Filed under: Research from Memory 2B
I have looked at the three artifacts I have produced and reviewed how I went about constructing the artifacts. I noticed I used still images in all three of my artifacts. I think the use of still images is constructive because it is another way of showing footage. I also in every piece have included some form of moving image. I used moving image in my spectacle artifact via stop motion of the waterfall. I used normal moving image in the other two artifacts. I feel the use of moving image is again constructive because it allows me to express my thoughts in a moving form. I found the use of stop motion extremely constructive because it was different and the use of still photography to make an image move was experimental and it worked.
I have also read the module blog and found out that filmmakers, visual artists, animators and photographers all develop from influences, obsessions etc. I have taken this on board and have further researched into this fact. I was told to watch the ‘Louise and Jane Wilson’ presentation about their work and see how they have been influenced by the works of Tarkovsky. I have watched the presentation by the two contemporary artists Jane and Louise Wilson and seen how they have been influenced by the work of Tarkovsky. I will link Tarkovsky’s work ‘Solaris’ with how Jane and Louise works follow a similar trail.
This a the final scene from Tarkovsky’s film Solarias. I have watched this clip and found how Louise and Jane Wilson would have been inspired by this piece of brilliant art.
< In this piece of work we as the audience are left guessing what the scene is about until we see at the end the man hugging as I will presume his father. This is present in some of the works shown at the presentation by Louise and Jane Wilson e.g. the two split screen pictures of the room where it is symmetrical apart from the lights. it is a piece of art so it does not have to make sense.
< Tarkovsky uses a range of different camera shots in this clip e.g. close ups and long shots. From my own experiences this combination has proved to work extremely well. The two artists showed a lot of their different works in the presentation and the work did vary between zoomed in shots and long shots.
< In this clip we get the sense that the man is revisiting real spaces and the actions of the man suggest that significant events have taken place here and there is defiantly traces of the past marked in the structure e.g. the man walking about outside the house and looking into the house through a window, this is memory based because he is revisiting the old. Again this influenced the experimental artists work because there is a sense of a link back to the past from their own experiences in their work e.g. the moving image of the lift going up and down in a split screen.
This is the highway scene from the film Solarias by Tarkovsky.
< Tarkovsky is again using the element of keeping audiences guessing what the scene is about and the purpose of it. Jane and Louise Wilson use this same sense of theory in their work. An example of them using this theory is the work they showed that consisted of four screens and different things happening at the same time in each individual screen. The audiences are again left wondering what the purpose of the work is about.
I have learnt a lot from conducting this research and I have seen the pattern in how up and coming artists are influenced by legendary artists. I saw how Tarkovsky kept the audience gripped in anticipation by not having a narrative form most of the time and I have also seen how the two experimental artists are now using the exact same theory in their works. I will start to do this from the works that I see over time and start to link theories together from established artists to create a piece of art that is good and keeps the audience interested.
Experimental Work
I have read the text in the module blog concerning how peoples behaviour changes in music and experimental work. If audiences watch an experimental piece of work that does not make sense the first thing they would ask is ‘what is this about’? They would not behave this way towards a music piece if the lyrics made no sense. They would just accept the song for what it is and enjoy it. I have responded to this issue below.
< I do think asking the question ‘What does it mean’ is a wrong starting point. I think audiences should try and look deeper into the experimental works connotations to make up their own mind how they want to perceive the work.
< I think people should look at experimental work the same as music. Music is there to enjoy but just like experimental work, music does not always make sense. If the lyrics in a song do not make sense people would not ask what does it mean. they would find an alternative to like the song and that is the songs beat. If people do not like the lyrics in a song they can still like the same song because of its beat. This should be the same in experimental work by people not asking what does it mean if a piece does not have narrative. They should look at the visuals of the piece and like it because of the visuals if the piece lacks narrative.
< To conclude, I am saying experimental work should be viewed in the same way as music. The lyrics of a song is similar to the narrative of an experimental piece of work. The beat of a song is similar to the different visuals in an experimental piece. If audiences like a song for its beat and not the lyrics people should not ask ‘what does it mean’ about an experimental piece of work that lacks narrative. They should like it for its visuals which accounts the same as people just liking a song for the beat without asking any questions.
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment
