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.) 

Cinema of Attractions, Tom Gunning

In Tom Gunning's article, he seems to enjoy the anticipation of the spectacle using words for early cinema (pre 1906) like, carnival and vaudeville. Also noting that Leger "celebrated" cinema's ability to "show something". And then compares it to current spectacles in films like car chases...even calling effects--"tamed attractions".  The "attractions" in films remaining a reason audiences go to the movies every bit as compelling as to get into the story, like literature, or to follow the plot of theater.
With new audiences he holds out hope for the avant-garde, since the possibilities for spectacle are limitless in "realistic illusion" and "magical illusion" with postmodern technology.

Tom gunning

I wonder what Gunning would think of cinema now if he could see it. Early in his article he talked about hoe film was slave to the narrative driven mold and not much of the avante-garde, and that was back in 1906, we did't really break that mold since, not that I think thats a bad thing though. Maybe he would take comfort in the fact that there is now a generation of artist who still are doing the avant grarde but by different mediums, not just film.

interesting...3d printed film

http://www.booooooom.com/2014/10/23/artist-uses-3d-printer-create-film-without-film/

Hey guys. I want you to have first dibs on these, but they're open to the public.

In January, the Dallas Medianale (an extension of videofest i'm working on) will host DIY video synth building workshops led by the members of Cracked Ray Tube. Check it out: http://oilandcotton.bigcartel.com/product/jan-10-hardware-hacking-and-diy-audio-video-synthesis-workshop

If you want to see a bit more of what this stuff does, see here:

Eisenstien - i swear i read that paragraph six times

Loved that Goethe quote at the beginning, and I highly recommend this if you haven't watched it before

dialectic- the art of investigating the truth of opinions.

I was interested in Eisenstien's presentation of the notion of being as an evolution form the interaction of two opposites ((contrast as evidence of existence // or as he relates it to film~ motion))
This is extremely relevant in the moments where things may seem too dark >> anything else seems brighter, and you can fully appreciate it then.

He goes on to propose that human expression is the conflict between conditioned and unconditioned reflexes, and refuses to accept art as a static result of living, but the dynamic process of it.
This also holds relevance for me as I am currently studying anxiety as it relates to the creative process.
This reading is definitely underlines the necessity for the artist to illuminate conflict (external/internal) through expression.
This feels like a "true opinion" to me, because I understand that my work stems from the things that I have difficulty with. The things that grate on me or make me feel most heavy give me a reason to create so that I can understand that emotion. Or why I am feeling that emotion. Sometimes this is only obvious in hindsight, but nonetheless, evidence of process rather than result.

I felt his mention of perfectionism being the killer of art to be very poignant.
I used to be very focused on perfection. I wanted to be a hyperrealist. Now I'm so glad that my mind didn't allow me to do that, because it's incredibly boring.
Occasionally, (especially now that I live with a musician who focuses so intensely on technique and practice), I feel that my work has perhaps taken too drastic of a turn in the other direction. I feel that I am in this major which completely forgoes technique in favor of artistic voice for a reason.
If a maker is overly focused on the result, instead of the process, then does the work truly have a relevant goal?

((I reach a fork in the road when I know that I am going to destroy a work, I have to make a decision whether I am going to choose to fix my mistakes. Results vary = Life))

Where's the line between seeking quality and seeking perfection? and what defines quality?

I got lost somewhere around page 55, where he started to provide specific examples, but I think I gathered something valuable out of the reading. It made me think and feel like I was on a similar train of thought~~ which only means the tracks will change!
It was nice to be validated for a moment though, and I had a spark of an idea, SO

reading = good