documentation as protection
documentation as threat
documentation as inane
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
sometimes you don't have to even make anything up
arsonist turtle from bristol
freak from florida"Often confused with owls, the tawny frogmouth is weaker and, frankly, lazier than most owls...
tahina, the orphan siphakafrom http://www.zooborns.com/
Thursday, February 19, 2009
inspirations, feb 09
assyrian (?) ancient figures from the British Museum
dress straps held up by balloons, Hussein Chalayan
@ identity & place & disconnection
making the layers visible, , Hussein Chalayan
@ London's design museum
@ identity & place & disconnection
making the layers visible, , Hussein Chalayan@ London's design museum
sensory ethnography
an evocative screening of two films produced by students of harvard's Sensory Ethnography Lab - a collaboration between the Department of Anthropology and the Department of Visual & Environmental Studies on February 11th.
coming from the tradition pioneered by robert gardner who looks to create art that informs understanding of human beings, a wonderful approach to ethnographic film. you don't need to qualify your view point if, as artist, it is your identity is entrnched in the process from the beginnning.
the introduction made me laugh and squirm at being once again in the grand and empty halls of academia. "engagement of the subjectivities of the subject..."
but this idea to try to capture something sensual...of course there is no objective truth and no objective filmaker etc etc etc...so they go for truth through sense..to be able, through film to "almost touch the subjects of the film" and in this way "engage with the life of the subjects."
the focus in both films “Songhua” by J.P. Sniadecki and “Mud Missive” by Fatin Abbas was on sound and texture. the river was the focus of songhua, and i was struck in particular by two scenes: the first, a boy plays with the water, clapping it with his hands, touching it with his toungue, splashing it on his face...without a close up, yet Sniadecki managed to get across the feeling of that cool water on your lips...the boys actions were just to lucious. another scene is a close up of a man's feet as he is washing them in the river, hopping to get socks on, and squeezing into his fancy shoes. great to hear his voice off camera and such an intricate, slow, and careful show of mundane activity.
Abbas's film may not have had the same beautifully composed frames, but it was somehow more sincere and more connected, perhaps due to Abbas being from Sudan herself. Some great moments of close-ups of a potters hands, you can really feel the squishy wet clay between your fingers. No doubt the sensual stuff gets across so much because the shots are long - time allows you to enter into the senses.
some notes:
* the interweaving of story lines (quilting says Sniadecki) - he includes a number of stories - bathers, the barbeque man, the funny man selling trinkets, but interweaves the film with a couple playing cards, shot from different angles
*taking time with closeu ups of feet or hands doing sensory things, and only then moving up ot the face of the person to match the voice or breath you've been hearing off camera works lovely
*at the river, a beautiful long shot just at the start of a bridge, catching all the people crossing it (the plank makes noise) while the barbeque man smokes the meat in the background. worked great - movement and static. a parade of passers-by and the coooker, there all day
*trust? helps to be a student. to remain a human even though you're holding a camera. ask, but not neccessarily right away.
*"flim leisure and labour to get at largter social issues"
* working along give your more access, more adaptable (the lonely person)
* sunheiser mircophones
coming from the tradition pioneered by robert gardner who looks to create art that informs understanding of human beings, a wonderful approach to ethnographic film. you don't need to qualify your view point if, as artist, it is your identity is entrnched in the process from the beginnning.
the introduction made me laugh and squirm at being once again in the grand and empty halls of academia. "engagement of the subjectivities of the subject..."
but this idea to try to capture something sensual...of course there is no objective truth and no objective filmaker etc etc etc...so they go for truth through sense..to be able, through film to "almost touch the subjects of the film" and in this way "engage with the life of the subjects."
the focus in both films “Songhua” by J.P. Sniadecki and “Mud Missive” by Fatin Abbas was on sound and texture. the river was the focus of songhua, and i was struck in particular by two scenes: the first, a boy plays with the water, clapping it with his hands, touching it with his toungue, splashing it on his face...without a close up, yet Sniadecki managed to get across the feeling of that cool water on your lips...the boys actions were just to lucious. another scene is a close up of a man's feet as he is washing them in the river, hopping to get socks on, and squeezing into his fancy shoes. great to hear his voice off camera and such an intricate, slow, and careful show of mundane activity.
