[Realism Now!]  [Perf Art MAIN page]
The Performed Art - filmed
{Down to START}
See also:  [(art) concepts]
                  [Art MovementsCoerced performance]

          -[post post-modernism]-
           [Perf art: Technology]
           [Performed Text]
           [The Performed UFO's] (and esp, etc)

           [Dada]
               [Dadaism]  (an art "ism")
               [Performance frank:  Realism Now!]
               [Why Bother?]
               [ "PARTS ONE, TWO, THREE" ]

               [Performed Art]
               [Performed Art: Filmed]
               [The Performed Danse]
               [The Performed Score]
               [The Performed Text]
               [Perf art: Technology]
               [Performed UFO's]
               [The Performed WEB (including programming)]

               [Fluxus]
               [Street Art]
               [Interventionist Art]
               [T.A.Z.] (Association for Ontological Anarchy)
                                                    (Hakim Bey, chief janitor)               
           [Frank's stuff]

  


The Performed Art - Filmed

NOTE:  The use of film (video recording/playback, audio, etc) can be
       from seveal POV's (points of view):  As a static object
       displayed (eg, a looped video) or as an I/A (inter/active)
       experience. The latter is treated in the WEB performance page:
          -[The Performed WEB (including programming)]-

       Also, film can be used to document the process (ie, record
       the performance) or to create the performance.

On this page:  {Intro}
               {Stuff}
               {Film Collaged}
               {Elements}
              
  

Intro

There are two levels of which we can speak of the 
"filmed" art and the art-act:

  1) The film as an element in a performance
     or other work.

  2) The film as the art object itself.

And then "film" as just another canvas... {Down below}

The first of these is that the film is just another prop.
In the same way that as the camera moves into a room,
there are possibly pictures on the wall (see, the
introduction in the "Wallace and Gromit" films - 
esp, "The Curse of the WerRabbit") as well as TV
playing. Note how many films use the voice-over
(on the radio or tv) as the primary jump-of to get
thru the initial bit of PLOT EXPOSITION.

As to what we create when we make the film as a
perfomred work... ? {Film Collaged}

               
 

Stuff

In a sense, the performed art (filmed) is no different than
any other prop and as such we can place/reveal/hide/discard/etc
it like any other prop.

One thing that i think should definitely be investigated IS
the use of not just montaged shots (in the way that has become
so common that it's used by NEWS programs), but as harsh
juxtapositions - calling for collage here!

I think that (just like represenational and realistic/naturalistic
and symbolic/textual/etc) there is TOO much *certainty* in
much of the work being produced. That is, it goes back to
the 8-second rule of looking at gallery pieces as one
is *inevitably* walking along without pause....

This goes back to (supposedly) a comment that Kubric made 
about the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" - "If we made a 
film and people all came out of the theatre saying 'oh
this is what it means', then we would have failed."

That is, i'm calling for a return to the mysterious. In
one of the songs by Black Star (something like "Go to bed"
or "Bedtime story") where they tell two little kids a
story about a fast-rising rap singer and the temptations
to produce $$-quick stuff rather then deeply-searching
things that might not just be what the distributors/etc
are thinking will sell. And at the end, the two little
kids "don't get it" - ie, what was that all about?

This goes back to the concept of layering as well.

Let us look at the life-stories as we know them from various
films and such and how the REVEAL is made here and there. 
Rarely are things NOT as the seem; almost all work tends to
hit us over the head with it - the big RUSH, the big EXPLOSION,
and of course ALWAYS A HAPPY ENDING and such. 

Among films that have *not* taken the easy way out 
are:

     "Mimento" 
     "Shaft" 
     "Little Miss Sunshine"
     "Schultze gets the blues"   
     "The Man Facing SouthWest"
     "Bubbah Hohtep"
     "pi"
     "Z"
 
But, on the other hand there are "happy ending" films
that approach the limit of "nice-ness"

     "Butteryfly Effect"
     "Girl Six"
     "Heist"
     "Fahrenheit 451"
     "The HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (original TV film)
     "The Magnificent Seven" (and of course "The Seven Samuraii"
                              which i really need to watch again)

Regardless, this idea of "telling it like it is" is a hard
road to follow without sounding preachy. 

