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?"
Saturday, May 3, 2008
project 6 evaluation
04.28.08
an interesting project, to say the least... essentially, the possibilities are endless, although not being able to use a videocamera was both a blessing and a curse. the project would have been easier, sure... but much less novel.
as soon as i heard in class that we couldn't use a video camera, my immediate reaction was "webcam" and to somehow simulate a skype conversation between two people using the iSight camera on my iMac. luckily, i had a stationary iMac and a movable macbook at my disposal, so i didn't have to do too much worrying about what the mystery prop was going to be and how i was going to work it in. before we got the mystery prop, i had become fairly set on using the skype conversation as my story line, the iSight as my mode of recording, and a digital camera as a third viewpoint if need be. i was also set on using my two weirdest (and most lovable) friends as the actors. what i wanted to do, essentially, was to make the strangest movie possible. looking back, i think it worked.
on the saturday before class, i asked my two friends to spare me four or so hours on tuesday to be in my movie, and they gladly obliged. so on monday the mystery prop was assigned, and it made it none-the-less easy to decide what type of story i was really going to do (i've never been a real 'narrative' kind of person) but luckily, on tuesday, my friends showed up at my house with costumes, props, and rough outline of what they wanted to say...
the story had alot to do with my friend meredith, and her infatuation with DMX, and her recent hunt downtown to find him upon hearing that he was in town shooting a movie. (which worked by the way. she met him last week, got a picture with him [which unfortunately did not turn out, because it was supposed to be the last shot of my movie, full circle], but for a girl who is never at a loss for words, she really had no idea what to say...) so we kind of took that premise and developed it into what was to become "godbot," or, that egg-shaped green piece of chalk that provides the user with the gift of pure communication.
i set them up in rooms next to each other (my other roommate recently got the boot, so one room was totally empty), and we started decorating. we decided that justin should probably be surrounded by plants and candles, seeing as how he was fairly magical. meredith was set in my room, filled with rocks and minerals and other such magical things. come time to script, we were having a bit of a problem. justin, who is normally the weirdest of the weird, couldn't seem to let it flow... stage fright (camera fright) was taking over... but we developed somewhat of a "script" and just kind of ran with it. we did about 12 take total... some with them actually on skype with each other, while i was filming with the digital camera for B roll, and most of the rest with the iSight filming them as they had conversations in the same room. the last shot only took one take. meredith is on point.
so after about four hours of shooting i set them free, and it was time to edit. only about 40% of the footage that was shot was usable, mainly due to acting performace, talking over each other (unusable dialogue), their dog howling in the background from outside, etc...
but i was able to chop it up, and find fairly usable parts from each section of the "script" that made it a "complete" narrative. since i had so little to work with, that wasn't too hard of a project... i just had to get them all in the right order, do some overlapping of dialogue/action, and i almost had a movie. before taking it into the lab, i decided to add a DMX song underneath it all to play throughout the whole thing (which is where the R rating came from). once i got into the lab to print to video, i realized that the movie was totally flat, so i ended up deleting the DMX track (or at least moving it to the very end) and adding a score, i.e. songs to coincide with each of the characters, justins being a whimsical forest tune, merediths a magical queen song, and a bit of chinese bells in between. that made a world of difference, and the DMX song was brought in at the very end to tie it all together.
and so that was my project... fun, interesting, and very very weird...
an interesting project, to say the least... essentially, the possibilities are endless, although not being able to use a videocamera was both a blessing and a curse. the project would have been easier, sure... but much less novel.
as soon as i heard in class that we couldn't use a video camera, my immediate reaction was "webcam" and to somehow simulate a skype conversation between two people using the iSight camera on my iMac. luckily, i had a stationary iMac and a movable macbook at my disposal, so i didn't have to do too much worrying about what the mystery prop was going to be and how i was going to work it in. before we got the mystery prop, i had become fairly set on using the skype conversation as my story line, the iSight as my mode of recording, and a digital camera as a third viewpoint if need be. i was also set on using my two weirdest (and most lovable) friends as the actors. what i wanted to do, essentially, was to make the strangest movie possible. looking back, i think it worked.
