Jump to content

Lower corner composition


moho
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

I like what you're saying.

 

But I also like the idea of the world at large (outside of our mind) having a mind of it's own. But not one that is inaccessible. On the contrary. That it lends it's mind to us. And it's not a single minded one in the sense of having some sort of single script in mind which it's following. Rather it's more akin to a multiple personality mind, in which different thoughts compete and/or co-operate with each other resulting in a building here, a tree there, etc. Sometimes it's comprehensible and other times not. In a David Lynch film (for example) the world thinks but in a way that us mere mortals (according to certain habits) can't fully follow. And yet despite that we can fully experience it and that it is arguably, in itself, a form or comprehension.

 

I don't believe what we see takes place in our mind (as completely logical as that might otherwise be). I believe that what we see is actually there, outside of our mind. But not necessarily there we see it (for example, not necessarily there on a screen) but elsewhere, in a parallel dimension. It is why the image has a certain ghostly aspect to it, because it's not quite there where we see it. It is elsewhere.

 

But it also depends on what we mean by mind. We might say our mind is also elsewhere - ie. not in our brain. That's also an idea I very much appreciate. Now certainly we can see that in the normal course of events there is a correlation between where our brain (our head) is located and what we see, but in science as much as art we can demonstrate that we're not limited to such correlations. We can see water on Mars (millions of miles away) as if it were just a few feet way on our computer screen. We can say in such circumstances that our mind is not just here in front of our computer screen looking at pixels, but also 128 million miles way (or further), looking at what appears to be water. Indeed that in such circumstances, if only for a short time (a news item) or longer (following web search on the topic), it is more the case that we are there (on Mars) rather than here.

 

And in the arts (be it cinema or any other art) we are also there, rather than here. In the world rather than in our mind. Or in the mind of the world rather than the mind or brain with which we were born (and presumably die).

 

C

 

Have you guys been at the pipe again.. .. or is this a very clever piss take.. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Re the article ...I don't know.. TBH I don't buy it..

 

Well written...well shot.. well light .. well acted .. well directed .. you don't need the gimmick .. except for the odd shot that really warrants it.. I mean short sided frames specifically .. whacky wide shots etc all for them..

 

Interesting discussion though.. all down to personal taste of course.. and if i was ever lucky enough to work on the shows and the dir wanted it,I would say yes sir straight away.. great idea :)

 

But seriously ..on a talking head.. I would really fight it.. if it was no reason for it.. same as I would refuse to purposely put my key light the wrong side.. to look "different..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality there's no such thing as the right way or wrong way to make a film. There is only that which works (or seems to work) and that which doesn't. And everything in between. And this will include the most outrageous photography to the most conventional and banal - and each equally capable of being positively brilliant, or completely stupid, and everything in between.

 

Conventional photography is merely safe - I don't think there's any necessity to swear allegiance too such. It's just what you might fall back on when your wits and imagination are not quite working.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Have you guys been at the pipe again.. .. or is this a very clever piss take.. :)

 

If I'm included in that, the answer is no, and no. Totally serious.

 

Functional laws, say, like those underlying screen language, work within boundaries. We may discover something new, within those boundaries. Or the boundaries may shift, in which case some new or modified functional principals are inevitable. At least, there, latent or waiting to be discovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality there's no such thing as the right way or wrong way to make a film. There is only that which works (or seems to work) and that which doesn't. And everything in between. And this will include the most outrageous photography to the most conventional and banal - and each equally capable of being positively brilliant, or completely stupid, and everything in between.

 

Conventional photography is merely safe - I don't think there's any necessity to swear allegiance too such. It's just what you might fall back on when your wits and imagination are not quite working.

