okay, background info: - born january 19, 1954 in glen ridge, new jersey - originally went to buffalo state college studying painting - gave up painting for photo cause of painting's "limitations" - failed a required photo class the first time around - supposedly not her work isn't feminist, yet many call attention to the stereotyping of women in films, television and magazines - received the macarthur award in 1995 - named on of the top ten living artists by artnews magazine in 1999
series: - untitled film stills (1975- 1980) - gleams and reflections (1980) - centerfolds (1981) - fashion (1983- 1984) - fairy tale disasters (1985- 1989) - history portraits (1985- 1989) - civil war (1991) - mannequins (1992) - the office killer (1996, film)
"Untitled Film Still #58"
"Untitled #250"
okay, so this is totally my opinion (duh), but i think the first image is a whole lot better and interesting. i think that her "sex pictures" are completely tasteless. the fairy tale series (which i had trouble finding decent pictures of online) are creepy in an interesting way. i don't think i've seen any of the history, civil war, or gleams and reflections pictures. but by far, i like the untitled film series most.
for our current (and final) project we had four categories to choose from for the narrative: memory, appropriation, interpretation/reenactment, or folklore. i chose appropriation; i found a fable by aesop called "the astronomer." customary of aesop's fables, this tale is short. there was an astronomer who used to go out at night to observe stars. one night, while wandering around the village, the astronomer fell into a well because he was focusing solely upon the sky. someone arrived after the astronomer had been calling for help, all they said was "hark ye, old fellow, why, in striving to pry into what is in heaven, do you not manage to see what is on earth?"
for the first part, we are to create our own story with at least six photographs (the second part will be a book and video). i'm planning to stick close to the original fable. i was going to have someone wander around the city, always looking at the sky (or maybe things around them) without really paying attention to a destination. however, instead of falling into a well, the main character would just end up in one of the "sketchy" areas of philly. i originally wanted to have my series take place at night- in my head, it just seemed that would be so much more visually appealing than the day time. however, i shot a few images 30min before the sun came up. the sky was a light blue and it contrasts very nicely with the yellow light of lamp posts. i plan on taking many more pictures around 11ish at night. how those turn out will determine whether i go with the muted tones of night or the colors of day (early morning).
before shooting for this project, we were required to create a storyboard. i've never found them very helpful because, for the most part, i stray greatly from it to accommodate my surroundings. also, since i'm a simple type of gal, i've never really used the technical terms for camera angles and movement. i've always included the majority of the information within the image. for example, i use arrows to indicate either the frame moving or a subject.
A lovestruck Romeo, sings the streets a serenade Laying everybody low with a love song that he made Finds a streetlight, steps out of the shade Says something like, "You and me, babe, how about it?"
Juliet says, "Hey, it's Romeo, you nearly gave me a heart attack" He's underneath the window, she's singing "Hey, la, my boyfriend's back You shouldn't come around here, singing up people like that Anyway, what you gonna do about it?"
Juliet, the dice was loaded from the start And I bet, and you exploded in my heart And I forget, I forget.. the movie song When you gonna realize, it was just that the time was wrong, Juliet?
Come up on different streets, they both were streets of shame Both dirty, both mean, yes and the dream was just the same And I dream your dream for you and now your dream is real How can you look at me, as if I was just another one of your deals?
Well, you can fall for chains of silver, you can fall for chains of gold You can fall for pretty strangers and the promises they hold You promised me everything, you promised me thick and thin, yeah Now you just say, "Oh, Romeo, yeah, you know I used to have a scene with him"
Juliet, when we made love, you used to cry I said, "I love you like the stars above, I love you till I die" And there's a place for us, you know the movie song When you gonna realize, it was just that the time was wrong, Juliet?
I can't do the talk, like the talk on the TV And I can't do a love song, like the way it's meant to be I can't do everything, but I'd do anything for you I can't do anything except be in love with you
And all I do is miss you and the way we used to be All I do is keep the beat, and the bad company And all I do is kiss you, through the bars of Orion Juliet, I'd do the stars with you any time
Juliet, when we made love, you used to cry I said, "I love you like the stars above, I'll love you till I die" There's a place for us, you know the movie song When you gonna realize, it was just that the time was wrong, Juliet?
A lovestruck Romeo, he sings the streets of serenade Laying everybody low with a love song that he made Find a convenient streetlight, steps out of the shade He says something like, "You and me, babe, how about it?"
aw. i love the killers (they are one of the best bands you will ever see live). um, i just wanted to share this for some reason. i've only listened to sawdust, the killer's new cd, once and this is the only song that stuck out so far. um, to say more [so it actually counts as a post], it kind of reminds me of "jack and diane" by john cougar mellencamp... i don't know why and i'm pretty sure they're not that similar. anyways- have a nice night.
after making experimenting with 16mm film, we worked on one in imovie. i concentrated on colors and textures for mine cause i wanted it to be truly abstract. i used a few effects in imovie (contrast, gamma, white something) and made lots of layers of sound. i started out with three different clips that i used multiple times on parts where it fit. after that, i added short little bits of sound where there wasn't any. then i put longer clips (15ish seconds) over these parts, and then, i added different sound clips that carried through the whole video. after that, i went through and added a few short little bits of sound. when i played it to the class, i noticed vocals (which i had tried to avoid) from the songs i included. if it'd noticed it earlier, i would have attempted to cover or remove it, but supposedly it sounds well in there... i think the reason i don't agree with this is because i'm able to recognize the song(s) it's from. 20 points if you can tell me!
in class, we were each given about 12 feet of 16mm film. i scratched the emulsion off my part, then put squiggles of acrylic paint over top (lots of different colors). after that, i scratched lines over the paint, removing it and leaving the area bare. i also had a roll of 35mm film from a project in high school that i hated and knew i'd never be using again. since the whole roll was faces, i cut it up and rubber cemented it to the 16mm film. unfortunately, it didn't stick very well and if i ever do that again, i'm going to try sewing it on. my section's about 20seconds long and starts 2min, 45sec into the video.
i'm not sure what i was expecting on the field trip to upenn for my 3d design class (pretty much aka, sculpture/sucker of cash). each time this field trip was mentioned in class and by my peers, it was referred to as "the puppet show."
when i was about four, my mom took me to see "sleeping beauty" somewhere. i don't remember what kind of puppets were used, but i loved the setting and the costumes because they were so bright. i think i was expecting something like that.
i was horribly surprised. overall, i did not like the exhibit. AT ALL. i felt that, in general, it mocked childhood. for the most part, exhibits like this make me worry about the future of art. i'm hoping that soon all this rebelling against classical beauty and this desire to create the most shocking work "with meaning" [EVER. of course] will pass.
the two things that stuck in my mind most from the show were: 1) a gray child's onesie, strung up parallel to the ground with the sharp end of colored pencils sticking out at almost every possible angle; and 2) the video of a claymation- which i had NO desire to see all of- was repulsive... even to me. and i'm about one of the least conservative people ever. this was a rough animation of a robust hooker being followed by naked BOYS- dragging themselves from their third world houses all wide eyed. i refused to watch any further when multiple boys, at once, started to grope the "lady of the night" both under and over her clothes. try as i might, i can't find any decent meaning in this. and i really would like to know a reason for... whatever this is.
towards the end, i found an interview- albeit, borrring- of characters from my childhood [fozzy bear, lambchop, and that blue sesame character- not cookie monster (who i've heard is now "carrot monster").]. nothing interesting or worth remembering happened [except fozzy making bad jokes and lampchop being a smartass- who would have thunk?]. yet, i spent over thirty minutes in this mini room because it was better than the alternatives.
if i had anyone to tell, i would tell them not to waste their time and money with this exhibit- unless they like tasteless "art."
(this is all my opinion and i realize there will probably be MANY people who disagree with me and think i'm pompous. which stinks, cause i'm not.)
on a side note completely unrelated to time/motion: in about the past 100ish hours, i've slept 15. and i'm not even exhausted or tired, i just feel ill (although, i should mention i'm a hypochondriac against my will). the only things i've ingested in the past 30 hours is caffine-filled drinks. i can't wait to go home in 24 hours (look at all those hours. and math. whoa, college is a complex time)... I MISS MY DOG. i miss my non-camping mattress. i miss heating that actually works. i miss home. and the only people i miss are luke (who i completely hate like 45% of the time cause he's a stupid racist all of the sudden) and my sister (who i can't stand 55% of the time cause she's a nark).
my "opinions" of art seems to only ever go one of three ways: 1) i REALLY dislike it for reasons that i have trouble explaining and must sound vague. 2) i like it for reasons i can't explain or figure out. 3) i feel i don't know enough about the work/process/subject/etc to be comfortable enough critiquing it.
i just want to take this moment to say that when i dislike something (and i tend to dislike a lot), i feel somewhat bad. firstly, i worry that i am making this judgement without fully understanding something that i haven't learned in my nineteen years. i believe that if i do not truly comprehend something, i shouldn't have a right to express such negative opinions. i technically haven't earned that right. nonetheless, i find myself not liking a lot of things that i, at this stage in my life, could not create. i'm not sure how or why i choose things that could easily belong to group number three, yet i classify them as a one or two. this is just my little disclaimer i suppose. i don't think that things i can create are roses or my examples are the best and right way. it's not confidence or arrogance; it's that i'm too opinionated [as one of my teachers last semester put it, i'm "too opinionated" for art, and maybe i should be a doctor because then, my opinion wouldn't matter].
anyways, for time motion yesterday, our class took a field trip to gallery 339. however, i overslept and by the time i arrived to the classroom, they had left. i went to the website to check out the current exhibit and overall, i'm not extremely impressed.
