happening (in an action sense); the only real sense of anticipation or anxiety I felt was waiting for/ hoping that something would occur.
In fact, there was only one time throughout the 2+ hours where I actually felt involved. This was when the boy in the forest pointed the gun at the camera. This scene provoked emotion within me and therefore made me pay attention to it. The rest of the film appeared to be more interested in our own thoughts of what is occurring in each scene. I think this is true because the author doesn’t really sway our opinions but changing the point of view or framing of the shots.
The frame for each clip was a set distance from the people and it was placed at a particular angle. The director did not zoom, scan, create different angles, or create cuts (within each 10 minute clip at least). There was not only very little action within the clips (done by nature or the individuals), there was also no ‘action’ or motion of the camera. All of these things, in my view, added to tediousness of the film.
The still, framed, character of the clips made them more like photographs than what we think of, at least today, as film. Closer yet, the clips are like a photo shoot, in which the artist studies a subject, focuses in on it, and waits to capture the pregnant moment or best frame. However, we (the audience) experience the whole “action” or duration of the subject (or the entire photo shoot) rather than just getting the pregnant moment that is captured and released by the photographer.
Part one was about individual kids. Each of these six clips has similarities. Each child was placed in the center of the screen while they were filmed. They were the focus of the shot and of the audience’s attention (for the most part). The centering of the child stresses their importance to the piece of work. They are thus seen as the central part of the work. Each child is also within a nature scene. Within this tranquil nature, however, there are unnatural elements (things that are not from nature, but rather man-made with technology and by mechanical means). These creations of mankind catch the attention of the audience because of their direct contrast with the peaceful sounds and sights of nature. Examples of these inventions that are seen within the film are: harmonica, book, gun, car, and airplane.
The six clips from part 2, about groups of kids, also have similarities amongst them. For one, they are more “typical” of what people expect from a film. There was: dialogue, interaction with humans, and some action (ex. shooting of each other with guns). All in all, the scenes from part 2 had more motion and far more variety in the kinds of motion. The ‘characters’ within these clips had interaction with humans rather than just nature. The clips appeared less tedious due to these additions.
There are many different forms of time within this piece. Some of them are: the time it took to film (and if the had to re-film), the time it too to edit, and the time it took for it to play (while we watched). These types of time are all mechanical and clock regulated, like in the Chaplin films. Each shot has duration and they are all the same. Ten minutes, the same amount of repetitive, aggravating time. On the other hand, the time is not mechanical. In this way, we don’t realize how much time has elapsed while watching it. There are no real indicators or references to time throughout besides the fact that we logically realize that time is passing.
There are also different spaces in which these times took place. There was the space/ location where it was filmed, the space where it was edited, and the space where it was screened, amongst others.
All in all I found this film tedious and would not like to see it again. On the other hand, (to give it some credit) it was a creative idea and it really made the viewer think while watching.
Laura Wood
Deleuze Cinema
1. The first section of the text deals primarily with neo-realism and what it is exactly. Deleuze begins with the subject of the ASA and the SAS, saying that different parts of space are separated now. “The small form ASA is therefore no less compromised than the large form SAS.” The main point here is that actions and situations have become more disconnected from each other and actions do not necessarily belong to a specific person. Deleuze use the term “white events” referring to events which have no effect on the bearer of the action because he is “internally dead.” He compares this to the driver in Taxi Driver because the driver has not decided what he is going to do, but no matter what happens, it essentially is going to have the same effect on him.
2. Clichés are the answer to the linkage between everything in this world according to Deleuze. He says, “what forms the set are clichés, nothing else. Nothing but clichés, clichés everywhere. . . .” These clichés have to do with political or social events on the news dispersed within a movie or the voice-over that is common in most cinema. He refers to these as “actualities” and the “eye of the camera.” The unknown person behind the camera is cliché that penetrates each and every one of us because he somehow knows what is happening in the story. He is saying that clichés are important in making the connection between the viewer and the characters in a film. There are physical, optical, auditory, and psychic clichés, all of which contribute to the others, creating a vivid connection and adding to neo-realism.
3. In neo-realism, “the real is no longer represented or reproduced but ‘aimed at.’” Deleuze says that there is no motor extension anymore, but rather a “dreamlike connection.” This “dreamlike connection” could be looked at as something that does not really end but continues as an action in a situation. In neo-realism there is no sensory-motor situation but instead optical and sound situations. He uses the term “any-space-whatever” to talk about optical and sound situations in neo-realism that are disconnected. These situations in the “any-space-whatever” created opsigns and sonsigns that can deal with variable images from everyday life. In order to get to a pure optical and sound image, sensory-motor image is completely dissolved and the clichés are left behind.
-Danny Ponticello
2. Clichés are the answer to the linkage between everything in this world according to Deleuze. He says, “what forms the set are clichés, nothing else. Nothing but clichés, clichés everywhere. . . .” These clichés have to do with political or social events on the news dispersed within a movie or the voice-over that is common in most cinema. He refers to these as “actualities” and the “eye of the camera.” The unknown person behind the camera is cliché that penetrates each and every one of us because he somehow knows what is happening in the story. He is saying that clichés are important in making the connection between the viewer and the characters in a film. There are physical, optical, auditory, and psychic clichés, all of which contribute to the others, creating a vivid connection and adding to neo-realism.
3. In neo-realism, “the real is no longer represented or reproduced but ‘aimed at.’” Deleuze says that there is no motor extension anymore, but rather a “dreamlike connection.” This “dreamlike connection” could be looked at as something that does not really end but continues as an action in a situation. In neo-realism there is no sensory-motor situation but instead optical and sound situations. He uses the term “any-space-whatever” to talk about optical and sound situations in neo-realism that are disconnected. These situations in the “any-space-whatever” created opsigns and sonsigns that can deal with variable images from everyday life. In order to get to a pure optical and sound image, sensory-motor image is completely dissolved and the clichés are left behind.
-Danny Ponticello
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Deleuze part 3
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
PFA Screening 3-07-07: Am I Making Art
This screening at PFA showed four video artworks: Theresa Hak Kyung Cha’s Mouth to Mouth, John Baldssari’s I am making art, Vito Acconci’s Theme Song, and Nancy Holt and Robert Smithson’s East Coast, West Coast. I thought Cha’s work was particularly interesting; her mouth appeared in a swamp of video noise as she uttered something into the video camera. At some point during the showing, the video noise looked similar to streams of water randomly flowing on the screen. The effect made by the video noise exerted a sense of virtual reality. The juxtaposition of the mouth, the video noise, and the sound made by the mouth made me feel as if there was a gigantic mouth and we were all immersed in a void filled with noise and about to be sucked into the mouth.
