Now onto the second video...I missed the first one while trying to do something on my own computer...
I couldn't hear what the artist said but I do remember the original video where I believe it was a couple drawing on the man's back then the man tries to redraw everything back onto the paper..
In one of my classmate's version, instead of using actual straight lines the girl had incorporated more curves and points. Though what the girl had drawn did not exactly look the same as the guy's there were similar structure. There is also no biological connection, a lack of communication between both the performers, and I too agree with the artist that it initially does look easier than being done. The girl actually rather paid attention to her own drawing than the guy's, most likely because she herself was trying to create a piece of artwork. While in the original video, it was more like she had to draw the lines that lead to somewhere and it wasn't an actual art piece she was trying to recreate/create on his back. In other words, she was plainly trying to go from point A to B vs point A to B then to C and to many other ending points...
Now to the third video, an interesting piece where he filmed himself first then created a script upon watching himself ponder into space. Actually there wasn't even a script, the artist said he just watched and said what he thought instantly at the moment. To my surprise as much rambling as he had said, whatever he said seem to fit well into the motions and facial expression (if any).
Not sure which video we're on now but all I know is that What he has to say is (apparently) important. It starts off with the sentence "What I have to say is important". For sure it's important, and I definitely thought so but after a while it was literally the same thing over and over again. During each time he says his line, a different facial expression or even hand gesture of movement is different. The tone changes as time passes, which in the end creates this endless cycle of something important. Though overall, it becomes really unimportant as to what he has to say to us. He uses different way to get his point across, finger motion, some sighing within his lines to show perhaps how frustrated or even important it is for what he has to say.
...got side tracked but, finally paying attention. Shereen's video where she is redrawing this eye on paper with a tutorial playing at the same time with probably a YouTube video. Skipping on ahead, with the 2010 version of EAT originally by Andy Warhol...the artist decided to film his girlfriend eating. Except even though within our 2010 year, most of us have cellphones with cameras or whatever technology that shows that we are updated to...There's this private space invasion that she gets from an inhuman object. I wonder what happened if the camera was hidden? Or perhaps he asked beforehand and that it was really for a project. Would she question while being filmed? Will she be more cautious how she eats?...anyway the video ended up having the couple get into a fight and the girlfriend tried to grab the iPhone...
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The (Semi) Open Book?
For the final project #2, I decided to remake Vito Acconci's Open Book. This was also the piece where I was originally going to use for my presentation..
I thought of different concepts or ideas that could enhance the meaning or even change the meaning of the original.
One was to speak with my mouth clenched together. Not only that, I was planning to speak to the viewers in a way where I would not want to be friends with them. Trying to seclude myself from the camera/viewer. Similarly, I felt that if I was to use such an idea I thought it could create a rather opposite effect. Instead of being entirely "open" it's semi open where I try to project the same thing as Acconci did.
The second idea was to again clench my teeth together or you could even say it is semi opened/closed. I was contemplating whether my speech could be clear or fuzzy like the original...Clear would for sure give off a more open invitation vs Acconci's 'open invitation'. However, there is one problem that if I leave my mouth semi opened/closed it doesn't really show the opposite effect to be "closed". It's a rather mere wording of the video's title and literally what I am doing rather than it actually being a "closed book".
In the end, I ended up doing the initial idea to try to repeat and imitate his speech if I remember any at all and project it through the semi-opened/closed mouth of mine. I think the clenching of my teeth is in fact effective to still give off an uninviting welcoming even though I want to be friends with whoever watches my video..
I thought of different concepts or ideas that could enhance the meaning or even change the meaning of the original.
One was to speak with my mouth clenched together. Not only that, I was planning to speak to the viewers in a way where I would not want to be friends with them. Trying to seclude myself from the camera/viewer. Similarly, I felt that if I was to use such an idea I thought it could create a rather opposite effect. Instead of being entirely "open" it's semi open where I try to project the same thing as Acconci did.
The second idea was to again clench my teeth together or you could even say it is semi opened/closed. I was contemplating whether my speech could be clear or fuzzy like the original...Clear would for sure give off a more open invitation vs Acconci's 'open invitation'. However, there is one problem that if I leave my mouth semi opened/closed it doesn't really show the opposite effect to be "closed". It's a rather mere wording of the video's title and literally what I am doing rather than it actually being a "closed book".
In the end, I ended up doing the initial idea to try to repeat and imitate his speech if I remember any at all and project it through the semi-opened/closed mouth of mine. I think the clenching of my teeth is in fact effective to still give off an uninviting welcoming even though I want to be friends with whoever watches my video..
Thursday, December 2, 2010
So a horse walks into a bar...
So as I looked through my blog today after posting, I decided to click on one of the real-time twitter search for the 'videoart'.
I clicked the first one on the list:
To be more specific, it is this link
After watching the vimeo video in the link above, I definitely did hear the "There is much more in heaven and earth" part when the video sped up and some words gradually became so minuscule it would just skip onto the next word. I still wasn't sure what it meant, so I scrolled down below the video. I read something about a horse walks into a bar exhibition and clicked the link. Read the article and decided to look at what was so humorous about the video of "a horse walks into a bar". Originally it was about a man walking into a bar and throwing his hat up, followed by two other men who did the same, then 25 men coming in and again throwing their hats up. I was curious to see rather than to read about it, so I tried to look through YouTube for the video and instead I came to a Family Guy video . I figured, perhaps it was more about the joke itself where it has been said many times, and there are so many variations to how it could be said or what could be said.
