Boyz N The Hood

Boyz N The Hood was powerful to me for many reasons. Firstly, it had a very genuine feel to it; it didn't feel "Hollywoodized" for the sake of making money. So many films with violent themes are simply spectacles of guns, blood, suspense. I felt like this movie had soul to it, which brings me to another reason why I enjoyed it. It was a moving film, it had a self reflexivity for the purpose of sending out a message ("Increase the Peace"). It did a very good job of highlighting the cycle of violence that never ends unless a person is instilled with good morals and becomes a parent with good judgement (Tre's father). This related to a view I take: hate is always taught. It is a learned behavior from one person to another, usually parent to child. No one is born already being a violent person, somewhere in their childhood they learn that hate and anger is the only way to deal with life and what it brings.
As with so many other movies I have seen, something that angered me in the film was the attitude of the police. Although there are many honorable policemen /women out there, there are many who are not. It is a huge injustice in our country that so many people are mistreated by the people who are being paid to protect us. This made me realize that hate and crime is not just a theme of the street, but in any situation in which people are fighting for power. Many bad policemen/women become officers because they need to be in a place of power, just like people in gangs.
Overall I thought Boyz N The Hood was convincing and successful as a message to all people in violent environments.

Last Day

I've forgotten the name/artist of the film that I would like to talk about, but it was the one based on the filmmaker's experiences starting out as a filmmaker. I found it very intriguing and mysterious, mostly because I didn't quite understand it. In the scene where the young woman is complaining about always having to be naked and then calls him and tells him she wasn't going to continue doing the film, it was obvious how that could relate to what a filmmaker must go through. I wondered if maybe he had two actors who were doing "love scenes" together really doing them off set also, from the stained glass window part. One part that really interested me was the scene where he takes a shower, clearly distressed. Perhaps he was channeling a moment of frustration he had once, that happened to be in a shower.
I thought the film was successful, but it was very personal -clearly done in way that only the filmmaker himself could totally understand. One question that pops into my head is why was the movie so sexual? I would like to know how that ties into his memories of starting out as a filmmaker.

Craig Baldwin

After watching Sonic Outlaws for the second time today and finding out that Craig Baldwin is visiting UWM, I decided to find out a little bit more of what he's all about.
From what I've read about him, Craig Baldwin aims to rattle some of the traditional pillars media today rests on. He uses montage and remix in his work to present things in a new light, like copyright laws. His work can be controversial, but it seems to be for our sake, so we can exercise a little self-reflexivity.
I see his work as being for the purpose of present media society. As far as the copyright law issues in Sonic Outlaws, it seems that Baldwin wants to bring attention to the fact that the laws can weaken the creative voices in our culture (an example being Negitivland).
Personally, my favorite part of Sonic Outlaws is when one of the guys taps into a phone conversation. While I know the importance of the law and usually abide it, I have to admire their curiosity and boldness.

Cellphone Scanning clip

Love's Refrain

I would like to investigate further into Love's Refrain. In response to Frampton's formula I said that this film is about patterns. I also noted that it could be about shadows and groups also. I say this because it is what I saw most in the film (obviously). The patterns showed up everywhere -the repetitive shapes of fences, the reflective strips on the semi trailer, lights (many I could not make out their source). Groups of birds, leaves, flowers were everywhere as well. As soon as I noticed one -I couldn't stop noticing them everywhere. I would say this definitely took me into an understanding of the film. I'm not sure if that's what Dorsky's intention was, but the film became so much more meaningful to me when I had a place to take it. I took it to a personal place because I felt more involved once I had something to look for. I kept wondering if I was putting too much thought into it, or if maybe I was tapping into something that Dorsky wanted me to.
After this exercise, I would say I definitely think Frampton's formula is useful. I got more involved in the film when I was participating by constantly observing it rather than just sitting back and passively waiting for it to affect me. However, I am not sure that I would want to apply the formula if I was watching a narrative film because if I am busy watching for what appears most I will probably miss most of the development. Although, to contradict myself, it would be easy enough to just look back on the movie and recall by memory what appeared most.

