Review on Experimentation

Throughout the course of the semester, I have seen many different films on which I was to record my thoughts and opinions. During this time my opinion on the experimental film genre has changed somewhat. Coming into this course I really did not see a point in experimental film as most of it seemed random. I suppose I never thought there would be more meaning in films other than what was placed right in front of you. The idea of intervention is what I found which tied all of the films we watched together. This doesn't have so much to do with the viewer as it does with everything else. Experimentation intervenes on the entire medium of film in a way that changes your way of thinking; true experimental film that is. It could be argued that anything could be considered experimental and I would have to say that is false because putting anything on the screen and calling it an film is still just a bunch of images in my book. However, if the film can change someone's way of seeing something or provide insight into anything at all, it can be called a film and to some degree, experimental. This is why I said that my opinion had changed somewhat. Most films that provide insight on anything have some sort of narrative laced into them, whether they want it or not. Through the pranks, stunts, ulterior motives; there is still something to follow, otherwise it becomes just a mess of random images and not quite a film at all. The difference between narrative and experimentation is what that film adds to its narrative to make it more than just a story.

Chaotic Narratives

There shouldn't even be a discussion on whether or not Duck Soup and The Way Things Go are more than just a series of jokes and stunts. The Way Things Go is a bit less obvious with it, but it is easy to see the story behind Duck Soup. Now, whether or not it was what we the viewer are meant to see is questionable. If we are judging it based on Frampton's idea of what we see the most is what the film is about, then Duck Soup is about the jokes. That is what we see most often and that is what we are most drawn to in the film. The same for The Way Things Go, what we see most is the stunts, so that is what the film would be about. That doesn't mean that there can't also be a story intertwined with the main idea. That is what both of the films do. They have a plot, but it's not what needs to be seen. It may not be there intentionally, maybe the creators never intended for there to be such a story behind a string of gags and stunts. That is more the viewers mind that creates that. It's the action that draws your attention and I think that the fact that it is going somewhere is what keeps it. So while Frampton may say it's all about the gags and stunts, I say that without the story, fabricated by the viewers or not, the films would not work as well as they do.

Media Burn

There are many ways to interpret a film like "Media Burn". It could be seen as bashing modern television and entertainment; mainly what most of America wants to see on the television to keep their attention. In that respect it could also be the fact that so many Americans care what can keep their attention on the television that they are speaking up about. More specifically the fact that television wastes life away. Instead of perhaps doing something creative, like say, making your own film, you sit and watch the television and consume other peoples creativity. They could have also done it for the fact that driving a car through a wall of burning televisions would be amazing, but I doubt that. I think that it is a combination of my first two ideas and more so just a strike against mass media in general. Based on how much of an American's life revolves around the television in some way, it is right to speak up against it. I don't think the car was necessarily important to the process of destroying the televisions, but it is the easiest and it gets the point across. What they seem to be getting at is that America needs to get out of the television trance.

Negativland

Negativland is a experimental music and sound collage band from around the San Fransisco area. The experimental music is based on most of the electronic and computer-altered beats that they produce by themselves. Along with this, they use found footage to create a collage of a certain topic or person of interest. This found footage is usually something that the subject in question wouldn't want anyone to see. This creates a much more welcome response from audiences and can only be given the cold shoulder by those whom they are about. After listening to some of their work and its content, I can say that it seems to me that the only reason why they make their music how they do is to entertain. Purely to entertain. The content that they use usually shows a bad side in one way or another to a good person and it is usually all in good fun. They get the material they use, put some beats to it, practice a bit then they have their mock up of found footage collages. Along with this, they also put their own visual effects in their videos, which are clearly fake; and lyrics, which compliment the predominant messages from the other people that they mock.

