What Does the Artist Do?

Andy Warhol was the artist I chose for this assignment whom I will be answering three questions about:
1. What does the artist do?
2. Why are they doing it?
3. List an image of the artists work, or a video, instead of a third fact.

Andy Warhol began as a commercial artist who worked for magazine companies and retail outlets by designing advertisements and illustrations for them. Throughout the nineteen-sixties, he created both paintings and films which have become iconic classics of the 20th century. He was known for his work both nationally and internationally as he traveled around the world exhibiting his work in museums and galleries.

2. The mission or objective that Andy Warhol applied to his work was, paradoxically, not something which he solely intended to be placed upon his work. That is, his objective was to not have an objective, but to compile all of the elements and imagery (advertisements) that bombarded people everyday through the television and magazines and allow them to interpret them without being affected. He wanted to portray the fact that American people were just sitting around and being subject to materials which they neither reacted to, or had a "feeling" towards because they had become comfortable with these overpowering monotonous repetitions which encompassed American society.
Within Warhol's repertoire was also silkscreen prints. The reason I mention this is because he didn't correct the imperfections or uneven surfaces of the prints. He used them to portray how people are passive to things and yet, that they are still subconsciously unaware and subject to the effects which these different media forms have on them.


This is a 16mm film created by Andy Warhol which encompassed the culture and mannerisms of those in the latter part of the 1960's along with his own artistic insights.
It is entitled, "Chelsea Girls."

What is a film "about?"

"Natural Features"

(Gunvor Nelson, 16mm, color, sound, 30 min., 1990)

I have chosen to answer the question of what this film is "about" while keeping in mind the context of the statement by Hollis Frampton which declares, "Certainly a film must be about whatever appears most often in it."

Upon review, the most predominant items or features which quantitatively stood out to me were: paint/painting, reflective material(s)/broken glass, photographs, and sound. 

Combining all of these elements together can lead to the conclusion that humans are constantly repeating history and that each time it is repeated it only leads to a more disturbing result. To expound further, I believe that the black paint which was used to cover certain parts of the photographs was significant in that it tended to only cover the eyes and mouth, and acted as a silhouette around individuals in the photos. Interestingly enough, at times the paint was subject to gravity as it aimlessly flowed vertically downward across the photos, while at other times the paint was purposely placed with the use of a paintbrush so as to make a definitive statement. I think the statement which was made by the paint "dripping" downward was that as hard as humans try, we all eventually become "blended" into the dark abyss of history itself and combine to form one large vague memory. The purposefully placed paint on the eyes and mouth might symbolize a lack of vision (figuratively) and a lack of being able to speak up for oneself. To be socially oppressed by a group of individuals who seek dominance and power rather than the approval of the public might also be symbolized here. Also, the sound of people screaming and short sound bits of people humming or talking acted not only as a disturbing element, but also reminded me of a horror film in which they might torture people. Upon further analysis, I begin to feel as though there were some communistic undertones applied within this film. However, I am not sure that this "advances my understanding of the film" or helps me to understand it better since the theme, while presented with older photographs, black paint, and unnerving sounds, is still quite vague to me. I cannot be certain that the analysis which I developed relates directly to the film since it doesn't present its purport directly, but rather leaves the viewer to unravel its abstract meaning in their own mind.  

I am uncertain how Kevin's observation of the projector dominating his experience of Frampton's "Lecture" can be called into question when I thought that it was a "narrative" using film attributes, but not a "film" in itself. I may be completely wrong, but the blog requirement states, "Choose one of the two films seen in class today" which leaves, "Love's Refrain" and "Natural Features" as the "films" screened in class. If I am to contemplate how the sound of the projector or "performer" relates to the entire work, I would say that this is dependent upon a few variables. First, how close was Kevin to the projector? The closer Kevin was, the louder and more predominant it would be therefore carrying the most attention and commanding the entire work. Secondly, was Kevin in front or behind the projector? His position in relation to the projector would either allow him to be distracted by it visually, or to be aware but not "forced" to look at it, as the projector would have been in front or behind him. Thirdly, how large was the room, and how many people or other sound absorbing objects were in it? In other words, was the sound in a closed hollow space which would make it louder and more prominent, or did it have some space in which to travel and be somewhat distorted before being reverberated off a wall or object?

