An upside down view of the world

...Finally I am posting on the trip to view the camera obscura. I really don't have much to say other than I was rather surprised by it. I had never seen a camera obscura before, other than simple pictures found on the internet and in various classes. I was rather stunned by how clear the picture/image was, I was expecting something nowhere near as clear or vivid, I was also expecting something a little bigger, but I assume there are limitations to this art form that I hadn't thought of at first. I thought that the other images/video that were presented in his (I forget his name at the moment) presentation were even more captivating. The idea of projecting the images onto the inside ceiling of a structure is pretty cool, and if I think it would be a cool idea for a permanent installation. My only question that came to mind during the visit (which he kind of addresses and answered) is "why camera obscuras?" Of all the possible forms of expression, why would one go through the trouble to mess with an ancient form of projection? I am not criticizing his choice, but it must be a very difficult form to utilize, there are so many external factors and forces that are out of your control (weather, lenses, position/ location), not to mention that this must be a bit of an under appreciated art form, it must be frustrating. But then again it also must be rather satisfying when all those factors come together to create a beautiful image. All in all it was cool, for awhile.

Look Ma, a leaf! No son, thats found art!

We weren't given any real topics to discuss in our blogs this week so I am just making one up as I go. I sometimes feel cheated when we view films/pieces in class, not just in Film 201, but also in other classes and in the real world. I may just be expecting more from something which I cannot grasp, but sometimes the films feel weak...thats the best word I can come up with. They feel as if the artist decided to do a few shots of this and that and then string them together. Added to my frustration is the fact that I am told by others (instructors/student/media) that this piece is great/grand/genius and I am left gnawing on my tongue trying to understand and hold in my thoughts for humilities sake. I am mainly focusing on films like Available Light Shift, Clear Blue Sky, and Data Diaries. While these are more than acceptable pieces and I did enjoy some of them quite a bit, they seem to lack a personal touch or possibly some sort of goal. They all seem to deal more with experimenting with film/video rather than the film/video experience and that can be why I have problems with them. Carl said in class last Monday about an artist who does a piece where he projects film and sprays Windex on the projection booth window in order to create imagery on the screen. That could very well be a most enjoyable experience, but it also seems cheap, a cop out to the medium itself. Maybe I am just not pretentious enough, or have been brainwashed by modern entertainment. I am not proposing by saying this that we should travel back 500 years and let a select few be responsible for the creation of art, and I am not proposing that every artist should be forced to create within some sort of philosophical boundary, but I would like to know why the hell do they think its good and worthy of my viewing. It might be small of me to ask for something so large.
On a side not, I gotta say that The Dark Room left me a bit sick after seeing it. I was quite good, a feast for the eyes, but a bit nausea inducing. Also I want to say that Night Flight, by UWM's very own Brent Cougenhour (I have no clue how you spell his last name) was by far one of the better films I have seen this entire semester. While it was stated that it was intended to be viewed on two separate monitors and in color, I think that I prefer the format/presentation of it we got on Monday. The juxtaposition of the two screens, the haunting audio, and the simplicity of the black/white film made it stick out more as a whole. I can't compare it to its original installation format, but I doubt I would have given it much thought or time...hell, I might be ranting about it rather than raving.

Even if I act and look real crazy...

What images do I have of Beirut? Thats a good question, I doubt I have ever really thought of the place outside of hearing about it in the news (especially as of late) and if any images came to mind they would be of your stereotypical third world country landscape filled with violence and strife. I certainly never took it in as a place where film could thrive, let alone in an experimental form...so I was a pleasantly surprised when I viewed the films this past Monday and read Laura Marks "Letters from Beirut". It was nice to see and experience something wholly different that what is displayed on TV. I feel a bit like a fish out of water when trying to relate to what was said and expressed in the films (or at least what I think was being said). Its not that I can't relate on some level, everyone from all walks of life deal with similar situations, but I have never had to live in a war zone, never had to deal with being surrounded by physical conflict, religious conflict, etc. I have on possibly some level but nothing compared to what these filmmakers have had to endure so I can only sit from the sidelines and comment. I am not sure what I am getting at...maybe its that I feel as if I can't really appreciate these films due to this fact. I do want to comment on the form and presentation of In "This House". The idea of dividing the screen into sections, the speech tones, etc is what made this film for me. It took the moving, yet uneventful and slow story and made it into a exciting almost interactive piece that managed to hold my attention, which is a major feat when you suffer horribly from Adult Inattentive ADD (I have this of all things and being forced to sit in a theater chair and watch experimental films for 2 hours is the closet to hell I have yet to experience).
On a side note, I must say that after reading "Letters from Beirut" I was a bit put off by Laura Marks. While I agree with a majority of her political/personal views I thought that it was completely asinine of her to turn down the plane ride that the US had offered to foreigners wanting to leave Lebanon during the conflict. At this point she wasn't sure how she would leave the country (since Canada had yet to do anything with regard to evacuating its citizens). Her excuse for rejecting the plane ride that the US was offering was that they were backing/supporting/supplying Israel (something along those lines). Luckily it all worked out in the end, but my advice to her would be that the next time someone offers her a ride out of a war zone that she take it. Silly Idealist.