I thought Baldssari’s video was the most bizarre of the four shown. Baldessari repositioned his body in a seemingly endless array of postures while uttering “I am making art.” The repositioning and utterance went on for about twenty-five minutes, and by the time it was over, I felt a strong sense of relief. I thought it was a bit painful to sit through the entire clip as he seems to make a mockery of what is art. Nonetheless, his work reminded me of what Bergson said about duration and becoming. Contrary to photography and cinematography where duration is obviously not captured, Badessari’s pause in between gestures also seemed to imply that there was also discontinuity of duration in video.
Acconci and Holt’s works playing back to back presented an interesting comparison of “reality” experienced by viewers through video. Acconci attempts to seduce the viewers by saying “come to me, I know you want to be with me,” even though he and the viewers were fully aware that the act of crossing into the video camera is not possible. His direct gaze into the video camera also had a penetrating effect that enhanced a sense of reality. I thought the act of his holding a cigarette was a very clever one. It showed the passage of time, and this was exactly the time experienced by the viewers. An element of reality was reproduced to accentuate the desired effect through cigarettes.
Instead of directly talking into the video camera, Holt and Smithson’s casual (at times humorous) conversation engaged the viewers to be part of their conversation in an non-intimidating way. Holt and Smithson didn’t look directly at the camera, instead they looked across the table where they were sitting. Even though it was quite obvious that there was no one sitting on the other side, it had an interesting effect in making the viewers felt as if we were in their “reality”.
- Cathy Hwang
I thought Baldssari’s video was the most bizarre of the four shown. Baldessari repositioned his body in a seemingly endless array of postures while uttering “I am making art.” The repositioning and utterance went on for about twenty-five minutes, and by the time it was over, I felt a strong sense of relief. I thought it was a bit painful to sit through the entire clip as he seems to make a mockery of what is art. Nonetheless, his work reminded me of what Bergson said about duration and becoming. Contrary to photography and cinematography where duration is obviously not captured, Badessari’s pause in between gestures also seemed to imply that there was also discontinuity of duration in video.
Acconci and Holt’s works playing back to back presented an interesting comparison of “reality” experienced by viewers through video. Acconci attempts to seduce the viewers by saying “come to me, I know you want to be with me,” even though he and the viewers were fully aware that the act of crossing into the video camera is not possible. His direct gaze into the video camera also had a penetrating effect that enhanced a sense of reality. I thought the act of his holding a cigarette was a very clever one. It showed the passage of time, and this was exactly the time experienced by the viewers. An element of reality was reproduced to accentuate the desired effect through cigarettes.
Instead of directly talking into the video camera, Holt and Smithson’s casual (at times humorous) conversation engaged the viewers to be part of their conversation in an non-intimidating way. Holt and Smithson didn’t look directly at the camera, instead they looked across the table where they were sitting. Even though it was quite obvious that there was no one sitting on the other side, it had an interesting effect in making the viewers felt as if we were in their “reality”.
- Cathy Hwang
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Cinema 1: The Movement-Image, Gilles Deleuze
1. In the first commentary Deleuze contradicts Bergson’s first thesis of movement being very different from space since “the space covered is divisible…whilst movement is indivisible.” (1) Bergson is saying that movements are “irreducible among themselves,” because they are all continuous and at the same time all different making it impossible to divide up into homogeneous equivalents. Furthermore, Bergson’s thesis suggested that since movement is heterogeneous it cannot be reconstructed with still “positions in space or instants in time: that is, with immobile sections.” (1) This is a clear reference to cinematography which attempts to reconstitute movement on the screen by quickly combining static frames together. Deleuze asks a very interesting question, however, which causes us to think in a different perspective about reality: “Can we conclude that the result is artificial because the means are artificial?”(2) First, this made me think of cinemas and their apparatus—even though the movement is machine made, does that make it fake? Is movement only real in real time…when it is blatantly in front of us? Isn’t it still movement if someone is moving around “on the screen” even though it was shot from still frames? Moreover, this made me think of video art and the idea of reality vs. virtual reality. If a movie or a game opens up our senses and makes us feel a part of it even though we aren’t actually in them—what is reality? Is it only what is physically around us at any given moment, or can it also constitute anything that makes us feel like we are a part of it?
2. In his discussion of Bergson’s second thesis, Deleuze defines cinema as “the system which reproduces movement by relating it to the any-instant-whatever.” (6) This any-instant-whatever is basically any instant that is equidistant from another one—like the numbers on a clock. What caught my attention was that Deleuze describes cinema as “‘industrial art’…neither an art nor a science,” because this makes us question the purpose of cinema. Deleuze argues that it doesn’t have much scientific interest since science focuses on analysis and it is hard to analyze something related to “any-instant-whatever” which is literarily any random moment in time. Furthermore, he argues that cinema does not have much artistic credibility because art focuses more on “poses and forms that science had rejected.” (6) What is “industrial art” then? Industrial implies machine-made, modern, and repetitive. Art holds connotations of uniqueness, creativity, individuality, and man-made. Thus, it is difficult to image what these two words combined would create. Nevertheless, suggesting that cinema is exactly that is very interesting—I never thought of it that way before. It is simultaneously man-made because it uses machines, but, it produces movement which is something natural, and human-like.
3. The section on Bergson’s third thesis describes his philosophy is a general formula. Basically, reality consists of “movement as mobile section” and “qualitative change” (9) while the illusion in which we all live consists of “immobile sections” and “movement” (9). So, in reality everything is constantly changing including movement; also, instead of objects changing because they are moving, it is their qualities that constantly vibrate and change. The illusion that our perception builds, however, is that the world is made up of static objects and the change only arises from their movement which is direct and has a distinct beginning and end.
4. Lastly, in the section identifying the image and the movement, Deleuze makes a (what seems as a) profound but very confusing statement which caught my attention: “with the cinema, it is the world which becomes its own image, and not an image which becomes world.” (57) Does he mean that cinema is becoming greater than the world in a sense since it can do so much that we cannot do in reality? I understood this as if the world becomes its own image then the camera is the mirror into which the world looks to see its own reflection.
Alina Goldenberg
2. In his discussion of Bergson’s second thesis, Deleuze defines cinema as “the system which reproduces movement by relating it to the any-instant-whatever.” (6) This any-instant-whatever is basically any instant that is equidistant from another one—like the numbers on a clock. What caught my attention was that Deleuze describes cinema as “‘industrial art’…neither an art nor a science,” because this makes us question the purpose of cinema. Deleuze argues that it doesn’t have much scientific interest since science focuses on analysis and it is hard to analyze something related to “any-instant-whatever” which is literarily any random moment in time. Furthermore, he argues that cinema does not have much artistic credibility because art focuses more on “poses and forms that science had rejected.” (6) What is “industrial art” then? Industrial implies machine-made, modern, and repetitive. Art holds connotations of uniqueness, creativity, individuality, and man-made. Thus, it is difficult to image what these two words combined would create. Nevertheless, suggesting that cinema is exactly that is very interesting—I never thought of it that way before. It is simultaneously man-made because it uses machines, but, it produces movement which is something natural, and human-like.
