I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, on 86 street and 5^th Avenue, where I was able to catch a short film, which is considered one of the best arts created to date. Stasi City (1997) is universally considered one of the most impactful works of video art of the last half century, because it was one of the first films to date that could be classified as an experimental film. the four-channel video installation is a dizzying tour of the former headquarters of the East German secret police (Staatssicherheit) housed behind a nondescript row of buildings in the former East Berlin.

 

When I walked in the room and saw the movie playing on four walls all in different scenes yet syncing up at the same time really threw me. As an outsider privy to this place even existing, the circumstances that these rooms were in really emphasized torture and struggle. Throughout the film, there’s a boy floating around, and I interpreted that as a spirit that lingered in this place trapped forever because this is where he lost his life.

Another very interesting trait about this piece is that it’s a silent film. For a silent film to be this suspenceful and this attention grabbing I’m sure was a rarity when this first released in ’97. The slowness of the footage evokes surveillance, the feeling of being watched, as does the installation’s layout, which draws the visitor into a corner.

Jane and Louise Wilson, the creators of Stasi City, were able to bring to life a very dark and overlooked moment in German history which I feel also make this piece very historic. The fact that this was one of the first film pieces to publicly expose some of the horrors that were going on in these rooms really magnified the dehumanization that went on behind closed doors.

 

 

I was a Journalism Major at one point before switching to Media Studies and this piece really reminded me of a Feature Article. Not your typical “soft news” Feature, but more like a story that a reporter had been working on for a while, digging up as much information as possible to them expose corruption almost like a breaking news story or something to that effect.

 

 

I really enjoyed the silent film and it made me think a lot on more of a journalistic side in terms of the approach and making is silent to add that much more suspense. Jane and Louise Wilson had real courage to make such a sensitive film public, but by doing so, they let the world know what was happening in Germany behind closed doors almost like a reporter breaking a story on a government corruption scandal here in the United States.

The event was consisted of four shorts directed by Argentina filmmaker Eduard “Teddy” Williams including Could See Puma, I forgot!,, and Persí. As I started watching the first and second piece, I found myself constantly looking for a narrative of the film by picking up visual clues such as locations, behaviors, and dialogues between characters. That’s where I got really frustrated since I could not get any idea of what I was watching. What’s the storyline here? What’s the meanings of this image and intentions of the filmmaker? The films rather became more ambiguous and poetic. I kept wondering and realized that his films focus on the ordinal moments in our lives documented in unique ways.

I saw lots of abrupt cuts, unique angles and replacements of cameras, and less explanations. All the films focus on young males and how they interact with each other. The shared theme among the three pieces seemed to be nature, plants, and fruits such as boys hanging out in abandoned buildings, cave, and around their houses. The locations of the shoots are different for each film including Argentina, France, and Vietnam. However, the director did not use conventional texts indicating time and location or personalize characters. It actually depersonalizes the image and characters. I started to realize there are more similarities than differences among people all over the world. Third piece was very interesting and experiments with the boundaries of repetitions where sounds get extremely overwhelmed. All of the sounds are juxtaposed two sentences starting “Seems like A is B” and last throughout the entire film. Moreover, image the filmmaker chosen to go along with the sentences are footage taken from 360 degree GoPro attached to roller skaters and men dressed as women cruising a town with their car. Again, no explanations to those characters at all and the image seem to be pretty much observational.

Fortunately, after the films, we had the filmmaker himself coming up to the stage for a discussion. This is usually a time for me to problem-solve because I can have better understanding of the meanings, intentions, and methods of the filmmaking explained by the filmmaker himself/herself. I bet many of the audience had a plenty of questions to ask as we are usually used to be given sufficient information about story and characters. I would say it was the most interesting discussion ever. What I basically understood from Teddy talking about his films was that he follows his intuitive artistic creativity and always experiments with how he shoots and shows the image. I didn’t quite get the answers to my questions! I headed to my home feeling like having an unsolved mystery in my mind. I kept thinking about what I saw until the next day, and I came to a realization that, that is what experimental filmmaking is. Shooting with a camcorder on a tripod does not always have to be the way to shoot. The filmmaker’s work is significant as he always challenges the normative of filmmaking and storytelling. I was inspired to explore, find, and sophisticate with my style.

