I thoroughly enjoyed the class trip to the Whitney a few weeks ago.  However, I was slightly disappointed that I didn’t experience the virtual reality piece, “Real Violence” by Jordan Wolfson.  I heard rather frightening reviews of what it was like and it scared me away from experiencing it.  A friend of mine wanted to see the Biennial so I decided to go back with her and this time watch the virtual reality piece.  Before I put the headset on I mentally prepared myself for what I thought would be a horrifying experience.  At first it seemed like a pleasant view of the sky.  If I didn’t know what was coming I think I would have been thoroughly relaxed and enjoying the view.  Once the intense violence began I only made it a few seconds after I decided to take the headset off.  It was an unpleasant experience but more than anything it left me wondering what the point was.  I think virtual reality can be an extremely powerful tool to use in artwork.  However, this seems like an artist who is using it just for shock value.  This piece has created a lot of buzz, which works in the artist’s favor, but I have never heard anyone discussing anything other than its violence.  This piece doesn’t make me think deeper about the world or social issues.  Instead, I was left thinking “What the hell was that?”

This year was my first year attending The Whitney Biennial, an event held at the Whitney Museum showcases contemporary American art ranging from sculptures, paintings, films, and even virtual reality experiences. To me what makes this even even more special is that a fair amount of the artists showcased are new and upcoming young artists, a group of creators that I feel I can relate. With the young artists I found that many of the pieces on exhibition pertained to technology, life, issues, and concerns of the current times that my generation is facing, and I appreciate that an establishment gave these artists a chance to tell the world a story they wanted to share.

With the gallery experience however it was hard to pay attention to any particular piece of art in the form of video. There is always the issue of walking into a screening room in the middle of the piece and only getting half the story, unless one wanted to stick around to watch the first half. However I did end up doing just that for a short film that caught my interest due to it’s more inviting nature than other films on exhibition; The Flavor Genome by Anicka Yi.

What initially drew me to this was the fact that I was handed 3D glasses before I even walked into the screening space. I knew I was about to witness something different from the other pieces and it immediately caught my interest.  the aspect of 3D drew me in and what kept me there to watch from the beginning was, oddly enough, the seating the room had’ very comfortable cushions long enough for one to lay on. Unlike other rooms with a stiff benches this room was inviting it’s viewers to sit down, relax, and view the art. Whether it was the artist’s intention or not it certainly did the tick.

The film, which was 22 minutes in length, followed a hunt for a plant in Brazil that holds many beneficial properties, of which seem natural but also aid in what is artificial. The subject of the film speak of altering the senses to believe one thing is actually another, how flavors from one thing can be extracted from something else completely different, playing a trick on the senses. The film with the use of 3D technology reflects this by playing with the sense of sight of the viewer. It wasn’t the clear 3D one would see in Hollywood cinema but rather it was skewed, some objects were in focus, some were not, it began to play tricks on the eyes. I even tried readjusting my glasses over the ones I use to see with, thinking that was the problem but after discussion the experience with other viewers they also had the same experience. It almost gave me a sense of high between that and the vibrant use of colors throughout the film, it was quite a sensory overload. Film technologies, like medical and scientific technologies the film discussed,  alter perception and understanding of the world around us.

After the trip to the Whitney Biennial, I really wanted to take another look at experimental pieces in a gallery setting, so I visited the MoMa Ps1 in Queens. I live very close, yet I had never been there before, so it was a great experience to go and I would definitely go back. I think the most important thing I’ve learned from this viewing is that for some reason I definitely feel more immersed in the experimental moving images in this type of setting than I did in a theater, which I believe was very important for me to figure out in order to continue pursuing new visions of artistic expression.

I think that it is all a sense of unfamiliarity for me that pairs together well. When I sit in a theater, or even in a classroom, I have a certain expectation of the types of words and images that will appear on the screen, which I’ve only really begun to reflect on in the context of this class.