on the saturday before class, i asked my two friends to spare me four or so hours on tuesday to be in my movie, and they gladly obliged. so on monday the mystery prop was assigned, and it made it none-the-less easy to decide what type of story i was really going to do (i've never been a real 'narrative' kind of person) but luckily, on tuesday, my friends showed up at my house with costumes, props, and rough outline of what they wanted to say...
the story had alot to do with my friend meredith, and her infatuation with DMX, and her recent hunt downtown to find him upon hearing that he was in town shooting a movie. (which worked by the way. she met him last week, got a picture with him [which unfortunately did not turn out, because it was supposed to be the last shot of my movie, full circle], but for a girl who is never at a loss for words, she really had no idea what to say...) so we kind of took that premise and developed it into what was to become "godbot," or, that egg-shaped green piece of chalk that provides the user with the gift of pure communication.
i set them up in rooms next to each other (my other roommate recently got the boot, so one room was totally empty), and we started decorating. we decided that justin should probably be surrounded by plants and candles, seeing as how he was fairly magical. meredith was set in my room, filled with rocks and minerals and other such magical things. come time to script, we were having a bit of a problem. justin, who is normally the weirdest of the weird, couldn't seem to let it flow... stage fright (camera fright) was taking over... but we developed somewhat of a "script" and just kind of ran with it. we did about 12 take total... some with them actually on skype with each other, while i was filming with the digital camera for B roll, and most of the rest with the iSight filming them as they had conversations in the same room. the last shot only took one take. meredith is on point.
so after about four hours of shooting i set them free, and it was time to edit. only about 40% of the footage that was shot was usable, mainly due to acting performace, talking over each other (unusable dialogue), their dog howling in the background from outside, etc...
but i was able to chop it up, and find fairly usable parts from each section of the "script" that made it a "complete" narrative. since i had so little to work with, that wasn't too hard of a project... i just had to get them all in the right order, do some overlapping of dialogue/action, and i almost had a movie. before taking it into the lab, i decided to add a DMX song underneath it all to play throughout the whole thing (which is where the R rating came from). once i got into the lab to print to video, i realized that the movie was totally flat, so i ended up deleting the DMX track (or at least moving it to the very end) and adding a score, i.e. songs to coincide with each of the characters, justins being a whimsical forest tune, merediths a magical queen song, and a bit of chinese bells in between. that made a world of difference, and the DMX song was brought in at the very end to tie it all together.
and so that was my project... fun, interesting, and very very weird...
Saturday, April 12, 2008
ways to make film without a camera
04.07.08
hmm, lets see... six ways to make a film without using a camera....
1) my imac with a built-in webcam/microphone
2) digital camera - still shots and/or movie mode
3) video phone
4) scanner (same principle as still shots from a digital camera, but with a totally different feel)
5) using clear leader/stock film, and inking, scratching, magazine transfers, etc...
6) after effects
so how do all these fit into the big picture? or why would you possibly choose to use any of this stuff to create a film (sans option 6, which kind of speaks for itself...) ?
well, my initial idea in class, upon learning that we couldn't use a camera, was to use my imac. my girlfriend has a macbook too, so therefore i could have two different "cameras" to use, and depending on the mystery prop, this will probably be my preferred method. although it will more than likely involve me taking my imac outside (which will be stationary, while the macbook will be able to move around) my first thought was just leaving it inside my room as it is now, and using it a sort of "hidden camera" kind of deal that kind of chronicles someones day... using a digital cameras movie mode would create the same effect, but using still shots and editing them together could create an interesting feel, depending on the kind of story you are going for. you could almost use it to "document" a trip that someone was taking, like being a sightseer downtown, and only seeing through the eye of the lens.... a video phone would work, although i do not (and hope to never) own one of those things. again, depending on your story (like that movie with colin farrell in it, "phone booth") maybe that is the only means of communication of the main character... a scanner would work much the way the still shots with the digital camera would work, and could possibly hold a story of a person who is terrible bored at work, and feeling a bit mischevious... using actual film and physically creating your film would work, but it of course creates a much more abstract style of film, used less for story, and more for overall effect.... and finally, within after effects, you could fully draw (or cut-out) whatever you wanted, animate it, and then add dialogue to create your story, much like i am going to be doing with my final project in motion graphics class. this is effective, of course, to pull of many many things that real-life filming cannot do.
essentially, the possibilities are limitless, although it is still a bit hard to step outside of the bubble and make a film without a camera....
hmm, lets see... six ways to make a film without using a camera....
