Tuesday, 30 November 2010

Sunday, 28 November 2010

From now to the end of conciseness, we are stuck with the task of defending a r t.
Laurence- Never trustt the teller trust the tale.
Sometimes a writer will be so uneasy before the naked power of his art that he will install within the work itself - albeit with a shyness, a touch of a good taste of irony- the clear and explicit interpretation of it.
In most modern instances, interpretation amounts to the phillistines refusal to leave work of a r t alone.Real a r t has the capacity to make us nervous.By reduacing the work of art to its content then interpreting that, one tames the work of a r t. Interpretation makes art manageable, comforatable.

Thursday, 4 November 2010

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

Freeze art fair pod cast , what so funny ?


Bas Jan ader - Here is always somewhere else


Who likes to admit that they don’t “understand” ? .

From the book "Dreams of Chaos, Visions of Order: Understanding the American Avant-garde Cinema" by James Peterson:

In 1973, after the screening of three Frampton films, during which the audience were decidedly restless, a woman asked the filmmaker if he thought his films communicated to an audience. Frampton responded:

"If you mean, do I think I communicated to those in the audience who tramped indignantly out of my films, the answer is no, but I think there is a problem with your idea of communication. You seem to work on the assumption that you have this hole and I have this thing, and you want me to put my thing in your hole and that will be 'communication'. My idea of communication is very different. It involves my trying to say something I think is important and into which I have put all my thought and substantial labor. Necessarily, what I have to say will be difficult to apprehend, if it is original enough to be worth saying at all. That is my half of the communicative process. Yours must be to sensitize and educate yourself fully enough to be able to understand. It is only when two people - filmmaker and viewer in this case - can meet as equals that true communication can take place.

What do viewers want from the moving image , does “understanding” a film mean that the viewer is in there most passive state , and therefore does “ not “understanding” a film mean that they are in there most passive state . ?

What does the word passive mean , if passive means that the viewer totally “understands” does this mean they will revive the most form of enjoyment from the film , does it give them a sense of fulfillment and intellect in which they can apply to the surroundings around them .

If the viewer is in there most unpassive state , does this mean that the communication between film , artist and viewer is seen as a hierarchy , in which the artist is at the top and viewer at the bottom , is the artist seen as the only one who “ understands” and therefore perceived as the “ clever one “ which could create hostility and a divide between the artist and viewer .

What does understanding mean ? , if understanding means that there is a definitive answer ( on set reading representation) , that is communicated through eg narrative , choice of shots , or any other mediums devices does this mean that the artist fulfilled there role, and is it the skill of the artist or filmmaker to be able to communicate in such as simple form ,

If not surely the work of the artist or filmmaker will be read in many different forms , all depending upon the viewer and eg.what they read as important , unimportant , how they perceive characters , roles , narrative , tone of film linking toany pervious experiences , or “ understanding “ of the filmmaker , medium .

A problem with experimental film , art and the viewer , may be the fact people perceive that there is a certain level of knowledge needed to be able to “understand “ , eg, process of shooting film , editing , theoretical and therefore idea of movements ,how works relate to important events in time and issues that may of influenced the filmmaker / artist .

Does this therefore mean that the viewer should “educate” themselves before going to see a experimental film screening or go to an art exhibition . ?

What does educate mean , does it mean that the viewer should read up on the artist / filmmaker , look at pervious works , read pervious blurbs , look at relate artists , and maybe even events that may bee seen to have influenced the artist in the past . will this allow the viewer to get the most sense of fulfillment from the work and therefore enjoyment .

Does enjoyment come from fulfillment ? and does fulfillment come from understanding ? .

The whole idea of fulfillment coming from understanding such as in the quote could be turned on its head , does the viewer really want to be passive , do they want to be able to follow a linier narrative , with little room for interpretation , . Maybe not being passive means that there is a form of dialogue between the artist film and viewer and therefore an interactive nature which is developed as the film progresses , this evolvement could mean that the film is more memorable ,

Does memorable mean more fulfilled and therefore enjoyment ?

It will only mean more enjoyment , if fullfiment means enjoyment .

Should the artist only for full there own needs , and therefore communicate what the hell they like through there video/ film in whatever format suits best .Is it by artists/ filmmakers only taking this stance in which innovative , new , creative , and empowering works can be created , by the artist trying to fulfill the viewers needs and try to tick boxes about what viewer feels that they want and need to see, does this create a sense of impurity within the work as artists idea is not being communicated in its purist form , (to many people spoil the broth ) .

Does being “ educated” mean that the viewer really has more of “understanding” of the film or is it a perceived understanding in which the viewer would like to believe that they are hiracly at the same point as the artist .

Do artists / filmmakers totally understand what they are communicating ?

If the artist / filmmaker does not totally understand what they are communicating ,should any representation be seen as the “definitive answer “ and an “ understanding “ of the film , video, and therefore does the viewer need to be “educated “to feel that they understand the work on the same level as the artist ? .

If not does it mean that the narrative , format , process that have been applied to the medium are not important aspects in the communicative process between the artist and viewer for the viewer to “ understand “ . Does understand mean that the viewer have a sense of what the artist wants to portray rather than a full spectrum , analysis of what happened .

What does portray mean ?

Does portray mean that the artist wants to evoke a eg . as feeling within the viewer , in which communicates what they feel , stance and or a point of view , but maybe in a non liner manor . eg . my own work , fascinated by the hostility of the viewer when they feel that they don’t “ understand “ , because who wants to admit that they don’t “understand “ , a lot of the time in my films I try to create a divide between the artist and viewer creating a realm for interpretation and feelings .

Can all of the issues above become inferior to the feeling that the film can evoke in the viewer , eg, humor .= laughter , or maybe awkwardness . If a film is funny , does it really matter to the viewer whether they understand the eg narrative , surely the feeling that is evoked is a lot more prominent in the viewers experience of watching the film / video . So understanding might not mean fulfillment , and therefore enjoyment , it might be that the feelings evoked are the key to enjoying viewer enjoying the video.

Therefore do the artist / filmmakers of today , really not have any responsibility in what they are representing and communicating in there work ?

,By Hollis saying it is only the role of the artist to communicate something that is original and therefore the work will most probably hard to comprehend is quite a bold statment, isn’t this pigeonholing the artist but especially experimental filmmakers pretensions group of people that are “educated and therefore seem to “understand” and therefore they are the only people that will enjoy the work .

Fulfillment from feelings evoked vs Fulfillment from “Understanding “.

Do feelings whilst watching a film that the viewer might be finding had to interpret create more of an “experience” than “understanding” , therefore maybe more memorable , and therefore more fulfilling and therefore enjoyment . Does understanding the film create less of an experience , because if u “understand” u pigeonhole yourself to only be able to interpret the film in certain amount of ways , and therefore not have such a search “ for the miraculous “ .

Does being “educated” mean that you as the viewer obviously already have an interest in the work you are going to be presented with . Does this interest mean that you will enjoy the film / video in more of an intense way .

Boxing Glove from becks elliott on Vimeo.

Bus ticket from becks elliott on Vimeo.

Umbrella from becks elliott on Vimeo.

Poppy from becks elliott on Vimeo.