my room in the middle of the night:
the most overt sound is the fan. it's not over bearing, or intrusive, but rather the opposite, melodic and rhythmic. this is the medium setting. low gives off no air, and high causes an annoying "clinking" sound of the pull-chain on the light. the sound of the fan is not that of it's motor actually running (or its machine-esque properties, per se), but rather the friction of it's inability to stay still. it is the physical moving of the fan, creaking as it sways in a very patterned, straight-line motion, backwards and forwards, backwards and forwards. it's late at night, so every once in a while, and randomly, the house creaks as it settles into place for sleep. some are bigger and louder than others, almost signifying a yawn. the air conditioning comes on in approximately 15-minute intervals, and stays on for about 5 minutes at a time, humming away in the corner, albeit very noticeably. suddenly, and without reason, my computer will stir, and the RAM starts whirling away, taking care of some internal business. as if provoked by that, my external hard drive kicks into gear, and seemingly tries to emulate a plane preparing for takeoff. after a minute, they are both silent again. suddenly the dog sighs, and i am reminded that it is laying on the floor next to my bed, in virtual silence. this starts a chain reaction from the dog, a licking of lips and general resettling adjustments, trying to get comfortable for sleep.
--and i must have, because i wake up some hours later with my door open and my desk lamp on, homework scattered all over my bed, crushed in dreams...
my backyard in the morning:
i am rarely up at 9am with enough time to sit and enjoy my backyard, but it is sunday, and i've decided to take advantage. the pool pump is obnoxiously cranking away, creating an unnatural sound of rushing (flushing?) water. birds are making noise in the distance (none seem too close), and i can distinguish at least six different types. some are light and airy chirps, other are pointed and direct and loud, most of them in rhythm. directly behind me is a wall of bamboo and other plants, and i can hear bumble bees and other winged creatures fluttering around in the flowers. my neighbor begins moving around and i hear him open the door of his shed. my stomach growls, time for breakfast. cars are going by every once in a while, but softly. the symphony of insects cranks up from all around, almost as if in unison, and the humming of wings comes and goes in about 15 second waves, starting off soft and then growing louder, and then falling silent. new and different bird sounds are popping up everywhere, continuous, and from every angle. a bee just flew dangerously close, and very quickly, by my ear. i hear a new, heavier rustling sound behind me. i make a guesstimate. i turn around, and was right, there is a small green lizard jumping around on the leaves. a car with an old, loud engine drives by and assails my ears. but shortly, the "natural silence" returns. if i listen very closely, i can almost hear the sun rising, waking up all of the creatures and bringing the world back to life. a wispy but potent breeze comes through and rustles up the leaves of the palm tree, and for a good minute or two, i forget that i'm doing homework.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
artist manifesto and response x3
so lets see... the mac dashboard dictionary defines manifesto as "a public declaration of policy and aims, esp. one issued before an election by a political party or candidate." well... i could talk about politics (or my preference for lack thereof) for hours, so instead of going into that, i'll just stick to what i want to do. essentially, that would be everything. with film, i mean. although a lot of it does indeed have to do with politics, my aim and vision lies much more in shorter collage/experimental/educational films. thats pretty broad, i know....
for a long time i was into the idea of acting. really that you can create and control this character that is something totally different than yourself, yet always, somehow, remaining essentially you. it's a powerful idea, and one that i haven't totally given up on. if the opportunity provides itself one day in the future, i would certainly take advantage of some acting gigs. (within reason of course. i always set limits for myself. i.e. no commercials/corporate advertising, no soap operas, and no porn. fair enough.)
so when i headed to college i became a theater major, and somewhere, amidst all the things i've seen and done, all the trouble i've run into, the resulting transfer to uncw, and alot of the knowledge i came instilled with, it became apparent that i was supposed to go into film. not as an actor (although to understand any one side of the craft, you must at least slightly understand all the others.) but as a filmmaker. so then i realized, i had to find out what i'm good at. shit...
