The journal (part b)

When I was looking to reference the author last time I was writing the blog, I looked it up on the libraries periodical database and found that I could read it online. The first issue that showed up on the search was an issue that was not on the libraries shelves. So I decided to scan through it and found a title that peace my interest entitled The Future of Ethnographic Film? It is by Jay ___, and I was quite drawn in at first, but by the end I was quite disappointed, but still content on the premise of the article.
What really drew me into the article was Jay’s idea of using cinematic tools in a different use than that of the commercial documentary. From what I gathered he proposed to use the potentiality of cinematic tools for anthropological ends rather than a documentary film’s ends. The narrative element of both documentary films and books restricts anthropological understanding of many aspects within cultures being studied. This restriction in theory can be overcome with such devices that the avant-garde and experimental film movements have developed. The only problems with using devices according to jay are that these films will only serve a small demographic of film enthusiasts and anthropologists rather than a broad public. My argument with that, however, is that with anyone who is serious about scraping under the skin about any culture with out being in the armchair they can attempt to grasp the cinematic conventions being played with.
Another problem I had with the article was how Jay tried to go beyond this problem. At first he described how he went out, and collected all the raw footage he needed to construct such a film, but ultimately he was unable to. He then went on to the next non-narrative medium of a webpage or CD-rom, which could hold text, video, and sound recordings. His goal was to stray away from film (conventional) as much as possible, so the viewer would be non-passive. The interactivity of this medium does has its potential for such anthro or ethno displays, but what I was really fascinated with is how someone could use just the medium of film and it’s tools. So, I was quite disappointed with how he chose to make up for the problems that conventional film/cinema create for this specific scientific field with this new media. I really hoped he would discuss various ways that this problem tried to be resolved, but he pretty much quit on the subject after he starting talking about his pet project on the new media invention. I was even disappointed with his view on how sites shoud be managed as he even regarded flash effects on web sites as frivolous rather than having potential to affect the viewer with many types of aesthetical conventions.
At least this article has opened my eye to how cinematic conventions could be used towards ethno/antrho understanding. But, how jay and others are utilizing new media for these means I see as the same mistake he described himself that the invention of 8mm with sync-sound, or even 3-chip cameras will pave a way for ethnographic film. He says that it is a conceptual problem rather than a technical one, but I would say that the conceptual inventions of new media create similar problems to that of film/and video.
From this article and the previous two I have come to the conclusion that media today is open. It is open in the sense for everyone to use, but the problem is that very few people know how to utilize if for their own means. Everyone working with media has their own box that they are trying to fit it in. A type of formula is being used to try to help with this problem, but there are still too many problems for anything to be achieved in a satisfying concluding sense.

sound trip (of sorts)

I really should have listened to Carl when he said to write the blog the day of visiting the event, because now I have lost my notes and I can not remember the names of the artists or their exhibits at the Haggerty. I went to both Peter Hutton’s at sea, and a trilogy showing of Nathanial Dorsky’s works. But, I have the foggiest idea of what to write about concerning the silence of the pieces. At sea was such a beautiful piece. I could go on, and compare it to the close proximity of the camera in Dorsky’s work, but that’s not what we are here to write about unfortunately. So with only the slight idea of the images themselves creating a rhythm, I went to the Haggerty to find something more concrete for me to discuss. I had an idea from in my mind for what to look out for. I was talking to Julie, and she brought up this idea of sound coming before the image or the image coming before the sound. One the pieces I found very interesting was a series of three televisions. On the three televisions was Nirvana, Michael Jackson, and my personal favorite Joy Division. In this case the sound did not seem to me to be either before the image or after the image, unlike most music videos where the sound comes before the image, the distorted image of the joy Division show attempted to render the song nostalgic. Coming in and knowing the song beforehand really had an effect on me. Even before I saw this piece I always had this nostalgic feeling with Joy Division.
I would like to comment more on the gallery and it’s use of sound, but I really feel that I have not explored my relation to image and sound fully. I almost see the image and sound one of the same at times. I don’t know how to fully describe it, but where it begins and ends with an image is a mode I have not exposed myself to much. I would say that I have just started to open my eyes to it, but this is really hard for me to describe. I don’t even know how to start talking about the differences of silence between Hutton’s and Dorsky’s work. My relation to sound has I guess been taken for granted. The relationship or lack of sound to its surroundings is something I would really like to know, but I don’t know where to start. I am digging at my brain and all I find is this nonchalant deafness.