Specific_Response_for_Monday_February_25th

Question: Choose one of the works seen today, and discuss authorhip: who do you see as the author of the piece? This isn't a one word answer: explore.

Consider: who or what is responsible for what you find most compelling about the film or video you are considering? To what degree does the artist have complete control - or do they leave room for elements they can't control? Do they sacrificce control?

I wish to analyze and interpret the authorship of the film, "Two Dogs and a Ball."

The scene was comprised of two dogs which sat in a small room in front of the camera.

Deadpan was used to make the viewer concentrate on the two dogs in the frame. The only motion that took place was when the dogs responded to the actions of a human, who was positioned behind and to the side of the camera. This person held a tennis ball and moved it around so that the dogs would trace the ball with their heads and eyes. There might have been two individuals involved in this film as there is one part where the dogs look in opposite directions as though they were each focusing on something. One of the dogs then looks back over to the direction the other dog is looking suggesting that there are two people or points of interest for the dogs.
I believe the people with the balls had control over the dogs because they responded to every quick and smooth motion that was made. However, the dogs also displayed "self control" (if such a term can be applied to a dog). They had to sit there and not lunge for the ball, even though at times it looked as if the dogs thought that the ball was actually going to be thrown to them. The dogs had to maintain their positions and concentrate intently on the ball. I believe that had the dogs decided to forfeit their patients for fun that the balance of power would have shifted from the person with the ball to the dogs. I don't think that there was any "sacrifice of control" involved. The dogs did not move, nor did they obtain the ball, making them subject to the teasing and authority of the tennis ball holder but not relinquishing their own control by sitting still. The human(s) had control over the dogs and this was evident by the fact that the dogs sat patiently in anticipation of playing with the ball. Both the dogs and the human(s) held control in their own way, but the human(s) were more dominant and therefore superior in the control they posessed.

Week_Two_Response

In reviewing the films that were screened within the lecture on Monday, I found that I have entered a new level of exploration into the world of film, the camera, and the mind of both the filmmaker and the viewer.
A statement was made at the beginning of the lecture which intrigued me. It went something to the effect of, "Intervention into the considerations of what art is, and where it is."
This statement is very interesting because if you take it at face value, it just means looking for ways to see things differently through the camera. Looking deeper however, it can portray the inner thoughts of the filmmaker and prove to be truly an enlightening experience. For instance, we screened the movie "Mirror" by Robert Morris and this is what I discovered. The camera was used to capture the motion and scenery which the mirror reflected back at it. The mirror was the antagonist, so to speak, because it kept showing the camera what to see. It never let the camera view or "think" outside of its realm. There was a feeling of restriction present, but at the end of the film the mirror is slowly taken away from the camera revealing the full image or "true reality." It was as if the camera broke either the insecurity or influence that the mirror placed upon it. In other words, the camera viewing the landscape without the mirror might signify a newly found self confidence in the filmmakers' life where he is able to finally see things through his own eyes instead of someone else. In addition, it might signify a distancing between himself and someone he was close with.
The film "Lemon" by Hollis Frampton experimented with light, shadow, and details to convey similar thought processes. I interpreted the light slowly being cast on the lemon to be subtly saying that Hollis is becoming more comfortable with himself. Even though the light dissipates and the lemon slowly disappears into its own shadow, the light never fully leaves the frame. This could mean that even though Frampton is insecure at times with himself, he still presses on and realizes there is a reason to continue in his efforts. Conversely, he could have just been experimenting with how light is cast on an object without any underlying meanings. There is one thing that cannot be denied about Frampton however, and that is his attention to detail. By slowing casting the light on the lemon, its shape, contours, texture, size, and color are all displayed. Hollis seemed to be more interested with the little things in life, and appreciated the effects which something as simple as a light and a lemon could produce.
The film "Semiotics of the Kitchen" by Martha Rosler was funny because of the way she approached explaining the different utensils in the kitchen. It was also a bit disturbing how she used specific utensils such as the ice pick and knife to make deathly motions. She used the ice pick to "stab" at the table in swift yet concise motions. The knife was incorporated at the end of the film as she used it to make the last letter of the alphabet by slashing or cutting a "Z" into the air.
It was stated by Professor Carl Bogner that Rosler might have been "lashing out at us" or trying to "destroy the image." I am in agreement with this statement and am also led to believe that possible suicidal gestures were involved because of Rosler leaning back and holding a knife in the creation of a "Y". It was also mentioned, I believe by a student, that the flat version of the alphabet made the violent gestures more prominent. This was a good observation, and in my own opinion I think that this statement is very much correct.

Response_for_Week_1

The readings which were required for this week were as follows:
1. Henri Bergson, from "Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of Comic" (1900)
2. Sigmund Freud, from "Jokes & their relationship to the Unconscious" (1905)

I will give my thoughts regarding both readings in successive order.

1. I find Bergson's opinion of how comedy relates specifically to the actions and reactions of people rather than lifeless objects to be very interesting. To elaborate, Bergson compares how a landscape is not really humorous because it doesn't contain personality or human traits. On the other hand, however, a dog which barks loudly to obtain attention, or looks longingly at its owner to be petted and cared for are similar traits to which a human may express. We then, as humans, laugh because a human trait, such as personality, is displayed through the object or being which we are viewing.
Bergson goes on to say that intelligence is a major factor which determines how we interpret comedy and humor. This statement leads me to believe that not only is humor only understood by humans, but that it is also only understood by the more informed or intellectually-minded.
Lastly, I also found the idea of how an individuals' laughter is "fed" by the laughter of others to be true yet emphasized too much. In other words, I don't know that Bergson allows for the fact that one can laugh heartily about something while not being in the presence of other individuals.
I am probably taking this too far, therefore I will move on to the next reading.

2. Kuno Fischer stated, "A Joke is a playful judgement."
This statement means that a person who wishes to tactfully approach a person about their actions or comments may indirectly confront those issues through a joke. This could also be interpreted as a good deed not going unnoticed through the playful examination of a persons' work or effort. Either way, it is a way of portraying ideas and opinions without getting directly involved with the person or situation; possibly linked to insecurity within the individual.
It is mentioned that contrasting ideas are what gives "life" to a joke. Comparing two ideas of like nature does not convey humor because they lack the ability to compliment the other.
Taking two ideas which are normally or socially considered to be separate from each other, and finding the similarities between the two, resolves to be funny. In the words of Sigmund Freud, we find the "hidden similarities."
One more idea that I found interesting was that a joke is not limited to words on a page, or the way it is said. It can infer as to the meaning of something without being directly stated. Therefore, the joke is a powerful tool which can be interpreted in many ways. It should be used only after analyzing the individual or object it is directed at, and the situation in which it will be presented.

- A few words on the short film of "Buster" Keaton which was shown in discussion:

Being that this is a silent film, I feel that it offers more to the viewer because they have to mentally process the information and deduce what is being said. The portrayal is given through the moving picture, but one cannot look away from the screen and still follow the story line.
In correlation with the readings, I enjoy how "Buster" uses the art of contrast by trying to accomplish a task as any one else would, however with each attempt at success he is confronted with the worst possible tragedy. He however remains calm in spite of the fact that things are being destroyed or not cooperating with his efforts. For instance, he stands on the hull of a boat while it sinks to the bottom of a lake and realizes what is happening after it is too late to salvage anything. This stark contrast of his remaining calm in the midst of tragedy is what makes his films funny.