 

C

 

True of course.. no one is going to get arrested and shot for too much head room... but equally there are such things as the 2/3 rule that have been around long before films and even occur a lot in nature.. a film or a Tv program is not a big deal.. its just entertainment .. we aren't that far from the white sheet up against the circus tent.. so why not write a book with all the words back wards.. this will make the reader more aware of the universe and the meaning of life .. and few articles about the author.. or just be annoying and difficult to read.. :)

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

True of course.. no one is going to get arrested and shot for too much head room... but equally there are such things as the 2/3 rule that have been around long before films and even occur a lot in nature.. a film or a Tv program is not a big deal.. its just entertainment .. we aren't that far from the white sheet up against the circus tent.. so why not write a book with all the words back wards.. this will make the reader more aware of the universe and the meaning of life .. and few articles about the author.. or just be annoying and difficult to read.. :)

 

The opposite of convention is not the stupid. What is stupid is thinking that writing a book with all the words backwards makes the reader more aware of the universe and the meaning of life.

 

The reader is ultimately irrelevant. They either get what you do, or they don't. It doesn't really matter. You get whatever audience you get. If you write a book backwards (for whatever reason) you might very well find an audience for such. Or not as the case may be. Whether they become aware of the universe and the meaning of life through such a work, or not as the case may be, is completely irrelevant. Who cares? If they like the work they like the work. And if you also like the work then everyone's happy.

 

I saw a work not that long ago which consisted entirely of words from a story printed directly onto film and projected as a film - ie. completely unreadable, but for which there is an audience/market for such work.

 

Carl

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is peculiar is the way some readers will take a work personally - as if the film was made for them - and that if they don't like the film - instead of concluding the film wasn't made for them, they will instead conclude it was made to deliberately antagonise them.

 

Not much you can really do with such an audience other than capitulate to their particular self-centred whims. As many works will in fact do. Because the habituated self-centred are people too.

 

Carl

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I saw a work not that long ago which consisted entirely of words from a story printed directly onto film and projected as a film - ie. completely unreadable, but for which there is an audience/market for such work."

 

​So what could you actually see on the screen.. why couldn't you read it.. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I saw a work not that long ago which consisted entirely of words from a story printed directly onto film and projected as a film - ie. completely unreadable, but for which there is an audience/market for such work."

 

​So what could you actually see on the screen.. why couldn't you read it.. ?

 

Well the words were printed directly onto the film, as in a couple of sentences per frame. The only way to actually read the text would be to hold the film in your hands and look at it frame by frame under a magnifying glass. But the work isn't actually read in this way, as it runs through a film projector, white letters on black flicking past your eye at a rate impossible to follow. However the text is from a published book so one can always read the book.

 

One could say this film is quite literally a faithful copy of the book !!!

 

Work like this (although I've never quite seen any other work exactly like this one) plays in an art gallery context, rather than in a cinema as such. But nevertheless on a film projector.

 

If one were to categorise it one might call it part of the conceptual art movement. Or part of experimental cinema. Its where works are made without assuming anything is the right way or wrong way of making a film. Starting from scratch and making a work according to whatever logic one can entertain rather than from handed down wisdom.

 

Carl

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well the words were printed directly onto the film, as in a couple of sentences per frame. The only way to actually read the text would be to hold the film in your hands and look at it frame by frame under a magnifying glass. But the work isn't actually read in this way, as it runs through a film projector, white letters on black flicking past your eye at a rate impossible to follow. However the text is from a published book so one can always read the book.

 

One could say this film is quite literally a faithful copy of the book !!!

 

Work like this (although I've never quite seen any other work exactly like this one) plays in an art gallery context, rather than in a cinema as such. But nevertheless on a film projector.

 

If one were to categorise it one might call it part of the conceptual art movement. Or part of experimental cinema. Its where works are made without assuming anything is the right way or wrong way of making a film. Starting from scratch and making a work according to whatever logic one can entertain rather than from handed down wisdom.

 

Carl

 

I failed 'speed reading'...

 

The 'problem' I have with 'there is no wrong way'... is that in fact, relative to 99.99% of the viewers, even the one's who visit 'high conceptual art' exhibits, that there is in fact a 'wrong way' for most works, and the fact that the artist's works don't sell or get other gallery gigs, indicates that that point in time the artist is 'doing it wrong'.

