Molotov and Ecstacy

I really, really enjoyed the molotov man reading. It really does present a fine example of how something, including art and photography, can be reused to create new meaning, but also how this is affected and viewed in terms of a legal system. Laws and copyrights are so difficult to interpret or apply and in the ever quickening world of internet and piracy, it really brings into question what is or isn't illegal and how important those questions are. I wouldn't say this artist was trying to profit or abuse the photographers work, but I could easily see how someone, including the photographer could interpret or not approve of this act. Personally, I don't think she should care, but at the same time I believe she is both legally, but more importantly morally, justified to seek damages. It is so difficult now, and more often then not, with small artists or students, many of these reinterpretations or reuse of art will go unnoticed, even when very clearly illegal and morally incorrect. Nonetheless it is an important question and one that certainly will need to be fleshed out a lot more legally in the coming years.

Saturday Shoot

I actually did have a lot of fun shooting on the Saturday. Obviously, I was very grateful that it was a beautiful day, but it was a fun experience. Even when we weren't shooting our project I really enjoyed seeing how other people were planning and executing their shoots. We really do have a lot of creative people in our class, and its very exciting to see all these minds collectively come up with some great ideas. I know our project changed radically on the last day (for the better) and not only was our group coming up with more and more cool ideas, but the group aiding us was also very excited to contribute their ideas and assist in any way. I was very excited to see that everyone was so eager to help other people. It really made the filmmaking processes seem collaborative and very unselfish, as from experience, it can be sometimes.

St. Louise

Again, I really enjoy the work by the Scratch Film Junkies. This one overall felt much more rounded out and really had a personality to it. But, again, the major criticism I have with them is that it feels like the sound does much more work than the images are. Not to say that the film wasn't cool, there were plenty of cool colors, textures, and movements in the film, but the soundtrack was just so overwhelming and good, I felt like it was overpowering the images. I also always like how they incorporate other snippets of film into their piece. Even thinking back to it now, I only can recall a few distinct images. I remember the plane, and then some cropped out faces, and a lot of blues, but I cannot really see the film. The music however, clearly stands out and I have a distinct memory of it. Of course, it could just be that that music struck me in such away and doesn't affect all people equally, but the fact that I have the same criticism about both the films I've seen by them, makes me think otherwise. Again, I really enjoy their films a lot, but I just wish the took less popular or powerful music and try to make the image more effective. I think had I seen the film without sound I would have absorbed a lot more (obviously) and just by using music that was "worse" (but not bad) it could have actually aided the overall effect of the film.

Wells reading (reversed with Chion cause I can't read)

I really like how Wells laid out and broke up his theories of animation. To me its really strange because I never really considered things like Disney "orthodox" (even though I know he means orthodox in the sense that the animation is very traditional and expected). His chart between orthodox and experimental animation and how his seven elements can be applied to either was particularly interesting to me. Just seeing that on paper was very liberating. I've seen several types and styles of animation in my life and even different ways and methods of how they were presented, but I never really considered how they were different or how they played out simply beyond their aesthetics. I really see now after reading this (and doing the project in class) how much of an impact the look and style of different animation and methods can have on just the meaning and impact of a film, which I find really cool.

Chion Reading

While Chion makes several excellent and very valid points on sound, he doesn't propose any real alternatives or solutions. Really, there are only two ways to make films, with, and without sound, both of which have been done before. Very few films are truly "silent". Brakhage is one of the only filmmakers that comes to mind that used absolutely no sound. The others might be some of the flux films made in the 60s. Even early silent films used had piano players or other musicians at the cinema. They also had dialogue cards and many would have probably used recorded sound if available at time. Yes, sound assists, and occasionally supersedes visuals in film, giving it a certain rhythm, tone, and mood. More often then not, in my opinion, it simply aids the image and works in conjunction with it. As humans, assuming both our visual and auditory senses function, sound aids and helps us understand what we see. Music, while (arguably) constructed, does give us enjoyment and can also work with our visual senses. Filmmakers and editors can chose when to use sound and what type of sound to use. No music, or even no sound is always an option, though silence seems to have its own unique sound and rhythm. I would argue that when you remove sound from an image (as Chion did) it is not that the image has its own rhythm (though it does), but that silence just adds a different type of rhythm and mood to the image. This reading did remind me of a clip I saw recently on youtube which removed the laugh track from a sitcom. While I never found the original to be funny anyways the removal of the laughter gave the scene entirely new meaning and pace and it felt very serious at all. Had you seen it for the first time you might suspect the show was a drama or even soap opera.

Cameraless filmmaking

This is my first time creating cameraless film. I had seen in a few times prior and really enjoyed some, while others felt strange and awkward. As a concept I always enjoyed the art form as it takes the primary tool of cinema and removes it entirely. It is as if you had to paint on a canvas without a brush. It really is a very unique creation process that cannot easily be adapted to any other medium. As I had said, I had seen cameraless film before and had enjoyed some of them, but I wasn't sure how I would respond to creating it. I do like hands on activities, but am not very good at art. I have very unsteady hands and just have never been a real practical drawer or sculpture or anything of the sorts. So far though, I've had a blast working hands on with film. I can't say I'm much good at the drawing application, but other aspects of direct film I really am having a lot of fun with. Specially the magazine transfer is probably my favorite so far. Its very simple and I love making collages. If I could do anything with direct film manipulation, I would probably stick with this and a lot of found footage. That seems like the most exciting and most practical application for me. Cameraless cinema also allows (but doesn't require) you to work alone. While groups have plenty of viable applications, I typically enjoy working on projects by myself as it really allows me to focus and concentrate on exactly what I want. Also (if I were to do these projects on my own) I could spend as much time as I wanted on them, rather then worry about group or production deadlines. While I don't plan on working with film much in the future, this is one sector where I could see myself coming back to, just as a hobby.

Synesthesia

Synesthesia is something I've become very fascinated with every since I had heard about the condition nearly a decade ago. I found it to be incredibly interesting simply from a biological point of view, just the fact that the mind could go a little haywire and sort of confuse senses. In a show I had seen about a specific type of synesthesia, some people would often hear sounds and interpret them as colors. While this condition is extremely rare and, in many cases, it was unclear how it was caused, it affected many peoples artistic skills for the better. One woman happened to become an artist, basing her art of how she perceived sounds (similar to what I read in the wiki article). Another man, on the other hand took up music. He very limited experience with instruments in his life, but after being able to convert sounds to images and shapes, he could take up several instruments easily, even mimicking music he heard almost instantly. While synesthesia is very interesting in its own right, I don't particularly like how it is applied to the art world. Art, to me, is independent of everything else. I don't think art by synesthetics should be looked at with any differently than those who don't have it, nor do I think art in the synesthetic style should be critiqued any differently than any other art. Anyone can choose to like or dislike it and that is fine, but I feel that sometimes people hold some sort of exception to it because it is either created by people with this rare condition, or it is meant to mimic it, somehow making it exceptional. Like anything else in the art world, it can be good or bad.