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.

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?”