DOGME95
This truly had the feel of a manifesto. It has a sort of political style about it, but in an angry, rabble rousing, superficial sort of way. "In 1960 enough was enough! The movie was dead
and called for resurrection." Ignoring how Trier and Vinterberg discount nearly four decades of great cinema, one can't help but wonder what took them 35 years to conglomerate and come up with "The Vow of Chastity". Maybe they couldn't work out the logistics. "'DOGME 95 has the expressed goal of countering “certain tendencies” in the cinema today."' Yes, but what are these tendencies? DOGME's identifications of those tendencies are intermittent and obtuse. I don't believe director's goals are to fool the audience, and we certainly don't worship predicability. However, I do appreciate the authenticity that would be brought about by following these rules by filming on location and using sound captured on site.
Lumiere
Movies were once referred to as "moving pictures". The Lumiere style encourages a regression to movie making's beginnings during which films literally were "moving photographs". I appreciate the Lumiere Manifesto's acknowledgement and support of technology (computers and the internet) to share films. I was rather surprised to learn that Louis Lumiere felt cinema was an invention without a future, considering he co-hosted the first public film screening.
Anti-100 Years
I enjoyed Mekas' humorous recount of the history of film. He also makes some valid claims about modern cinema. I agree that in general film today is too commercial to the detriment of cinema's artistic merits. Not surprisingly, I haven't heard of any of the many names of directors he mentions. I think in some way, the internet and sites like YouTube are challenging commercial film. Technology today is such that almost anyone in the developed world can make a film and share it with the world. Now, there is a significant number of avant-garde directors, often vlogers, who have an opportunity to make an impact.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
I thought that some of the ideas presented in Dogma 95 were extremely interesting. However, I am not sure I agree with all of them. I thought that the rule about a film not containing superficial action was funny. But I didn't like the idea of restraining the aesthetic so much, in keeping it in color.
I like the idea of the Lumiere article. It seems that in the simplicity of the videos that it is asking for there could be something really beautiful. When I think of this style of video I think of the very old films when there is no sound and no zoom and people just jump in front of the camera and wave and then go on with their activities. The Lumiere video, to me, seems to represent something nostalgic, almost.
The Mekas Manifesto was, by far, my favorite. I love how he spoke about how videos can be individually based instead of trying to please the broader public. I think that addressing film as a more personal artist outlet is a wonderful idea and that maybe there are more things we should be looking at on a smaller more personal level. Especially with the subject matter and character of our films.
I like the idea of the Lumiere article. It seems that in the simplicity of the videos that it is asking for there could be something really beautiful. When I think of this style of video I think of the very old films when there is no sound and no zoom and people just jump in front of the camera and wave and then go on with their activities. The Lumiere video, to me, seems to represent something nostalgic, almost.
The Mekas Manifesto was, by far, my favorite. I love how he spoke about how videos can be individually based instead of trying to please the broader public. I think that addressing film as a more personal artist outlet is a wonderful idea and that maybe there are more things we should be looking at on a smaller more personal level. Especially with the subject matter and character of our films.
Dogme95 is an extreme twist on today's reality television. In fact, Dogme95 is in every sense of its meaning a reality film. Reading this manifesto made me chuckle at the relative lack of reality we actually see on television. I wonder what these current shows, such as "The Real World," or my personal favorite, "The Hills," would look like if they followed Dogme95. Our reality shows are filled with voice overs, shooting that is done in a studio for visual effect, and the use of special lighting/effects. I do disagree with the hand-held aspect of the shooting. I feel that placing the camera on a tripod would only further the realism of the film.
The Lumiere Manifesto focuses on one's individual ability/desire to contemplate the film. In such, the director does not zoom, use audio, or any effects, in order to convey a specific message. I am not sure as to how the 60 seconds limit plays a role in the Lumiere films. If someone has an opinion, please let me know. Could it simply be to follow the initial principles of the Lumiere brothers?
Truthfully, I found that the Mekas article was not too convincing. The article, first off, was written 12 years ago. The digital era was not as prevalent then. I read Mekas' article as extremely bitter; He does not see that the evolution of the camera and films are beneficial to our society. Maybe he just wants to give some credit to those that deserve it. Nevertheless, Mekas treats current film as non-art and does not give it the credit it deserves.