Maybe over time with the expansion of my ideas and experiences, my expectations will shift to something broader and less clear-cut. For now; however, I feel that because in a museum or gallery I am already comfortable with a state of unknowingness, I’m more accepting of not fully understanding the messages put forward by the film itself, which I’ve realized is how I need to feel in order to fully appreciate these experimental works. Experimental films and the gallery scene in general challenge my expectations, which I really enjoy. They challenge my level of knowledge about media production and visual storytelling, which inspires me in a different way.

As the semester is coming to a close, I continue to think about how experimentation is what bleeds into the mainstream. It mocks the simplicity of culture, which again leads to vital self-reflection. What appears too cliche? What fuels the fire to be so heavily criticized that alternative forms of media continue to appear and grow in order to challenge the mainstream?

At MoMa Ps1, I was particularly taken by Ian Cheng’s Emissary Trilogy. I grew up on animation movies and video games, and it’s just amazing to see how the technology not only improves drastically over time, but expands itself in new ways. According to the artist, “it is a video game that plays itself.” The screen is so large with such crystal clear characters, that it really just feels like they are standing right in front of you. It was like people watching, without having to avoid obvious eye contact. Something about the experience is almost transcendent, bringing you into another world rather than sitting with the awareness that you are in a room with other people.

In terms of the latest discussions in class on how artists create for gallery vs theater, Emissaries, I believe, was a great example of a piece working to an extended degree as part of an immersive experience rather than at a distance. It worked in a general sense and also just particularly for my viewing style, which I learned so much about throughout this semester and at this screening.

Since my last project was inspired by Mulholland Drive I felt it was only right I go and see it again; in theaters for the first time. I’m pretty skeptical on whether or not it can qualify as an experimental film but it is labeled in such a way online and the screening which I found was listed on the Screen Slate website which you suggested we use. Because of that ambiguity as to whether or not I should have selected this film over more clearly experimental ones I will center my critique around why Mulholland Drive is indeed an experimental film that managed to finesse its way to the box office.

If we were to watch the first couple of minutes of the film, stop there and determine its genre we would probably be right to assume that, because of its rather linear and fairly sensical start, this will be no more than an odd yet traditional narrative. However, just like as is often the case with experimental film I would argue that what this storyline set up points to, as do many seemingly traditional elements of the film, is the artist acknowledging the medium that he is working with and letting its clichés and glitches show. But David Lynch’s medium which he is making transparent is not film. It’s not the camera he uses (otherwise we would see static or skips). No, his medium is Hollywood itself. It’s the industry and culture which is both the topic of the film through the main female protagonist(s) and most importantly which is where Lynch will succesfully sneak in this film. Almost like a joke with its set-up and punch line then, he gives the viewer a slightly traditional entry point and then catches them off guard with every scene going forward.

Another element which has often, in my experience, not been the main focus of experimental films but which is very present in the film, and which could make someone argue the idea of it as an experimental film, is dialogue. However the dialogue is an even better example of Lynch acknowledging his own medium as experimental film-makers tend to do. Although quite often logical and understandable the dialogue always seems overacted as if to point towards a movie within a movie. Something which is reinforced by the fact that the protagonist is an actress herself and at some point even reads lines at an audition.

Lynch shows no desire to answer the audience’s question or give them a comforting ending as traditional filmmakers tend to do. In fact it’s the opposite. The deeper we get into the film the less sense things make.

Lastly, if we are to judge a movie by the sum of its parts rather than by how it was packaged as a whole than how we could not recognize that in nearly every shot Lynch is trying something, experimenting if you will, whether it be with light in the saturated shots of Laura or with sound in the gorgeous scene at the opera house where the performer drops dead yet she can be heard finishing the song. A moment which I think is the key towards understanding that this is a movie about movies in that this opera scene points towards the illusion of cinema, the lack of “live-ness” in contrast with theater which results in the character which you love on the screen being already dead and gone (the actor’s job being already finished) by the time you see it on film and the suspension of disbelief which both performers and the audience members engage in to go along for the ride despite the flaws and distractions of the medium.

