SMU Video Art Spring 2020

I though it was refreshing how honest Connor was about why he started making found footage films, and how he doesn't let that discredit the art. I also thought is was interesting that his work was made mostly for the sake of making it. I think one thing that really surprised me was when he was talking about how people would refuse to consume media, movies or music especially, because it was old. I think that stands in stark contrast to the huge push towards the vintage and nostalgic that we see in media and culture today.

I think it's interesting to see Bruce Conner's perspective on his own work, especially on his piece "A Movie." It's astonishing that he put together his video within 2 weeks and had essentially zero budget when creating it. He also mentions that he rarely make plans for his projects and kind of lets them happen. His process was really just finding clips and stringing them together, with music of a sort of afterthought to string the piece together. It's clear to see in his wording that his process was very different from what people had experienced before and sort of paved the way for people to create more work in this field. He is definitely an artist to keep in mind when approaching our next project.

I think it makes the film much more interesting and almost more bearable to watch in a way, knowing about his money situation during the making of it. He continuously calls it a "poverty film" which I think definitely adds an extra layer to it all. Being so limited to the music and visuals that were available to him, it makes the selection of item in the film that much more interesting. It's also honestly nice to see someone making films solely just because he wanted to, not for anyone else, not to make any profit off of them but just as a solo project that others may eventually watch. Also, nice to see his reaction to people who were outraged by his works - the fact that he would just kind of mess with them makes me happy. Like he wasn't trying to make the film into anything it wasn't and if people didn't get it then they didn't get it and that would be the end of it. There's no point in fighting over it with people that wouldn't change their mind...

Bruce Connor seemed like a funny, to-the-point sorta guy and that really comes across in this interview. The monetary restrictions of his work definitely influenced what he did with A movie and other early films, makes me wonder what other aspects of experimental cinema were influenced by monetary incentives? And if any of those elements ended up transferring to other modes of film. Also found the part about performance art interesting...he seemed very negative on the whole matter. I wonder if he came from a circle of artists that were skeptical of performance art as something appearing after their time, or if there was a personal reason Bruce preferred other mediums.

I really liked how Bruce Connor got into found footage film due to monetary restrictions. Most of the time, this is a set back for a lot of people, but in his case, he was able to think outside of the box and create something with what he had access to. Sometimes, limitations are able to push people to find more creative solutions, which I think is really inspiring as a generally low-funded college student. Going into the next project, I like the idea of using elements of the film archive that are not traditionally considered "professional" and using them to the film's advantage, as effects, like Connor puts it. I think that this could add another interesting aspect to using found footage.

I really enjoyed this. I love how honest Bruce Connor is throughout the whole interview. It was funny to me to learn how he just spliced his film together because he didn't have money to do anything else. That sounds like every struggling artist to me haha!  I also read Konstantine's response and have to fully agree. I thought it was hilarious when Connor stated that he would tie his film to some important message so that the professor would be more understanding about it. I would so do that if put on the spot and didn't really have a reason for it haha.

I think that this reading was very interesting. It was interesting to read how Vertov constantly compared a camera to the human eye. I think that seeing things in person is a whole different, and possibly better experience than seeing something through a camera, but on the other hand, being able to capture a moment in time is incredible to view later. I think that when Vertov stated, "we can only do so much for a person's sight, but we can endlessly perfect the artificial eye." that, that is completely true. You are able to adjust anything you want, or even fake something in technology that you can create your own sort of reality.

I really like the honesty Bruce carries throughout the interview, being realistic with the fact that his exploration with film splicing and collage with found footage was more based on the fact that he lacked any proper resources to make a film with his wages. One line that amused me was when he talked about the professor essentially rejecting the film, so he chose to just mess with the professor by tying his film to some cosmic message, which is absolutely something I am guilty of doing. All that aside I found reading about his hands-on process to editing the film to be interesting, along with the fact that despite being such a visionary figure in found footage he mainly makes these films out of convenience. There's something interesting to the fact that he almost treats these films with a sense of nonchalance.  I GGGGels ... Well

What really stood out to me in this article is the comparison between the human and the mechanical. Vertov constantly compares the human eye to cameras. He calls this mechanical being the "Keno Eye". He says that this Keno Eye is more perfect than the human eye, and that while we can only do so much for a person's sight, we can endlessly perfect the artificial eye. This Keno Eye can also record reality in a radically different way than that of the human eye. I think that this comparison is interesting, one that seems very relevant in today's world where technology is surpassing humanity.