The Lumiere Manifesto focuses on one's individual ability/desire to contemplate the film. In such, the director does not zoom, use audio, or any effects, in order to convey a specific message. I am not sure as to how the 60 seconds limit plays a role in the Lumiere films. If someone has an opinion, please let me know. Could it simply be to follow the initial principles of the Lumiere brothers?
Truthfully, I found that the Mekas article was not too convincing. The article, first off, was written 12 years ago. The digital era was not as prevalent then. I read Mekas' article as extremely bitter; He does not see that the evolution of the camera and films are beneficial to our society. Maybe he just wants to give some credit to those that deserve it. Nevertheless, Mekas treats current film as non-art and does not give it the credit it deserves.
Reading 4
The Dogme95 manifesto sets out rules to follow to break the cycle of bourgeois film production. These rules include banning of artificial lighting, color, effects and sounds, stating that these are the tools of fake 'high art'. While the approach seems somewhat limiting, it implies that there is absolutely nothing of value to be found in a film which uses these techniques, which I find to be completely wrong. Certainly, technical prowess does not make a movie, but it can help in many ways, and there's nothing wrong with interesting visual stimulation alongside intellectual stimulation. Film still is a visual medium isn't it? Why restrict yourself to filming what the eye can already see (admittedly, not with the same artistic sequencing)?
The Lumiere manifesto has a similar, albeit more tactfully proposed, purpose. Again, while an exciting endeavor - producing film stripped of visual distractions, filled instead only with meaning and 'analytical truth', it falls into the trap of completely denouncing modern techniques as lies, as 'propaganda'.
The Mekas manifesto seems a little outdated, seeing that digital media are becoming an increasingly accepted artform, that video art is quite prevalent, and that many independent filmmakers do get recognition. It's not perfect yet, but it's going somewhere. If this were written 15 years back, maybe they've got a point, but in today's context it seems a little alien.
Sure independent film is nice. But an exploration of the inner soul and of human existence is not all I want from my film experiences. While I do agree that there are many, many works out there which do not function without their cinematic effects, these are also the movies that are dismissed for their stupidity (often...not always).
The Lumiere manifesto has a similar, albeit more tactfully proposed, purpose. Again, while an exciting endeavor - producing film stripped of visual distractions, filled instead only with meaning and 'analytical truth', it falls into the trap of completely denouncing modern techniques as lies, as 'propaganda'.
The Mekas manifesto seems a little outdated, seeing that digital media are becoming an increasingly accepted artform, that video art is quite prevalent, and that many independent filmmakers do get recognition. It's not perfect yet, but it's going somewhere. If this were written 15 years back, maybe they've got a point, but in today's context it seems a little alien.
Sure independent film is nice. But an exploration of the inner soul and of human existence is not all I want from my film experiences. While I do agree that there are many, many works out there which do not function without their cinematic effects, these are also the movies that are dismissed for their stupidity (often...not always).
Reading 3
Both Mao and cage strive for a certain expansion of the mind through the techniques they offer. They specify guidelines which advocate exploration of the world's, physical, personal and interpersonal aspects to give the artist the inspiration with which to use his tools. Both in particular advocate interaction with others, which I myself consider a tremendous help when forming ideas - Creating in a vacuum has always seems impossible.
Reading 4
I found that the manifestos were very different from what I was initially expecting. So much emphasis nowadays is placed upon creating the perfect shot in a movie or producing a "reality" show, when really it is for the most part completely staged. As others before me, I felt that the Dogme95 was the most extreme example of not interfering with what naturally occurs in film- most likely because of the strict outlines that were proposed for making a correct piece of realistic film. While I can see what this manifesto is saying, I don't think that interference from the director as well as music, etc. takes away from the reality of a piece necessarily. The content is still there if one was to film truthfully and adding music or perhaps just showing bits of a documentary type piece would in my opinion, simply enhance the reality of the piece and cause the viewer to think about the intent more.
Overall though, I found the Lumiere most relatable and understandable. While I don't necessarily have anything against editing, I can most definitely enjoy the simple and realistic documentary (American Movie is a good one). Watching a piece for 60 seconds with no editing, music, etc. seems like something that could be completely inspiring if done the right way, and I enjoyed the stress placed upon the simplicity of life and how simply a butterfly flapping its wings could be earth shattering.
