While not all film viewers have the chance to see both Neil Goldberg's video My Parents Read Dreams I Had About Them as well as Althea Thauberger's 35mm Northern, Both film's address a form of authorship. Their differences are similar yet profound, as Goldberg's video uses an obvious form of direct address, while Thauberger collaborates so much with her production team that authorship can feel undefined.
Northern's notion of anonymity stems first from its format. Unlike Thauberger's other 4:3 gallery works that feel as if they are on a "after school special" or even a confusing "music video," Northern is on 35mm, and when presented on a larger screen, or even just a tv, its wide angle and defined image make it feel as if the body's in the long pan are more realistic than the dead dog in her other work A Memory Lasts Forever. The arrival of a helicopter insinuates that this group of people is involved with something from a long distance away, unknown to the viewer. The lack of information along with the mass dramatic horizontal climb show even more aspects of collaboration that force the viewer to be lost in the action on screen.
All in only 8 minutes, the same duration as Goldberg's video, which will be abbreviated as MPRDIHAT ( My Parents Read Dreams I Had About Them) for its obviously direct title as to what the film will be about, as well as direct ownership of whose dreams and parents are in the film. MPRDIHAT performs a confusing act of telling dreams, usually kept secret, at least from the all knowing parents, to that exact point. If a viewer was at all confused by the title, the simple two subject interview with a friendly hairy arm, couldn't have made it more obvious what was happening. This is Neil's dream, and his film, and his experience. This narrow scope allows room for the question "What would happen if I did that?." Once every viewer has reached this point, they have started developing their own film.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Semiotics in General
Instead of a dictionary definition, semiotics is defined by a more "reliable" source in wikipedia.com's article, from the subject line:
"Semiotics, semiotic studies, or semiology is the study of sign processes (semiosis), or signification and communication, signs and symbols, both individually and grouped into sign systems. It includes the study of how meaning is constructed and understood."
This defintion, strongly defined by its syntactical structure, in relation to the webpage, is of course proven through a reference, with its home towards the bottom of the page. A few names include the actual dictionary definition from freedictionary.com, another wikidictionary definition, and two papers by C.S. Pierce. Further down, the webpage's format allows for further reading within the confines of it's knowledge, with more references, proving its worth further. So wikipedia.com has a method for spreading a form of democratically congregational knowledge to the webworld;therefore, woman in the kitchen must be able to communicate through syntatics as well?
For this question to be justified, further research must be done. In Martha Rosler's Semiotics of the Kitchen, we see at first that the symbolic usage of A to Z kitchen utensils as the main form of language, as no other collection of nouns were linked to violent physical depictions of their use. The A-Z format immediately put a limit on what the viewer was going to be seeing in the film. So, when discussing this obviously deadpan performance, is this film a deadpan presentation of symbols used by woman to understand how a kitchen works? Or, more likely that the filmmaker has some determination to show her interpretation of life, but only in the kitchen.
Martha Rosler's, or rather her character's, painstaking kitchen performance might be only a glimpse into the actual life of her character. Maybe she has similiar feelings towards a bathroom, digging holes, or prison. In contrast, maybe the violent stabs of the fork, knife and pan make it hard to distinguish boredom with crazed anger, or a dire sense of order when using kitchen utensils. More likely, Rosler has attempted to entertain us with an oddity of deadpan mixed with something some people consider an art form. Unfortunately, her lack of verbal definition in favor of physical movement, may have lessened the strength of the symbolic display.
Semiotics of the Kitchen uses a 4:3 space, from a kitchen, and turns it into a cooking show formatted instructional video for every letter associated with the video's space. As well as comedic play with kitchen utensils, including a meat tenderizer bash, it allows for a new way of looking at the kitchen, as well as art.
"Semiotics, semiotic studies, or semiology is the study of sign processes (semiosis), or signification and communication, signs and symbols, both individually and grouped into sign systems. It includes the study of how meaning is constructed and understood."