1) my imac with a built-in webcam/microphone
2) digital camera - still shots and/or movie mode
3) video phone
4) scanner (same principle as still shots from a digital camera, but with a totally different feel)
5) using clear leader/stock film, and inking, scratching, magazine transfers, etc...
6) after effects
so how do all these fit into the big picture? or why would you possibly choose to use any of this stuff to create a film (sans option 6, which kind of speaks for itself...) ?
well, my initial idea in class, upon learning that we couldn't use a camera, was to use my imac. my girlfriend has a macbook too, so therefore i could have two different "cameras" to use, and depending on the mystery prop, this will probably be my preferred method. although it will more than likely involve me taking my imac outside (which will be stationary, while the macbook will be able to move around) my first thought was just leaving it inside my room as it is now, and using it a sort of "hidden camera" kind of deal that kind of chronicles someones day... using a digital cameras movie mode would create the same effect, but using still shots and editing them together could create an interesting feel, depending on the kind of story you are going for. you could almost use it to "document" a trip that someone was taking, like being a sightseer downtown, and only seeing through the eye of the lens.... a video phone would work, although i do not (and hope to never) own one of those things. again, depending on your story (like that movie with colin farrell in it, "phone booth") maybe that is the only means of communication of the main character... a scanner would work much the way the still shots with the digital camera would work, and could possibly hold a story of a person who is terrible bored at work, and feeling a bit mischevious... using actual film and physically creating your film would work, but it of course creates a much more abstract style of film, used less for story, and more for overall effect.... and finally, within after effects, you could fully draw (or cut-out) whatever you wanted, animate it, and then add dialogue to create your story, much like i am going to be doing with my final project in motion graphics class. this is effective, of course, to pull of many many things that real-life filming cannot do.
essentially, the possibilities are limitless, although it is still a bit hard to step outside of the bubble and make a film without a camera....
some people like it rough
03.31.08
i thought that the reading on The Rough Theatre was very interesting. it's an idea that is familiar to me in theory, but new to me in concrete word. this is perhaps the first time i have ever read an article concerning the necessary lack of style within theatre, and how that can create the essence of the show.
now i'm supposing that this article was mainly concerning itself with the actual theatre, that being the stage play. but this idea can of course be generalized across most any form of art. for our purposes, the film for instance, it need not be a sophisticated movie playing in some lush theatre. it can be a b-grade film projected onto a white sheet in somebody's back yard that could provoke the most interesting conversation and unique inner-dialogue. all of everything (i.e. it is all of these things) creates this kind of experience that actually becomes the rough theatre.
imagine if people were able to leave comments upon pieces of art at a museum. what would happen? if incurred meaning came from the artist and from everybody who had previously viewed that particular piece. i suppose that one of the best examples of rough theatre would be a live showing of the rocky horror picture show. people are encouraged to dress up, bring props, and actually physically interact with the actors on stage. on top of this, the story is a little bit rough in and of itself, but guaranteed to provide with nothing short of a wild experience.
i thought that the reading on The Rough Theatre was very interesting. it's an idea that is familiar to me in theory, but new to me in concrete word. this is perhaps the first time i have ever read an article concerning the necessary lack of style within theatre, and how that can create the essence of the show.
now i'm supposing that this article was mainly concerning itself with the actual theatre, that being the stage play. but this idea can of course be generalized across most any form of art. for our purposes, the film for instance, it need not be a sophisticated movie playing in some lush theatre. it can be a b-grade film projected onto a white sheet in somebody's back yard that could provoke the most interesting conversation and unique inner-dialogue. all of everything (i.e. it is all of these things) creates this kind of experience that actually becomes the rough theatre.
imagine if people were able to leave comments upon pieces of art at a museum. what would happen? if incurred meaning came from the artist and from everybody who had previously viewed that particular piece. i suppose that one of the best examples of rough theatre would be a live showing of the rocky horror picture show. people are encouraged to dress up, bring props, and actually physically interact with the actors on stage. on top of this, the story is a little bit rough in and of itself, but guaranteed to provide with nothing short of a wild experience.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
the yes men
04.03.08
this is a repost of a blog I wrote just now on myspace:
----
so I just watched this great documentary that one of my teachers introduced me to, called "The Yes Men."