Overall though, I found the Lumiere most relatable and understandable. While I don't necessarily have anything against editing, I can most definitely enjoy the simple and realistic documentary (American Movie is a good one). Watching a piece for 60 seconds with no editing, music, etc. seems like something that could be completely inspiring if done the right way, and I enjoyed the stress placed upon the simplicity of life and how simply a butterfly flapping its wings could be earth shattering.
Reading 4
The Dogme95 manifesto was definitely the most radical of the three, and the least helpful compared to the other two. Probably mainly because of the didactic and pretentious voice of the author, which seemed to cause his statement to sound almost ridiculous.
I liked the Mekas manifesto for it's emphasis on the 'invisible history'; Mekas did a good job of providing credit where it was due and providing a general overview of the controversies of the history of film. The Lumiere manifesto was also interesting because of the honest nature of making towards a kind of purified film genre, where the general documentary genre is approached more carefully with the artist's eye. To me, that is a fun way of approaching film, with a parameter to achieve a certain goal. At the same time, i think a good film can still be humble, as the Lumiere manifesto strives for, while having a more flexible palatte available.
I liked the Mekas manifesto for it's emphasis on the 'invisible history'; Mekas did a good job of providing credit where it was due and providing a general overview of the controversies of the history of film. The Lumiere manifesto was also interesting because of the honest nature of making towards a kind of purified film genre, where the general documentary genre is approached more carefully with the artist's eye. To me, that is a fun way of approaching film, with a parameter to achieve a certain goal. At the same time, i think a good film can still be humble, as the Lumiere manifesto strives for, while having a more flexible palatte available.
Reading 4
After reading all the manifestos I found that most of them were very similar. Even though they seemed very similar I think that the rules to follow from Dogme95 were definitely the most radical. The medium had developed extremely fast and has/is becoming more and more accessable. Like still images I feel that perfect images can be created.
I found it interesting that all of the manifestos focus on the representation of people and spaces as it is occurring instead of using special effects. Today people are don't realize how much film has changed and that today we are exposed mostly to hollywood films. Mekas manifesto mentions, people aren't exposed to other independent films that don't incorporate special effects because they dont appeal to the popular expectations that Hollywood has created. Basically it comes down to the fact that the market is made for the consumer and this makes it difficult for directores to go against what makes money and gains recognition thus making independent films hard to notice in a society where Hollywood is taking over the movie making industry.
I found it interesting that all of the manifestos focus on the representation of people and spaces as it is occurring instead of using special effects. Today people are don't realize how much film has changed and that today we are exposed mostly to hollywood films. Mekas manifesto mentions, people aren't exposed to other independent films that don't incorporate special effects because they dont appeal to the popular expectations that Hollywood has created. Basically it comes down to the fact that the market is made for the consumer and this makes it difficult for directores to go against what makes money and gains recognition thus making independent films hard to notice in a society where Hollywood is taking over the movie making industry.
Reading 4
All the manifestos where very similar. I think that the Dogme95 was the most "radical" of the three as far as the specific rules that one had to follow. It is incredible how fast this medium has developed and how accessable it is to everyone. I feel that just as with still images, the makers can create perfect images for sake of asthethiics, but I think that more and more people are focusing on everyday life.( this can still be the part of peoples life the creator wants us to see.)
I like that all of them focus of the pure reprentations of people and spaces as they happend or as for some that the settings are real and not to be created with a green screen.
I feel that today we are mostly exposed to hollywood films and that just as the mekas manifesto mentions, we are not exposed to other independent films that do not dependt on special effects because they do not meet the popular expectation.
We are in a consumer era and it is very hard for directors to shy away from money and popularity and recognition, wich makes it difficult for others to stand out.
I like that all of them focus of the pure reprentations of people and spaces as they happend or as for some that the settings are real and not to be created with a green screen.
I feel that today we are mostly exposed to hollywood films and that just as the mekas manifesto mentions, we are not exposed to other independent films that do not dependt on special effects because they do not meet the popular expectation.
We are in a consumer era and it is very hard for directors to shy away from money and popularity and recognition, wich makes it difficult for others to stand out.