Natural Features

After listening to Frampton's Lecture, it's hard to not try and describe a film on what you see most often in it. That is what happens most of the time, whether you realize it or not. We all describe films we see on trends that we notice throughout the film. After watching Nelson's Natural Features, I can't help but call it a film about painted features, specifically in faces. I thought that maybe it could just be a film about faces, as that is what is shown most often; but the title gives a little insight into something more. Most of the faces that are created aren't completed, so the film is more about certain features created multiple different ways using the paint. This makes me think that the film was made specifically to emphasize the beauty in everyone's natural features, no matter what they are. Whether this was the intention of the filmmaker or not, I can't be sure; but using Frampton's logic, this is what I have come to. The use of paint instead of some other medium also makes me think that Nelson was going for beauty throughout all natural features. Paint can be very unpredictable in how it will look and I think is very useful in this film because it helps show all the differences in natural features. That is why I chose the film to be about painted features instead of features or faces. The paint is very important in showing the variability in the features. I don't remember much of the sound from this film, but I don't think it was very important in this case. The visuals were enough to keep me intrigued the entire length of the film. Frampton was right when he said in his Lecture that the film would stimulate one, possibly two senses; in this case, only the first was necessary.

Red

Red is a very captivating color. It is known to be the most attractive to the eye and it is a fact that your eyes always jump to something red first. The color red in the film we watched was used so much it was almost disorienting. It came in different shades and forms, but the almost constant presence of the color made my imagination wander. The film had a way of giving me many different thoughts of what was actually happening. At some points I almost believed that it might have been shot on another planet. I feel that using this eye-catching color helped create much contrast for anything else that might be in the frame. It is a good way to make the viewer think about where they might be, but also what the contrasting object in the frame is. Smithson does like to work with content that lends the viewer to multiple thoughts and red is a good way to do it. Seeing as how most of the terrain was some shade of red, it made disorientation very easy. I'm not sure if it works for everyone, but I know it did for me. I found myself wondering most of the time of where I might be if I was there and it made my mind wander on what else I would be seeing in this unknown territory.

Artist Statement: Demonstration on Disappointment

When I first thought to do my performance, I wanted to make it more of a sound based presentation, than a visual one. In one of my other classes I had read an article by Robert Bresson on how isolating sound or image is important because if you overdo both at the same time, then the viewer will not get the most out of each one. Originally, I just wanted to have the sound of the glass breaking the entire time, and just use empty glass bottles to do this while either covering up the lens, or doing everything off camera. However, as I thought more about my idea, I wanted to get a greater emotional response from anyone who might view it. This is when I decided to include paint in my performance. I also decided to leave the lens covered the entire time except for 1 or 2 seconds at the end of the piece. The response I wanted to get out of this was disappointment. I wanted the viewer to feel like they were really missing something in only getting a glimpse of the finished product. The response that I got personally from the viewers is what I think is most important about this performance.

Now that I have performed this, I realized that there were a few things that worked extraordinarily well and a few performance issues on my part. Two things that I found worked very well were the result of the actual work itself, as it turned out looking better than I had imagined, and the response that I got from the people in the room after I was done performing. After I was done, my TA Heidi came up to me and told me how much she wanted the cover over the camera to not have been there. I know that she didn't understand the feeling that I was going for with this because it was kind of last minute and I didn't discuss with her the idea I was going for, but it turned out perfectly when she told me how I should have used something see through or nothing in front of the camera all together. I could tell that she was very disappointed that no one would be able to see everything that happened in front of the camera. When it comes to how my performance could have been better; I think it could have been a bit more professional. I didn't have the money to practice this before executing it for real, but I still shouldn't have opened my mouth and said something, even if I got paint in it. Also, I am not sure how well the bag I used covered all the action as I think it was partially see through. I had planned to use the lens cap, which was last second too, but instead the bag had to do. I also wish I would be been a little better with time, but that comes with practice.

If I could do this again, I definitely be a bit more organized and crisp in my own performance. I would keep the image completely dark until the last 2 seconds or so. I learned that this piece works very well as a live performance as I did get the exact response I wanted from the people in the room with me, but perhaps not so much no tape, viewed later in time. I suppose I will find out when we view it in class.

