Connotations Move Quickly to Excite

Posted on December 27, 2007

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, a group film-makers led by a man named Lev Kuleshov were having a serious shortage of funding and film stock. Their solution was to turn to footage already shot, and experiment in ways of cutting it together. Notable participants were Pudovkin and Eisenstein who you might recall was behind the infamous baby carriage incident. What came out of it was a whole new bag of tricks, using fast close cuts and embracing leaps of imaginative connotation. Rather than coming from a school of painting, or theater, they were embracing the revolutions of language. This is what Eisenstein has to say about it.

Now why should the cinema follow the forms of theater and painting rather than the
methodology of language, which allows wholly new concepts of ideas to arise from the
combination of two concrete denotations of two concrete objects? Language is much
closer to film than painting is. For example, in painting the form arises from abstract
elements of line and color, while in cinema the material concreteness of the image within
the frame presents – as an element – the greatest difficulty in manipulation. So why not
rather lean towards the system of language, which is forced to use the same mechanics
in inventing words and word-complexes?

This use of association sounds a lot like what Vannevar Bush was talking about in his essay “As We May Think” He envisioned an internet that would be based on the associative properties of human memory aptly dubbed the Memex. You should read about his index system but I’m going to let Eisenstein finish his point,

On the other hand, why is it that montage cannot be dispensed with in orthodox films?
The differentiation in montage-pieces lies in their lack of existence as single units. Each
piece can evoke no more than a certain association. The accumulation of such
associations can achieve the same effect as is provided for the spectator by purely
physiological means in the plot of a realistically produced play.

A Dialectic Approach to Film Form
by Sergei Eisenstein

The funny thing about associations and tangents is that they far out number denotations and simple sequences. They are complex creatures like lenses, that when aligned can allow you to see entire macrocosms from light years away or just as easily be inverted to look deep inside the micro. Just as the sky is full of stars the internet is filled with eons of media. Due to advances in communications and networking, this media is being processed by powerful human minds at an incredible rate, with each wave of permutations building from the last as well as all those before it. In theory, the movement of creative film making should be advancing exponentially forward as each discovery is shared with the world and quickly re mashed again and again. We are chiseling statues from strange blocks of stones. Film is being redefined from the obvious to something that’s much more natural. Vannevar would also want me to point out that YouTube is at the same time reviving the greatest film works of the twentieth century, allowing more emerging artists than ever the affordable convenience of learning from their predecessors. This is about affordable education.
It’s arguable that the most important breakthrough for film could actually be an optimal indexing program for media or even an improvement in content delivery, but the bottom line is we already have the tools. If you ever see something of interest, all you have to do is say something.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Trivial Matters of Great Importance: Part II The Social Relevence of Collage

Posted on December 25, 2007

Somewhere around 200 BC the Chinese invented paper. By the twelfth century you have some of our earliest examples of collage emerging from Japanese calligraphers creating elaborate backgrounds for their poems. By the nineteenth century, collage was a popular art. Many people commonly collaged scrapbooks of family photos and decorated lampshades. By the turn of the calender you had Hans Christian Anderson and Carl Spitzweg experimenting.

Katherine Hoffman would eventually state that “Collage may be seen as a quintessential twentieth-century art form with multiple layers and signposts pointing to the possibility or suggestion of countless new realities.”

Not long after, Pablo Picasso would glue a scrap of patterned oilcloth to a cubist still life. In fact, collaging patterns into cubist art helped the emerging style establish itself as a new form altogether. Critics hated it, and that did little to dissuade Dadaists from embracing collage with eager mouths. Next thing you know psychology is all the craze, and you have a very thick stew. Surrealists had the ammunition they always needed, and the art of combining ideas entered the commonly traversed Colosseum of hungry pairs of peepers.

In the late 70’s throughout the 80’s, D J’s and B-Boys begin mixing songs on cassette. Searching out desired bpm’s and melodies for a backdrop, these artists mashed up the beats so that they could dance and rap over them. This is a modern day version of Japanese Poetry arranged on collaged paper.

“Modern recorded music has evolved from focusing principally on musicianship and performance into an auditory collage where no sound is off limits. Sampling is simply another color on our palettes. Whether we’re sampling old records, using advanced multi-sampling, or recording sounds ourselves, the final artistic product is paramount and should not be compromised in the face of any corporate legalities.” —Sono

Collaging elements into film has always had huge advances for hand drawn animation. It’s hard to find a cartoon that doesn’t collage backgrounds underneath animation cells. The more you look around, it becomes hard to ignore the fact that borrowing and stealing elements for art is essential in creating new mediums of genres. Just as Vannevar Bush said in his essay As We May Think, sharing our information and accomplishments is the lifeblood of new developments in all sciences. However when he imagined the internet back in 1946, he probably did not foresee the vicious legal battles for control over the entire dominion over arts and sciences.

Today’s broadband has advanced the collecting capabilities of every artist, forcing a revaluation of what determines free use. The sheer number of videos is forcing companies to address the issue. Disney has taken a hard line stance, viciously attacking any perpetrator regardless of circumstance, with the only exception of beneficial diamonds in the rough. Nickelodeon, however, has made a public statement encouraging mashups, “Our audiences can creatively mash video from our content as much and as often as they like,” said Dan Martinsen, a Nickelodeon spokesman. “By the way,” he added, “that was a very nice edit job by whoever did the SpongeBob mash.”

Well there’s a fresh breath of air. Yet still, there is a growing concern of legality among the majority of works. Plus let’s not forget Nickelodeon is part of a gigantic lawsuit against Google.

The most unfortunate element of the modern mashup movement is that the most common reasons given by artists for using copyright material without permission is either “everyone is doing it.” or “It’s ok because I’m not selling it.” Neither of these are useful (or relevant in a legal defense) in any way to change the current condition. Mash up artists have an unspoken duty to research the history of this current legal environment, and using that knowledge, wage a specific and comprehensive campaign to neuter copyright laws. Before you sign up for this, you really need to ask yourself if you are a hypocrite. Are you ready to have someone else use YOUR material without permission? Are you ready to be a part of this world rather than the center of it?

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Trivial Matters of Great Importance: Mashup de Minimis

Posted on December 16, 2007

Few things capture the wild artistic frontier of the internet like the mashup video. A Dadaist attitude for a punk culture of computer geek converts. Mashups are not a new thing, but their presence on the internet has accrued big money from advertising. The audience for mashup videos comprises a valuable part of a 19.5 billion dollar marketing business.

However a number of studies reveal that the vast majority of this film community is either unaware of the illegalities behind their volunteer work or indifferent to the threat of prosecution. There are several legal precedents for prosecuting just about every paper collage and cutup film you’ve ever admired. Copyright laws are practically immortal in the current American system, and if you can patent a flu vaccine during a pandemic, its safe to say that your collage on the brick wall is screwed. Yet thousands of us proudly credit our name and post our mashups for the whole world to look at. We do so under the protection of our two patron saints, the Angel of Fair Use and Lady De Minimis.

There are few terms as misunderstood as fair use. The reason for this is that fair use is not a right, its a defensive legal position not unlike temporary insanity. The lines here are so blurry that fair use more or less empowers the judge to decide whether or not the piece is a parody or a derivative work worthy of an educational purpose. One example would be a mashup of old cigarette commercials used to discourage smoking. Here’s one I made after quitting last February.

The interesting fact is most successful defenses against copyright infringement are not won with fair use, but with de minimis: A latin term that translates roughly to “of little meaning.” often used in the statement de minimis non curat praetor or de minimis non curat lex, or the law is not interested in trivial matters.

With this position, one argues that the use of unauthorized copyrighted work is so little in comparison to the whole that it becomes a part of an entirely different work and poses no threat to the original within it’s respective markets. How little is safe? Well, far as music goes they can grab you for one single note. Even after you pitch shift and slap on that reverb you are guilty.

The important thing to remember in all of this is as it stands we do not have a right to make these videos. Fair use isn’t a license to drive, it’s a recipe for a file in a cake. I’m not suggesting that anybody stop. I just want people to think about exit strategies.

Another thing to keep in mind is that copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed him- or herself, but that doesn’t include any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. So if the copyrighted material in the piece is used for it’s role in a system, or an idea that exists around the original work, you can argue that you have the right to use it.
Here’s an example of just that. Eric Faden directs a film that infringes upon copyrighted material in order to make a film explaining the in and outs of infringement.

Last but not least, I’m very sad to see that the AMDS film channel has been pulled from the YouTube. They have made some rad flicks, and I will always have a soft spot for the big versus. These guys do great sound design, really go watch it. Just don’t say a thing until you get a lawyer.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Difference Between Ambiguous and Profound

Posted on December 10, 2007

“How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo had written at the bottom of the canvas: ‘The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover.’ This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don’t want this to happen to 2001.” - Stanley Kubrick

Rather than open by telling you I think good art deserves a great title, I’m going to turn the clock back to the spring of 2001. Those days I had an English professor named Shelton Waldrep who once taught me a valuable piece of advice that I have kept dear to me for some time. There is a difference between ambiguous and profound. The catalyst for Shelton’s comment was a college freshman’s free form poem comparing moments of time to grains of sand on a beach with the heavy support of a pocket thesaurus.

