Reading Response 3: Due Oct. 7 @ 5 p.m.

Reading Response 3: Due Oct. 7 @ 5 p.m.

1. Respond to Chieko Shiomi's Disappearing Music for Face. How does the minimalism and duration of the film affect your engagement with the image? How does the film relate to the following issues:
a. Maciunas's definition of art vs. his definition of "fluxus art-amusement"
b. art as object vs. art as performance and activity.

http://www.ubu.com/film/fluxfilm.html

My response to Chieko Shiomi's Disappearing Music for Face involved a continual change of how I was viewing the image in front of me. I think the fact that the image is so grainy and slightly out of focus lends to how much depth the film manages to achieve. At times, I found it interesting that the image itself was in a sort of stasis and yet the scratches and grains of the film lent life and erratic energy. Then, as the film moved on, the face became a sort of abstraction. At times I would imagine a city sky line forming, taking the place of teeth. There was also the strange gradual tonal shift where the smile disappeared, the whole film slowly gaining a somber feeling.

The film certainly is in line with the Fluxus ideal of art that anyone can create. I don't know if this film exactly fits the ideology of amusement though. It seems too slow, too deliberate. It seems to necessitate some deep brooding on the audiences' part which is decidedly against Maciuna's ideals proposed in his assessment of art vs. fluxus art-amusement. But then again, that was only my own reaction to the film, and I suppose if I really want to get complicated, there's nothing that says that you can't regard amusement in a serious way. Hmm.

As far as art as object vs. art as performance and activity, I do think that this film requires an engagement from the audience that is similar to art as performance and activity. It works so slowly that it's constantly reminding the audience of its medium (film), of the process at work.

2. Look up “Fluxus” and any of the Fluxus artists in the index of Visionary Film. Why are they not there? Are the Fluxfilms compatible with Sitney’s central argument about the American avant-garde?

Well Sitney thinks of the American avant-garde as a means to depict a psychological frame of mind. With fluxfilms, the intent often has little to do with the filmmaker. In fact, there is a express desire to remove the ego of the filmmaker altogether, to provide art as a pure substance. It seems rare that the flux films engage with provocative emotion, usually finding that line of filmmaking too self-serious. Instead, they play with the form of film, they parody, they mock, they celebrate joviality and silliness. This doesn't quite fit in with the framework of the Avant-Garde artist, whose psychological intent is chief among Sitney's interests along with the formal qualities of the work that the Fluxus artists likewise subvert.

Mary Jordan, Jack Smith and the Destruction of Atlantis
[An .avi file of this documentary is on your flash drive. If you have difficulty playing it, try VLC Player and follow the instructions I put on your flash drive: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/]

3. What are some of the reasons suggested for Smith’s obsession with Maria Montez? What are some of your responses to the clips from the Montez films (especially Cobra Woman)?

Maria Montez was the catalyst for Jack Smith's obsession with film. I feel like every filmmaker has that moment where he falls in love with the medium, whether it be a single film or a series of films, and for Jack Smith it was the classic Universal pictures of the 40s featuring Maria Montez, which he had watched as a child. I think it likely also has something to do with a connection to his childhood, one of the few warm memories, some retreat of nostalgic happiness that Smith was constantly going back to. However, that's honestly just conjecture.

I do think it's interesting that Smith had that immediate interest in using experimental color, almost through an inspirational connection to the gorgeous technicolor used in Montez's films (such as Cobra Woman). The vividness of the Montez films, the glamor and theatricality, is something likewise mirrored in Smith's work. I do personally find it fascinating how the classical era of Hollywood film in the forties has this poignant mythos to it, with its diffused lighting, the way stars are portrayed as almost immortal beings, whose existence is meant for film and film alone. That's what struck me most by the Montez clips, that Smith could be attached to these films and to this woman not really as a real woman but as a transcended being, an almost pure representation of an identity. Though in my eyes, that identity doesn't really exist, it's a fabrication. And Smith's fascination with what could be considered a romantic illusion is a little contradictory to his ideals as an artist. Just a thought I had.