I really thought about Vertov's writing in political context of the time- many of his films seem to be earlier Soviet works. They were released in conjunction of a time with the Avant Garde movement of the early Soviet Union-the well known Ukrainian artist movement including Malevich and others. These people had quite a lot of political sway in the government, as they were creating a new vision of society, at its forefront abstract form. IT seems that Vertov was doing the same thing, with his "Kino Eye" idea. At a time when political control was bending the media, art, and everyday perception of society, Vertov utilized the camera in the same regard. I read a little bit about his Kino Pravda series, and how it utilized "street scenes" of common institutions like cafeterias, schools. and public places to have subtle propaganda, and the 'truth' of everyday life. Vertov's eye is the cinematic extension of a manipulated perception, an idea many in power ...

Vertov's idea of being kino-eye or a builder is a very interesting perspective. It almost reminds me of what is expected of us in our new project, using source material to create something new. When Vertov mentions creating "a man more perfect than Adam," or the burial process depicted in the reading, it really highlights his concentration on creating something that challenges reality. People experience life in relatively the same way, and Vertov is asking people to challenge that. Even when he wrote this piece, he noticed overused and over-exhausted  tropes in film, and urged the discontinuation of these ideas, and instead challenged people to adopt the kino-eye perspective. Things such as psychological /detective dramas and theatrical productions transferred to film are still saturated in cinema to to this day, which completely  rejected this proposed idea. I think it ties in with this dichotomy of the producer and the consumer, and will someone take the time and effor...

There is a layer of truth to Vertov's reasoning for creating this manifesto of sorts, given the new technology of video at his time, the majority of films were not setting out to be incredibly daring and experimental. I find his reasoning and his use of the Kino Eye as this being or subject to be really interesting, advocating for more daring forms of media. For the most part it comes off as very ahead of his time, advocating for a more experimental form of film by utilizing the ability to edit film into a different visual experience. In a sense, Vertov's idea of close-up experimental film really makes for an interesting parallel to experimental filmmaker Stan Brakhage, who also used close shots and turned away from a conventional idea of narrative based film.

I think the whole concept of this writing is very interesting. One line that stuck out to me was "We cannot improve the making of our eyes, but we can endlessly perfect the camera." I think this is really interesting to think about because I still feel like viewing something with your eyes is a much better experience than through a camera. Later in the article it says something along the lines of theater being a lousy imitation of life. I agree because sight is only one aspect of an experience. But on the other hand, with a camera, you are able to capture exactly what you want the viewer to see, making a situation more perfect in a way. It can cause the viewer to see something like they never would have on their own, which is beautiful in and of itself. You are able to capture the perfection of one of the human senses.

This article talks about some very interesting things, and some things I had never really considered. I had known that they were there but never really spent time thinking about them. Coming from a film / cinematography background where the ideal situation is to replicate real life situations through artificial manipulation, I had never really given much thought to doing the complete opposite - using the camera as a tool to capture all that the human eye cannot. I feel like the way it's described in the article, is pertaining more to the editing portion of filmmaking rather than specifically the act of filming that is able to transform situations of reality into non-reality entities. After all the original thought by the Lumiere brothers was to use the camera / projection of things as a sort of magic trick or grand illusion to help lure their audiences in even more. They hadn't thought of replication of reality for the sake of story telling but instead for the use of illusion a...

I think the reading examined some things that I knew on some level but never really considered. It makes sense that although the camera is often considered an extension of the human eye, it could be considered most effective when capturing things in a way that the human eye could not. Since the 1920's, beyond the ever increasing quality of cameras, there's been an increase in the ways in which the camera has evolved to see things in ways the human eye cannot. It can reach places that we cant (underwater cameras, drones, those little cameras that go down your throat at the doctors'), and display time in ways we cant (those year-long time lapse videos). I'd be interested to see how this analysis could be applied to other modern technologies that are thought to be "better" than the human eye, or offer us access to something we can't actually see like photoshop or computer generated imagery.