This defintion, strongly defined by its syntactical structure, in relation to the webpage, is of course proven through a reference, with its home towards the bottom of the page. A few names include the actual dictionary definition from freedictionary.com, another wikidictionary definition, and two papers by C.S. Pierce. Further down, the webpage's format allows for further reading within the confines of it's knowledge, with more references, proving its worth further. So wikipedia.com has a method for spreading a form of democratically congregational knowledge to the webworld;therefore, woman in the kitchen must be able to communicate through syntatics as well?
For this question to be justified, further research must be done. In Martha Rosler's Semiotics of the Kitchen, we see at first that the symbolic usage of A to Z kitchen utensils as the main form of language, as no other collection of nouns were linked to violent physical depictions of their use. The A-Z format immediately put a limit on what the viewer was going to be seeing in the film. So, when discussing this obviously deadpan performance, is this film a deadpan presentation of symbols used by woman to understand how a kitchen works? Or, more likely that the filmmaker has some determination to show her interpretation of life, but only in the kitchen.
Martha Rosler's, or rather her character's, painstaking kitchen performance might be only a glimpse into the actual life of her character. Maybe she has similiar feelings towards a bathroom, digging holes, or prison. In contrast, maybe the violent stabs of the fork, knife and pan make it hard to distinguish boredom with crazed anger, or a dire sense of order when using kitchen utensils. More likely, Rosler has attempted to entertain us with an oddity of deadpan mixed with something some people consider an art form. Unfortunately, her lack of verbal definition in favor of physical movement, may have lessened the strength of the symbolic display.
Semiotics of the Kitchen uses a 4:3 space, from a kitchen, and turns it into a cooking show formatted instructional video for every letter associated with the video's space. As well as comedic play with kitchen utensils, including a meat tenderizer bash, it allows for a new way of looking at the kitchen, as well as art.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Response: A and B in Ontario
After viewing this work by Hollis Frampton and Joyce Wieland, it almost opened a door into the world of filmmaking that one does not always view as "entertaining" or "playful." The first few shots are accompanied by a loud, almost exaggerated, sound of a camera being wound. Then, the game begins. Where the "game" is a gunfight, the sound of winding reel is a gunshot and the sound of a winding camera are chances to reload. The continuum of shots that follow are almost all the same in content, but each one has a unique composition and flow. This flow almost makes the film seem to be made by chance. One filmmaker took a secret snapshot of the other, and the following scenes are what followed. However, the progession of locations show that some consideration was taken into production. The shots taken through a car or of a passerby citizen show the filmmakers becoming involved with their environment, instead of merely using it as a background. Except for a few odd glances and expressions of confusion, the filmmakers do not intervene into the lives of non-camera holding citizens.
Personally, the film reminded me of a game one only has with a loved one. The concept of the gunfight turned camera-fight is more brother and sister than lawman and outlaw. Possibly a tickle match, staring contest, or even a verbally violent debate on an issue which is either meaningless, such as where to dine, or a debate on some personal topic. In this case, the debate could be who is the best cinematographer, or something as silly as who can look the stupidest with a camera in public. Could this film be so personal to the makers that to another viewer, it could be completely reinterpreted per individual viewer?
The end of the film is completely non-conclusive, but obviously the character's stories are not complete. The conclusion of the film leaves the viewer with a sense of voyeurism. We, the audience, saw into the camera of a character in which we also viewed in the lens of the camera we are viewing. Although the premise sounds complicated, it invokes the most simple relationship to film.
Personally, the film reminded me of a game one only has with a loved one. The concept of the gunfight turned camera-fight is more brother and sister than lawman and outlaw. Possibly a tickle match, staring contest, or even a verbally violent debate on an issue which is either meaningless, such as where to dine, or a debate on some personal topic. In this case, the debate could be who is the best cinematographer, or something as silly as who can look the stupidest with a camera in public. Could this film be so personal to the makers that to another viewer, it could be completely reinterpreted per individual viewer?
The end of the film is completely non-conclusive, but obviously the character's stories are not complete. The conclusion of the film leaves the viewer with a sense of voyeurism. We, the audience, saw into the camera of a character in which we also viewed in the lens of the camera we are viewing. Although the premise sounds complicated, it invokes the most simple relationship to film.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)