This is not to say that our film work should be a MESSAGE
film or a REALISM (even to the extent of Film Noir, etc)
but of course, it (i would insist almost) have at least
some element of the surreal or absurdist in it. In one
sense, it seems like much of the film work is trying so
hard to NOT be genre-ised or to be "like the rest" that they
almost twist themselves into some bizare sort of pastiche
of reality. I think that the "Romantic COmedy" comees out
the worst in the wash with this problem.

An example of this occurs in the sequel-pair:

   "Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn"
   "Star Trek: The Search for Spock"

(i set aside my like for the films as a trekkie and sf
fan, etc).

If at the end of Wrath they had simply left it at that
and explored Mr. Spock's sacrifice more deeply then we
would have something along the lines of "Captain Kidd"
or even better like "The City on the Edge of Forever”
in the Star Trek original TV series) - written by 
Harlan Ellison - one of the true masters of the SF genre.

None-the-less, this idea of juxtaposition and design
in-congruities (or even harmonies/synergies/gentle-flows)
can be acoomplished with film. 

To get at the heart of this we must bear in mind what can
be accomplished with either coerced performnaces or in
*enclosed* particpatory art. In these cases, the idea that
one is *bound into* the performance space (thinking here
of Jim Dine and company's "Crash Test Dummy" (City Life)
here where the small audience is walled in with the 
performers. 

Note that that look and feel was a main plot element of
"The Shining" (as filmed by Kubric from Stepen King) in
setting up the isolation. Note the use of colour in 
various scenes (early on before the mayhem) setting this
up. Similarly in "2001" the sense of isolation. It's
interesting to note that with "2001" (because we almost
automatically tend to want the "action/adventure" card
to be played when it comes to SF) that the feeling of
isolation is NOT so nearly (or neatly) accomplished.
A very long (and almost painfully slow) tracking in or out 
shot could have set this up.

This now comes down to the elments with which we "paint"
our film. If we think about portraying the INNER DIALOG
of the various people/sets/plots/elements of a film and
how we do that - especially in drama, we have seen so
very few of those in film. 

I would go further to say that with the advent of down-load-able
and DVD (buyable - therefore playable and re-playable and 
re-re-playable, and re-re-re-....) we can not approach 
levels of complexity that here-to-fore we usually only
see in very detailed paintings. Something to think of 
here are things like "Notes from the Underground" or of
course "Waiting for Godot" - and now with those in the
PAST of our performance history, we begin (or have 
begun) to cultivate an audience that MIGHT sit through
3 hours of Warhol filming someone sleeping. 

And of course we then go back to John Cage's "4-1/2 minutes"
of silence (which i am sad to say, that many people today
*still* don't get it even when it's explained -- should
i get out finger puppets to do this???).




 
   

Film as "Just another canvas"

Film as Canvas - Part 1: Traditional Film-making

In the same way that early photography (photog for short)
was picked up by artists and then in turn affected their
compositions - as if the painter had captured a "snap shot".

And of course the camera as pure tool to record a scene.
Something that prelimanry sketches had done for many 
centuries... And of course then it becomes the primary 
tool as to *document* the process of creativity itself.

Thus, if i make a film about an art exhibit - but, let's
back up a bit.

The "art museum" experience is in itself an artificial
construct. We first see art in books or on tv or in
(rare, but less rarely now-adays) in film. 

So, the *sojourne* (journey of enlightenment) to the museum
to see "the actual art" is specious as well. For example,
in the museum Musee' d'Orsay ??sp?? everyone goes to have
themselves photog'd in front of *the* self portait of
Van Gogh (and of course like 80% use their flashes on
their camera - i tell you every camera should force
you to manually turn on the flash instead of having
"fill in" be the default!)...