4. What were some attributes of the New York art community in the 1960s, and what was the relationship between the economics of the time and the materials that Smith incorporated in to his work and films? [How could Smith survive and make art if he was so poor in the city so big they named it twice?]

The art community of the 1960s, in my understanding, seemed to have two major attributes (perhaps there are many more, but this is primarily what I gleaned from the film). One, they defied convention, normalcy, and they were desperately trying to invent themselves beyond the restrictions of society. I think a great deal of the art in this time period is a reaction to repression as well, particularly of sexuality. Barriers constructed by society were being broken purposefully and forcefully, almost as a means of catharsis. Secondly, there was a quality of inclusiveness, which was something the flux film movement largely touched on as well. There is an idea now that anyone can make art, with any materials available to them. The underground film movement would take its costumes and props from the trash and turn their films into some grotesque/eloquent commentary on the state of society and of art. And anyone from any social strata could be an artist, all one needed was the will for it. Producing films in such a low economic strata also provided a freedom to the art as well. There is a great truth in the idea that the more money you need for a project, the less control you tend to have. With organic freedom being such an important element to the films of this time period, money could be seen as a death knell to the artistry.

5. What is John Zorn’s argument about Normal Love? How does his argument relate to some of the changes in the New York art world in the 1960s that we discussed in class? What are some arguments made about the influence of Jack Smith on other filmmakers (including Warhol)?

John Zorn argued that someone should have been filming Jack Smith filming, because that was the real art. The unique act of his creative process. This relates to a greater tendency of the art movement in the sixties, where a blurring of lines began to happen between artistic mediums. Within that consideration, the artistry of a film meshes with the artistry of the film's creation. The art films of this era abandoned the purity of form found in modernism, embracing a kind of performance quality that stressed an improvisation and spontaneity to an otherwise set piece of work (for instance, the performance of Invocation of Canyons and Boulders for Stan Brakehage changing from one performance to another based on how long you choose to loop the film for or Zen for Film changing from the scratches accumulating on the leader).

As far as Andy Warhol goes, the film seems to suggest that Warhol had an artistic obsession with Smith, and had been quoted saying that Smith was the only artist that Warhol would ever even try to emulate. There was an interviewee that stated that all of Warhol's most important ideas came from Smith, but seeing as how I'm not very familiar with Warhol's work and that the film doesn't go much further into than to simply say as much as that, I can't really expound on that at the moment. It is also interesting to note that Warhol was partly responsible for cult status that Smith had attained, whether or not that was a dubious honor for Smith to hold. Also interesting is that while Smith seemed vaguely contemptuous of Warhol he appeared in several of his films, relishing the chance to perform.

[Note: The Angell article states the following: "For Warhol, Jack Smith served as a early model of how to be a filmmaker...on an artistic and political level, especially in Smith's uncompromising commitment to a difficult, even doomed, aesthetic. Like Smith, Warhol would continue to draw upon the mythologies of Hollywood and the underworlds of drag queens and gay camp for the subject matter of his films." So that expounds on how Warhol had appropriated from Smith a bit more.]

6. What is meant by the slogan, “no more masterpieces” and how did Smith resist commodification (or the production of art products)?

One of the interviewees spoke of Smith's reaction to Flaming Creatures, namely that the film became something entirely different once it was finished and left his hands, and that afterwards Smith purposefully held off on finishing his products. What the film argues is that this was a new way to engage with the art of the film, without upholding individual works of art as masterpieces and subsequently debase the artistry by changing its purpose to fit in the capitalist system (the act of art as commodity thereby watering down the quality of the art). Whereas the traditional view of the film is that its importance supersedes the artist himself, Smith's film became a continuing performance where he would play the music on records himself and where he would continually edit the film as the screening was taking place. This way, the film was constantly evolving, the practice of art being in a perpetual state of motion. This way, no one could make the film something else, no one could sell it or distort it, because he had continual control of what the film actually was.