so... the best way i knew how to begin narrowing it down was to knock off what i like the least. sitting at a computer for hours on end sounds like hell to me. so editing was out. writing has always been a strong point for me, but i've never been that solid at dialogue and screenwriting. i have little to no interest in lighting, etc... grip work isn't my thing... and this went on for a little bit, until the day i realized (now this is where you come in) that filmmaking doesn't have to be anything in particular. actually, it doesn't have to be anything ________ at all. (fill in the blank) it can be anything at all that you can conceive of. great.
so... after effects and 6x1 opened up doors to me that i had never thought of, and that was great. so that, coupled with my exponential awareness of the state of our world (i f*ing hate politics, but you gotta fight your fights), plus a little aaron valdez, gave me a whole new take on the things i could do. so i started looking at myself as more of an independent journalist. one who attempts to uncover and expose the truth, no matter what. and preferably a gonzo journalist, at that.
but theres so much happening that people have no idea about. and it's because they're fed lies and BS through the corporate media (and because they're too lazy to do any investigative research beyond that). so i want to start fixing that problem. and making people care by making them aware. after all, once you know you can never go back.
i'm sure i'll work in the narrative world down the road, but for me its always really been about docs. reality. raw, painful, and uncut. if i ever succeed in making feature documentaries, they're probably all going to be about drug addictions and/or murders.
oh, and i also want to veejay. but i need a lot more money and experience and a teacher for that.
thats all i got for now.
i apologize in advance for my lack of use of capital letters. i've never really seen the point.
now, onto reading responses...
i thought richter made some good points in his article "the film as an original art form," but his writing style and deep-seeded meanings were a bit much for me to handle. i actually got lost in the first paragraph, when he merely talking about the distinctions between to reproduce and to produce. it made a bit more sense when, in his next paragraph, he says "the film is overwhelmingly use for keeping records of creative achievements." his essential conclusion is that documentary and experimental films are much more of an "original art" than narrative, and based on his arguments, i would have to agree, although i tend to view narrative as an original art, on the basis that its components are the art, but the medium (the creation of the camera, film, etc..) also holds credibility as an art form. projecting something onto a blank canvas on a wall is art. as long as it doesn't suck. just kidding... one more thing i appreciated that richter brought up is the re-enacting of scenes, as not being an original art. i'm sure we see those much more than he did back in 1955, and although i watch less than an hour of tv a week (and thats when i'm at work and forced into it), we're subjected to it all the time. even by the credible tv networks: the history channel, national geographic, discovery... i also liked richter's quote, "The spoken word for the stage, the silent image for the film - those are the elements!" it brought to light some things i have never thought of.
scott macdonalds article was modern and easy to read. a nice change from those of my other classes thus far. i enjoyed this article a lot because i can see the potential in it. you could hand it to almost any person in the world, and whether they've seen a million avant-garde films or none at all, they will most likely understand. even the person who has never been exposed will read this, and at the very least, become intrigued by the cinematic experience they have been missing their whole life. the article is very psychology based (i like), laying out the constructs we have ingrained in our head, and how to begin deconstructing those. his historical recap of avant-garde film was interesting too, as i haven't heard much of that, and i really enjoyed the part on muybridge and the techniques he employed, because that concept was very new to me.
i think fred camper had the toughest job. beyond just explaining what avant-garde is, camper attempts to actually define it (and does a pretty damn good job). his first explanation is the best, "if you know exactly what avant-garde film is and how to name it, it probably isn't very 'avant-garde,' right?" that hits the nail on the head. so to start with that, and end with six general "guidelines" of avant-garde film was a gutsy move. but i think it works. number six was my favorite, probably because it holds the most definitive answer to the underlying question of everything, "what is the point?" well the point is to provoke thought, either consciously or not, either noticeably or not, and either understandably or not. but unless you have no pulse, you can't help but watch most avant-garde films without at least fleetingly thinking, "what in the hell were they thinking?"
for a long time i was into the idea of acting. really that you can create and control this character that is something totally different than yourself, yet always, somehow, remaining essentially you. it's a powerful idea, and one that i haven't totally given up on. if the opportunity provides itself one day in the future, i would certainly take advantage of some acting gigs. (within reason of course. i always set limits for myself. i.e. no commercials/corporate advertising, no soap operas, and no porn. fair enough.)