----------------------------------
This is what it's about:
"The Yes Men, a movie, follows a couple of anti-corporate activist-pranksters as they impersonate World Trade Organization spokesmen on TV and at business conferences around the world.
The story follows Andy and Mike from their beginnings with GWBush.com, and on to their tasteless parody of the WTO's website. Some visitors don’t notice the site is a fake, and send speaking invitations meant for the real WTO. Mike and Andy play along with the ruse and soon find themselves attending important functions as WTO representatives.
Delighted to speak for the organization they oppose, Andy and Mike don thrift-store suits and set out to shock their unwitting audiences with darkly comic satires on global free trade. Weirdly, the experts don’t notice the joke and seem to agree with every terrible idea the two can come up with.
Exhausted by their failed attempts to shock, Mike and Andy take a whole new approach for one final lecture."
--------------
so I got on the website (theyesmen.org), and this is what I found:
1) How does a person turn into a Yes Man?
A person (male or female) becomes a Yes Man by exposing, perhaps deviously, the nastiness of powerful evildoers. If this describes what you do (the exposing, not the evildoing), and you want your story here on this website, please let us know.
More precisely, there are all kinds of ways of doing what we call "Identity Correction." Soon, we'll post a little list of some ways that we've thought of. There are plenty of ways that we haven't thought of, too.
8) Speaking of Bhopal—didn't you create false hopes in Bhopal with your latest Dow stunt?
No. For 20 years, the victims of Bhopal falsely hoped that Dow and Union Carbide would do something to ease the suffering that they'd caused: a hope that was, apparently, completely false and unreasonable. What we did on December 3 was create false certainties: those who heard our announcement didn't falsely hope, they were falsely certain that their suffering was at long last over.
(so then I think, "that's kind of weird, that's my birthday, I wonder what happened...?")
[insert about 20 more FAQ's]
30) Are you afraid of being recognized?
The world's largest industrial disaster (Bhopal) is still not recognized by many - so how would we be?
-------------------
so then I get on Wikipedia and search for it...
and here's what I found:
"The Bhopal Disaster of 1984 was an industrial disaster that was caused by the accidental release of 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) from a Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL, now known as Eveready Industries India, Limited) pesticide plant partly (50.9%) owned by Union Carbide located in the heart of the city of Bhopal, in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.
The BBC gives the death toll as nearly 3,000 people dead initially and at least 15,000 from related illnesses since, while Greenpeace cites 20,000 total deaths as a conservative estimate.
According to the Bhopal Medical Appeal, around 500,000 people were exposed to the leaking tables. Approximately 20,000, to this date, are believed to have died as a result; on average, roughly one person dies every day from the effects. Over 120,000 continue to suffer from the effects of the disaster, such as breathing difficulties, cancer, serious birth-defects, blindness, gynaecological complications and other related problems.
In 2007 Indian writer Indra Sinha published his novel, Animal's People, based on the Union Carbide disaster and its aftermath. A magical realist novel, it is written from the point of view of a boy who is transformed by the chemical leak, and has to walk on all fours like an animal. The novel was short-listed for the Booker Prize in the UK in 2007."
-----------
december 3, 1984. thats my birthday... I guess you learn something new everyday...
-----------
the point?
- one person (well about 5) can really do something...
- get pro-active. create the revolution.
- check out the yes men, it's totally worth it.
- and also, you might want to Wikipedia your birthday, just in case...
this is a repost of a blog I wrote just now on myspace:
----
so I just watched this great documentary that one of my teachers introduced me to, called "The Yes Men."
----------------------------------
This is what it's about:
"The Yes Men, a movie, follows a couple of anti-corporate activist-pranksters as they impersonate World Trade Organization spokesmen on TV and at business conferences around the world.
The story follows Andy and Mike from their beginnings with GWBush.com, and on to their tasteless parody of the WTO's website. Some visitors don’t notice the site is a fake, and send speaking invitations meant for the real WTO. Mike and Andy play along with the ruse and soon find themselves attending important functions as WTO representatives.
