Removed

My subject this week is about Removed by Naomi Uman. I thought this was quite an interesting work that we saw. It worked with a media that many consider distasteful. The pornography that she chose to use was on film and dated back from the seventies. When she removed the female figures from the film, this changed the once raunchy film into a work of art. It also changed the perspective of the viewers. The original focus on the film was on the woman for various reasons, but after Naomi carefully removed the female figures from the film the main focus of the film was gone. The dialog and the sounds of the women were still there but there was just a white void where the action was taking place. Naomi may have intended to remove the main focus of the film so that the viewer would have to focus on something else in the film that originally was just in the background. When I watched the film I still paid attention to the white void that was changing shape just because I knew that this was the part of the film that was manipulated. It kind of made me wonder what was really happening in this film. It was hard to tell by the expressions on the faces of the male characters and especially by the dialog. It just didn't seem to fit the actions of the film at times, but yet it matched up with the mouths of the characters. Naomi's unique approach to manipulating this film allowed the original focus of the film to change into a new artistic focus that doesn't allow the viewer to see the main action of the film.

Craig Baldwin Week

From the film that was watched in class on Monday, the subject I chose to write about was Negativland. I found this group to be the most interesting out of all of the artists that were shown. They had a very unique sense of music and were very original when it came to creating new ideas of art. The example that was shown in class was the manipulation of illegal radio waves and also "The letter U and the numeral two. Some may argue that these people weren't artists at all but in the eyes of Negativland they were just creating parodies when they manipulated the art of someone else and changed it to a way they liked. After doing some research on the band's web page and also their Myspace, I was able to get a feel for what Negativland was really about. They are artists who like to work with computers and the electronic media styles like radio and electronic instruments. They have various tutorials on how to set up your own electronic devices. The one I read happened to be about recording a telephone conversation or in their case a concert on the telephone. I also listened to the U2 recording that was banned from store shelves. They have posted it back on their website and now they let viewers listen to it for free. I think it is kind of silly how the management of U2 had to file a law suit against Negativland just for using part of the song in one of their recordings while making a parody of it. In a way they were performing an intervention in sound by taking something they had found and changed it according to their experimental style.But I guess that's what makes Negativland unique. They are known for stretching the boundaries and breaking the rules of copyright laws and that is their intent. At least U2 was still in their top 12 friends list on Myspace. Even after this law suit they have not given up. It looks like the band was able to record after the lawsuit was filed. They made a recording of "My Favorite Things" from the sound of music and manipulated the song by cutting and pasting different words in places that changed the message of the song entirely. I think Craig Baldwin did a great job of creating the documentary we watched in class. The way he used his own footage and mixed it with found media was very unique. The way he followed Negativland around and interviewed them allowing them to show demonstrations of performances and their radio broadcasting really was a great way to allow the two artists, Craig Baldwin and Negativland, perform interventions in both in film and sound.

Math Presentation

The presentation that James Benning gave on Monday was an interesting comparison between two different types of media. Normally I find math to be something that wasn't meant for me, it is frustrating and the concepts don't seem to make any sense. This was different with James Benning's presentation. I still didn't quite get all of the concepts that he was trying to explain but the way he mixed these mathematical equations with his own concepts and ideas seemed to make things a bit clearer. One of these examples was when he told us about the invisible numbers and then continued to say this didn't make sense to him either because that is the same as every other number. His divide by zero example was also interesting in how he actually demonstrated how it was done instead of just saying it would never work. I liked how his demonstration seemed to be about creating a systematic process, which could be applied to making art. This was given in his example with the binary scarf one of his students made. Film making can work similarly to how one would go about doing a math equation. The location and situation will not be the same every time but neither will the equation. Film making has more of a creative process behind it to me than I could ever be able to get out of math, but this could differ for other people. The relationship with the mathematician and the filmmaker is just the process and the way they organize their thoughts and approach different situations and eventually come out with a finished product. Contrary to James Benning I do not find math to be a beautiful thing, this may be because I don't understand it, but after the presentation he gave I have a new outlook at math and how it can be similar to film making.

Artist Statement

The idea I had behind my table top project was to experiment with color. My main idea was to show how colors combine with each other to create a new color. After I had gone through my demonstration and watched it on tape I realized there was more to my project than I had originally seen. I noticed how the dye hit the water and how it would gradually mix and spread throughout the entire glass. This became another element that I wanted to focus on. I also noted how the movements and placement of the glasses would be crucial in order for the viewer to see the elements I wanted them to. I wanted to have a defined process of how I would go through the demonstration since any movement that I had to place in the video that didn't need to be there would just detract from the effect I wanted to convey of mixing colors. The main idea I want to convey to the viewer is the process and the steps that were taken in order to mix the colors and eventually end up with a clash of color in the end.