During our visit at the Whitney, the only piece to truly capture my attention, so much so that I watched it loop twice, was Anicka Yi’s The Flavor Genome. The short 3D film seemed to have for objective to set up dichotomies, between organic and artificial for example, and then to violently challenge those both through juxtaposing sets of subjects and through a rather monotone narrating talking of genetic mutations and the creation of hybrid creatures for the entertainment of those creating them. Yi would then take her argument further by pinning molecules up against language by discussing Frankenstein-like words created out of a desire for mental shortcuts and which smash together two terms like “sex” and “text” at the risk of losing both original meanings in the process. By doing so she is of course attempting to help move our discussing further by removing the fixed, respectively positive and negative, connotations attached to nature and science. What she’s also effectively doing though is suggesting that pollution is not just something up in the clouds making our cities hotter. There is also an equally real, although more subtle and therefore perhaps more poisonous, kind of pollution which can affect our minds if we are not weary of what ungodly hybrids we birth in our language, and more broadly speaking in our culture. If culture is nature than it is harder to change but it poses the question of who is the apex animal meant to thrive in this environment. If culture is artificial then not only can it be altered at our will but some people amongst can also be held accountable for the atrocities created in the name of culture. In a style reminiscent of body-horror cinema, Yi then shows up glimpses of human hands glossing over skin, wood or metal as if positing the idea that, just like we can break down our language to genes, our selves can be broken down to limbs which, when shown from this point of view, seem to have a will of their own, to be autonomeous. Furthermore she connects living yet seemingly different things through metaphor such as the juxtaposition of a vagina with an octopus and pearls. It seems to suggest that our metaphors can, or do, become our realities. That everytime we compare one thing to another what we are in fact making is a new hybrid. And when we do end up creating that hybrid we henceforth have brought on a new subjectivity to the world. Somehow the film is therefore about creating consciousness for entertainment or subjectivity for consumption. The Liger might’ve been born to please our sight but it is now through his eyes that we wish to see the world and no such eyes had previously existed. Similarly we assembled computers only to slowly, if only through glitch art in the present, birth a new form of consciousness with its own perspective on the reality in which it was born. To return to these hands gliding over surfaces though: I can’t quite explain what I mean by it but if there was to be a message within The Flavor Genome it would seem to be that everything is divisible and that therefore, when shrunken to a sympathetic enough, or weird enough if we’re talking molecular or god forbid quantum level, size then everything is alive.

During our class trip to the Whitney Museum of American Art my favorite piece was a 3D video art installation entitled  The Flavor Genome. It runs for 22 minutes in a black box space and provides comfortable, plush seating. Some audience members sat upright others lied down. I found that while lying down I was able to deeply feel the reverberation of the bass in that was incorporated into the music of the piece.The music used was current and electronic. I found this refreshing, and I love when a piece of art can reflect back our present reality. This physical sensation was one of my favorite parts of this piece. The story of the film follows a “flavor chemist” on a  trip through the Amazon, where she narrates and confronts her fascination and anxiety around the ideas of chemical and genetic engineering and biotechnology. This film was gorgeously shot, but the 3D elements did not add much to the experience overall, but helped to add a futuristic feeling, making the artificial world in front of the screen seem as if I could one day be a reality.This piece had a high production value and it paid off, the cinematography was sharp and clean, and so was the editing. The luxe quality seemed ironic given that so much of the piece was a critique of global consumerism.

The meticulous construction and attention to detail of each scene reminded me of the Netflix show Chef’s Table .  The lushness of the Amazon added a certain aesthetic, or shall I say, flavor, that emphasized color and texture.The imagery of this piece was consistently striking, and stayed with me after it ended. The scene of acrylic pink Chanel nails next to a squid head for example, seemed to implant itself in my mind. One of the central themes confronted was the idea of artificiality versus reality and where we draw the line between the two in a world that is increasingly contrived. Everything from our words, foods, and lifestyles have become so hybridized and manipulated that it makes it seem as if nothing is truly real.

