The reason that I chose this magazine and website is because as I was going through the articles I noticed that they had a lot about contemporary film making, filmmakers, and other subjects. Not just from the U.S. either, but from around the world. Another thing that really interests me is how some more famous filmmakers get their starts. I sometimes have trouble with getting ideas for films and it helps me out a lot to read about other filmmaker's inspirations and stories. Not to copy, but to learn techniques or examples. That is another reason why I picked this website, they have a lot of interviews with accomplished filmmakers and those are very interesting to me.
I decided to read an article about the Berlin School called Intensifying Life: The Cinema of the "Berlin School" and about how they are starting to reappear after being fairly dormant for quite some time. This article was very interesting to me for a few reasons. Since I started learning about film history, the Berlin school was what I had thought to be one of the biggest influences on how I looked at film. After reading this article I realized that they have been sticking close to one topic that works for them, and that is the World War II effect and post war effects. I also found that this wasn't quite the Berlin School I had previously thought. I can't say I have seen a whole lot that has come from Germany in the past sixty years, but most of the films that obtain national or international success seem to be the ones that stick close to the war. Marco Abel points out this fact that the most famous of German films show Hitler, the Stasi, or the reunification period. While it is a highly influential time in the countries history, it is time to move on and try something new. That is what the Berlin School that I read about is trying to do, albeit unsuccessfully right now. Most of the directors of this school seem to be stuck on representing a Germany that is not yet in existence and is more of a hope. At the same time most of those same directors say that they do not want to give in and do political films to rag on the current state of the country, so they are stuck in the middle somewhere and trying to find a way to invent another "New Wave". I felt this article to be very important because it shows something outside of the U.S. and how a new genre of film could eventually be formed out of these beginnings in Germany.
The other article I read was an interview with filmmaker William Klien titled Mr. Freedom: An Interview with William Klien. As I stated before this is one reason why I chose this magazine to write about. Not only is Klien a contemporary filmmaker, but also a historical one. This interview is about his history and how he got started in film in France. He was a writer to begin with and since he couldn't get his work published in New York, he went across seas to France to get it published and there he met Chris Marker, who pushed him into film from there. He ended up meeting Malcolm X and Mohammed Ali and making films on them. To me, this is a great way for new filmmakers to get inspired by all the possibilities there are in the artwork. It is really inspiring to me to read about other people's journeys that are based on an art form that I am also trying to make. While the article is not contemporary, I believe that the ideas and inspirations are there for filmmakers of the future.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Act/React - The only way is to Interact
The two pieces that I saw at the Milwaukee Museum of Art that interested me the most and seemed to need the most interaction to make a finished work or art were Touch Me by Janet Cardiff and Deep Walls by Scott Snibbe. I find it hard to say that the art is just by those two artists because neither of their works are really presented without some kind of outside interaction. Touch Me is unique to this exhibit as it is the only piece of art that has some kind of interface that you must interact with and I think that is why it intrigued me the most. Not only that, but without interacting with this interface, the piece is not really completed. To hear the sounds, which are a part of the art, the table must be touched. Therefore it is not complete until the interaction occurs and even then it takes a while to get to completion as there are many different phrases that have been recorded. Deep Walls on the other hand has no interface and requires at least one person to walk in front of it to complete it. While one is enough, the piece can store up to sixteen interactions at once and play them all back. This is why I say that it is hard to only name two people as the artists for these pieces. Once someone has moved in front of the projection, they have until sixteen more people pass in front of it to keep their contribution in the art and in that respect the artists are always changing.
When compared with Touch Me, the amount of interactions that can take place with different people at the same time is the strongest similarity. They can both be interacted with multiple people and respond differently based on what the person interacting with them does. Touch Me will say different phrases at different times and they are all randomized and the interaction with Deep Walls is based on how the viewer chooses to interact with it. The main difference that these two pieces have is how you interact with them. The table is the only physical interface in the exhibit and that gives it a different feeling when you approach it. Having something that you can actually touch gives a much deeper feeling about the piece, or at least it did when I saw it. These two pieces compared to other mediums in terms of experience is black and white. For other mediums, all the viewer gets to do is look and maybe listen, but what they seem and hear is predetermined. The interactivity brings a real sense of belonging to the art and can make just about anyone an artist. George Fifield emphasizes this point in his summary of this exhibit by saying, "Interactive artist and the viewer/user must work together to create the aesthetic experience, mediated by the art itself. It comes down to a simple verbal distinction: with non-interactive art we are, with interactive art we do." I believe that we could not do without both the artist and the viewer and that is the most important part of the medium of interactive art, that the viewer can now help create the art.
When compared with Touch Me, the amount of interactions that can take place with different people at the same time is the strongest similarity. They can both be interacted with multiple people and respond differently based on what the person interacting with them does. Touch Me will say different phrases at different times and they are all randomized and the interaction with Deep Walls is based on how the viewer chooses to interact with it. The main difference that these two pieces have is how you interact with them. The table is the only physical interface in the exhibit and that gives it a different feeling when you approach it. Having something that you can actually touch gives a much deeper feeling about the piece, or at least it did when I saw it. These two pieces compared to other mediums in terms of experience is black and white. For other mediums, all the viewer gets to do is look and maybe listen, but what they seem and hear is predetermined. The interactivity brings a real sense of belonging to the art and can make just about anyone an artist. George Fifield emphasizes this point in his summary of this exhibit by saying, "Interactive artist and the viewer/user must work together to create the aesthetic experience, mediated by the art itself. It comes down to a simple verbal distinction: with non-interactive art we are, with interactive art we do." I believe that we could not do without both the artist and the viewer and that is the most important part of the medium of interactive art, that the viewer can now help create the art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)