3. The section on Bergson’s third thesis describes his philosophy is a general formula. Basically, reality consists of “movement as mobile section” and “qualitative change” (9) while the illusion in which we all live consists of “immobile sections” and “movement” (9). So, in reality everything is constantly changing including movement; also, instead of objects changing because they are moving, it is their qualities that constantly vibrate and change. The illusion that our perception builds, however, is that the world is made up of static objects and the change only arises from their movement which is direct and has a distinct beginning and end.
4. Lastly, in the section identifying the image and the movement, Deleuze makes a (what seems as a) profound but very confusing statement which caught my attention: “with the cinema, it is the world which becomes its own image, and not an image which becomes world.” (57) Does he mean that cinema is becoming greater than the world in a sense since it can do so much that we cannot do in reality? I understood this as if the world becomes its own image then the camera is the mirror into which the world looks to see its own reflection.
Alina Goldenberg
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Pine Flat
This film by Sharon Lockhart was composed in two hour long halves. The first consisted of six 10 minute segments, with a single fixed frame shot of individual children interacting with their setting. The first shot captures a mountain during one of the winter snow falls and a young girl yelling in the background in search of her friend. Even from the first scene the film played with the viewers expectation of what "should happen". Current methods of film making have conditioned their viewers to expect some large climactic event that builds the overall plot. However aside from the natural setting and slow pace of the actions, continuity within the individual scenes is non-existent. Each shot tends to grow more frustrating then the next because the need for action is never fulfilled. From a girl reading a book on a grassy hillside, to the boy sitting along side a stream with his harmonica, or even the boy sleeping on the grass, these seem to represent nature rather than man's effects on it. Only every once in a while does man's influence corrupt the natural sounds with the sound of a gun shot, or an airplane flying over head, or a bus coming to pick up a roadside student. The movie seemed more like a "Soothing Sounds of Nature" Tape that people play right before bed. The action takes a back seat to the sounds that permeate throughout the shot. The subtle snow falling, the babbling of the brook, or the wind gusting through the tall grass; each replaces the real actors (the children) within the shot due to the viewer's search for some movement or plot.
The second half also consists of six 10 minute fit framed shots, but instead have the interaction of multiple children from the small Central Californian town. Again the first shot displays a forest covered in snow, however differing from the opening scene, children emerge at the bottom of the shot and move toward the top and finally disappear as the final minute of the shot runs out. It occurs to the viewer that the film is not necessarily about its subjects, but instead about the portrayal of time and the viewer’s reaction to Lockhart's play with time. Because there is such little action occurring within each shot (or at least not the type of action we are used to with Jean Claude kicking in doors and Spiderman swinging between buildings) it seems that the film has captured both duration and the pregnant moment at the same time. Aside from making its viewers feel like stalkers (when watching the two couples making out, etc.) the film also confronts man's obsession to cut out the "uneventful time" within film. Film has become like Sports Center Highlights given neither enough time to take in the setting or the whole plot.
- Olivia Hatalsky
The second half also consists of six 10 minute fit framed shots, but instead have the interaction of multiple children from the small Central Californian town. Again the first shot displays a forest covered in snow, however differing from the opening scene, children emerge at the bottom of the shot and move toward the top and finally disappear as the final minute of the shot runs out. It occurs to the viewer that the film is not necessarily about its subjects, but instead about the portrayal of time and the viewer’s reaction to Lockhart's play with time. Because there is such little action occurring within each shot (or at least not the type of action we are used to with Jean Claude kicking in doors and Spiderman swinging between buildings) it seems that the film has captured both duration and the pregnant moment at the same time. Aside from making its viewers feel like stalkers (when watching the two couples making out, etc.) the film also confronts man's obsession to cut out the "uneventful time" within film. Film has become like Sports Center Highlights given neither enough time to take in the setting or the whole plot.
- Olivia Hatalsky
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Editing and Meaning: Balazs and Fabe
Balazs:
Bela Balazs describes editing as the "crowning job" of film-making. To Balazs, editing brings together all the disparate parts of the film and creates a coherent whole. Balazs believes that only by editing the various pieces together, can a the meaning of a shot be clearly analyzed. He compares this to interpreting a patch of color in a painting. Without knowing the larger context of that patch of color within the entire work of art, Balazs states that it would be difficult to understand its meaning. For Balazs, the process of editing is not to cut things but to assemble them together into a whole work of art.
Fabe:
Fabe describes how Sergei Eisenstein rejected the conventional notions that editing should create a smooth continuity. Eisenstein is much more interested in the psychology that editing together a sequence of seemingly conflicting elements would have on the viewer. Fabe points out that his famous Odessa Staircase sequence is full of visual conflicts. The opposition of lines between the panicked people and the actual stairs, the contrast between the tight orderly formation of the Tsar's soldiers and the hysterical masses chaotically running down are all key examples of how Eisenstein edits together contrasts to form his meaning. On top of this, Fabe points out how he also enjoys alternating between wide angles and close ups. Eisenstein seems to take Balazs's ideas to their maximum limit. He heavily relies on editing to achieve his message, so much so that any of the shots he strings together seem to have very little independent meaning on their own and only work within the larger context of the entire staircase sequence.
Fabe also notes how Sergei Eisenstein rejects realism to achieve the desired effects of his montage. She points out how the shots of the mother carrying her child to the Tsar's soldiers, a key moment in the Odessa Staircase sequence, completely contradicts itself. Eisenstein uses light and shadows to create a rich visual metaphor by having the mother both walk into a shadow and cast one as she ascends the stairs. Fabe notes that in order for this to be possible, the sun would have to completely change positions in the sky over the course of a few seconds. However, Eisenstein apprently is unconcerned about this lack of reality in order to achieve his revolutionary message of dynamic conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In a final irony, Fabe states how some film critics believe the Battleship Potemkin to be a crowning achievement of Soviet "realism" in its portrayal of historical conflict when in reality Eisenstein made absolutely no attempt to pass of his art of montage as realism.
Bela Balazs describes editing as the "crowning job" of film-making. To Balazs, editing brings together all the disparate parts of the film and creates a coherent whole. Balazs believes that only by editing the various pieces together, can a the meaning of a shot be clearly analyzed. He compares this to interpreting a patch of color in a painting. Without knowing the larger context of that patch of color within the entire work of art, Balazs states that it would be difficult to understand its meaning. For Balazs, the process of editing is not to cut things but to assemble them together into a whole work of art.