.

At the Witney Museum, an artist named Maya Stovall displayed three video pieces that are part of the Liquor Store Theater volumes. In each video their is one to three people performing a dance near or in front of a liquor store. It cuts between a dance performance to interviews of people part of the Detroit community. The element of dance in the videos seem a bit odd at first but one pedestrian explains the importance of music and dance and how it brings a community together. The pedestrian explains how music and dance can be like therapy. Art is a big part of the community, their are lots of graffiti and murals.

Pedestrians that are interviewed are asked about Detroit. The pedestrians talk about the past and the possible future of their home. Many of the interviewees discussed the changing of the city. The city is getting new stores and building new housing infrastructures. The pedestrians are asked about why people are being moved out. They worry that the new improvements might force poor people out like gentrification in New York. One couple explained how their rent had not risen but the building next to their did and many of those people how to move out.

The series felt that it was trying to bring awareness of the issues of gentrification. It was giving close first half accounts of those people experience the change in their neighborhoods. It also allowed people to talk about what their neighborhood is really like and combat a stigma or stereotype. One pedestrian explained although many go to the liquor store in his community. The liquor store has many other convinces like water and snacks. Having people from the community talk about issues that effect them allows for a perspective that isn’t show on television or a news article. I think it creates empathy and put a face to people being affected by the changes happening in Detroit.

The location of the shooting and dancing I thought was combating a stigma. A lot of liquor stores come to poorer neighborhoods. I felt like it showed that although people are coming in and out of the store. These same people are fully aware of life and politics around them. They are involved and aware of how their communities are changing. They have worries about being forced out of their community and they know that this is happening to them. One of the interesting things when watching people speak was no one knew how to deal or combat the problems. They seemed to accept the changes and the possible future outcome of their home. I felt it showed how as citizens we don’t feel like we can make a change or difference. 

I went to MoMA PS1 to see Ian Cheng : Emissaries. Emissaries is Ian Cheng’s first US museum solo presentation. This was a live simulation works using a video game which was very interesting.

There was a 10-foor-tall projection on the wall “Positioning viewers as observers who can follow the lives of specific characters as they interact within the simulated worlds and each other in an ever-changing environment.” The exhibition was collaborated with Twitch; the world’s leading video platform and community for gamers. This exhibition was popular for gamers because the exhibition made viewers to feel that they are in the video game world. When I first saw the Emissaries, I was very confusing because I am not a gamer. However, when I stayed in front of the screen and watched few minutes, I felt like I am at the inside of the screen. The video game wasn’t video game that we familiar so it didn’t look like a video game but it made viewers to involve the screen. There were lots of characters talking each other and it felt like I am one of the character. The one thing that left a lot to be desired was character’s conversation. There was a dialogue which was not English. Since the language was video game language it was difficult to understand character’s dialogue. It would be much better if the viewers could understand the dialogue. However, the dialogue was not a big problem. There was a background sound that made more realistic. I felt like I am at the screen because of the realistic sound. The one thing I really liked about the screen was that the simulation works using a video game made the viewers to involve with the simulation. Some screen showed very closer to the characters so it made me like I am next to these characters. Some screen showed flying scene with the point of view so it made the viewers flying. Just watching the screen didn’t make the viewers to involve the screen because of the video game scene. However, Ian Cheng used lot of different simulations so it made the viewers to involve with the screen easily. Even though, I couldn’t understand dialogue from the screen, I was able to involve with the screen because of the simulation and the background sound.

I really liked this exhibition because I have never seen exhibition like this before. Also, it was really interesting that video game can become an art. I learned that the viewers can understand and the viewers can involve to the screen with only the visual.