Rough Theater

Wow, what a reading! I loved this reading so much, I read it to my girlfriend, a theater major. I completely agree with this article. Art, as in theater or anything else, gains a certain something when it is presented as is, without attempting to shield the viewers from flaws. In fact, we will go with them. That has been one of my biggest complaints about digital technology, and a reason why I shoot and edit on film, is because digital is just too clean. It seems unreal. Assymetry, mistakes, all lend themselves to art. Art is about imperfection, and complexities. Our daily lives are not perfect. When we try to make everything in theater perfect, we sense a sterility to it. For theater to encompass so many forms, it is interesting that we try to imitate only one or two. Imitation is all it is. Therefore, we as an audience aren't engaged. When we see things that are rough, as in rough theater, we feel they are more real. This article coincides with me recently cutting 16mm film and projecting it on a wall in my room. I felt more alive. I suppose the roughness felt like my art was alive. The scratches and splice marks added to my film, they didn't detract. We should all learn to make art in anyway that we can, and not try to imitate just to get an "Accepted" look. 

Molotov Man

Decontextualization of art is an interesting debate. Is it a perversion of an artist's original intent? Or is art in the eye of the beholder, and there is no such thing as originality? I believe that art must be protected. Copyright, in my opinion, is still very important. However, an interesting problem arrises in this theory of decontextualization. No one can define what is art. If I take and image and add something even miniscule, isn't that still art? The point is, art is subjective. So, we can't easily say this is art and this is not art. In my opinion, we'd have to say that anything goes or nothing goes. I am a fan of decontextualization. I enjoy seeing something in a new way. I think that the photographer of the molotov man has no rights to the picture. The molotov man owns his own image. He owns the points of light that are absorbed by his skin and the excess that is refracted. The photographer, doesn't own him. So, this other woman has every right to make another form of representation of the photograph. After all, isn't a photograph, just another "representation" of real life. So, art, is just a representation of a real original thing. So, there is no "originality" in art. Is that bold to say? Still though, an artist should have some protection. I'm not sure what that is, that's for lawyer's to decide. I think though, that the Molotov man, and its many iterations, are all equally a "truth" of the man's struggle. No one artist owns it entirely. 

Ideas for 48 Hour Video Race

I've had a few ideas about the video race. The one I am particularly fond of is the idea that I will use the web-camera of my laptop. Built into the monitor is the camera, if I open the program, I can click off single pictures. With a full charged battery, I, or with the assistance of another, can walk around or do stuff, while taking single pictures of myself. Thirty pictures will equal one second. I can do interesting stuff with mirrors and also a video picture within a video picture. I like shooting through a video screen. That way, I get multiple frames within a picture. I could use a cell phone camera for that. 

I wouldn't want to use a cell phone camera for the entire race, because I'm not sure how I would get my media from the camera itself. I've never been successful at that. Also, I don't like the look of a video camera phone. Pictures on a phone are too slow to take and wouldn't be feasible for the 48 hour race. 

I'm not sure what my theme will be, but I'm sure I'll come up with something soon. Overall, I just want to make a crazy inventive film. I like doing animation, not of still objects, but moving ones. Like myself or other people. It gives the film an interesting quality. 

Response to Saturday Shoot

I loved the one shot! It was one of my favorite events that I've ever done at UNCW. First off, the adrenaline was great. I really enjoyed being presented the problem of: we have 28 seconds of film, one take, and only an hour and a half. Pressure like that has always kept me creative. I thought our shot was particularly complex and ultimately turned out beautifully. We used shade from the rain as our inspiration, and came up with the idea of two lost lovers looking for one another. Our exposure was right on the money, I had brought a light meter, and the image was beautiful. I didn't enjoy seeing what the film looked like after slowing it down by half, because the video image became jumpy. However, having a camera of my own that is spring wound, this really inspired me to try to do more complex long takes. Ultimately, the rain was not a great bother, in fact it made it interesting. I want to do this again, I also really want to learn more about developing films on my own time. Andre, if you ever get the time, I want to learn more about exposing film at home, what type of film you need, etc.