My own observation and thinking about the projector and its being the "performer" of the work is something that I agree with. The "Lecture" spoke of and described what the projector was creating on the screen, "...a bounding box filled with white light" which in turn made me think of the projector and "hear" it even more frequently than if I had been distracted by other sounds and images. The projector, even as it produced monotonous sounds,  was the "performer" for me... as it was for Kevin. As I was positioned in front of the projector and saw the blank frame it was producing on the screen I rarely was lost in the confines of the frame but rather the projector and the narrative which spoke of it.    

Guest_Speaker_James_Benning

James Benning spoke of how his math background influences his film making. He explained that it took until the 15th century until the number zero was added to our "counting numbers." In addition, when working with zero, we cannot divide by zero because it leads to false conclusions.
An interesting short tale about how an aircraft carriers' computers became disabled because they divided by zero was also mentioned. The carriers' engines shut off and it stood idle at sea for two days until they reprogrammed the computers and resumed their course.
Benning used some advanced mathematical techniques to show that it is impossible to "build" a circle or a square. We construct them by error because we do not have the proper measuring utensils to create these geometric figures. We basically estimate the size according to the closest mathematical sum of all the sides....or the radius in the case of the circle.
Math can be thought of as abstract as well. We cannot find "pie" (3.14) by measurement because it is continues on to infinity without repeating. It is therefore considered as an "irrational number" because it does not repeat.
Benning created an extended fraction and used it to display the "extreme beautiful symmetry" of math. He said that he hoped that we could use the concepts that are applied to math in our film making and discovery process. Like math, "art is intellectual curiosity," stated Benning.
Benning challenged me to think about my art work differently in both an exact and abstract sense. I enjoyed his presence as our guest speaker and look forward to finding new ways of communicating.....perhaps in a more mathematical way than I realize.

SPIRAL JETTY (Robert Smithson, 1970)

Choose a specific image, a sound (specific text read on voice over, sound effect, for example) , an editing choice (cutting from loud trucks, some element that perplexes you, strikes you as an odd or puzzling inclusion. Then work to relate it to the overall film or to Smithson's earthwork/sculpture. What do you think the specific element you are puzzling over has to do with film/project overall? How is it connected - or what other elements in the film does it feel connected to?

I found the editing and sound composition of the scenes which contained the water lapping the shore line (or possibly the water flowing past the videographers' legs, which caused a vortex of air and water to be trapped together therefore creating a "rippling" sound), and the truck dumping the rocks into the water to be the most thought provoking. I am intrigued because there is a clear contrast between the two scenes and yet, they are bonded through the recurring image of water. To better understand my reasoning, I will briefly describe the two scenes as I recall them in my mind. The scene of the water was peaceful and serene, and the only sound that was heard were the little ripples in the water. The style used was deadpan as the small ripples in the water were the only movement that was visible within the frame. Sand and small pebbles were visible beneath the ripples which determined a shallow depth. 

The scene of the truck dumping rocks into the water was just that, except it occurred at half the speed (slow-motion). Sound associated with the clip was heard as would be in real time, and it coincided with the image being displayed (such as the splashes that were made when the large rocks hit the water). Additionally, the view or composition of the frame was set as such that it was deadpan in its delivery, however a low angle was used to accentuate the size of both the truck and rocks. The camera was also positioned directly behind the truck (at a safe distance of course) which allowed the viewer to see the rocks inside the dump truck bed as well as when they exited and hit the water. 