Fabe:
Fabe describes how Sergei Eisenstein rejected the conventional notions that editing should create a smooth continuity. Eisenstein is much more interested in the psychology that editing together a sequence of seemingly conflicting elements would have on the viewer. Fabe points out that his famous Odessa Staircase sequence is full of visual conflicts. The opposition of lines between the panicked people and the actual stairs, the contrast between the tight orderly formation of the Tsar's soldiers and the hysterical masses chaotically running down are all key examples of how Eisenstein edits together contrasts to form his meaning. On top of this, Fabe points out how he also enjoys alternating between wide angles and close ups. Eisenstein seems to take Balazs's ideas to their maximum limit. He heavily relies on editing to achieve his message, so much so that any of the shots he strings together seem to have very little independent meaning on their own and only work within the larger context of the entire staircase sequence.
Fabe also notes how Sergei Eisenstein rejects realism to achieve the desired effects of his montage. She points out how the shots of the mother carrying her child to the Tsar's soldiers, a key moment in the Odessa Staircase sequence, completely contradicts itself. Eisenstein uses light and shadows to create a rich visual metaphor by having the mother both walk into a shadow and cast one as she ascends the stairs. Fabe notes that in order for this to be possible, the sun would have to completely change positions in the sky over the course of a few seconds. However, Eisenstein apprently is unconcerned about this lack of reality in order to achieve his revolutionary message of dynamic conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In a final irony, Fabe states how some film critics believe the Battleship Potemkin to be a crowning achievement of Soviet "realism" in its portrayal of historical conflict when in reality Eisenstein made absolutely no attempt to pass of his art of montage as realism.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Balazs and Fabe - Joey Ponticello
Fabe
1. Marylyn Fabe attributes Sergei Eisenstein’s work as very much influenced by the works of D.W. Griffith, but instead of merely mimicking the style of Griffith, Eisenstein takes his fundamentals and enhances them to create a more shocking and jolting effect for the audience. Eisenstein was “adamantly opposed to films that slavishly tried to maintain the illusion of realistic theater by smoothly joining shots.” (27) This opposition resulted in films, most notably The Battleship Potemkin, engrossed in conflict on both the level of narrative and in the editing itself. He even went at lengths to create conflict within the detail of each frame. Throughout the passage, Fabe uses words such as clash, conflict, opposition, jerks, shocks, and discontinuity to both quote and emphasize Eisenstein’s work. What is interesting about the comparison between Eisenstein’s narrative work and what some mind consider classical narrative is that for the longest time, filmmaker’s began to believe that continuity and invisible editing was the best way to portray a story in film. I am not saying that it is not a decent way to illustrate the narrative, only that Eisenstein’s work is merely a different way of doing it. Fabe does not necessarily praise Eisenstein for his creative editing; the article is a description of an alternative film style.
2. Time and length of shots played a significant role in determining the realism of early film. Although The Battleship Potemkin is considered a realist film through the use of on location shooting and inexperienced actors, it conflicts heavily in the realm of time. Realism usually favors long takes and deep focus. Fabe claims “realist directors conceive of the frame as a window that only temporarily hides a part of the world, as opposed to a picture frame whose lines demarcate the limits of a carefully composed, patently artistic composition.”(51) The use of off screen space rather than extensive cutting gives the film more credibility as to its realism because time and space are not fragmented. The directors who try to achieve realism must remember that the world extends beyond the frame. There are different types of realism in film and each is identified in the films we watched Monday night. Potemkin is considered realist in the emotions the editing creates in the audience, but this differs from the realism Fabe claims is present in Charlie Chaplin films where the narrative unfolds before us in long takes.
3. To go more in depth on the Chaplin films, Fabe states that the main reason these films are realist even though they still flow continuously, in contrast with Potemkin’s conflict is that most of the narrative unfolds in real time. He claims, “Chaplin’s fims look artless in the sense that they do not call attention to the medium, (yet) the film medium does in fact play a large role in the success of Chaplin’s comic art.”(54) The way Chaplin used the camera and the world around him allowed him to portray his comic narratives at perfect angles and depth of focus. He was able to use different settings that might not be possible to create on the stage, therefore allowing him to explore and utilize different aspects of the mise-en-scene. Chaplin’s persona plays a large part in the comedy of his films, but the fact that each antic unfolds in real time over lengthy periods of time allows audiences to experience it in whole chunks making it more appealing.
1. Marylyn Fabe attributes Sergei Eisenstein’s work as very much influenced by the works of D.W. Griffith, but instead of merely mimicking the style of Griffith, Eisenstein takes his fundamentals and enhances them to create a more shocking and jolting effect for the audience. Eisenstein was “adamantly opposed to films that slavishly tried to maintain the illusion of realistic theater by smoothly joining shots.” (27) This opposition resulted in films, most notably The Battleship Potemkin, engrossed in conflict on both the level of narrative and in the editing itself. He even went at lengths to create conflict within the detail of each frame. Throughout the passage, Fabe uses words such as clash, conflict, opposition, jerks, shocks, and discontinuity to both quote and emphasize Eisenstein’s work. What is interesting about the comparison between Eisenstein’s narrative work and what some mind consider classical narrative is that for the longest time, filmmaker’s began to believe that continuity and invisible editing was the best way to portray a story in film. I am not saying that it is not a decent way to illustrate the narrative, only that Eisenstein’s work is merely a different way of doing it. Fabe does not necessarily praise Eisenstein for his creative editing; the article is a description of an alternative film style.
2. Time and length of shots played a significant role in determining the realism of early film. Although The Battleship Potemkin is considered a realist film through the use of on location shooting and inexperienced actors, it conflicts heavily in the realm of time. Realism usually favors long takes and deep focus. Fabe claims “realist directors conceive of the frame as a window that only temporarily hides a part of the world, as opposed to a picture frame whose lines demarcate the limits of a carefully composed, patently artistic composition.”(51) The use of off screen space rather than extensive cutting gives the film more credibility as to its realism because time and space are not fragmented. The directors who try to achieve realism must remember that the world extends beyond the frame. There are different types of realism in film and each is identified in the films we watched Monday night. Potemkin is considered realist in the emotions the editing creates in the audience, but this differs from the realism Fabe claims is present in Charlie Chaplin films where the narrative unfolds before us in long takes.