i believe gallery 339 is located on 21st&pine. i know that it specializes in exhibiting prints and photographs (and has been doing so for some time). the current display is called "philadelphia masters: george krause, william larson, ray k metzker, ruth thorne-thomsen." i've never heard of any of these people (or yet researched them) and all i know is that ruth thorne-thomsen is a pretty fun saying name.
george krause fountainhead, 1970 archival pigment print
i know nothing about krause, 1970, or archival pigment prints (to my knowledge), but i like this. the contrast is a-ma-zing. and the subject matter ever so slightly, sparks curiosity. poor kid whos only identification to the world at large is fountainhead... i like to think i would have given him a name.
george krause breast, italy, 1988 archival pigment print
again, i know nothing of krause, 1988 (except i was born for that year), italy, or archival pigment prints. but i know don't like this. there is hardly any contrast. and the work [to take this picture] is insanly simple (and uninteresting). i do not like when a photographer "documents" something to use as art. something like this that will never change (or nudes- i strongly dislike photographers using nudes because then-- for the most part-- they seem less interested in making a good picture or whatever... it seems they're just trying to take the picture and let the taboo of nudity speak for itself. I DIGRESS). it's a statue. not even enough of a statue to create any kind of story or hint who it is (unless i'm unaware of the existence of who the statue is of. and the price is something that infuriates me even more... an 11"x14" print- $1000?! 36"x48"- $3000. that's just ridiculous. for a TOURIST picture of a statue.
so, i was flipping back through my posts (also, in case you haven't noticed, i've been slacking and am attempting to catch up. anywhos) and i noticed that pretty much all of them dealt with actual moving things. and although this is a class to do with motion, i'm sure that shouldn't be all that is about. i mean, motion can be displayed through non-moving images, right?
well in my QUEST (i really wanted to use that word), i found an image that i thought proves my point.
i can't really find the pattern cause the bottom row, unlike the other two doesn't change... it reminds me of some of the stuff hanging in the hallway here.
actually, i think it starts at the left and moves to the top. originally, i viewed it from top to bottom. you would think i would have started with looking left to right cause that's how we read (and not top to bottom). maybe i thought that way because i wanted to start with what would come first, the open hand... whatev, who knows.
i watched this thursday and i absolutely love it. it's right up there on the ridiculous level with charlie the unicorn. i wanna talk about it, but i don't wanna ruin it for anyone, so... watch it!
i've only used flash a few times, and it's never been anything complex. things like that being made in flash blow my mind cause i know how difficult my mini-pieces of crap were hard to make. rumor has it, the creator of this spent three weeks working on it. i love the range of characters from the fluffy animals at the beginning, to the elf, to bambee's face at the end. i don't really think i'm going to be using flash in any of my classes, but i'm thinking after watching this, i might need to spend some time in it attempting to create something.
(and i figured i'd include charlie the unicorn because if you haven't seen it, your life is not complete)
for part of our experimental film unit, we're supposed to research an experimental filmmaker. i'm lookin up stuff about stan brakhage who according to wikipedia was "one of the most important experimental filmmakers of the 20th century" (so, wooo stan, way to go). he called his stuff "visual music" or "moving visual thinking." um, the semi-disturbing thing i found out about him was that in 1996, he got bladder cancer. so, which his bladder was removed. ummm... that's really odd and i don't know... did he wear a diaper or something after that? supposedly the coal-tar dyes he used to paint his films prior to '96 had caused his cancer. i hoping this is one of those "wiki-isms" or whatever that people make up and post for laughs.
the first video of his i came across is "mothlight" (1963). i thought one of the things that was really nifty about this was his ability to keep the same thing projected slide after slide-- like the part with the parsley leaves (or clovers?). i noticed during my experimental film making with 16mm film didn't have that quality. it all seemed pretty random... there wasn't really anything to focus on or think about.
another movie i found was "black ice" (1994). i like this one a lot more. i think it's cause if color's going to be used than it should be really vibrant (if not, there's not much use for color in my mind... unless it's just a touch to black&white i suppose). it reminded me of stain glass windows. one thing that made it really interesting was that it seemed to be zooming in, while other parts were flashing... i think that'd kind of difficult if it's 16mm (and my thought it is).
as the title implies, this video's in progress. it's not actually due till march 17th.
i haven't really thought a lot about how i'm going to explain this. but i wanted this to be as abstract as possible. i worked close with things that mainly had to do with color (i'll let you in on a secret- it's fabrics... mostly). as far as effects added in imovie, i tended to stick with mostly with increasing darkness and upping the contrast and the cross dissolve transition (it's the only one i like actually).
the main thing i think i have left to work on is the sound. the stuff that's on there now isn't final, i might not keep any of it- i just thought some kind of sound should be accompanying it. i think i'll look through yeah yeah yeahs' cds cause their crap has always tended to go well with the videos i make (cause, basically, they rule).
i'm pretty happy with the clips i have and the order they're in. i might have to add more because i've been instructed that the length of the video should be three minutes... i dunno know about being under or over that mark, but i'm at 2 minutes 33 seconds, and i still have to add titles and credits. so... i'll see.
