Is there anything more communal than a fort? NO. There isn't. Forts have protected mankind for centuries so there's that. Making a fort is something that kids do with blankets nowadays. Some of my fondest childhood memories involve stacking chairs and blankets on rainy days just to chill.
Making a fort in class brought back these memories and I could tell it did the same for many others. There was a communal nostalgia that spread. Making the fort was a bit less chill than in the old days, some taking charge, time limit, some guy with a clipboard observing(?)etc., but the end result was fantastic.
A fort to end all forts that everyone in the class could fit under. Watching our films on a sheet gave the whole thing a hipper feel and the laughs were even more contagious in such a small area.
Being a rough theater, I expected adding food would make the whole affair a bit messier, but everyone remained civil. Food always seems to be tastier when eaten in a class setting and this was no exception. Little Ceasars was actually very delectable. The real winner on the food front was the buffalo chicken dip I was sitting in front of the projector so I had to do this awkward sit/lay thing and I was afraid I would end up in the lap of one of the folks sitting behind me.
We made a 3D short ourselves, Mr. Cameron eat your heart out. It was easier than I expected.
I think it'd be cool to make an old-school 3D horror movie and really turn up the camp. It'd be a great gimmick at festivals, passing out glasses and all. It's cool that a normal projector can still produce such a profound three-dimensional effect.
The 48 hour films were great. I loved seeing everyone tackle the same thing "my secret" from different angles. There were some really impressive moments and many of the films I would not have guessed would have been made in such a short timespan with such technique limitations.
The output of the class gets more and more creative as we go along. I think this is because everyone is getting used to the format of a one minute film, and everyone is bouncing ideas off one another as we press to see just how far we can go.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
A Rough 48ish Hours
My 48 hour video race was rough. The race coincided with my final 495 shoot dates so I knew I would not have much time. As a result, I thought a long time about the concept when I was not working on the race and I think it shows.
The movie came to me in two parts. The first of which was a fairly logical leap in thinking and not too shocking. I heard the theme "my secret" and the initial image that came to my mind was dirty laundry. I couldn't use a camera so I went with my trusty cellphone.
I piled up my actual dirty laundry and shot a stop motion animation of a sort of laundry centipede escaping my house. I also added to the secrecy by making a cryptic series of numbers out of my clothes. (The numbers are part of my student id)
The result was interesting if a bit shaky and typical. A day later, I went to the digital arts lab with my pictures and got to work. The animation totaled about 20 seconds when I put it at the desirable speed. This class ain't called 6x20seconds- what was I to do?
I pondered the assignment and remembered that the ideal of using no camera would call attention to the fact. BOOM.
What if I made a transparent film? One that reveals how it was made while you watch it?
I took pictures of my cell phone with a Mac. I took pictures of the Mac with my cellphone. I even through in a few tricks that make the whole thing a sort of puzzle. The one minute film has a twist.
The film was rough because not using a camera is like painting with dirt. The quality of anything else pales in comparison to the footage of a camera. In this roughness lies intrigue. I think the theme of "My secret" was perfect for what we discussed in class. The roughness of the medium added a sense of voyeurism and "I'm not supposed to be seeing this" mojo.
I cannot wait to see what other folks in class have come up with in such a short time. (Not just because I am intrigued as to what everyone's secret is) It might get super personal and that sort of rawness is key in "the rough theatre".
Side note- there is no theater rougher than stand up comedy- lonely, simple - just a human, a mic, and a crowd. I think this is why in stand up, the truly open comedians are the transcendental ones.
The movie came to me in two parts. The first of which was a fairly logical leap in thinking and not too shocking. I heard the theme "my secret" and the initial image that came to my mind was dirty laundry. I couldn't use a camera so I went with my trusty cellphone.
I piled up my actual dirty laundry and shot a stop motion animation of a sort of laundry centipede escaping my house. I also added to the secrecy by making a cryptic series of numbers out of my clothes. (The numbers are part of my student id)
The result was interesting if a bit shaky and typical. A day later, I went to the digital arts lab with my pictures and got to work. The animation totaled about 20 seconds when I put it at the desirable speed. This class ain't called 6x20seconds- what was I to do?
I pondered the assignment and remembered that the ideal of using no camera would call attention to the fact. BOOM.
What if I made a transparent film? One that reveals how it was made while you watch it?
I took pictures of my cell phone with a Mac. I took pictures of the Mac with my cellphone. I even through in a few tricks that make the whole thing a sort of puzzle. The one minute film has a twist.
The film was rough because not using a camera is like painting with dirt. The quality of anything else pales in comparison to the footage of a camera. In this roughness lies intrigue. I think the theme of "My secret" was perfect for what we discussed in class. The roughness of the medium added a sense of voyeurism and "I'm not supposed to be seeing this" mojo.
I cannot wait to see what other folks in class have come up with in such a short time. (Not just because I am intrigued as to what everyone's secret is) It might get super personal and that sort of rawness is key in "the rough theatre".
Side note- there is no theater rougher than stand up comedy- lonely, simple - just a human, a mic, and a crowd. I think this is why in stand up, the truly open comedians are the transcendental ones.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Ian and I planned to listen to the entire 24 hours of a stretched out symphony. Unfortunately I haven’t been around at my house enough for that so I only listened to the required hour. Andre suggested the entry level movement, the third, was a chill place to start in the Beethoven’s ninth beet stretch. I started there but quickly moved on.
