Space and Time Articles

The Rudolf v. B. Rucker article started off for me interestingly enough. The idea of a 4th dimension is a very fascinating concept. While our dimension as we know it only allows us to move up/down, front/back, and left/right (hence the 3rd dimension) the 4th dimension goes beyond that. For me this invokes thoughts of taking space and trying to fold it like a sheet of paper and moving from one end of space to another. Whether or not this is possible remains to be seen. 

I did very much enjoy the reference to the cave theory, which is a parable that Plato passed on as one of Socrates'. We had discussed this parable in my philosophy class. In the parable, men are chained deep within a cave, facing only the wall. One of the men breaks lose of his chains and travels up to the cave opening, seeing the world and sun for the first time. When he went back into the cave and tried telling the other men what he had seen, none of the other men believed him, for they themselves had never seen it. The idea of the 4th dimension being much like "the world and sun" that the unchained man had seen is facinating.

I was also rather surprised that about one hundred years ago it was thought that spirits and ghost were beings in the forth dimension. It does seem somewhat logical to suggest that, since ghost are able to appear and disappear where ever and when ever they so choose, and the very concept of the afterlife is that of a world beyond ours.

The idea of time being the 4th dimension is also an interesting notion, seeing as how things move throughout time in some way. Logically, if one could jump through time at any given point, they would have in fact achieved a form of motion beyond any in our 3rd dimension. Although according to David Hume, a philosopher we discussed and read about in my philosophy class, suggests that time, as well as mathematics and other such things, are merely concepts which we use to analyze and organize data that we receive through observation in the world.

Sadly though, the further I attempted to get into and understand the article the harder and more convoluted it got, with its many mathematical equations and theories. I'm sure if I was an engineer, like my grandfather or uncle, I would get much more out of this reading simply by being able to understand the language better.

I found the interview with Pierre Huyghe very interesting simply based on his view that many narrative films are too seamless and efficient, and that we as viewers are not given enough distraction to form or own sense of time and space. I thought his views that films should create there own landscapes and atmosphere was very spot on. This made me think of the film Cloverfield. Seeing this film in a theatre was not just another "trip to the movie theatre" but an experience in itself. Very few films have ever made me feel that I was traveling throughout a world with its inhabitants in such a way as that movie did.

This article also made we think of the way we structure narratives and how most films follow a linear progression, i.e. beginning, middle, and end. I kind of wish there were more movies like Pulp Fiction, which break this concept and instead of presenting a movie into parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, it rearranges the parts into 3,1,5,2,4. Another interesting example would be the movie the Fountain which has three separate stories set in the separate timelines which we've in and out of eachother, and the end links to the beginning, and the beginning to the end.

Fredric Jameson and Gary Hill

When I first began reading the Fredric Jameson article, I was excited. Reading the opening about architecture at first made me think of several ways I could possibly apply this to my pyramid in my thesis, especially since I'm not that great at architecture design. Then the article began talking about the three entrances to the big fancy hotel, two of which only went to elevators. To me, that just seems kind of like a dumb joke on the architect's part, but then the article treated it like it was this big brilliant piece of artistic expression, namely Post modernist. I hate post modern thinking. To me it's just a cope out by artists to make cruddy art. Matter of fact, I feel that just grouping artists and art into categories is wrong, and we should in fact value individual artists and their ideas, and not try to make them part of a "movement." Hence why this article frustrated me so much. It was like they made a big deal out of absolutely nothing.

Now to the Gary Hill article. First off I want to start by saying I've never really been big on film instillation work. I've always found a lot of it boring and engaging. To me, this article only struck my fancy because it made me think of haunted/ fun houses, and how those are just entertaining. I almost in a way wish that all video instillations could be just a pure entertaining experience. I just feel that for a video instillation to really work it has to be able to really catch a views attention long enough so they don't just pass it by and think "oh, that was cool" then five minutes later forget about it. It should be able to hold them around by invoking a strong emotion, and not just by using neat light tricks and cooky sounds. 

On Pablo Ferro

The interview with Pablo Ferro, to me was very interesting  and insightful. Instead of feeling as though I was reading a boring interview, I felt more like I was witness to a pleasing conversation between friends on different ways to make films.

Pablo Ferro is  famous for his work on Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, The Thomas Crown Affair, Built, and To Die For. He is also famous for introducing the quick cut edit and using multiple screens in a film. He is also known for not using sound while editing.

Ferro believed that long, lengthy scenes or clips bored audiences. But using quick cuts, Ferro was able to keep the audience's attention, as well as convey much more information in a short amount of time. This is also true for the use of multiple screens. These techniques are still used extensively in modern day cinema, as well as most advertisments.

Well folks, lets kick this bad boy off bye starting on the first article we read, Digital Cinema and the History of the Moving Image. At 41 pages, this article is just brimming with all sorts of great info, but for me, the first 21 pages were the most interesting. I found it interesting that the article, as I understood it, begins by indicating that digital influence can shape film in ways more unimaginable then we first thought. It was also nice and refreshing to read the history of the moving image, starting with kinetoscope, cinemograph, zootrope, etc. We had kind of covered the topic of animations' origins sophomore year, but it was good to read about the history more in depth.

I also found it rather interesting that digital alterations to film were constantly compared to painting. The original footage acts as a canvas, allowing the artist to digitally alter, or paint, to enhance the film. This "painting" to film helped create the launch sequence in Apollo 13 as well as the floating feather in Forrest Gump. The process of digital painting was also applied to archive footage of J.F.K. to make his lips appear as though he was talking to Forrest Gump.

I also found these principles of digital film making rather nifty.

1. Rather then filming live action, it is possible to generate film like scenes with the computer.

2. Once live action footage is digitized it loses its privilege indexical relationship to prefilmic reality, rather becoming nothing more then pixels.

3. If any live action footage were left intact, it now functions for raw material to be used for compositing, animating, and morphing.

4. Editing and special effects are no longer separate activities.

From there the article began discussing the use a digital camera, and how it can be used to further create a 3 Dimensional environment. After that the article became more and more technical and difficult for me to understand and follow. I did notice however the references to video games, such as Goldeneye, and the possibility for the computer to create and ending, 3 Dimensional world where a character has limitless decisions it can make.

The next article we read was from an interview with film maker Robert Altman. Altman felt that films were still in their infancy, and had not even come close to reaching their full potential, mainly due to how linear they still are. He believed that linear film making does not truly reflect the real world, because the world acts in a non linear fashion. Instead, he felt that a films should not make things clear, and should leave audiences guessing as to what certain things were and meant.

Altman found much of his influences came from radio. In that regard he used sound as a way to create an atmosphere, as opposed to using music to tell the audience how to react to the situation going on on the screen.

In terms of creating an idea for a film, Altman felt that all films draw from the experiences and pasts of their makers. By that logic, he says that all film in essence are just recreations of ideas already seen and experienced, but still believes it is possible to create a totally original idea. He felt that if the plot was not obvious it was possible for the audience to draw from their own experiences and self conscious to try and understand what they were seeing, even if at times it meant mixing emotions. In short film making is about making the audience use all of their sensors to create a realistic experience.