so when i headed to college i became a theater major, and somewhere, amidst all the things i've seen and done, all the trouble i've run into, the resulting transfer to uncw, and alot of the knowledge i came instilled with, it became apparent that i was supposed to go into film. not as an actor (although to understand any one side of the craft, you must at least slightly understand all the others.) but as a filmmaker. so then i realized, i had to find out what i'm good at. shit...
so... the best way i knew how to begin narrowing it down was to knock off what i like the least. sitting at a computer for hours on end sounds like hell to me. so editing was out. writing has always been a strong point for me, but i've never been that solid at dialogue and screenwriting. i have little to no interest in lighting, etc... grip work isn't my thing... and this went on for a little bit, until the day i realized (now this is where you come in) that filmmaking doesn't have to be anything in particular. actually, it doesn't have to be anything ________ at all. (fill in the blank) it can be anything at all that you can conceive of. great.
so... after effects and 6x1 opened up doors to me that i had never thought of, and that was great. so that, coupled with my exponential awareness of the state of our world (i f*ing hate politics, but you gotta fight your fights), plus a little aaron valdez, gave me a whole new take on the things i could do. so i started looking at myself as more of an independent journalist. one who attempts to uncover and expose the truth, no matter what. and preferably a gonzo journalist, at that.
but theres so much happening that people have no idea about. and it's because they're fed lies and BS through the corporate media (and because they're too lazy to do any investigative research beyond that). so i want to start fixing that problem. and making people care by making them aware. after all, once you know you can never go back.
i'm sure i'll work in the narrative world down the road, but for me its always really been about docs. reality. raw, painful, and uncut. if i ever succeed in making feature documentaries, they're probably all going to be about drug addictions and/or murders.
oh, and i also want to veejay. but i need a lot more money and experience and a teacher for that.
thats all i got for now.
i apologize in advance for my lack of use of capital letters. i've never really seen the point.
now, onto reading responses...
i thought richter made some good points in his article "the film as an original art form," but his writing style and deep-seeded meanings were a bit much for me to handle. i actually got lost in the first paragraph, when he merely talking about the distinctions between to reproduce and to produce. it made a bit more sense when, in his next paragraph, he says "the film is overwhelmingly use for keeping records of creative achievements." his essential conclusion is that documentary and experimental films are much more of an "original art" than narrative, and based on his arguments, i would have to agree, although i tend to view narrative as an original art, on the basis that its components are the art, but the medium (the creation of the camera, film, etc..) also holds credibility as an art form. projecting something onto a blank canvas on a wall is art. as long as it doesn't suck. just kidding... one more thing i appreciated that richter brought up is the re-enacting of scenes, as not being an original art. i'm sure we see those much more than he did back in 1955, and although i watch less than an hour of tv a week (and thats when i'm at work and forced into it), we're subjected to it all the time. even by the credible tv networks: the history channel, national geographic, discovery... i also liked richter's quote, "The spoken word for the stage, the silent image for the film - those are the elements!" it brought to light some things i have never thought of.
scott macdonalds article was modern and easy to read. a nice change from those of my other classes thus far. i enjoyed this article a lot because i can see the potential in it. you could hand it to almost any person in the world, and whether they've seen a million avant-garde films or none at all, they will most likely understand. even the person who has never been exposed will read this, and at the very least, become intrigued by the cinematic experience they have been missing their whole life. the article is very psychology based (i like), laying out the constructs we have ingrained in our head, and how to begin deconstructing those. his historical recap of avant-garde film was interesting too, as i haven't heard much of that, and i really enjoyed the part on muybridge and the techniques he employed, because that concept was very new to me.
i think fred camper had the toughest job. beyond just explaining what avant-garde is, camper attempts to actually define it (and does a pretty damn good job). his first explanation is the best, "if you know exactly what avant-garde film is and how to name it, it probably isn't very 'avant-garde,' right?" that hits the nail on the head. so to start with that, and end with six general "guidelines" of avant-garde film was a gutsy move. but i think it works. number six was my favorite, probably because it holds the most definitive answer to the underlying question of everything, "what is the point?" well the point is to provoke thought, either consciously or not, either noticeably or not, and either understandably or not. but unless you have no pulse, you can't help but watch most avant-garde films without at least fleetingly thinking, "what in the hell were they thinking?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