Delighted to speak for the organization they oppose, Andy and Mike don thrift-store suits and set out to shock their unwitting audiences with darkly comic satires on global free trade. Weirdly, the experts don’t notice the joke and seem to agree with every terrible idea the two can come up with.
Exhausted by their failed attempts to shock, Mike and Andy take a whole new approach for one final lecture."
--------------
so I got on the website (theyesmen.org), and this is what I found:
1) How does a person turn into a Yes Man?
A person (male or female) becomes a Yes Man by exposing, perhaps deviously, the nastiness of powerful evildoers. If this describes what you do (the exposing, not the evildoing), and you want your story here on this website, please let us know.
More precisely, there are all kinds of ways of doing what we call "Identity Correction." Soon, we'll post a little list of some ways that we've thought of. There are plenty of ways that we haven't thought of, too.
8) Speaking of Bhopal—didn't you create false hopes in Bhopal with your latest Dow stunt?
No. For 20 years, the victims of Bhopal falsely hoped that Dow and Union Carbide would do something to ease the suffering that they'd caused: a hope that was, apparently, completely false and unreasonable. What we did on December 3 was create false certainties: those who heard our announcement didn't falsely hope, they were falsely certain that their suffering was at long last over.
(so then I think, "that's kind of weird, that's my birthday, I wonder what happened...?")
[insert about 20 more FAQ's]
30) Are you afraid of being recognized?
The world's largest industrial disaster (Bhopal) is still not recognized by many - so how would we be?
-------------------
so then I get on Wikipedia and search for it...
and here's what I found:
"The Bhopal Disaster of 1984 was an industrial disaster that was caused by the accidental release of 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) from a Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL, now known as Eveready Industries India, Limited) pesticide plant partly (50.9%) owned by Union Carbide located in the heart of the city of Bhopal, in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.
The BBC gives the death toll as nearly 3,000 people dead initially and at least 15,000 from related illnesses since, while Greenpeace cites 20,000 total deaths as a conservative estimate.
According to the Bhopal Medical Appeal, around 500,000 people were exposed to the leaking tables. Approximately 20,000, to this date, are believed to have died as a result; on average, roughly one person dies every day from the effects. Over 120,000 continue to suffer from the effects of the disaster, such as breathing difficulties, cancer, serious birth-defects, blindness, gynaecological complications and other related problems.
In 2007 Indian writer Indra Sinha published his novel, Animal's People, based on the Union Carbide disaster and its aftermath. A magical realist novel, it is written from the point of view of a boy who is transformed by the chemical leak, and has to walk on all fours like an animal. The novel was short-listed for the Booker Prize in the UK in 2007."
-----------
december 3, 1984. thats my birthday... I guess you learn something new everyday...
-----------
the point?
- one person (well about 5) can really do something...
- get pro-active. create the revolution.
- check out the yes men, it's totally worth it.
- and also, you might want to Wikipedia your birthday, just in case...
Sunday, March 30, 2008
originality
03.24.08
it was in Dr. Laudadio's 'writing about film' class a year and some ago when i was first exposed to the idea of un-originality in everything. he was expressing the concept that, in theory, nothing is truly original, because it innately draws from every single thing around it, past and present. this idea is, of course, un-original in and of itself, and in my opinion, both correct and incorrect. it is also the underlying topic of one of last weeks readings, entitled "the ecstasy of influence," by Jonathan Letham.
it's a solid idea, seeing as how it's undeniably true that most thought processes and understandings and revelations are drawn from experience. but still, can pure originality (i.e. true creativity) exist?
it's hard to say no, because on an individual level, you want to know and believe that all of the wonderful revelations and ideas you have are 100% unique and new. but it's also hard to say yes, because you have to recognize the fact that it's only in your brain because you have been exposed to it previously. in millions of forms and fashions, a collective experiential past takes shape to create even the smallest of thoughts.
anyhow, enough philosophy for now...
"the ecstasy of influence" was about just that idea, though, but on a totally different scale where originality is not the point, but the point instead is to purposefully draw from all those sources to create something brand new. (philosophical argument begin: but again, is that truly "new" ? or is it recycled, thus used, thus old, while being a type of new? is a new "used" car new? it's new to you...) i certainly don't know the answer to that question, but what i do know is that something new, and often times wonderful, is created. it can ascribe a totally different meaning to the original piece, or piece before that, or piece before that. like i learned in "the yes men" something can be recycled 10 times, and will still contain approximately 10% of it's original intent....
that said, this idea is very relevant to our current 'found footage' projects, as that is exactly what it is. i am doing two found footage projects concurrently (the other in intro to edit) and much prefer the one in this class, as it gives me free reign to pick my footage. therefore, you can truly shape the idea of what you are trying to say.
my favorite part of the Letham article occurred on page 63, when he writes, "Today, when we can eat Tex-Mex with chopsticks while listening to reggae and watching a YouTube re-broadcast of the Berlin Wall's fall -- i.e., when damn near everything presents itself as familiar - it's not a surprise that some of today's most ambitious art is going about trying to make the familiar strange. In so doing, in reimagining what human life might truly be like over there across the chasms of illusion, meditation, demographics, marketing, imago, and appearance, artists are paradoxically trying to restore what's taken for "real" to three whole dimensions, to reconstruct a univocally round world out of disparate streams of flat sights."
To me, thats the point.
I concur.
----
on another note, i thoroughly enjoyed the ron english, subversion of art film that was shown, and have since spread that word. but as my friend pointed out (and something that i had really not thought about yet): what's the point of him going to eat mcdonalds with his kids at the end of the movie? isn't that a bit paradoxical?
it was in Dr. Laudadio's 'writing about film' class a year and some ago when i was first exposed to the idea of un-originality in everything. he was expressing the concept that, in theory, nothing is truly original, because it innately draws from every single thing around it, past and present. this idea is, of course, un-original in and of itself, and in my opinion, both correct and incorrect. it is also the underlying topic of one of last weeks readings, entitled "the ecstasy of influence," by Jonathan Letham.
it's a solid idea, seeing as how it's undeniably true that most thought processes and understandings and revelations are drawn from experience. but still, can pure originality (i.e. true creativity) exist?
it's hard to say no, because on an individual level, you want to know and believe that all of the wonderful revelations and ideas you have are 100% unique and new. but it's also hard to say yes, because you have to recognize the fact that it's only in your brain because you have been exposed to it previously. in millions of forms and fashions, a collective experiential past takes shape to create even the smallest of thoughts.
anyhow, enough philosophy for now...
"the ecstasy of influence" was about just that idea, though, but on a totally different scale where originality is not the point, but the point instead is to purposefully draw from all those sources to create something brand new. (philosophical argument begin: but again, is that truly "new" ? or is it recycled, thus used, thus old, while being a type of new? is a new "used" car new? it's new to you...) i certainly don't know the answer to that question, but what i do know is that something new, and often times wonderful, is created. it can ascribe a totally different meaning to the original piece, or piece before that, or piece before that. like i learned in "the yes men" something can be recycled 10 times, and will still contain approximately 10% of it's original intent....
that said, this idea is very relevant to our current 'found footage' projects, as that is exactly what it is. i am doing two found footage projects concurrently (the other in intro to edit) and much prefer the one in this class, as it gives me free reign to pick my footage. therefore, you can truly shape the idea of what you are trying to say.
my favorite part of the Letham article occurred on page 63, when he writes, "Today, when we can eat Tex-Mex with chopsticks while listening to reggae and watching a YouTube re-broadcast of the Berlin Wall's fall -- i.e., when damn near everything presents itself as familiar - it's not a surprise that some of today's most ambitious art is going about trying to make the familiar strange. In so doing, in reimagining what human life might truly be like over there across the chasms of illusion, meditation, demographics, marketing, imago, and appearance, artists are paradoxically trying to restore what's taken for "real" to three whole dimensions, to reconstruct a univocally round world out of disparate streams of flat sights."
To me, thats the point.
I concur.
----
on another note, i thoroughly enjoyed the ron english, subversion of art film that was shown, and have since spread that word. but as my friend pointed out (and something that i had really not thought about yet): what's the point of him going to eat mcdonalds with his kids at the end of the movie? isn't that a bit paradoxical?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