 

Now of course occasionally there's some artist who finds the 'appreciative' audience after they are dead, but, during their lifetime they are 'wrong'.

 

This has had a significant impact on 'art', in that galleries are expensive to run, gallery space limited, and unless someone is independently wealthy, a would be artist needs to do it 'right' for some set of gallery owners or managers, to even be seen by a wider public.

 

These days, one may say that an artist could live online, but still for some set of works... online doesn't help... as it requires some real world artifact to effect their artistic vision.

Edited by John E Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I think film/video shot as "art" and shown in a gallery is very different .. and of course anything goes.. thats really getting away from the discussion about broadcast TV.. and films for popular consumption.. though..

 

It is a common misconception that "anything goes" in the context of art gallery work. In reality this is not the case at all. Artists spend a very long time developing their work with great attention to detail, particular techniques and ideas. And must inter-operate with art galleries who may, or may not accept their work. And with art collectors, who may or may not buy their work.

 

The misconception comes about through the assumption that if a work isn't conforming to some sort of habitual or conventional order, or indeed some popular order, that it must not be conforming to any order. But this is not the case. It is simply the case that art (in art galleries) elaborates it's own order.

 

And one could say the same for the cinema, as much as the art gallery. Each develops their own order. And the orders, while different do lead to cross-fertilisation. Music videos, for example, have their origin in experimental cinema.

 

While we may not say that "anything goes" in the cinema and tv, there is a sense in which we could very well, say exactly that. But just as equally we would be wrong.

 

There is always something, rather than just anything. But what exactly that it is remains open to interpretation and elaboration.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'problem' I have with 'there is no wrong way'... is that in fact, relative to 99.99% of the viewers, even the one's who visit 'high conceptual art' exhibits, that there is in fact a 'wrong way' for most works, and the fact that the artist's works don't sell or get other gallery gigs, indicates that that point in time the artist is 'doing it wrong'.

 

I totally agree with this. What I'm getting at is that there is no right or wrong way in advance of a work. That the best starting position is one that is not dictated by rules or formulas handed down. Rather one starts from scratch, and then develops - out of thin air so to speak - what one considers is the right way to do the work. One works out, for oneself, what is the right way to do a work.

 

But this can involve testing out various handed down wisdoms as well. The point is that one tests them out rather than just taking them on blind faith. One works out why they have come about rather than just simply using them, abusing them, or ignoring them. And then indeed one might very well use the same ideas, but now from the point of view of having tested them out for oneself. For one will have come to an understanding of what is behind such a formula, rather than simply treating it is as some sort of godlike rule that must be mindlessly obeyed. One can take proper ownership of the wisdom - or the wisdom takes proper ownership of you!

 

So for example, instead of just using a shot/reverse shot formula because it works, one can ask oneself why it works. And through such, how it might be elaborated. Or indeed subverted on occasion (given a certain context).

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we not going up where the sun don't shine now .. :)

 

No. The sun does not shine out of anyone's proverbial. Many distinctions made between the new and the traditional, are false ones. The sun has been rising in more or less the same way, every day, since god knows when, and each time it nevertheless always inaugurates a new day. A day to make something new. And this is a tradition that has been going on since the first sunrise was ever recorded. The trick is how to inherit this tradition rather than just mindlessly ingesting it, or equally: mindlessly rejecting it.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you so sure the sun is rising.. I ask you this.. is it not the earth is lowering.. out side of the box ,you must learn to think ...young sky Looper..

 

Indeed. I rest my case.

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. I was talking about framing.. not the meaning of the universe .. I thought you guys were having that conversation .. :)

 

 

The first time that the meaning of the universe (or life) became part of the conversation was in post 30, with this rhetorcial proposal, written by yourself:

 

"so why not write a book with all the words back wards.. this will make the reader more aware of the universe and the meaning of life .."

 

 

That's the problem with shadow boxing - assuming one's opponent means you end up becoming the author of it.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...