I really enjoyed this reading.  I know we touched on it in class, and I love the way that McCall is able to manipulate lights. I really think that it is interesting how he manipulated the presentation into a projection instead of a video, that way the viewers have to interact with each other. I also enjoyed that his piece was looping so that all the viewers were entering in different times and entering a different type of environment.

TV, 4 Speakers, furniture

Monday March 23rd 12pm 1 + 2 Taylor + Konstantine 1pm 3 + 4 Nikita + Maggie 2pm 5 + 6 Olivia + Hobbes Wednesday March 25th 12pm 1 + 2 Francisco + Delaney 1pm 3 + 4 Brooke + Belle 2pm 5 Jack

I only need one projector and possibly a sound kit.

HD Flat-screen Television (Mounted?) 16 x 9 Aspect Ratio Projector

I think I want literally all of the projectors. Minimum all 6 of the large projectors.  As many media players as I can have plus use a laptop or 2 if needed. max 1 set of speakers, maybe none

-Crenova 003 -acrylic sheets (provided by me) -media player -speakers (provided) -amps (provided) -cables (provided)

I think I will need 2 projectors the 4x3 ones should be fine

16x9 projectors to have replicated screens, the size has to match each other (matching quality would be nice but not entirely necessary) 2 Crenova mini projectors to use as light sources / interaction portions Could use actual physical lights instead of projector lights - depends on availability 1 speaker (provided by me) 2 media players - only 1 if i can connect the two video projectors together

I will need either the Hitachi 16x9 or the BenQ or Viewsonic if I decide to do sound. And a media player

The flat screen television The Hitachi projector A sound kit A tallish plinth 

Things needed for the projection project: Camcorder Tripod Short Throw Projector Various Cables "White Block"

Light Describing a Cone  is an interesting visual piece that is hard to experience without seeing it firsthand, and was my favorite work from the reading. The stills and videos online help to understand what the piece about. I am very intrigued by the way the viewer can interact with the work. They can simply observe the work, or interact with the work and play with the light being projected into the air. The viewer, in my opinion, becomes an extension of the work. I also think that they interestingly are the intension of the work, and how people respond to the work.

Very intrigued by how Anthony breaks down the barriers of compartmentalized art movements-avant garde film, sculpture, installation, and performance art, and links them all through a common thread- the audience perceiving light in a space. Especially in Long Film for ambient light he really blurs the lines of what is a continuous installation, and what it means for a medium to be time based. If someone sat in the room and witnessed the whole performance, they would certainly see a change, but the vast majority of participants would only see a snippet that is constant. Such an installation shows the power of looped, and/or long-form installations-theres something to be found in perceiving such a medium in a not start/stop based way.

The dimensions of this piece are really interesting to me. The fact that it can be re-modeled for each different sized space allows it to be shown in almost any place which opens up its viewing potential immensely. With people in the room watching this "film" the space completely shifts in real time as the light changes but also while the bodies interact differently with the light itself. I'm actually curious as to why he refers to this as a film per se and not just a light installation / maybe even a sculptural piece. The light does move and change shape and comes from a projector but its not necessarily a film? Just an interesting point of clarification.

The concept of the television being a form of sculpture is something that had never really resonated with me because today our televisions are made with the intention to be forgotten about. They are made thin and connected to the wall which in return gives you almost the illusion of a projected light on your wall except without the bulky projector that comes with it. When TVs were first put to market they looked more like actual artwork and they took up space within your living room, although they had no every day practical use other than a source of entertainment and amazement - much like a sculpture. As the industrialization of tv's increased the quality dramatically decreased and they became something that everyone had in their homes no matter their social status. This is the part of the article that caught my attention the most. That part and the beginning portion of the article that discusses the difference between the world engulfed in the tv set and the world presented by th...

