I went to Elizabeth Dee gallery to see “With the Eyes of others: Hungarian Artists of the Sixties and Seventies”. The exhibition presented “more than one hundred works by thirty artists active in the Hungarian Neo-avant-garde in the latter half of the 20th century. The exhibition was about introduction to the period, capturing the particular mood and texture of the non official art scene which was very interesting. Actually, it was little difficult to understand the meaning of Hungarian Neo-avant-garde just looking at the exhibiton because I am not familiar with Neo-avant-garde. However, it was interesting that there were photography of thirty artists active in the Hungarian Neo-avant-garde doing their works or taking photo with their works. Also, there were photos of different facial expression which was very interesting. I forgot the name of the photo but there was a photo of a woman holding a frame and making different facial expression was my best work. Through her different facial expression, I found that people has not only different facial expression but also different taste in art. Also, there were lots of paintings at the exhibiton. The paintings were very colorful and beautiful. Even though the painting were colored only with colorful color and couldn’t find any meaning but it felt very relief justing looking at the paintings.

From this exhibition, I learned that people has different taste in art. Some people like this kind of exhibiton and some poeple doesn’t like this kind of exhibiton because it is hard to find the meaning of photography and paintings. However, some arts seems nothing there is meaning. I realized that the each painting has meaning after I read the explaination. Even though it looks nothing there is hidden meaning.

 

The media sensation that arose out of the Jonbenet Ramsey murder case in 1996, fascinated people across America. The film, Casting Jonbenet, directed by Kitty Greene is an experimental film in my estimation because of its unique structure. As the title suggests, this film is a heavily stylized quasi-documentary. It follows a dozen or so local actors in Boulder, Colorado that are auditioning for roles to play members of the Ramsey family in an unnamed fiction movie about the unsolved killing of the 6 year old beauty pageant queen. The 80 minute film is a combination of them performing their screen tests, their commentary and theories about what really happened to Jonbenet, and them sharing deeply personal stories about how they relate to the “characters”.  By removing the real figures of this case, and focusing on the actors, Greene is able to get to a raw and human place that exposes why tragedy porn continues to fascinate the public, and garner national attention. The actors also provide a unique insight, because part of their job is to get into the mind of their character. One man speaks about finding a dead body, and how that would play into his performance as John. One woman speaks about yelling at her child after bedwetting. Another actress admits to being abused as a child. What becomes clear is that the reason people are so obsessed with the mystery of Jonbenet Ramsey is a combination of the draw of the unsolvable and the fact that they can relate to some part of it. It is fascinating to watch the actors project their own traumas and insecurities on people they’ve only known through the lens of a tabloid spectacle.  It is deeply unsettling from start to finish.

Towards the end the film it gets very meta. The camera pans out so we see all the actors on the soundstage acting out their particular bits at the same time, as if running through each possible theory of what could have happened. It unifies all the infinite possible explanations, as each one seems to represent what might have happened in different parallel dimensions as a camera tracks across the scene while another camera captures it all from still farther back. This multilayered piece brings up questions about child exploitation, crime and punishment, law and order, guilt, and what it means to be an actor.

Kedi is a weird mix of documentary and fiction style film that tries to express the modern and oriental life that exists in Istanbul through the eyes of street cats in the city. So having grown up in Istanbul, I was ecstatic to finally have the opportunity to see Kedi at the Landmark Sunshine Cinema in Lower Manhattan.
The movie is made by Ceyda Torun, who’s a cat lover herself, but more importantly, a lover of the city of Istanbul. The former is quite obvious due to the fact that this movie was made. Although the latter is quite well shown on the screen, there are a few details I feel only a native of Istanbul would be able to take away from the movie; the way the city is shown in the movie that is. What I mean by that is, upon watching the movie, I realized that the city was reflected in a way that a Hollywood movie never really did, intentionally or otherwise. The most recent examples I can think of are Skyfall and Taken 2. I’ve been to the set of Skyfall, which was located near where most sequences of Kedi was shot. The difference between the way these two movies portray the city is absurd. Skyfall, and this is coming from a huge Bond fan, shows the city as if it’s stuck in the 70s. From the cars, and how the only “modern” cars in the Turkey-scenes are driven by only the characters while every single extra drives a Lada or a Beetle, to that weird Mad Max-like yellow tint to give the impression that Istanbul is in the middle of some desert in North Africa… It’s all very strange how easy it is for Hollywood productions to take a dump on one of the oldest and most beautiful cities in the world. Not even going to bother typing about Taken 2 and how that movie pretty much turns the Eminonu/Karakoy area (same location where Skyfall and Kedi were shot, interestingly enough) into a… Anyways. Having said that, Kedi does the complete opposite. It tells the story of street cats in the city, yes, but I think it does something that’s a level or two above that: It shows the city as it is. And I think that’s a good enough reason to watch this movie, and enjoy the company of about a dozen cats while doing so.

I attended a screening at Hunter College for the film INAATE/SE by Zack and Adam Khalil. The film is about an ancient Ojibway story, the Seven Fires Prophecy. The prophecy resonates through the generations in their indigenous community within Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The film includes documentary and narrative aspects with experimental forms. When the film started I thought it was regular documentary, because it was mostly interviews and shots of the landscape but then there was a twist. They had included a narrative aspect to it that was a little trippy as we see kids take some drugs to get closer to their culture and “traditions” and they end up killing the masked priest. I found it interesting when watching it how they try to stay true to their traditions but they sort of have to evolve and become more modern because of the time so it makes it difficult for a culture that is in tune with the Earth and nature.

The use of the found footage I enjoyed as well, as we see parents talk about their old school being burned down when they were children. I could tell that the story of the burning of that school, is a story that has been passed down generations, as most of their culture and traditions have been, I found that to be interesting. There was also a scene where we walk through the were they keep the pieces of art they show in the Metropolitan Museum and we see how they have taken this communities history and put them on display without asking if it was okay with them to do so. I enjoyed the film a lot and made me think about how they are speaking for hundreds of people in their community with this film and how powerful that is, to show people your traditions and culture in a way that doesn’t offend your community, takes a lot of responsibility.

While at the Whitney I saw a number of experimental films and art, I enjoyed most of them but one that stood out as just plain bad was “Real Violence.” First of all, I felt that the “warning” they give to you before you put on the googles was not preparing someone for what they are about to watch. They said that the video contained violence and blood, okay…I’ve seen a lot of violent films with murder and guts and blood so I thought I wouldn’t mind. However they did not say that this video would entail being up close and personal to a person having the shit kicked out of them and their face curb stomped and skull cracking. It was extremely disturbing, I looked all around the city that it took place in and tried not to watch the figure getting brutally beat. The only thing that made it slightly bearable to watch was the fact that after looking at the two men for a little while I could tell that it was CGI and didn’t look that real, that made this experience slightly better, but my thoughts about this piece were just WHY. Why use the awesome technology of Virtual Reality just to show one thing happening on the side of a road? I couldn’t understand this artist angle. I almost would  have preferred that if they were going to show something this violent I would rather it have been a political piece. Maybe a cop shooting a black man, since this has been too common in the time we are in today. I felt this random man beating another man was just pointless and lacked substance, if it was something that is going on today and relatable would have found the piece much more moving and powerful, with a stronger voice and message. I was defiantly not a fan of this VR piece and I really think the people who were working at it should have given a better warning at the start. When they said voice I figured a war or a shooting not a mercilessness beating.

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.