... a bit confused...

This weeks assignments have left me a bit confused. Certainly this is because the readings delt with a world about which I know basically nothing, but even so- I found myself repeatedly asking 'what's the big deal?'

A few years ago I attended the 'Visual Music' exhibition at the Hirshhorn museum, and I remember seeing examples of hand-drawn 'films' that were WAY older than the ones made by Stan Brakhage in the '50's and '60's. Unfortunately I don't remember who created the earlier examples, but my question is- what is the difference between these examples and Brakhage's? What makes Brakhage's work so groundbreaking in light of these earlier works?

I was disracted by the two Brakhage clips that we watched on YouTube, but I suspect that had more to do with the quality of the YouTube video than the work itself. Surely it wasn't ment to be so pixilated, but I was so distracted by the pixels that I couldn't tell what was going on. This was most unfortunate in the "Dante" piece because I began to detect recognisable images. This flickering quality was probably part of the origonal intent, but my difficulty in identifying the images had more to do (again) with the pixeling and less to do with the rapidity of the shifting image.

I did, though, really REALY enjoy both the interview with Jeremy Blake and the readinig/clip of the Light Space Modulater. I wished that the video had provided a clearer shot of how the Modulator actually functioned... I wanted to really see the thing in action, but I could appreciate its projections none-the-less.

I was particularly interested in Blake's take on collaborative and cross-disciplinary projects.

On the whole, I think it would be helpful to have some kind of context for all of these works. It was easier for me to understand the Light Space Modulator in context of the Bauhous, for example... is there any similar information that would help me contextualize Stan Brakhage?

John Cage Review

Having just watched a portion of John Cage's film 'One11 & 103' I confess that I'm a little disappointed. For the most part I'm a fan of John Cage, but this piece fell short of my expectations. I found the theory, the parameters, and the ideas that went into the creation of the piece to be much more interesting than the piece itself. As I was watching it I was distracted and kept thinking "this is the sort of piece that makes regular people think that artists are weird". This piece is supposedly about light, but it's not. It's about the light produced by a small selection of theatrical lighting instruments, and I don't even feel that these instruments (or the room in which the piece was filmed) were used to their fullest potential.

That said, I did only watch a fraction of the entire piece, and I was more engaged as time went on. I'm sure I would feel differently if I watched the entire thing, or had the experience of watching it on a theater full of people (with a live orchestra?) as I believe it was intended to be viewed.