REMINDER: I need pictures of your projects

If you have pictures of your project, please send them to me ASAP. You can email them to me at jonathanadams624@gmail.com

No Vision of Conquest

There was a line here in the article that really caught my eye, and it was cunning's line of, "and these artist have no vision of conquest", when speaking about the new avant garde. This line struck me in a special way, mostly because the idea of avant garde depends upon it. This just might be me, but whenever a new art movement comes along thats on the breaking edge of whatever medium its apart of, or avant garde, I always feel like its originated by artist who didn't intend to start some new wave or movement and were just trying to make something just a little more fresh that still fitted their style,  artist with no visions of conquest.

Towards a Minor Cinema

Tom Gunning uses a quote in the beginning of this article that I love. Based on a study of Kafka, from Giles Deleuze and Felix Guattari called Kafka: Towards a Minor Literature.

"There is nothing that is major or revolutionary except the minor. To hate all languages of masters."

By "Minor" in either literature or cinema, it is meant to be aware and celebrate it's marginal identity and fashion from it a revolutionary consciousness. Minor cinema reshapes our image of the avant-garde as Gunning lists examples of 6 filmmakers who practice and perfect their own language of images. He calls it a return to Brakhage, with submerged narratives by creating a complex rhythm of motion and not hitting you in the face with either "shock troop Battalions" or infuriating minimalist techniques that smack of documentary-style "art films".

The best part in the first half of the article is the use and embrace of the word "ghetto".  Gunning writes that many alternative filmmakers intend to break down the ghetto of avant-garde film. yet he finds it most exciting when films proudly wear the badge of ghetto. " The tremors of history are felt with re-doubled intensity within the ghetto".  Nice.

By not trying to become a "break-through" in competition with major motion pictures or in the mold of "art films", avant-garde is freed to become its best self. Always experimenting and perfecting the personal part of self and narrative into your own language, your own "masterwork" is where the art is.

mark response

I think the question here, is not what art is, but why art is made. If you plan to make a living as an artist, you have to give the people what they want, but if you are creating art only because you want to create it, then who cares what it is? If it was never intended for any purpose other than the artist's enjoyment, then the art can be anything you want. But if you want to be a marketable artist, you better make work about political issues and other shit everyone else cares about. I wonder which is more selfish.

part of the problem

After reading Mark's article on how experimental video art has lost its touch, I almost feel like I'm apart of the "problem". Marks was writing about how experimental media was really no longer experimental, and seemed to dumb it self to "single-channel" level, either for the sake of an institution or a pay check. Granted I'm a new media major, but I wouldn't call myself a media experimenter, really I want to make the things Marks seem to be ragging on. Now am I going to change that? No. I'm going to make what I like and be paid while doing it, but at the same I kind of feel like I'm apart of the group thats "killing" experimental media.

Tom Gunning: Cinema of Attraction Response

I think that Tom Gunning was correct when he concluded that "Every change in film history implies a change in its address to the spectator, and each period constructs its spectator in a new way." This was one of the more interesting develops in the use of film in my opinion. I feel that the way a film is presented has to do more with how it addresses the audience then its actual content. It actually opened up my mind to the appreciation of a narrative filmmaking-- there is much more to it than linearity and "story"telling. I also feel that Gunning is correct in that we do need to understand the origins of the cinema and how it has evolved so that we can better understand how to either make a narrative, or, rather, not make a narrative.

On a side note I was very surprised that early audiences went to exhibitions to see the machines rather than the films or photographs or what have you. Because, well, what good is a machine if you do not understand the possibilities of what it is producing? It would be rather silly for me to go look at all the latest and greatest microwaves, ooo and ahhh over them and then just make macaroni. Probably a silly example but thats the way I see it

cinema of attraction

The moving image is great entertainment for sure. 'magic' is a term I often find to be associated with it, which is really interesting. Remember the feelies in Brave New World? There is an emotional connection to film that is not as widely prevalent in other forms of art, almost everyone has cried watching a movie, but I don't think a lot of people have cried during an encounter with a painting or sculpture. ( I have, but I'm probably weird.)