As a test subject in this case of distinction between two often confused subjects I offer you Salvador Dali’s ‘Bust of Voltaire.’ In this painting, you might notice that the bust of Voltaire can also be interpreted easily as two nuns accompanied by servant boys. Now I am going to be completely honest and tell you that when I first looked at this painting I looked for meaning in the wrong bust.

But the real question is, are either of these busts profound. For the sake of length, I’m going to reserve my judgments for the one on the table. We have an image of Voltaire’s face that can also be interpreted as a pair of nuns with man servants. To start, Voltaire was notorious for sarcasm, most notably his novella Candide which tortured a prudent upper class protagonist all the way to garden work as a punishment for his faith and optimism. This work was quickly condemned by the church, so it does make sense that the face of Voltaire would scorn his most outspoken critics. Still, there isn’t enough evidence to draw any conclusion and that is an obvious sign of ambiguity that fails to make a profound statement.

“If your position is everywhere, your momentum is zero.” - William N. Lipscomb, Jr.

I think ambiguity is only half the problem. For a long time transcendentalists, academics, and independent film makers hid behind the biggest symbols with the most conflicting connotations. That isn’t surprising because the easiest way to write a book is to have the reader write it for you. That’s why ambiguous images have been an effective psychological test for almost a century.

And for my wrap up, We will look at one of literature’s most notoriously ambiguous endings: Frank r Stockton’s ‘Lady or the Tiger.’ This is a story about a “semi barbaric king” who gets his kicks from a home-spun knock off of Let’s Make a Deal in which the contestant is offered a choice between two doors. One door holds a ferocious man eating tiger while the other reveals a beautiful lady whom the contestant must marry despite previous pledges or legally binding ceremonies. The rub in this instance is that our protagonist is in love with the king’s daughter, who just so happens to know which door holds the tiger. And just as the snare roll couldn’t get any more forte, this spineless excuse for a writer breaks from the illusion and asks the reader how it ends. Thats like having your car jacker borrow your Smith & Wesson.

In conclusion, I think it’s safe to say that ambiguity should be avoided unless it is accompanied by a non-ambiguous purpose.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Conservation of Energy = Big Payback

Posted on December 6, 2007

The first law of thermodynamics states that within a closed process, energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed. There’s enough evidence in film to hypothesize that a similar rule can be applied but it’s important to reassess the conditions necessary for the law to hold up.

In the case of physics, the law requires a closed process. That is to say the experiment happens in a contained environment that does not allow a single thing to escape, nor anything else to add to the mix. The question here is this, are films a self contained system?

I realize there are several ways to interpret this grand metaphor, but I’m going to say yes. When you sit down to cut a feature, you can go back and re shoot all you want and then shuffle the scenes around until Dennis Miller decides to go stoic, but what you have is what you have. Through the process of making a film, or even just telling a story, you often find yourself narrowing your choices. If an artistic vision is even close to realized or recognized, I’d say you have a closed system on your hands.

When Elizabeth Bishop sat down to edit a poem about a fish, she could only change so many words before straying from her voice. That poem was a closed system, because she empowered it to be so with the way in which she wrote it.

When you stray to far from the set of self established governing rules, you’ve jumped the shark. “Jumping the shark” refers to a moment in happy days when the Fonze jumps over a shark on water skis. The audience generally felt the show had strayed too far from it’s premise, and once the illusion popped people stopped watching. Happy Days lost all of its momentum to a boneless fish.

In classical physics momentum is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. Along with Newton we have Descartes to thank for that one. In film, plot consists of a stimulus and response. Action and reaction. Character and conflict. These conflicts if managed correctly lead to a climax. When smaller conflicts resolve to whatever degree, energy is transfered rather than lost. The movie as a whole is a closed system, but on the micro level, mismanaged conflicts can appear to evaporate the momentum. This has implications for the pace of the film especially in terms of pay-off.

And what doest that suggest? Good things happen to those who wait. Don’t let the monster wander from the shadows in the first six scenes. Don’t explain the force in the first film of a trilogy. And don’t kill the boy wonder until Bruce Wayne meets a tall blond with a criminal record.

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

As We May Edit

Posted on December 2, 2007

During the second world war many American scientists were compelled to drop their daily studies in order to join the comprehensive war effort. Afterward the technocracy established and the future of sciences held a strong but sometimes uncomfortable alliance. In 1945, an analog computing expert named Vannevar Bush published an inspiring essay in the Atlantic Monthly titled ‘As we may think.“