So, i film the art exhibit (say for a pod/broadcast) then
this can be a "news item" -- here it is, come see it. 

It can as well be documentary: Who was, indeed who IS 
this artist Blonkowitz??

It can be ....

But as "just another canvas", we see the games that people
play with it (one of my fav's shows a traveling businessman
photog'ing his daughter's stuffed monkey in all kind of
"mise en scene" episodes.  

And exactly that was (is) done by many artists today as
well. Note we take it as read that "artist" mean those
that aspire to art - no matter at what level - yes, 
Virginia, even "Pop Art".... 

So, then what are we left with?

First off when you think about it much of actual art is
really quite boring (we take it as read that any erotic,
shocking, and of course "controvesial" art is in a class
by itself). Just exactly what are we supposed to "get"
out of a statue poised facing a miror? Or a bunch of
silver metal boxes stacked on the wall? I mean at
least that florecsent light tube in the corner has
at least some audacity (read that as "pretension") to
"spart it up a bit". 

Thus, we go back to the film as canvas.

As we practice art more and more we (like Pollock and
his 3-year coerced (by Krasner) exercises in developing
an exact caligraphy of the drip as mark) begin to be
able to "lay down" a line almost without thinking.
And if painting we can of course "wipe it out" if it
doesn't suit us - or even worse if our mood changes
and we become angry/frustrated (twins in the human
cabinet of emotional self-drugs) and "take it out"
on the painting. Take as "read" painting=drawing=sculpture=...

So, how do we go about developing this practiced 
caligraphy with film. 

Take as read:  FILM = Pod recording, Aud ONLY recoring, 
digital, analog (b/w, colour,  high-contrast, even 
Muybridge's trip wires)...

As film'ers (film makers in PC-speek) we are trained
in the cannon; ie, the art history of film. We are 
(if we take a course if film making - actually in
filming as such) then trained in "laying in thelines".

Lighting, Sound (if such we include - almost a given,
but note the recent re-surgence of letting music
or even "mere" silence tell the story w/out sound).

And of course camera angles, the set, the ENV, etc....

How then do we progress? 

As Gore Vidal reminds us (in as i recall "Myra Breckinridge")
-- fiction is ended. In the same way, film is ended. Not
that there won't be vastly new ways of filming yet to 
come (discovered - mainly thru chanse/risk taking).

But: If "repetiion is the death of art" (so Picasso among
others reminds us. Then, once Warhol films someone just
sleeping hour after hour then it has *all* been done.

And of course in the "slick productions" of even ad's these
days the "tricks" of film are perfomred (as art-act filming
with a purpose and of course a very important INTENT; after
all, no line is laid down on works by Thomas Kincaid without
much the same intent to make money.

I believe that i speak without fear of contridticion that
if the world wasn't so obsessed with the actual/realistic
that works by Judd or Flavin would bring prices as great
as those by Monet and of course van Gogh. Not that the
price in any way reads (or even begins to re-read/interpret
or translate) the COST of the art work.

And this does bring us to the idea of transformation possible
with film. If the progression goes like this:

   marble - one oops and David is now Davisse

   ink on paper - a mark is a mark and the only way to 
                  "lift" it is to hide it with cross-hatching.

   pastel - vacuum cleaners are the perfect UN-DO here.

   pencil - may be erased but still leaves the "embossment"
            (la gaufrage if i remember the French correctly)

   acrylic paint - layering shows, and scrapping?? where'd 
                   the canvas go?

   oil pastel / cattle markers - almost as fluid as    

   oil paint - it can be flowed in various states of wetness,
               it can be scraped (imagine that i'll be dying
               or going mad from all of that heavy-metal dust...

   comnputer versions of the above - undo; the ultimate eraser.

So: Film.

In filmaking of course is often controlled by budget and time.
And as Terry Gilliam learned in "Baron Munchausen" - quarantened
horses aren't allowed across the border and of course when your
star dies during the "production/financing" struggles.....