Here are some helpful links for those interested in the debate about the Jack Smith estate. This is not required, but this is fascinating, frustrating, and crazy (and it will put the documentary in a new light):

http://www.hi-beam.net/fw/fw25/0459.html
http://www.hi-beam.net/fw/fw25/0050.html
http://www.hi-beam.net/fw/fw25/0459.html

And a summary of the debate and legal proceedings. http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-03-02/news/flaming-intrigue/


Callie Angell, “Andy Warhol, Filmmaker”
[This can be found in the Kreul Articles folder from your flash drive]

7. How does Angell characterize the first major period of Warhol’s filmmaking career? What are some of the films from this period, and what formal qualities did they share? What are some significant differences between Sleep and Empire?

The first period of Warhol's filmmaking career was made up of minimalist films. They varied in length but were often known for extreme duration [Sleep-5 hours, Empire-8 hours]. They also were predominately silent static one takes, usually made up of a single unedited full length reel. The significant differences between Sleep and Empire were brought about due to the limitations of the Bolex. Because of the camera, Warhol could only take four minute shots on his quest to create his 8-hour minimalist film. This lead to Warhol using multiple shots, instead of one set shot like in Empire. Warhol also experimented with editing in Sleep, using repetition among his elaborate editing schemes. With Empire, however, the film remains completely unedited (as was more indicative of his films of the time period).

8. What role did the Screen Tests play in the routines at the Factory and in Warhol’s filmmaking?

The screen tests were a part of the attraction to the New York art scene, with Warhol at the epicenter playing the dual role of the entertainer and the director. It became part of the scene to visit the factory and participate in the Screen Tests, and it eventually consisted of a wide variety of artistic personalities both famous and unknown. This practice helped Warhol attract stars for his films and honed his skills at developing films in a serial fashion that demanded a great deal of overlap and multitasking. As Angell writes, Warhol would "work simultaneiously on a number of on-going series," going on further to cite Warhol using actors for several different projects in the same day of shooting. Warhol would also at times reuse his footage in several different projects.

9. How does Angell characterize the first period of sound films in Warhol’s filmmaking career? Who was Warhol’s key collaborator for the early sound films? What are some of the films from this period and what formal properties did they share?

Angell characterizes the first period of sound films as similar in form to the silent films, in that he was still shooting lengthy one takes and using a "stationary camera to explore a radical new conception of film not as constructed, "finished" product, but as a kind of delineated performance space, a specific temporal and physical framing within which planned or unplanned actions might or might not unfold". By that, Angell means that there was a great deal improvisation, and that mistakes and forgotten lines and technical faux paus were all part of the performance, all part of the work of art. Warhol collaborated heavily with Ronald Tavel, who was a writer and provided Warhol with copious amounts of dialogue to go along with the new possibilities of sound. Of course, Warhol ended up subverting these narratives through his inclinations for controlled chaos and improvisation (for instance, deliberately keeping actors from learning their lines). Warhol also worked a great deal with Edie Sedgwick, he became a key subject for his portraiture based films.

Some of the films from the period include Poor Little Rich Girl, Restaurant, and Afternoon. These are all Sedgwick films, based on the concept of "the individual personality engaged in self-creating performance". Also, it was with these films that Warhol began moving the camera in "slow pans and zooms" to follow Sedgwick, finally departing from the rigidity that his camera had been known for.

If you haven't seen Bruce Conner's A Movie, you can find a so-so copy at this link. I will try to work it into an upcoming class with other found footage films:
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/3-9tCeFX0Eo/



====================
Here are some extra links related to some things mentioned in class.

Here's a good documentary on John Cage (an episode of American Masters from PBS)
http://www.ubu.com/film/cage_masters.html

Here's Robert Rauschenberg talking about "Erased De Kooning"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpCWh3IFtDQ

Local coverage of the Cheese Sandwich Film Festival:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20090325/ARTICLES/903254003


Here's the Facebook page for the Chips and Salsa Film Festival:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Chips-and-Salsa-Film-Festival/308693306308

Here's a link to the entry I collaborated on, "Chip of Fools":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqtYXfectIQ