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.