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 Saturday I Had Class

Our shoot began with a vague idea, two cars full of props, and the oldest of old school film cameras. We knew we wanted to film our protagonist walking while being assaulted by various objects and characters, so we grabbed all the hats, masks, clothes, and props we could find.

I brought confetti and I even went out of my way to buy water balloons. Little did I know the "waterbombs", as they were branded, would be used against their proprietor. That's right; I was a planner in my own demise. The "assault" was to be on me.

We spent a long time setting up the complicated shoot. After a few minutes of talking we noticed that we could divide the props into segments.

Reading on the steps to begin the walk. Throw the book. Jacket gets ripped off, rain jacket handed over. WATER BOMBS. Park scene. Skateboarder passes by. TENNIS BALLS. FRISBEE. Wedding scene. RICE. Alien steals the "husband". Confetti/Streamers. Sign. Applause. The minute is over.

Segments in which I was painfully pelted capitalized for emphasis.

We ran through the shot about 5 times so that we could get the timing perfect and everyone knew where they needed to run and what they needed to put on/throw. Thankfully the run-throughs didn’t require that I get hit with anything but the tennis balls.

Then the water balloons were filled up. I helped.

We did one more run through before time was up. We had to shoot then or never.

Everything went well. Luckily my part was simply to walk because the force and the cold behind the balloons left me dazed for the rest of the minute.

We cleaned up our mess and darted inside to develop the film. Running around to dry the film was ridiculous and went well with the events of the day.

The other group needed help so Ian got in his costume and I kicked a soccer ball around. They didn’t need anyone kicking a soccer ball around, nor did they film it, but it was a nice day and a nice ball.

Video Race

I am pumped for the video race. I can’t wait to film things and video things  on a film or
video camera with a big group of people over a long period of time, and know exactly which
prop will be the focus of the film long in advance.

 Wait, what?

Okay, I could see working on a film solo, I’ve done that before and being lonely lends a
certain meditative vibe to the work. I can feel ya’ on the whole “do it in 48-hours thing”.
Time is money, and of the essence, and on my side and so on.

 I also understand everyone having to incorporate the same prop. The honor system might
work for checking out groceries but someone would definitely start early if we didn’t have
a bottle of duck sauce/stuffed wombat/high-five machine to keep us all in line. Plus, it
will be fun to see what the other filmmakers do with the same prop.

But what exactly is this gobbledygook about “creating films/videos without a film or video camera”? Doesn’t that defy what film and video is? How can you make something without the thing that makes that something? I can’t make a pizza without an oven! Okay, I did it once- in middle school with the power of the SUN.

Perhaps I could make my movie out of the sun! The sun would be too bright for a film, let alone the contingencies of harvesting a star, and I will not sacrifice my eyesight in order to realize my vision and an “A”.

So I guess I’ll go the old fashion route- scanners, cell phones, webcams, one of these things, throw in some stop-motion and flash animation for good measure. I think the more media I can use the more interesting the film will be. Finding out the prop will probably inspire me as to the narrative or lack thereof and which medium will work best for which section.

Zen and the Art of Cameraless Filmmaking

                The four elements in cameraless filmmaking form. I had no idea what that would look like or how Ian and I were supposed to accomplish it. After watching the examples presented in class I got a clearer picture. Neubauer’s film was strange but more concrete that the films of Brakhage. I had viewed some of Brakhage’s films before but never within the context of aiming to create something similar.

The films of Stan Brakhage always challenged me- before it was content-wise, Brakhage’s soundless works were hailed as masterpieces by film intellectuals, including my professors, from a higher plane. It was as if it were an assignment or a test to see if I were smart enough to “get it”. In 6x1 they were presented in an even more difficult way, we were to create something in the same vein. (side note, Mr. Brakhage is presenting me a final challenge in the odd spelling of his rare last name)

After tirelessly messing with (scratching, bleaching, marking, photographing, rephotographing, taping) our film I was excited to see the thing projected. In this digital age I’m used to making a change and then obsessively checking it in context with the rest of the film instantly. (See also: Rhythmic Editing Exercise) Direct film manipulation is a last bastion of patience in the film world. Depending on their level of procrastination, students in 6x1 waited days or weeks to see the result of all their multi-media crafting. There was an air of excitement on projection day.

After some difficulties with the projector (that served to raise the tension more) our partners’ film strip was played. I can’t picture the specifics in my mind, but their bleaching was very nice and I was humbled by the work. Our film was next. Ian loaded the film and the excitement of the projector’s hum mirrored mine. I was assaulted by colors and spent most of the time trying to recognize which bits were which and then it was over. It was so fast. All those hours spent crafting gone by in one minute.

In many ways the exercise seemed Zen. You build something up only to have it destroyed. There will never again be a first time viewing of that filmstrip. We recorded it digitally, but that’s just not the same. The hum of the projector, the bits that flaked off can’t be recreated digitally or even if we run the film again. Much like a stone garden, the process, not the product, is the point.

Sound Walking and 4'33"

Reading about sound walking reminded me of John Cage's 4'33".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN2zcLBr_VM&feature=related






















Did you hear that? Silence is never truly silent and both John Cage's piece and sound walking intend to raise awareness of this fact.

The hum of the A/C, the typing of fellow editing lab patrons, my own breath. All these sounds are present around me and have been for a while, but it was only after focusing in on them that I even realized they were there.

The Wells article is a picture of the arts through the lens of animation. Wells concisely draws the line between who he sees as “us” and “them”. Wells calls traditional animation “orthodox” as if it’s a religion. From the tone of the piece I feel that he’s an animation atheist and believes that orthodox animation squanders unorthodox pursuits.

It’s interesting to see the ways to subvert conventional animation that Wells lays out. The article is an anarchist cookbook for those that want to experiment. If abstraction, Specific non-continuity, interpretive form, evolution of materiality, multiple styles, presence of artist, and dynamics of musicality were followed, as the article suggests, the product would be the kind of highly personal experimental films that I enjoy.

These techniques can be applied to all art forms when the media is taken into account. The ingredients sound like the trappings of modern art.

I found the article easy to understand and made it clear what many feel an experimental film should be, but I fear having these guidelines might counter intuitively make experimental animation more formulaic.

Cameraless Filmmaking

Cameraless filmmaking is selfish filmmaking. Cameraless filmmakers get to experience the excitement of a film in nearly the same way an audience would. Normally, filmmakers spend hours digitally editing so that they actually become desensitized by the material.

When a cameraless film is first projected, the filmmaker can view it as if for the first time, as if her or she were an audience member. The film can even chip or bump and change with each viewing.