3. To go more in depth on the Chaplin films, Fabe states that the main reason these films are realist even though they still flow continuously, in contrast with Potemkin’s conflict is that most of the narrative unfolds in real time. He claims, “Chaplin’s fims look artless in the sense that they do not call attention to the medium, (yet) the film medium does in fact play a large role in the success of Chaplin’s comic art.”(54) The way Chaplin used the camera and the world around him allowed him to portray his comic narratives at perfect angles and depth of focus. He was able to use different settings that might not be possible to create on the stage, therefore allowing him to explore and utilize different aspects of the mise-en-scene. Chaplin’s persona plays a large part in the comedy of his films, but the fact that each antic unfolds in real time over lengthy periods of time allows audiences to experience it in whole chunks making it more appealing.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Zeno's Paradox - Kirsten Nicholls
1) In Zeno’s Paradox, Mary Anne Doanne starts out with a breakdown of the term real time. Though her discussion of the term was somewhat long-winded, this term comes to represent the backbone of Doanne’s argument that the altering of time is something that takes place in real life, not on the big screen. Time, as she states, is one that is expressed “off-screen, between frames, in darkness”, and not through the collective stills of the film reel.
2) One of the first main points that Doanne states in her argument is that Zeno was the “perfect nemesis” for Bergson due to his philosophical beliefs as a member of the Eleatic School. In this she states that Zeno’s beliefs made him “fully invested in the denial of movement, change, and plurality.” Zeno’s famous argument is one that Bergson himself sites as a falsehood of philosophical thought. In this example, Zeno states that an arrow can never travel from point A to point B because the distance that it is traveling can be divided again and again an infinite number of times until all you are left with is an arrow that at any moment in time is at rest. And since the arrow is at rest, it cannot be in a state of motion, hence it can never reach its final destination.
3) Bergson argues that true movement cannot be divided into different snap-shots of time, as such is the case with cinematography. It cannot be divided for motion is a continuous whole and as such must be studied and understood in its entirety. In this Bergson argues that when creating the illusion of movement that movement has to exist somewhere. When we see movement through the lens of the camera, what we are actually seeing is the illusion of movement. In this Bergson means that to create the illusion of motion you must first have something that is motionless. For example, when a horse is in full gallop, what we actually seeing is the rapid transition of the background as the horse passes it by and the full stride of the horse’s body emphasizing an object in motion. When you breakdown this image an infinite number of times you find an object (i.e. the horse) that is motionless for that one-single moment. Such is the way in which the illusion of motion is accomplished in cinematography, or as Bergson saw it, “cinematograph can only produce the illusion of mobility”, not the actual effect.
4) Overall, I do agree with Doanne’s argument in that Zeno’s theory (though attempting to break new ground in philosophical thought) is at best flawed. For how can one try and disprove motion while at the same time recognizing its existence in their argument. And if mobility is in fact immobility than what does that say about life and existence as a whole. How can you exist when nothing is in motion, and when there can be no cause and no effect. How can you have this very argument if there is no existence to begin with. However as Doanne highlights in Bergson’s arguments, when it comes to cinematography and the illusion of movement, you can stop and start motion at any given point, but it can only be true motion if real time is used. Because without this acceptance of time and space and how bodies move through it, how can such an illusion of movement be right.
2) One of the first main points that Doanne states in her argument is that Zeno was the “perfect nemesis” for Bergson due to his philosophical beliefs as a member of the Eleatic School. In this she states that Zeno’s beliefs made him “fully invested in the denial of movement, change, and plurality.” Zeno’s famous argument is one that Bergson himself sites as a falsehood of philosophical thought. In this example, Zeno states that an arrow can never travel from point A to point B because the distance that it is traveling can be divided again and again an infinite number of times until all you are left with is an arrow that at any moment in time is at rest. And since the arrow is at rest, it cannot be in a state of motion, hence it can never reach its final destination.
3) Bergson argues that true movement cannot be divided into different snap-shots of time, as such is the case with cinematography. It cannot be divided for motion is a continuous whole and as such must be studied and understood in its entirety. In this Bergson argues that when creating the illusion of movement that movement has to exist somewhere. When we see movement through the lens of the camera, what we are actually seeing is the illusion of movement. In this Bergson means that to create the illusion of motion you must first have something that is motionless. For example, when a horse is in full gallop, what we actually seeing is the rapid transition of the background as the horse passes it by and the full stride of the horse’s body emphasizing an object in motion. When you breakdown this image an infinite number of times you find an object (i.e. the horse) that is motionless for that one-single moment. Such is the way in which the illusion of motion is accomplished in cinematography, or as Bergson saw it, “cinematograph can only produce the illusion of mobility”, not the actual effect.
4) Overall, I do agree with Doanne’s argument in that Zeno’s theory (though attempting to break new ground in philosophical thought) is at best flawed. For how can one try and disprove motion while at the same time recognizing its existence in their argument. And if mobility is in fact immobility than what does that say about life and existence as a whole. How can you exist when nothing is in motion, and when there can be no cause and no effect. How can you have this very argument if there is no existence to begin with. However as Doanne highlights in Bergson’s arguments, when it comes to cinematography and the illusion of movement, you can stop and start motion at any given point, but it can only be true motion if real time is used. Because without this acceptance of time and space and how bodies move through it, how can such an illusion of movement be right.
Zeno's Paradox - Norbert Wong
1. Mary Anne Doane argues that the manipulation of time primarily takes place off the screen. Time is mainly articulated "off-screen, between frames, in darkness" (190). Of course a director can slow down or speed up the frame rate in order to create a slow-motion or fast-forward effect. However, since time is bound to movement, during a long shot, the line of action of the film cannot make a temporal jump. It can be sped up and slowed down--dramatized--but there is no room for making direct jumps through time. It is not possible to go from event A to event C without passing through B. Thus, to actually crack the temporal plane and make it discontinuous, the director must resort to film editing. Through a montage of clips, one can recreate time, but in the way that the narrator/director intends for the audience to see it. Through parallel editing, viewers of movies are taught to accept the rules of cinematic time--that simultaneous events in "real time" can be represented by one scene following the other in "cinematic time." Ultimately, we gauge the duration of cinematic action based on the movements we observe. Within a single shot, cinematic time is usually equivalent to real time. However, to successfully manipulate time, Doane's observations are unavoidable. It is not what we see--the various camera shots--which tells us that the cinematic time has jumped. Instead, it is the the gap between the frames which signify the jump in cinematic time.
2. In The Life of an American Fireman, there are obvious temporal differences between the outdoor and indoor scenes of the fireman rescue. While some may view the timing difference as a mistake, Doane argues differently: "By repeating the scene, [the movie] reveals what was 'off' and formerly condensed, and 'reexpands' it (189). Here, Doane views the two scenes as a condensed version and an expanded version. Perhaps the film is trying to represent two points of view relative to the people. Perhaps the indoor scene experiences the time of a panicking person in the flaming house when time seems to fly by. Meanwhile, the outdoor scene could very well represent the eyes of a careless bystander, who experiences time in a calmer and slower way. In particular, I found it interesting how Doane uses the words "condensed" and "reexpands" to describe the two scenes. These two words suggest that time can in fact be divided into intervals as Zeno suggests. One cannot condense or reexpand something if that something has no beginning or end. Moreover, rexexpanding and condensing infer that intervals of an action on a given timeline can be removed and replaced at will. This is not possible in Bergsonian time, as movement is whole and cannot be divided into any sort of part.
3. While Doane is sympathetic to Bergson's ideas, she uses Deleuze to argue that his view is a "misrecognition of the cinema's true capabilities" (175). Rather than perceiving cinematic time as a variable of the camera, Deleuze argues that time should be gauged based on the viewers perception instead (175). In this way, the viewer does not actually see a series of phantasmagoric images, but movement itself. Through this, she argues that Deleuze shows that cinema actually refutes Zeno's theory. In essence, the camera is that which divides cinematic action into intervals. But according to Deleuze, only the viewer's point of view actually matters. This makes me question what else actually "matters." It seems that by going this route, Deleuze is merely trying to use a cheap play of words in order to justify the use of film while attempting to remain Bergsonian. Deleuze neither proves nor disproves. Instead, he simply ignores.
2. In The Life of an American Fireman, there are obvious temporal differences between the outdoor and indoor scenes of the fireman rescue. While some may view the timing difference as a mistake, Doane argues differently: "By repeating the scene, [the movie] reveals what was 'off' and formerly condensed, and 'reexpands' it (189). Here, Doane views the two scenes as a condensed version and an expanded version. Perhaps the film is trying to represent two points of view relative to the people. Perhaps the indoor scene experiences the time of a panicking person in the flaming house when time seems to fly by. Meanwhile, the outdoor scene could very well represent the eyes of a careless bystander, who experiences time in a calmer and slower way. In particular, I found it interesting how Doane uses the words "condensed" and "reexpands" to describe the two scenes. These two words suggest that time can in fact be divided into intervals as Zeno suggests. One cannot condense or reexpand something if that something has no beginning or end. Moreover, rexexpanding and condensing infer that intervals of an action on a given timeline can be removed and replaced at will. This is not possible in Bergsonian time, as movement is whole and cannot be divided into any sort of part.
3. While Doane is sympathetic to Bergson's ideas, she uses Deleuze to argue that his view is a "misrecognition of the cinema's true capabilities" (175). Rather than perceiving cinematic time as a variable of the camera, Deleuze argues that time should be gauged based on the viewers perception instead (175). In this way, the viewer does not actually see a series of phantasmagoric images, but movement itself. Through this, she argues that Deleuze shows that cinema actually refutes Zeno's theory. In essence, the camera is that which divides cinematic action into intervals. But according to Deleuze, only the viewer's point of view actually matters. This makes me question what else actually "matters." It seems that by going this route, Deleuze is merely trying to use a cheap play of words in order to justify the use of film while attempting to remain Bergsonian. Deleuze neither proves nor disproves. Instead, he simply ignores.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Zeno's Paradox- Spencer Rodman
1. Some background information to start out, the reading immediately tells us, "Zeno was the perfect nemesis to Bergson because as a member of the Eleatic School of pre-Socratic philosophers, he was fully invested in the denial of movement, change, and plurality." This is going to be key in my analysis due to the fact my analysis is about their ideas clashing with one another.
2. Zeno's example of the arrow where he states that an arrow can never reach its target because distance or space it must travel can always be divided an infinite number of times. This is a obviously a paradox that undermines Bergson's theory of motion. The theory Zeno presents is definitely false due to the fact, anything with the right amount of time and right equipment can almost get from any one point to another. At first I was confused by Zeno's thought process later to realize his theory is understandable if there were not already convincing evidence at this point that he is absolutely wrong. You can take his arrow idea and go greater into depth with his comparison between Achilles and the tortoise. The tortoise was given a ten unit head start with Achilles being able to run ten times faster than the tortoise. By Zeno argues in his third paradox, Achilles would never pass the tortoise because every time Achilles attains the point where the tortoise was, the tortoise has progressed a tenth of the distance Achilles has therefore the tortoise will always be ahead. Now we all know how this story ends based on childhood novelty but you would assume that Achilles would swoop right by and win the race basically immediately after they started with how fast he ran and the tortoise left in the dust. Zeno suggests that because of the ten unit lead in the beginning that the tortoise would always be ahead due to the infinite amount of time it would take for Achilles to get to from the starting line past Achilles. I completely disagree with this because the Achilles is 10times faster and should annihilate him unless of course he gets injured.
2. Bergson argues for the indivisibility of movement as a continuous whole. "Bergson admits to the fact that in order to produce the illusion of movement there must be real movement somewhere. He locates it in the apparatus, the projector, which moves the film forward." Although Zeno's paradox is false because we know something can go from one point to the next, Bergson admits that to show movement it must be an illusion when he later states, "the movement slips through the interval." Meaning to have one thing look as if it were moving, you have to have something that is still, to create the illusion. Only through this Bergson claims can be the result to avoid complete stillness in a picture. I think that he is right because if you take a picture of lets say a human, and wanted to make it look as if he were moving at a fast rate you would need to make the background move fast, creating the illusion of a moving human.
3. Finally, I do not believe Zeno can relatively disprove the possibility of movement, and certainly cannot convince me that there is no passage of time because over the years I have learned that time is of the essence. Everything evolves around time in real time and illusion time. With time anything can be done. If you could stop time or make it not exist, everything would be put on hold and nothing would be accomplished. When it comes to film I agree with certain techniques you can make time stop yet at the same time keep it going in the sense of illusion but I believe in the film industry you can only get by with slowing down time not the complete annihilation of movement in respect to time.
2. Zeno's example of the arrow where he states that an arrow can never reach its target because distance or space it must travel can always be divided an infinite number of times. This is a obviously a paradox that undermines Bergson's theory of motion. The theory Zeno presents is definitely false due to the fact, anything with the right amount of time and right equipment can almost get from any one point to another. At first I was confused by Zeno's thought process later to realize his theory is understandable if there were not already convincing evidence at this point that he is absolutely wrong. You can take his arrow idea and go greater into depth with his comparison between Achilles and the tortoise. The tortoise was given a ten unit head start with Achilles being able to run ten times faster than the tortoise. By Zeno argues in his third paradox, Achilles would never pass the tortoise because every time Achilles attains the point where the tortoise was, the tortoise has progressed a tenth of the distance Achilles has therefore the tortoise will always be ahead. Now we all know how this story ends based on childhood novelty but you would assume that Achilles would swoop right by and win the race basically immediately after they started with how fast he ran and the tortoise left in the dust. Zeno suggests that because of the ten unit lead in the beginning that the tortoise would always be ahead due to the infinite amount of time it would take for Achilles to get to from the starting line past Achilles. I completely disagree with this because the Achilles is 10times faster and should annihilate him unless of course he gets injured.
2. Bergson argues for the indivisibility of movement as a continuous whole. "Bergson admits to the fact that in order to produce the illusion of movement there must be real movement somewhere. He locates it in the apparatus, the projector, which moves the film forward." Although Zeno's paradox is false because we know something can go from one point to the next, Bergson admits that to show movement it must be an illusion when he later states, "the movement slips through the interval." Meaning to have one thing look as if it were moving, you have to have something that is still, to create the illusion. Only through this Bergson claims can be the result to avoid complete stillness in a picture. I think that he is right because if you take a picture of lets say a human, and wanted to make it look as if he were moving at a fast rate you would need to make the background move fast, creating the illusion of a moving human.
3. Finally, I do not believe Zeno can relatively disprove the possibility of movement, and certainly cannot convince me that there is no passage of time because over the years I have learned that time is of the essence. Everything evolves around time in real time and illusion time. With time anything can be done. If you could stop time or make it not exist, everything would be put on hold and nothing would be accomplished. When it comes to film I agree with certain techniques you can make time stop yet at the same time keep it going in the sense of illusion but I believe in the film industry you can only get by with slowing down time not the complete annihilation of movement in respect to time.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Office Hours 2/26-3/1 (brooke)
I've added more office hours. You can sign up by posting a comment (be sure that nobody has posted a comment for that time). Depending on what you want to talk about, bring your reading, your 10-on-1 and passages, any drafts of your midterm, etc. If you can't make the time you signed up for please let me know.
TUES 2/27 (at cafe strada, bancroft and college)
6:15 mara
WED 2/28 (Rhetoric Library, top floor in NW corner of Dwinelle Rm 7337)
11:30
11:45
12:30 leesha
12.45 olivia
1
1.15 anthony
1.30 robin
1:45 cathy
2 alina
2:15 chloe
2.30 spencer
2:45 johnny
TUES 2/27 (at cafe strada, bancroft and college)
6:15 mara
WED 2/28 (Rhetoric Library, top floor in NW corner of Dwinelle Rm 7337)
11:30
11:45
12:30 leesha
12.45 olivia
1
1.15 anthony
1.30 robin
1:45 cathy
2 alina
2:15 chloe
2.30 spencer
2:45 johnny
Friday, February 16, 2007
A Commissioned Works - Feb 14
The opening thirty seconds of A Tight Thirteen Minutes made me laugh. It was two brushes with no ink or paint, brushing on a blank white piece of paper in a rhythmic pattern with a narrator describing what was happening. After I quickly pulled myself together I realized that the sixty second film was actually interesting. The narrator talked about how the rhythmic sound and the motion of the brushes produces a landscape that is visible to the eye, and I actually started to see an image appear on the paper. Just by hearing a repetitious sound and seeing a repetitious motion made an image appear in the brain. This was the perfect opening film because it raised my interest for the rest of A Tight Thirteen Minutes and A Commissioned Works.
All the artists’ of the short films tried to manipulate the representation of time in a different way in either a 60 second film or a four minute film. The film that most affected me in representing time in a different way is John Fernie’s four minute Old Fort Piece. The filming takes place inside a single room of an eighteenth century castle. The camera pans around the perimeter of the room and stops at every window, or opening, then zooms out the window to show the outside. The narrator of the film describes how the single room feels like a place of solitude, and while he is in the room time seems to slow down. It makes him feel completely relaxed and all his anxiety goes away. He expresses his experience of time by stating that someone could “marry a turtle” in a room like this. His experience of time inside the room is slower than outside. This is actually strange to me because when he zooms out the windows there are scenes of nature, which makes the walls of the room a barrier between him and the natural world. Usually time slows down for me when I am immersed in nature, not separate from it, but I guess he feels differently about nature.
The film that ended up being the most disappointing was William Wegman’s four minute Dog/Ball. This film featured a dog sitting in the same spot with a cup in front of it. The dog would catch a golf ball and then drop it. Every time the dog dropped the ball a man would move the cup to the spot where the ball hit. For almost the entire film the dog did not drop the ball in the same spot two times in a row. This shows that everything changes in time and that everything is random. I think Bergson would like this dog because it proved that nobody can really predict the future, no matter how hard they tried. Unfortunately, the dog ended up dropping the ball into the cup, showing that there is some chance to predict the future, even though everything is still random. This film actually engaged the audience the most. Whenever the dog dropped the ball near the cup the audience let out a disappointed moan and when the dog finally made it in the cup the audience cheered. The audience made the film feel like a live show and maybe that was the intention of the film, to show that past actions and time can be refreshed again and again. That the past can be experienced as the present.
Some of the other films in Commissioned Works showed different ways to measure time. In John Baldessari’s 4 Minutes of Trying to Tune Two Glasses a kitchen timer is used to represent the time passing. In Robert Watts Snowflakes, time is measured by the layers that thicken as snowflakes fall. In Eleanor Antin’s The Little Ballerina time is measured in the rotation of a wind up ballerina that revolves at a constant rate. In Siah Armajan’s Skylight at Monticello time is measured by the motion of a bar of light that rotates as it moves forward at a constant rate. I thought that using motion to represent time in films was interesting.
Johnny Mendoza
All the artists’ of the short films tried to manipulate the representation of time in a different way in either a 60 second film or a four minute film. The film that most affected me in representing time in a different way is John Fernie’s four minute Old Fort Piece. The filming takes place inside a single room of an eighteenth century castle. The camera pans around the perimeter of the room and stops at every window, or opening, then zooms out the window to show the outside. The narrator of the film describes how the single room feels like a place of solitude, and while he is in the room time seems to slow down. It makes him feel completely relaxed and all his anxiety goes away. He expresses his experience of time by stating that someone could “marry a turtle” in a room like this. His experience of time inside the room is slower than outside. This is actually strange to me because when he zooms out the windows there are scenes of nature, which makes the walls of the room a barrier between him and the natural world. Usually time slows down for me when I am immersed in nature, not separate from it, but I guess he feels differently about nature.
The film that ended up being the most disappointing was William Wegman’s four minute Dog/Ball. This film featured a dog sitting in the same spot with a cup in front of it. The dog would catch a golf ball and then drop it. Every time the dog dropped the ball a man would move the cup to the spot where the ball hit. For almost the entire film the dog did not drop the ball in the same spot two times in a row. This shows that everything changes in time and that everything is random. I think Bergson would like this dog because it proved that nobody can really predict the future, no matter how hard they tried. Unfortunately, the dog ended up dropping the ball into the cup, showing that there is some chance to predict the future, even though everything is still random. This film actually engaged the audience the most. Whenever the dog dropped the ball near the cup the audience let out a disappointed moan and when the dog finally made it in the cup the audience cheered. The audience made the film feel like a live show and maybe that was the intention of the film, to show that past actions and time can be refreshed again and again. That the past can be experienced as the present.