Honestly this entire reading had me a little lost. But, I am currently in a Film class where we focus on how TV and shows have developed over the past 100 years to the present and it is interesting to read Acconci's take on it. I enjoyed reading about his ideas on TV's being furniture and taking up a huge amount of domestic space. I don't think many people really care enough to see the evolution or change that so many things go through. Our modern day flat screen TV use to be a huge, plastic box with antenna's coming out and you would need to be sitting right in front of it with the right signal to watch anything. Nowadays, everything is modernized and freestanding in a sense.

I found the Acconci article very interesting when discussing sex and sexuality. After reading it the first time, I found the references to sex as referees to sex in the context of gender. A tv in the sculptural/furniture sense has no gender. While it can display various objects, including those of feminine and masculine natures, the tv itself does not have any sense of gender. This can be drastically altered, however, by the display of different genders, and certain charged objects. However, with this in mind, I question the presentation of multiple genders simultaneously. Does the tv then become all of the genders presented? And with no images presented, how does this relationship change?

Some of the points in this reading, particularly the idea of TV being “A rehearsal for the time when human beings no longer have bodies” and TVs injecting images and information into the viewer made me consider to what degree is my generation disillusioned with or desensitized to the effects of media like TV.   Some of these points and similar ones in the “Media Hot and Cold” reading seemed to be paranoid overreactions to me, but I wonder if this is an effect of the fact that these media are and pretty much always have been a part of my reality.   Another point that I found interesting was Acconci’s ideas around TV’s as furniture in the 50s, so as to conceal their technology and make them a part of a domestic space.   This has since changed, considering TV’s are now mostly self-contained and can be mounted to a wall or placed on a table, taking up a relatively small footprint.   However, I do remember having a chunky plastic TV in the early 2000s that occupied...

I could not follow this at all. It was like every paragraph was a brand new fever dream. In the first half I think I understood the idea that TV is a passive medium, so it's almost like you're streaming the thoughts of others right into your head. What about television distinguishes it as more passive than books? The visual element? And does it still hold true, is a TV show more passive (colder maybe, if I'm using that correctly?????) than say a podcast? Or a silent film? I was also following when we were comparing TV sets to paintings and sculptures before concluding that the set itself it more technology than are. I'd like to think we've surpassed that now maybe? If not then how could we? Then we started talking about sex, and TVs as sexless entities and I -

One note I have is his recurring use of comparing installation and video together as a sort of return to a furniture and home TV space, and how the two essentially meld together in a gallery space. Also interesting is Acconci's constant references to architectural space, which I found to be a bit foreshadowing to where he would eventually go with his career. Another thing that sort of stood out to me is towards the end, Vito Acconci sort of draws this idea of a genre-bending power video installation may hold, likening the aspect of video to that of science fiction and the sculpture installing it as what tethers it to reality. He sort of continues this thought by musing on the thought that perhaps some installation artists use video as a way to curb the fear of being "outdated" and concerned with the traditional ideals of sculpture. I find that interesting since now with a more modern perspective, I think the idea of not wanting to be outdated is sort of moot when you li...

The TV's ubiquitous presence in the household turned it into a sculptural object. One that has its own influence on domesticity, its own parameters of media communication, and its own power to alter perspective. Vito Acconci muses about how this relatively new found method of mass media differs from other ones, from its size "how a face appears normal" to the fact that it appears in some of the most intimate spaces in our lives "at the foot of the bed." His point is further stretched when considering a video installation- something he calls an oxymoron of sorts. The TV media and moving image are placeless- vehicles for media, not objects in their own right, but when installed in a gallery, they force their message, in a physical space upon a physical viewer.

I'm in an Arts Management and Entrepreneurship class about cultural policy right now, so I found this to be and interesting exploration of how Policy affects the creation of art. I always subconsciously figured that no matter what, people would continuously create art, which I still believe. I just never considered the ways in which policies about art would influence it's creation. Like in the same way that political changes would influence the tone of art, policy changes involving the commissioning and support of art and artistic spaces would affect they types of art produced. I've had a few conversations about how much art related to racial identity is borne of desire to create the type of art and how much is a result of a belief that that's t he type of art that sells most reliably for artists of color. It makes me wonder if there are policies that I don't know about that have impacted the amount of a particular type of art being produced, like museums ...