Authorship

I go once again back to Althea Thauberger's work which we view as a class last week. The kind of authorship that is portrayed in the works that she does is almost solely to the performer in the piece with a little bit going to Thauberger. The reason that I say this is because Thauberger gives the performers a direction to go it, but the performance is a sincere act on their part, no matter what the viewer thinks of it. The aren't trying to conform to that viewers expectations and in this way they aren't sacrificing any of their control over their work. Another thing that I noticed after realizing this fact, is that there was purpose behind why she wouldn't divulge many of her thoughts on her work. If she had, she would be losing some of that authorship in the opinions of what other people think about what she says. It is almost automatic to absorb peoples opinions at least on a sub-conscious level and this might distract her from doing the uncontrolled work that she has been doing. As I wrote in my last blog, I still don't particularly like the work done by Thauberger, but I understand even more how she chooses what to film. I suppose that is the most compelling part to watching her work; you have no say in what you are about to see.

Collaboration and Sincerity

After the discussion today in class, I have a greater understanding of what Althea Thauberger was trying to accomplish with her work, even if I don't agree with it. I suppose what I was supposed to get out of it was how collaboration can work to combine different types of art into one form. However, I don't agree with how these projects were carried out. For me it simply came down to the ideas for the films. I didn't feel like I could connect with any of them or begin to understand why it was some of the choices were made. For example, singing worked for "Songstress" because that is what the film was about; the women who were singing. The singing in "A Memory lasts Forever", while intended, came out a bit over the top at certain points and almost made the film laughable to me. The only film that I thought had any meaning to it was "Northern". While I did find meaning in this film, I was confused the whole time on what exactly it was supposed to mean. For the most part I thought it was a "What are you doing about this?" kind of public service announcement, but I also got the feeling that it may have been a documentary on the work that the planters were doing and it didn't really seem to connect the two. The thing that really threw me off was the stare at the end of the film. For the most part I thought that it was that documentary, then the stare is what confused me and turned me off to the film as a whole. Her website also doesn't make it any clearer on which was she was going with this piece. What these works have shown me is that an excess of powerful effects can sometimes lead away from what you are really trying to say.

Minimalism, Conceptuality, and Deadpan

The only thing that I was thinking throughout all of the screenings was how the artists chose what to film, seeing as how many of the films were about one or a few objects. I decided to read the interview with Hollis Frampton on how he got the inspiration for "Lemon" and the concept seemed to have started on a sort of joke he was making on one of his friends. After reading this I figured that is what conceptuality is; any idea that you can think of as long as it has meaning to someone. The film of course also reflects the minimalist and deadpan qualities of being rather steady in the way it was filmed. Only having the one light pulsing to give you a slightly different, yet unique, effect on the surface of the lemon was a good way to get the effect with as little change as possible. I can now see how the other films also followed these guidelines to produce the same intriguing, and in the case of "Semiotics of the Kitchen", humorous, effect that minimalism, conceptuality, and deadpan are capable of.

Undiscovered Potential of the Film Medium

After watching the films by Peterson and Deren, I really disagree with the thought that the way that Peterson presents his films is a new "genre". All that I really saw out of his work was a bunch of random images with even more random audio added onto it. The reason I also mention Deren is because I have seen one other film by her, "Meshes of the Afternoon", and the class I saw it in classified it as a Surrealist film. After seeing "At Land" I realized that most of her work would fall in the Surrealist style. Now, I can't see how Peterson's films fit under this category. There is no coherent thought in the entire 15 or so minutes. The other main point that he said was that his films were new and original because he used only objects that he had present, which was opposite to the normal in Hollywood where they buy everything and have some incredibly expensive sets. I don't think that this restriction alone qualifies his films as anything special. Some people may call me confused, stupid, perhaps that I have no creativity, or that this argument is exactly the problem that "most people" have, but I would rather watch something coherent when it's compared to a film like "The Lead Shoes". I suppose my point is that Deren made a great film on the same budget that is relatively easy to follow and defines a popular film style of the 1940's, and Peterson filmed a bunch of random things that you could find on any video camera.