Abbas's film may not have had the same beautifully composed frames, but it was somehow more sincere and more connected, perhaps due to Abbas being from Sudan herself. Some great moments of close-ups of a potters hands, you can really feel the squishy wet clay between your fingers. No doubt the sensual stuff gets across so much because the shots are long - time allows you to enter into the senses.
some notes:
* the interweaving of story lines (quilting says Sniadecki) - he includes a number of stories - bathers, the barbeque man, the funny man selling trinkets, but interweaves the film with a couple playing cards, shot from different angles
*taking time with closeu ups of feet or hands doing sensory things, and only then moving up ot the face of the person to match the voice or breath you've been hearing off camera works lovely
*at the river, a beautiful long shot just at the start of a bridge, catching all the people crossing it (the plank makes noise) while the barbeque man smokes the meat in the background. worked great - movement and static. a parade of passers-by and the coooker, there all day
*trust? helps to be a student. to remain a human even though you're holding a camera. ask, but not neccessarily right away.
*"flim leisure and labour to get at largter social issues"
* working along give your more access, more adaptable (the lonely person)
* sunheiser mircophones
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
machines: using them, using us
machines: using them/using us is a thought that has been swimming around my head quite a lot recently.
we develop technologies that WE USE to MAKE US more efficient, informed, communicative...
in turn, the machines have started to attach themselves to us, emotionally, physically, cognitively... as we become tethered to them.
as Sherry Turkle writes (you should have clicked the link above, or if you don't feel like reading have a listen)
"whether or not our devices are in use, without them we feel adrift - adrift not only from our current realities, but for our wishes for the future."
checking facts midst-discussion on your iphone? waiting (frantically) for your next email on your blackberry? obsessively checking your facebook feed? sitting across the table from your phone when you're sans friends?
as we turn to gadgets for companionship, learning, expression....why don't they look (and act) like what they are, instead of hiding in the bodies of calculators?
some people dress their gadgets up
but what if gadgets had their own personalities? (dunne&raby rendition)
or they needed to use you, and more explicitly so?
above, the helpless robot at SPACE
the handles beg you to pull and push it, and once you have, it always wants more...and tells you so. with a human voice.
sweet idea, but makes me wonder how objects might put us to use in more organic-symbiotic-natural-everyday ways. to, perhaps, make our attachment more explicit? (and allow us to reflect...) or, to make us work for our use? (because nothing is free)
we develop technologies that WE USE to MAKE US more efficient, informed, communicative...
in turn, the machines have started to attach themselves to us, emotionally, physically, cognitively... as we become tethered to them.
as Sherry Turkle writes (you should have clicked the link above, or if you don't feel like reading have a listen)
"whether or not our devices are in use, without them we feel adrift - adrift not only from our current realities, but for our wishes for the future."
checking facts midst-discussion on your iphone? waiting (frantically) for your next email on your blackberry? obsessively checking your facebook feed? sitting across the table from your phone when you're sans friends?
as we turn to gadgets for companionship, learning, expression....why don't they look (and act) like what they are, instead of hiding in the bodies of calculators?
some people dress their gadgets up
but what if gadgets had their own personalities? (dunne&raby rendition)
or they needed to use you, and more explicitly so?
above, the helpless robot at SPACE
the handles beg you to pull and push it, and once you have, it always wants more...and tells you so. with a human voice.
sweet idea, but makes me wonder how objects might put us to use in more organic-symbiotic-natural-everyday ways. to, perhaps, make our attachment more explicit? (and allow us to reflect...) or, to make us work for our use? (because nothing is free)
Friday, August 8, 2008
trapped in an elevator
how does the meaning of spaces transform out of context?
and a lesson in just how easily a convenience can become a nightmare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)