Having described these scenes, I notice that the "water scene" was not modified where the "truck scene" was in slow motion. Also, the "truck scene" was shot from a low angle but the water was still visible, and the "water scene" was shot from a higher angle and the water was all the viewer could see. I understand that Smithson wants the viewer to create questions in their own mind and then try to answer them. Therefore, the question that stands out in my mind is, was this film trying to impose a sense of greater significance or the fact that the dump truck "dominated" the area because of its power and size? I think that the "sense of greater significance" is a key element which can be applied to both scenes. Water, to me, represents life. Only a small portion of the whole sea was seen within the "water scene" however it represents much more. The "truck scene" displayed the whole dump truck and much of the sea and surrounding area, however the truck in itself was only a tool used to shift the contents of the earth from one place to another making it rather insignificant in comparison. The truck does assist in changing the landscape so it could be viewed as a threat to nature. I do not view it in that way however, and think that the contrast between the "water and truck scenes" are, in their simplest form, a representation of how man can modify nature and construct something that is not harmful but rather artistic. 

A response to the question which was posed by Carl Bogner, "Do you spiral in, or out?"

When I create a spiral, I spiral inward. Can this be viewed as my being closed-minded, or that I prefer to know my starting point before I complete the spiral? I like to have a goal and calculate the means of achieving it by knowing my boundaries. Determining a starting point allows me to put my skills in "check" and helps me to understand where I need improvement and further education / knowledge. The scene of the man running along the dirt / rock path toward the inner part of the spiral has come to mind as I write this. It is as if man runs toward a goal in life and ultimately ends up surrounded by the events which have molded him. In the same aspect, through the spiral, he (man) is able to turn around and follow the path in reverse which returns him to his starting point. I believe this represents the fact that man can choose to create a path which has a direction and purpose, but that he can also revert and end up right back where he started. An additional thought which I would like to propose is that the outermost point at which the spiral begins could be considered as the beginning of human life. The path of the spiral leading inward represents the path of life which every human needs to take, if he so chooses. The middle, or end of the spiral represents the end point at which man is surrounded by everything that has defined him as an individual or has affected him in some way. This end point represents the end of mans' journey, signifying death. 

Life is a big spiral...learn to run around the boulders.

Industry At Its Finest: An independent table top video production

Table Top Video: Demonstrations and Declarations
Monday March 10, 2008 - 11:30AM
Title: "Industry at its Finest"


Initial objective:
The theme of my project is how industry continues to grow and overtake woodlands.
My goal: To have a landscape with some small artificial trees planted on it to simulate that of a forested area. I will attach two pieces of fishing line to each of the corresponding trees as they relate in size. Once attached, the lines will be used to "tug" at the trees to imitate the form of wind. A flashlight will be held at an angle against a white piece of card stock to softly reflect light upon the scene. The room will be as dark as it will allow through the use of the existing shades on the windows. Music and "fog" will be accompanying the piece by way of a CD player and dry ice in a warm container of water. Compiled, the first scene will mimic the wind slightly moving the trees on a dark foggy moonlit night.
The trees will then be pulled out of the frame.
The next scene (transition between scenes) is of two small toy trucks: one a cement truck, the other a log/dirt hauler. They will enter the frame one at a time beginning from the left and exiting on the right. The cement truck will start first.
Note: I chose the cement truck to start because I want the viewer to think about what it symbolizes without giving to much away. The truck with the "logs" in it will then be pulled into the frame using fishing line. Crossing somewhat slowly through the frame will allow the viewer to comprehend what is being displayed. After both trucks have exited, a scenic with houses will be moved into the frame. Lines resembling a road are drawn between the houses. This is an important detail because after a few moments into this scene, I will place two trees in the middle of the road on opposite ends of the scenic. The placing of these trees in the road will represent where they once stood (in the forest). As the video nears its consummation, the light from the flashlight will dim and deplete altogether as a result of the "flashlight holder" turning it into the paper from which the light is being reflected. At this point, a light will come on in the house that is the furthest distance away in the frame. When the music ends, and nothing but the light in the house is visible, the light will go out and the video will end.

The Result:
Most of the scenes, as described above, were performed to my satisfaction. However, I was displeased with how my hands accidentally entered the frame at one point. I was also a bit unhappy with the fact that my first scene didn't "fill the frame." You could see a portion of the table which was not my intention, however I don't believe it distracted the viewer from the content being displayed.
As I am my own worst critique, I believe that although there were parts of the production which I foresaw differently from that which actually occurred, that overall my piece was a success.

Find a Video on YouTube Similar To That of Alex Bag...

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.