Reading 3
Both readings are helpful. They are good guidelines for keeping an open mind when starting a new project. Specially for those of us who do not have as much experience with video and some photoshop feature. Its good to know that experimenting is OK and that making mistakes is acceptable. I lot of times we get caught over analysing everything we do instead of just doing it and then step back and analyse what we have done.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Reading 3
These two readings have brought forth a new method, at least for me, of evaluating and executing assignments. Whereas I am used to a simple "right" or "wrong" on any given assignment, these articles portray a different message. These articles stress individualism and cooperation. Although most rules strongly (although in a beneficial way) deviate from my experiences as a science student, I feel that some rules are shared over all fields of study.
The strongest similarity between the arts and sciences is the stress of hard work. Only with sincere concentration does a work (or test) becomes "good". However, Mau implies a "relax" message that seems to be extremely important. I would estimate that at least a quarter of the "rules" have to do with thinking things through and taking risks - don't over think too much - "keep moving."
The strongest similarity between the arts and sciences is the stress of hard work. Only with sincere concentration does a work (or test) becomes "good". However, Mau implies a "relax" message that seems to be extremely important. I would estimate that at least a quarter of the "rules" have to do with thinking things through and taking risks - don't over think too much - "keep moving."
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Digital imaging used in commercials started a stir
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/07/09/carroll.cellphone.popcorn.cnn
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Reading 3
Cage's rules were interesting. I especially liked his "helpful hints". I think it is incredibly true that you should "read everything you can get your hands on". I believe that information can be especially influential to any thought process and especially in creating. I also think that it is important to save. Save, save, save. I like that he encourages these things. He also makes an extremely valid point about not analyzing and creating at the same time. Not that I practice these two processes at the same time on a regular basis, but I had never thought of keeping them so very separate.
Reading 3
Out of the two, I found John Cage’s list of Rules and Hints to convey the most helpful things to consider. The thing that struck me first was the word “hint” in the title. I liked how he used that particular word because it’s less didactic, as not all rules apply to everyone equally. I like his emphasis on constant hard work and daily discipline, but disagree on his ‘rule’ of following a leader. Having role models and influences is good and a natural thing to do, but I believe that eventually, we all have to be our own leaders.
Mau’s manifesto was fun to read; he has this laid back, relaxed, and flexible attitude towards the process of making art. Some of his statements made me laugh though, just because it sounded funny and pretentious, like “don’t be cool.” I understand his point though, and I agree, but it just sounded funny. I disagree with his statement on software because I don’t think his logic was sufficient enough to back it up; I think it may be a little risky to be relying only on technology as a mechanical tool in hopes that it will somehow pull your work up, but to work with it as part of your creative process is another thing. His logic of “don’t use it because everyone has it” is faulty; everyone has a brain, but it’d be dangerous not to use it. =D
Reading 3 Response
I agree with Cage that it is important to not only take in everything from your teacher, but also classmates- especially in an art class. The more help and feedback you receive, the better. Self discipline is essential in creating a concept for a project and also executing it well (although hard to do at all times)- however, I don't always think that a person should choose someone specific to model themselves after, but instead, should be inspired by them while at the same time have personal motivation. Overall, I think Cage stresses the importance of really putting yourself out there and trying everything- no matter the end result- which is essential, in my book, for learning and experiencing things.
In Mau's article I found some of his rules helpful and some that didn't always apply with me. Staying up late for instance- I know I do it, but really, sometimes I write the worst papers or come up with not fully thought out ideas when I'm just plain exhausted. I'm not saying I don't enjoy being up late, but not when I have to do a painstaking assignment. However, when looking at all his pointers, I felt that Mau had a very positive and laid back style to some of his guidelines for life. Allowing time to drift, to go deep, to laugh, and to begin anywhere, all seem like refreshing ideas to me.
In Mau's article I found some of his rules helpful and some that didn't always apply with me. Staying up late for instance- I know I do it, but really, sometimes I write the worst papers or come up with not fully thought out ideas when I'm just plain exhausted. I'm not saying I don't enjoy being up late, but not when I have to do a painstaking assignment. However, when looking at all his pointers, I felt that Mau had a very positive and laid back style to some of his guidelines for life. Allowing time to drift, to go deep, to laugh, and to begin anywhere, all seem like refreshing ideas to me.