Some of the other films in Commissioned Works showed different ways to measure time. In John Baldessari’s 4 Minutes of Trying to Tune Two Glasses a kitchen timer is used to represent the time passing. In Robert Watts Snowflakes, time is measured by the layers that thicken as snowflakes fall. In Eleanor Antin’s The Little Ballerina time is measured in the rotation of a wind up ballerina that revolves at a constant rate. In Siah Armajan’s Skylight at Monticello time is measured by the motion of a bar of light that rotates as it moves forward at a constant rate. I thought that using motion to represent time in films was interesting.
Johnny Mendoza
MIDTERM PAPER
Alfred Stieglitz took photographs of clouds from the 1920’s through the 1930’s. He printed hundreds of these, all with the title “Equivalent.” Some of these are currently in the Measure of Time show at BAM. How are they related to the “measure of time”? Is this a kind of chronophotography? It is a serial project but how is it similar or different from the serial photographs of Muybridge; what about from the images of Marey? What is suggested by the titles? What do you make of the fact that Stieglitz made hundreds of these photographs, over at least ten years? How would you describe the temporality of this project? What is interesting about taking ‘portraits’ of clouds? They are certainly not the traditional subject of a portrait but are they even objects? Are they actions? Is Stieglitz photographing things or ideas, spaces or moments? What concepts from Bergson could you use to think about these problems? Choose one of the Stieglitz photos to analyze in depth. What is in the frame; how does the composition work; what does the light and shape suggest? Is Lessing useful in thinking about the image—is this ‘juxtaposition in space’ or a ‘pregnant moment’? What could be the ‘virtual’ dimension of this image? Are these photographs “dynamisms,” do they show the essence of something, or what Bragaglia calls a “physical transcendentalism”? What ideas from the course so far can you use to think about the temporality of one of these images, and what might this image suggest about the temporality of photography?
Because the measure of time exhibit has been unexpectedly closed, you may write your paper on one of the Equivalents photographs available online at (be sure to indicate which you have chosen): http://www.phillipscollection.org/american_art/artwork/Stieglitz-Equivalent_Series1.htm
Your paper should be 4-6 double spaced pages (see Course Policies handout for more details). It does not need to answer every question raised in the prompt or address all of the texts we have read. It does need to engage Bergson and at least one other text from the course, carefully interpreting specific (quoted and cited) passages from these texts in order to build concrete arguments about the images you discuss. These images jump forward in time so you don’t need to consider the historical context but you will need to consider your image in the larger context of the ideas and themes we have discussed, situating your image in the conversation we have had up to this point. But, you will also need to develop your own argument, using the texts we have read as tools to actively think with as you work out your own interpretation. Read your paper as you write it; when you feel finished give it one final read (not just a spell-check) and fine tune the details. Your grade will be based on the following:
-- careful attention to the image, thoughtful and detailed analysis of the image and its context in the project
-- demonstrates strong grasp of themes and problems we’ve discussed related to time and art
-- draws upon relevant ideas, arguments, terms, and specific quoted passages from texts we have read
-- connects specific details with broader arguments and insights, rigorous thinking, genuine ideas
-- clear, communicative, and intelligent prose; standard academic style and tone; well organized and edited
Schedule and Due Dates for Midterm Paper:
2/21 ‘10-on-1’ due: (20 points)
Read chapter 5 of Writing Analytically on analysis and do the ’10-on-1’ exercise on the image
you chose for the midterm. Start rereading these texts and identifying key passages you want to work with in your paper. (If you feel a little lost facing the assignment, read the other materials in the reader up to and through Chapter 5; the earlier chapters have a lot of tips about getting started.)
2/26 Passages due: (30 points)
Select four to six passages from Lessing, Bergson, and/or Bragaglia that help develop your observations or offer interpretive and argumentative frameworks for thinking about the things you noticed. Type these passages out (with correct citations). After each passage briefly paraphrase it in your own words.
2/28 Read Chapters 6-8 of Writing Analytically on structure as you put your paper together
3/5 Midterm paper due (100 points)
3/7-3/21 Read Chapters 10, 11, and 14 of Writing Analytically on style and revise midterm essay
3/21 Revised Midterm paper due (150 points) (*note change, typo had said 200pts)
Because the measure of time exhibit has been unexpectedly closed, you may write your paper on one of the Equivalents photographs available online at (be sure to indicate which you have chosen): http://www.phillipscollection.org/american_art/artwork/Stieglitz-Equivalent_Series1.htm
Your paper should be 4-6 double spaced pages (see Course Policies handout for more details). It does not need to answer every question raised in the prompt or address all of the texts we have read. It does need to engage Bergson and at least one other text from the course, carefully interpreting specific (quoted and cited) passages from these texts in order to build concrete arguments about the images you discuss. These images jump forward in time so you don’t need to consider the historical context but you will need to consider your image in the larger context of the ideas and themes we have discussed, situating your image in the conversation we have had up to this point. But, you will also need to develop your own argument, using the texts we have read as tools to actively think with as you work out your own interpretation. Read your paper as you write it; when you feel finished give it one final read (not just a spell-check) and fine tune the details. Your grade will be based on the following:
-- careful attention to the image, thoughtful and detailed analysis of the image and its context in the project
-- demonstrates strong grasp of themes and problems we’ve discussed related to time and art
-- draws upon relevant ideas, arguments, terms, and specific quoted passages from texts we have read
-- connects specific details with broader arguments and insights, rigorous thinking, genuine ideas
-- clear, communicative, and intelligent prose; standard academic style and tone; well organized and edited
Schedule and Due Dates for Midterm Paper:
2/21 ‘10-on-1’ due: (20 points)
Read chapter 5 of Writing Analytically on analysis and do the ’10-on-1’ exercise on the image
you chose for the midterm. Start rereading these texts and identifying key passages you want to work with in your paper. (If you feel a little lost facing the assignment, read the other materials in the reader up to and through Chapter 5; the earlier chapters have a lot of tips about getting started.)
2/26 Passages due: (30 points)
Select four to six passages from Lessing, Bergson, and/or Bragaglia that help develop your observations or offer interpretive and argumentative frameworks for thinking about the things you noticed. Type these passages out (with correct citations). After each passage briefly paraphrase it in your own words.
2/28 Read Chapters 6-8 of Writing Analytically on structure as you put your paper together
3/5 Midterm paper due (100 points)
3/7-3/21 Read Chapters 10, 11, and 14 of Writing Analytically on style and revise midterm essay
3/21 Revised Midterm paper due (150 points) (*note change, typo had said 200pts)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