Relating back to the video though, I guess it is that repetitive change and hearing of a joke that gets us laughing? Perhaps the idea of cannibalism is so surreal (as it does not often happen) it becomes nothing but a joke? Or maybe I should watch the original video of what the politician said regarding cannibalism...that will be after the break or whenever I get time after work during this week
I clicked the first one on the list:
To be more specific, it is this link
After watching the vimeo video in the link above, I definitely did hear the "There is much more in heaven and earth" part when the video sped up and some words gradually became so minuscule it would just skip onto the next word. I still wasn't sure what it meant, so I scrolled down below the video. I read something about a horse walks into a bar exhibition and clicked the link. Read the article and decided to look at what was so humorous about the video of "a horse walks into a bar". Originally it was about a man walking into a bar and throwing his hat up, followed by two other men who did the same, then 25 men coming in and again throwing their hats up. I was curious to see rather than to read about it, so I tried to look through YouTube for the video and instead I came to a Family Guy video . I figured, perhaps it was more about the joke itself where it has been said many times, and there are so many variations to how it could be said or what could be said.
Relating back to the video though, I guess it is that repetitive change and hearing of a joke that gets us laughing? Perhaps the idea of cannibalism is so surreal (as it does not often happen) it becomes nothing but a joke? Or maybe I should watch the original video of what the politician said regarding cannibalism...that will be after the break or whenever I get time after work during this week
Update V2 & Readings
So week 11 just passed and unfortunately I couldn't attend class because I am in no shape physically nor wholly able to go. Well not that I cannot walk, but I would be coughing after every other word I say. Even now if I talk I have trouble giving complete full sentences.
Nonetheless, as I continue to get better (asap) I do my best to go through readings and keep myself up-to-date with the classwork. Probably a bit late to read these pdf file from week 10 as it is week 11...it's better to go through them than skip them.
Right now in the middle of reading David Joeselit's Feedback. One big thing that appeared to me was with the whole idea of tv becoming a tool to categorize, mentally (or subliminally almost) change a person's thought/idea of something. I don't know whether I am taking it too seriously, though I know for sure that it created an impact towards the society of the 1970's to 1980's. To be able to adjust what we think about the status quo, skin colour of all kind and who is more dominant, or the idea of having more money means you have higher status, etc. Then comes the by-product that in a way is for the industry but became available to the consumers where we were able to record what was seen on the screen for our own usage (watching, remixing (if you know how), etc).
Back to the one thing that really appeared to me...
Is this one picture that showed a tv screen within the article, it says:
You are the product of t.v.
You are delivered to the advertiser who is the customer
I feel and believe that it makes sense in many ways. It is true that television is a way to communicate, it is a product that we buy to watch others, but at the same time we become the product of t.v. We become a part of a system where, most families would have a television, then from that point on the television will broadcast/view certain things that we are inclined to maybe purchase. It is like a cycle:
1. turn on tv
2. moving images and sound of commercials is viewed through the television
3. we are tested subconsciously or consciously (either or works)
4. we either make the move to change channels, ignore the commercial, or gain interest and eventually we give in
Through this cycle, we ourselves become products. We are tested to see if are tempted to know more or want more about what is shown on the television screen. We are delivered to the advertiser who is charge of handling our needs, wants, and do not wants. They control what is shown and if we as human get tempted to buy the product then the advertiser just bought our attention. They bought our needs, wants, and hopes. Wow that is a pretty scary scene. I actually always had interest in advertisements, how things are designed in a certain way to spark the human eye. It is always nice to see how it could work the other way around.
Thankfully, I do not always end up getting tempted by television. I don't watch a lot of t.v. cause instead it's all being seen online (which unfortunately is another way to advertise)...however I think I can say I see through a lot of the marketing strategies or what not...
Nonetheless, as I continue to get better (asap) I do my best to go through readings and keep myself up-to-date with the classwork. Probably a bit late to read these pdf file from week 10 as it is week 11...it's better to go through them than skip them.
Right now in the middle of reading David Joeselit's Feedback. One big thing that appeared to me was with the whole idea of tv becoming a tool to categorize, mentally (or subliminally almost) change a person's thought/idea of something. I don't know whether I am taking it too seriously, though I know for sure that it created an impact towards the society of the 1970's to 1980's. To be able to adjust what we think about the status quo, skin colour of all kind and who is more dominant, or the idea of having more money means you have higher status, etc. Then comes the by-product that in a way is for the industry but became available to the consumers where we were able to record what was seen on the screen for our own usage (watching, remixing (if you know how), etc).
Back to the one thing that really appeared to me...
Is this one picture that showed a tv screen within the article, it says:
You are the product of t.v.
You are delivered to the advertiser who is the customer
I feel and believe that it makes sense in many ways. It is true that television is a way to communicate, it is a product that we buy to watch others, but at the same time we become the product of t.v. We become a part of a system where, most families would have a television, then from that point on the television will broadcast/view certain things that we are inclined to maybe purchase. It is like a cycle:
1. turn on tv
2. moving images and sound of commercials is viewed through the television
3. we are tested subconsciously or consciously (either or works)
4. we either make the move to change channels, ignore the commercial, or gain interest and eventually we give in
Through this cycle, we ourselves become products. We are tested to see if are tempted to know more or want more about what is shown on the television screen. We are delivered to the advertiser who is charge of handling our needs, wants, and do not wants. They control what is shown and if we as human get tempted to buy the product then the advertiser just bought our attention. They bought our needs, wants, and hopes. Wow that is a pretty scary scene. I actually always had interest in advertisements, how things are designed in a certain way to spark the human eye. It is always nice to see how it could work the other way around.
Thankfully, I do not always end up getting tempted by television. I don't watch a lot of t.v. cause instead it's all being seen online (which unfortunately is another way to advertise)...however I think I can say I see through a lot of the marketing strategies or what not...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)