Reading 3
Cage has a lot of interesting ideas present through out his hints and rules. I specifically liked his rule about not creating and analyzing your work all at the same time. A lot of people stop working on something because they don't like the way it looks even before it's finished. By doing this people eliminate any chance of a project actually becoming something amazing. A project only half finished can't be fully examined because only the finished project will portray everything that the artist was trying to instill in it. In general though I agreed with all of Cage's hints and found them to all be helpful and enlightening.
Mau has numerous helpful ideas on growth and most of them seemed particularly useful. His whole idea on being open to change and allowing it to help you grow is an idea that most people don't realize is essential to creating any form of art. Being able to take life experiences and the experience of surrounding events and allowing it to help you grow is one of the main principles that art was based upon. Artists use there emotions, life, and surroundings to create great pieces of work and without the ability to draw on life and thus helping you to grow you are limiting what you can create. For the most part, Mau's ideas where very enlightening but I found his idea on not using software and his reasoning for it to be concerning. Yes, everybody has it but everybody does not have the patience, attention to detail, or the creativity to utilize it to its full potential. Before this class I had a limited idea of just what kind of things could be done with photoshop and now I know that the only limit to what can be done with this program is the software and a persons creativity.
Mau has numerous helpful ideas on growth and most of them seemed particularly useful. His whole idea on being open to change and allowing it to help you grow is an idea that most people don't realize is essential to creating any form of art. Being able to take life experiences and the experience of surrounding events and allowing it to help you grow is one of the main principles that art was based upon. Artists use there emotions, life, and surroundings to create great pieces of work and without the ability to draw on life and thus helping you to grow you are limiting what you can create. For the most part, Mau's ideas where very enlightening but I found his idea on not using software and his reasoning for it to be concerning. Yes, everybody has it but everybody does not have the patience, attention to detail, or the creativity to utilize it to its full potential. Before this class I had a limited idea of just what kind of things could be done with photoshop and now I know that the only limit to what can be done with this program is the software and a persons creativity.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
Photoshop in the Media
There is an incredible amount of photo distortions in the media. I decided to concentrate on the Lebanese (Hezbollah) - Israeli conflict that occurred last year. Apparently, on multiple occasions, Hezbollah staged 'scenes' in order to release compelling pictures to the rest of the world.
This link explains, in detail, various types of photos captured. This ranges from using the clone tool on photoshop, to having reoccurring 'actors', to having staged photoshoots.
http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/ <--- good link.
A very brief article about the attempts by Hamas to stage shots is here. There is a much better article out there that goes into detail about Hamas, but I can't seem to find it...
http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2008/03/israel-in-gaza-does-this-look-familiar.html
These two are quick links that I found now; there are many more out there about these specific occurrences. Nevertheless, before the media is able to grasp that the pictures are 'fakes', the world gains a -sometimes- unfair bias.
This link explains, in detail, various types of photos captured. This ranges from using the clone tool on photoshop, to having reoccurring 'actors', to having staged photoshoots.
http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/ <--- good link.
A very brief article about the attempts by Hamas to stage shots is here. There is a much better article out there that goes into detail about Hamas, but I can't seem to find it...
http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2008/03/israel-in-gaza-does-this-look-familiar.html
These two are quick links that I found now; there are many more out there about these specific occurrences. Nevertheless, before the media is able to grasp that the pictures are 'fakes', the world gains a -sometimes- unfair bias.
Pixel Perfect Thoughts
The article made me realize just how much a photo can and is retouched these days. Everyone knows that models are retouched in magazines but I don't think most know just how much retouching can be done. Pascal Dangin is amazing at what he does. It truly takes a person who is able to pay attention to every single detail in order to do what he does so well.
On the other had I personally feel that retouching a photo in order improve its quality is fine but that retouching a photo in order to alter its appearance begins to call into question how ethical it is to do so. Even though I applaud those who are able to make alterations to a photo in such a way that it is almost impossible to tell where the alteration was made, I feel that doing so does leads to a distortion of reality.
On the other had I personally feel that retouching a photo in order improve its quality is fine but that retouching a photo in order to alter its appearance begins to call into question how ethical it is to do so. Even though I applaud those who are able to make alterations to a photo in such a way that it is almost impossible to tell where the alteration was made, I feel that doing so does leads to a distortion of reality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)