On February 20, 2019 I had the opportunity to attend a screen at the Ludlow House organized by the Filmmaker’s Coop. The screening was an accompaniment to the fall 2018 issue of Framework, a film and media journal highlighting artists pursuing new cultural and political perspectives in their art. Four experimental filmmakers, all of whom are in some way associated with the coop, had been asked by Framework to participate in their issue by creating a visual essay based off of their work. At the screening, each artist showed a portion of the work from which they drew to create their visual essay. The resulting screen was four very different artists, displaying four very different pieces of experimental film.

The first artist presented was Michelle Handleman. Michelle is a filmmaker who uses video and live performance in her work. The piece screened on this particular evening was a snippet from an installation currently on view at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art called Hustlers & Empires. Hustlers & Empires is a three-channel video installation which intertwines the lives of three “hustlers” from various time periods. The piece included dialogue and musical numbers, all written by Michelle and her cast. The format she chose to show at the screening included video from inside the gallery, so we were able to see the actual installation, as well as clips from the video itself.

The second artist was Bette Gordon, showing the first 15 minutes of her feature film Variety, originally released in 1984. Variety is the story of a young woman living in New York City who takes a job selling tickets at an X-rated movie theater in Times Square after she is unable to find any other job. Desperate for employment, this sweet, innocent, Midwest transplant soon finds herself completely enthralled by the movies inside. I am not exactly sure what about this film qualifies it as “experimental,” but it was included in this screening of experimental works.

The third artist (and my personal favorite) was Rob Roth. Rob screened footage of a performance called Soundstage which was done in 2018. The performance included a live performance on-stage partnered with pre-recorded video footage. Rob, though he had not originally planned on actually being in the piece, performed live, while a pre-recorded actor, Rebecca Hall, was projected on screens around the stage. It was extremely impressive because Rob (on-stage) was interacting with Rebecca (in the pre-recorded video) as though they were acting with one another.

The final piece was by MM Serra. This piece, titled Enduring Ornament, was a found footage film made up of about 4 discarded 16mm peep show films from the 1940s which MM acquired after the closing of an adult bookstore in Times Square. She altered the film through optical printing and alternative processing. The result is often a very obscured image with amazing texture and movement.

I enjoyed this event very much. It was interesting to see some of the various ways artists are creating experimental work. Each piece was unique from all the others, so it was cool to see them back-to-back. This event really opened my eyes to the unlimited possibilities of experimental filmmaking.

John Romano

Andy Warhol Whitney Exhibit

Andy Warhol has created several films in his time. At the Whitney Museum this weekend I got to experience several of his experimental short films. I want to talk about one in particular because It was short but deep. I believe most of Andy’s films are about challenging the idea of what is art.

“Andy Warhol eating a hamburger” is a film that was shot in the 1980s by Jørgen Leth. Warhol decided to be a part of the film for several reasons. One of the reasons was that It was shot in his style. The film is a single shot film on a single camera much like a lot of  Warhol’s films. At one point Warhol struggles to pour the ketchup but the camera keeps rolling because that is the beauty in this particular film and art form. The idea that everything is art.

I saw this short film at the Whitney Museum in one of the main floors. The film is a little over four minutes long and shows Warhol eating a hamburger for the entire film. When you watch the film for the first time you may think its funny or you may feel uncomfortable. It’s fairly silent until the end when Warhol says his name and what he just did. It’s strange that we feel uncomfortable because he is performing an everyday action of eating something. However, silence is what makes It uncomfortable. He sometimes looks at the camera and other times looks shy and almost vulnerable while eating the burger.

The main point of the film in my opinion, however, is the idea of what is art? Pop art was formed because of the idea that every day things can be art. Art does not have to be unique so eating a hamburger could be art. The normal activities of everyday life can now be turned into art. Who is to question what is and isn’t art? Some people can see art in things that others can’t.

Warhol eating a burger from Burger King also shows that Americans are created equal. Warhol is an American born citizen who I believe took pride in being American. He wanted to show that celebrities eat the same food that regular American citizens eat. The film is digging deep into the American consumer culture. I think this is shown through the film because you expect something to happen during the film but the film just ends up being about a man eating a burger. The reason people watch this film even though it’s just a man eating a hamburger is because of Andy Warhol’s presence. People expect something greater because of a celebrity appearance. If It was shot with a man on the street people would walk away. However, people place celebrities on a pedestal and look up to celebrities even when they do everyday mundane things. The way Warhol moves in the film also shows his character and personality as an artist. He knows how to move an audience in a very simple way.