Thus, the finiteness of film-making's ability to "re-work" the
surface IS for the most part limited.

But, then we go to somethng like printmaking and the concept of
editioning. And that translates often to the "alternate endings"
of films. Viz two excellent examples, "Little Miss Sunshine"
and "National Treasure" - there are sometimes "endings" that
just aren't "our film's ending".

And then there is the over-all mood/genre of the film. If it's
a "hard-biting" documentary (gritty, hyper-real, hyper-medial)
then we get one set of aesthetics, and of course with "dream"
sequences quite another; viz, the dream sequences of things 
like "PeeWee Herman's Big Adventure" (parallelling those of
such films as "Spellbound"). Then dream as the "plot exposition"
use of such things; from one POV, ALL of "Mimento" is simply
a collage of dream sequences.  

And of course then there's the prob/solution of "suspension of
disbelief" that sooooo many movies depend on. 

So, where do we come in????


Film as Canvas - Part 2: Enter the Artist

At this point, the "bridge" (das Brucke - v. important
art movement //'s this as well) between film as
film-making and film as an artist's canvas IS via
the art-director and the director-of-photography.

We see this most clearly in films using some sort of
purely (almost right out of "History of Art in 3 volumes")
classial compoitional styles.  In fact (since style is
simply a repeated gesture; please take that as read,
otherwise, email:  fleeding@hotmail.com) the "NEW"
styles that have been developed are simply new 
"colours for the palet" of film as canvas.

And this (how nicely some things work out) goes back
to -[Will Insley]- who reminds
us:  
     "much that can be further-investigated"
      -- not an exact quote

or as John Cage put it for music:

    "There are many possible patterns, few are tried"
     -- not an exact quote.

Thus, we (as artists) "read" the art history of film
-- that we "fall into" a particular artist and try to
"get it"; eg, i spent six solid months emersed in Pollock's
work - and of course, i know little more than i did 
before. And then "... and the rest" i still have yet
to fully explore Krasner, and not even mention 
Thomas Hart Benton, and then the parallels in 
the sculptures that are "string like" (eg) Eva Hesse
or even Morris Louis, or .....

So, in the same way, i would have to say that now
-- with the advent of the miniature digital camera
we are FINALLY where Degas and the rest were when the
Dagurre introduced his curious "camera obscura").

And from that range

   Dagurre (about 1820) .... the Kodak "Brownie" (1900) $1 and
                             you too can be a photorapher

We are now Degas.

Where shall we go from here?

damned if i jknowxyz......

-- frank 
 

Film Collaged

So strong is the need for a flow, story, continuity
and of course "beginning, middle and end", that we 
are almost unable to show a film that does NOT have
a "story line". 

In the short film "n-ligh" there is a story, and at
times i feel that it is far too strong. This was less
true in the first version of the film. That is, i think
that (so far) i haven't been able to capture much of
my drawing work other than to have the films be THEMATIC.
Which is fine, since it's a nice way of viewing the 
world; ie, as an entertainment, an idea generator, or
at very lease as "popcorn for the eye" (ie: "eye candy").

Another idea, that we can try is to take traditional 
DESIGN ELEMENTS and use them in creating films. This 
works very well in (eg) "Ballet Robotique" by Bob 
Rogers -[imdb here]-
- industrial car assembly robots are filmed and then
set to classical (ballet) music.

Thus we might think of the generating equation as:

   Repeated movement (ballet, danse, the gesture in general)

   light and such (welding, etc) - paralled and extractd
                  from ligthing of ballet danseurs as
                  they perform

   music into the mix

and of course the TRANSLATION is into the realm of industrial
manufacturing.  Going back to:

   There's music in the sighing of a reed;
   There's music in the gushing of a rill;
   There's music in all things, if men had ears:
   Their earth is but an echo of the spheres.
      ~Lord Byron

(i have also heard the last line as:

   Tis' but THE music of the spheres.

(refering to Johannes Kepler's work, etc)







 

Elements