The parts I listened to seemed to always be on the rise, a seemingly never ending crescendo. The music could almost be considered triumphant were this same thing not continuously happening. The triumph became monotonous.
Once I zoned out though and closed my eyes for a bit the music started to make more sense. It seemed headed to a point, but one that I could never understand. It was music for hyper-intelligent alien sloth beings.
This puzzle did not dissipate. Instead of boring the swells became intriguing. Was there meaning here? Gone were the musical tropes of a Beethoven suite and earthly sounding instruments, but there was something new there.
The instruments became even more organic at such a slow speed. The sound of trumpets became the cries of whales.
An interesting thing to consider in all this is what a musician performing beethoven's 9th might feel were he to hear this. His hard years of practice abstracted into an art piece. Each carefully constructed progression blown up into a movement. Would a musician able to perform this piece be able to more easily distinguish each part?
I had a tough time comparing the beet stretch to the actual piece. Even side by side I couldn't put my finger on quite which part was being played. The length of the notes definitely gave the piece a life of its own.
Beethoven is turning in his grave all right. Very slowly.
The parts I listened to seemed to always be on the rise, a seemingly never ending crescendo. The music could almost be considered triumphant were this same thing not continuously happening. The triumph became monotonous.
Once I zoned out though and closed my eyes for a bit the music started to make more sense. It seemed headed to a point, but one that I could never understand. It was music for hyper-intelligent alien sloth beings.
This puzzle did not dissipate. Instead of boring the swells became intriguing. Was there meaning here? Gone were the musical tropes of a Beethoven suite and earthly sounding instruments, but there was something new there.
The instruments became even more organic at such a slow speed. The sound of trumpets became the cries of whales.
An interesting thing to consider in all this is what a musician performing beethoven's 9th might feel were he to hear this. His hard years of practice abstracted into an art piece. Each carefully constructed progression blown up into a movement. Would a musician able to perform this piece be able to more easily distinguish each part?
I had a tough time comparing the beet stretch to the actual piece. Even side by side I couldn't put my finger on quite which part was being played. The length of the notes definitely gave the piece a life of its own.
Beethoven is turning in his grave all right. Very slowly.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Ecstasy of The Ecstasy of Influence and The Molotov Man
If I were cheeky enough I would right this response entirely from quotes from the two articles. Though I am cheeky I am also under a time constraint and that would take a lot of effort. It would take a lot of effort because as The Ectasy of Influence implies (great segway) true appropriation comes from a filtering of material through one’s life and vision. I am now appropriating from EVERYTHING I’ve ever read/seen/heard/experienced automatically.
The Ecstasy article spelled out clearly something I’ve been struggling with for a while. What are the limits of influence? Is it okay to be inspired by someone else? Of course it is, but to what extent? I didn’t know that Lolita was based in some part, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not, on a book of the same name. The article tackles the issue of plagiarism and emphasises that what we love about cultural blessings are not the things they steal, but the way they contextualize influences in new ways.
The author seemed to answer my questions as they arrived in my head. The article explained the political implications of copyright. Much respect for Tdawg Jefferson, but it would have liked a bit more breadth in the citing of founding fathers. I predicted the article would end with a blessing to steal/pirate/appropriate the author’s work, but the author stood by only allowing appropriation and recontextualization. Jefferson was again cited.
The Molotov Man article presented copyright in a way that I had never seen before- from both sides! Basically Joy recontextualized a painting of a man not wanting to know its back story and the original artist sued. The original artist, Susan, felt that context is key to understanding humanity and argued for the perpetuation of Molotov Man’s story (his real name is Pablo Arauz- look it up- so there Susan).
The article demonstrated the hive mind mentality of the internet. Users placed the Molotov Man everywhere when they heard of the lawsuit. Some mistaken participants thought the campaign was against Pepsi and acted accordingly. This misinformation is an example of the recontextualization of a recontextualization. Susan told her story and it was not the first time her image was appropriated- proving that this is not a new issue or idea. Artistic heist is required.
The Ecstasy article spelled out clearly something I’ve been struggling with for a while. What are the limits of influence? Is it okay to be inspired by someone else? Of course it is, but to what extent? I didn’t know that Lolita was based in some part, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not, on a book of the same name. The article tackles the issue of plagiarism and emphasises that what we love about cultural blessings are not the things they steal, but the way they contextualize influences in new ways.
The author seemed to answer my questions as they arrived in my head. The article explained the political implications of copyright. Much respect for Tdawg Jefferson, but it would have liked a bit more breadth in the citing of founding fathers. I predicted the article would end with a blessing to steal/pirate/appropriate the author’s work, but the author stood by only allowing appropriation and recontextualization. Jefferson was again cited.
The Molotov Man article presented copyright in a way that I had never seen before- from both sides! Basically Joy recontextualized a painting of a man not wanting to know its back story and the original artist sued. The original artist, Susan, felt that context is key to understanding humanity and argued for the perpetuation of Molotov Man’s story (his real name is Pablo Arauz- look it up- so there Susan).
The article demonstrated the hive mind mentality of the internet. Users placed the Molotov Man everywhere when they heard of the lawsuit. Some mistaken participants thought the campaign was against Pepsi and acted accordingly. This misinformation is an example of the recontextualization of a recontextualization. Susan told her story and it was not the first time her image was appropriated- proving that this is not a new issue or idea. Artistic heist is required.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)