Spiral Jetty

The beginning of Spiral Jetty was composed of loud truck noises juxtaposed with quiet trickling water. During this stage the actual artwork was still being constructed and the changes in sound kept me alert. However, once it was finished and the camera was in a helicopter filming the piece in its entirety from the air, there was the constant roar from the chopper wings and wind. It lasted long enough for me to become habitualized to it, and I, in a sense, couldn't even hear it (although the circling and almost upside-down camera angles could have put me into some kind of trance). It came as a shock when the sound stopped -I felt as though the auditorium was super silent. I found this phenomenon interesting, and I am not sure exactly how it relates to the art piece itself except that the spiral is a mesmerizing shape and the background noise of the chopper set a very trance-like mood. At some points I had to look away from the screen because I was getting dizzy. I felt as though the constant roar holds some attachment to the film as a whole, and for me that was a meditation.

Artist Statement

My idea for my table top video came to me during an art class I am taking. We were learning about different art movements of the twentieth century when I heard the name Paul Klee. I learned that Paul Klee was an abstract artist who taught at the famous Bauhaus art school in Germany with fellow artist Wassily Kandinsky. What immediately interested me about Klee was his fascination with the art of children and the insane. If he were alive today he would probably consider the greatest museum to be a parent's refrigerator. This outlook interested me, and led me to think of ways I could incorporate Klee's views into my video. I considered recreating a painting that would mimic a work of Klee's, but immediately realized my attempt would undoubtedly be insulting. Then the idea came to me to recreate a child's innocent painting. The ideal situation would have been to bring an actual child with me and have him or her paint something them self, but unfortunately I had no child at my disposal, so I decided I would just do it myself.
So, the intention of my video was to make a declaration, like Klee did, on the brilliance of children's artwork. It is boundless and completely unhindered. A child doesn't even consider for a second that his painting of his house and stick-figured family doesn't closely resemble the real thing. This to me is beautifully pure and something that deserves my awe.
Although my video would have made much more sense had a real child been painting in it, I was pretty satisfied with the way it turned out. I painted what would most obviously be recognized as a child's painting so I wouldn't confuse anyone. I feel that it was simple, but had depth to it.


Painting at top: Senecio, 1922 by Paul Klee

Two Dogs and a Ball (?)

I cannot find this film title in the syllabus so I'm hoping that title is somewhat correct. I found this film to be very entertaining. Mostly this is because I love dogs, but also because I couldn't tear my eyes away from it (I was almost as concentrated as the dogs). It was so simple, but in a different way that, say, My Parents Read Dreams I have Had About Them was. Like so many other works Carl shows us, I felt that My Parents Read Dreams I have Had About Them is simplified with a bit of sarcasm. I feel like the artist is making it to bend the boundaries of what is considered art (kind of like the urinal-turned sculpture sculpture). Perhaps I am wrong, but I didn't get that vibe from Two Dogs and a Ball. I got more of a "Haha, watch this" feeling.

As far as authorship goes, I felt Two Dogs and a Ball was very distinct. If the film was a story, the man with the ball would clearly be the author, the dogs would be his characters and the ball would be the pen that decided their every move. He has complete control over the dogs, mostly because they are ignorant to the fact that he is teasing them (with the good intention of making the film, of course).

Mirror, Lemon and Semiotics

Monday's films were a little hard for me to swallow. I appreciate each in its own way, but as discussed in discussion, I am having a hard time glorifying them. I appreciate "Mirror" for its playful trickery. A snowy field was the perfect scene for it, I think the same location on a summer day would have made it almost impossible to interpret. It would have been too loud, and lost its purpose. "Lemon" didn't quite have the same appeal as mirror did, but it was interesting to see the highlighted texture of the peel. The effect of lighting positions was interesting. "Semiotics of the Kitchen" was definitely my favorite of Monday's films. I thought it had hilarious attitude and I can maybe buy into the whole stereotypical housewife role -but, to me, that just seems way too easy and cliche.