“Not A Pretty Picture” by Martha Coolidge is film that was shoot in the 1970s. The screening of the film took place in the Anthology Film Archive located in down town Manhattan. The story was about a rape that happened to Coolidge back when she was residing at her school. She filmed it in away that had the actors speaking about their point of view or at least the things that they must think about just to get into character. It was a good inside look as to how actors prepare themselves and it also shows that the director can rely on some form of improvisation if it fits their vision.

Martha Coolidge can captivate the pressures that a teenage girl had to face in the 70s if she was the victim of rape. Unfortunately, the 70s still had a lot of conservative influences to the extent that a woman’s right was still very limited. Subjects such as abortions were very taboo, and girl was viewed as easy or dirty if she would have more than one partner. The film also managed to show what the mentality of some men at the time had when it came to consent. One of the actors, who was playing as the rapist, stated that sometimes a guy can misinterpret a “no” as a form of playing hard to get. However, a no regardless of how it sounds should still be taken as a no. The actress playing as a young Martha also had a rape experience of her own. She stated that she didn’t want it, but it seemed as if the man who raped her didn’t fully understand what he was doing or even understood that Martha was not consenting.

Artistically the film was shot years ago so I wasn’t expecting HD quality, but it was still shot well. Since the film was dialog heavy most of the shots were profiles or up-close shots. Coolidge also used a lot of single shots since the actors would improvise from time to time. She truly relied on them to interpret the emotions and mentality of both the rapist and the victim. The supporting actors were also important for the film since they are the ones who set-up the scene and the personality of the main cast. We notice that through the banter of the supporting cast that rapist is already a douche. He treats others like lower class citizens and even makes fun of one of his friends because he got into college. During the scene in which they are in school he ignores Martha after she tells him that she is possibly pregnant.

Through Martha Coolidge’s film the harsh reality of a young teenage girl’s life during the 70s was very difficult since society was more conservative than today, so the idea of a young girl aborting was almost blasphemy.

For my last blog assignment, I went to the Met Breuer to visit the Lygia Pape Exhibition. I was absolutely in love. I have never heard of Lygia Pape before I went to the exhibition and had no idea what kind of artist she was. From the moment I walked in, every piece of art resonates in my heart. The reason why I love her work is because I am a huuuuuuge minimalist. I;m not saying her work is totally minimalistic, but it definitely had that kind of impact on me. Each piece was so simple, yet intricate at the same time.

There were a series of favorite pieces of art at the exhibition. Not to mention, her color palette was beautiful. I loved the yellow, black, and gray, as well as pops of red, green, and blue, and a base of white. Some of my favorites would have to be….

There was a wall filled with colorful patterns (the one shown all the way at the right above). I’m not sure what this wall signifies, but to me, it felt like different patterns fitting well when put together. Almost as if it’s talking about different people, cultures, languages, can all come together, unified. The colors were popping right off the white wall, literally, because these patterns are 3D. If she was alive… I would want to work under her and learn to be as creative as she is.

Another one of my absolute favorites was this piece. (picture shown below). It’s white and yellow and stunning. It kind of reminds me of mountains, but honestly, it’s just one of those pieces I adore without much analysis. It’s aesthetically pleasing and I would love to take it home. I forgot what it was called, but nevertheless, I loved it.

A experimental film that I enjoyed was called Ballet neoconcreto I (Neoconcreto Ballet I) 1958. According to the little information plate they show next to the film, the film is based on a Concrete poem by Reynaldo Jardim. In the peom, Jardim states eye and target, which I’m still not sure what it really means. Pape’s rendition used blocks to represent “eye” and “target”. The blocks were a combination of cylinders and rectangles. They would move within the film, creating this ballet(?) In the information plate, it states, “Pape replaced the simulated movements and imaginary settings of traditional theater with the concrete drama of basic forms shifting in space and times”. Such a simple film with such depth and meaningful purpose.

The Lygia Pape exhibition has definitely opened my eyes and inspired me to continue to create minimal work. I absolutely loved everything she created and I think Pape is a renowned artist to have her own stylistic choices and patterns. I believe that her work of art will continue to inspire many other artists out there.

If you haven’t gone to this exhibition, I would highly recommend to go before it closes because  I’m sure you won’t regret it. I’d probably go again.

         For the last post, I went to see the screening which was held in the Whitney Museum. This 64 min film was called “SHAKEDOWN”, directed by Leilah Weinraub who was born in Los Angeles, showed this dreamlike, intoxicating portrait of Los Angeles’s African American lesbian strip club scene in which the network of female performers attached to a weekly party called Shakedown take center stage. This film certainly gave me a different perspective in which how the sexual display was built and the desiring gaze of queer women of color in this utopian community. This was one first time watching the film which was related to the topic of queer African-American women in the strip club and certainly made me think a lot of how the queer community was behaving during the 90s and up until now. After seeing behind the scenes of the dancers trying to make their way of living, I feel these rarely untold stories gave me more appreciation on queer women of color, and how the existence of this club played a major position inside a lot of people’s life in their community. The way how the director was shooting the film with all low lighting made the dancers’ appearances more mysterious and wanted to know more about their stories which were ignored by the mass media and I feel we certainly should get to know more about the community in various perspectives and understanding their thoughts and life experiences.  

          The classical trip to the Whitney Museum was definitely the highlight of my day.  Since this was my first time to go to that museum, my curiosity definitely got fulfilled by those amazing art works and short videos inside the exhibition. The video piece I saw was called “A very long line” by Postcommodity. This was projected in a room with several projectors pointed at each side of the wall. All you can see was grass behind those bars and you can see the landscape moving while the video is playing. This meant to show show the border between the United States and Mexico and what I got upset was those bars because to me I feel like the green grass present the pleased life but they got blocked by those bars and made me think of this whole intense political issue of immigration and as one of the immigrants who moved to New York from China, hearing those who got trapped because of this border made me think a lot about this issue, even though the video is just showing the moving landscape along with the bars, the meaning behind it was thought-provoking. Besides the short video, one art work which got my attention was various toys moving along the circle with a iphone set close to a side of the moving panel and show the view of how each object is clearly portrayed on the phone. I think that was very interesting because of the idea of getting various objects moving while catching up with many good angle shots using the phone and people could see different view of the toys with different perspectives.

For this last of three blog posts I decided to attend Metrograph’s screening of the recently released documentary about Chris Burden simply titled Burden. I was a little disappointed to discover that the format of the documentary was fairly traditional but nonetheless, as a collection of Burden’s filmed performance art pieces it still is as awe-inspiring and disturbing as most experimental films I could’ve viewed instead. What was particularly interesting to me about the documentary, besides the fact that it allowed me to see more of Burden’s pieces beyond the three we watched together in class, was that it essentially lifted the veil, or the camera if you will, and allowed for a contextualization of both the man and his work. For example, in class we watched the piece in which he had someone shoot him with a shotgun from just a few feet away; which needless to say was impressive and thought provoking on its own. But the documentary shined a light on the fact that it was a friend of his who he had tasked with shooting him and that the piece had actually gone wrong as this friend has, despite numerous rehearsals, moved a bit to the left as he pulled the trigger resulting in a more serious injury than the one intended. This sparked so many questions in me as to the possible deterioration of the two men’s relationship following the incident but most of all about whether the very presence of the camera, which I assume wasn’t there during rehearsals, had affected the shooter’s judgement and decision on shooting day (pun intended). If it was just him and his friend Burden in the room unobserved would he perhaps have been more careful and less likely to injure him more than was intended? Did the presence of a camera make him, as a figure in the art world, less concerned with the well-being of his friend in favor of posterity and the power of the final product? Equally fascinating was the insight into Burden’s personal life at the time of his most daring pieces. It was during those years that he was, off camera and out of the studio, living a rather normal and domesticated life. I’m not quite sure what conclusion to make from that but for someone who, despite his recording of his pieces, sees himself as a performance artist rather than a filmmaker it does make sense that non-domesticated or tumultuous years would not lend themselves to risky or disturbing pieces as the live being lived at this time is already that. I found that to be quite a powerful piece of food for thought on what motivates us to do what we do. Interjected between footage of his pieces were short interviews of Burden on the farm that he lived on in his later years and up until his death in 2015. He described himself as having changed and no longer being interested in the kind of performance art pieces which he did during his youth and I couldn’t help but to think that all of it had taken a toll on him and that he perhaps had ventured a bit too far into the possibilities of reality and the limits of mortality to the point of, for lack of a better word, scaring himself straight. It reminded me of talking to people who had lived through the 60’s and greatly experienced with psychedelics but now, rather disappointingly, dismiss these adventures as youthful antics.