Carolee Schneeman

When she was first introduced to me earlier in class, I imagined she would be the type of female filmmaker that I would look up to, maybe even idolize. She seemed like a feminist that didn't hate men but rather wanted to stand up for woman, show the world what we can do, not to be compared to men, but rather stand out as an individual. Then I started reading interviews and articles.

I respect her for being very open, and she without a doubt cut boundaries, having her films be events, even though in the end, everyone seemed to cut her down and saying her work was 'unacceptable' and felt it didn't help push the feminist statement, but rather go back. And I have to agree. In B. Ruby Rich's article she said that Carolee was 'rejected by a philistine public,' while I think, she was the philistine artist, to a point of course.

I definitely don't think Fuses was pornographic by any means, and she didn't objective herself compared to other sexual films, porn or not, made during that time, but she did glamorize the penis in my mind. She's on screen showing herself pleasuring her boyfriend, and rarely is it shown being recipricated or mutual. Personally, I do not understand why many people, not just feminists, find it degrading for a woman to give filacio, that wasn't the problem for me, I feel a woman is more in control than degraded when in that position. But what was the problem, was again, how she glamorized the penis. Throughout the film she had closeups of Tenney's genitals in good angles, colored perfectly pink, multiple times. Whenever there were wide shots of them on the bed he was always on top which shows him in control. I don't want to just summarize the film, but I did want to show examples of how I don't think she is much of a 'feminist' when it comes to sex.

And as I mentioned earlier, I believe she is much more of a philistine than some of her viewers. Much of what I saw on screen and read about seemed forced, borderline trying to hard to be 'artistic' and 'avant garde.' I am not one for meaning, I hate disecting art and put meaning into it when it shouldn't, but for someone like Schneeman, who includes such purposeful imagery and language, how can we not look at it without figuring out WHY she put it there.

I feel like stopping here because otherwise it is just me complaining about her contratictory motives, but I basically just wanted to express my opinions as someone who is sexually open as Schneeman herself, and although I do not find her work degrading or even anti-feminist, I do feel like her work does not coincides with her supposed intentions.

I guess I'm going to sell it?

This isn't the most thought provoking video, but in our discussion class, youtube videos were mentioned and I thought I had never really seen anything remixed like the clip from To Kill a Mockingbird, but then I remembered seeing this a long time ago:


It isn't edited exactly in the way of Passage a l'Acte, but I think it still follows the idea of exaggerating certain words and actions, emphasizing the ridiculous, though most of it already it, and definitely making it more funny, which I'm sure was the intent, so they succeeded.

Art Journal

I have to admit that what intrigued me about this art journal at first was a link to a man who did a sort of study about shopping carts (http://www.strayshoppingcart.com/shopping_cart/1_introduction.htm). He took pictures of shopping carts in various ‘environments’ and had people send him pictures, he classified them into categories: what type of shopping cart they were (by where and how they were found, not by what they were made of or what store they were from), how they were used (one was used as a fence for a small front porch garden) and so on. And after looking more thoroughly through the journal, I realized that was one of the very few ‘quirky’ articles. Though I do not regret my choice of the journal based on that and just a couple other reviews, I feel this journal is too smart for me, or, more smarter. This seems to cover a lot of aspects from the art world, from digital personalities (that I will discuss shortly) to comparing dance with the theories of Nietzsche and Freud. Basically all the articles I read through had some sort of psychological spin on it, which I appreciated, and it made sense, but I did a lot of copying and pasting into Google search while reading those articles. The first article I wanted to discuss was Technics of the Subject: The Avatar-Drive by Emily Apter. I probably related to this article more which is why I chose it, because I am on the net all the time and use avatars without even realizing it. Avatars have become such a broad but also specific representation on the internet. The obvious, as she discusses in her article is that of the Sims and Second Life. Players can create their own representation of themselves, whether it is a character that looks exactly like them, or the total opposite. Someone who is socially inept or doesn’t like the way they look can live through these characters, having self confidence and so on via their avatar. But I think it goes beyond the obvious. I think of blogging websites when people have ‘profile pictures’ which essentially represent who they are to their readers. I frequent a livejournal community about celebrity gossip all the time and every now and a ‘member’ of that community will refer to another member by their user picture or if someone changes their user picture, it throws people off who have become accustomed to ‘seeing’ that member a certain way. There is also facebook and myspace where again, people can have profile pictures, so when you log in, that one picture will represent them. Some people put up pictures of themselves, while others will put up a painting, or celebrity figure. Do they then live vicariously through those pictures? Apter, like every other author in the journal, goes into a deeper translation of the avatar; she discusses the history of the actual word avatar, essentially meaning ‘down he goes,’ which of course is interesting because you always hear these crazy stories whether it be Law & Order or The Maury Povich Show where wives lose their husbands to online games and vice versa or kids who don’t like reality, basically, get lost in this fake world because they are loved there. But is that really us to judge? I say yes, because this is life, not that, but it can easily be argued. She then discusses Freud, though he died long before these modern day avatars, because of his studies of the id and ego and superego. She compares his studies to the avatar in the similar fashion of the ‘down he goes’ translation, people get lost in these avatars sometimes, developing ‘egoic defenses’ and the ‘inhibition of destructive.’
Then comes Stephanie Hart’s piece, Ways of See(th)ing: A Record of Visual Punk Practice where I think she feels she needs to put a psychological spin on the punk world. She reviews Panic Attack! Art in the Punk Years in a way that it incorporates a history of the dissection of punk, reading into the artists and the art work that came from them during the height of punk. I’ve never disliked Punk music, but I’ve never been a fan. I’ve been introduced to the basics like God Save the Queen and Sid and Nancy’s story courtesy of Gary Oldman, but I never delved into it and felt the angst of punk times. To be honest I’m not sure why I wanted to discuss this article, at least according to the guidelines of the paper, but I think I more wanted to review her review because in our class, we definitely analyze the films and read into it what we will, but as in my previous field report, I think we don’t really know what a piece of art really means unless the artist tells us. Turns out Killer of Sheep didn’t have a lot a inner meaning, people just read into what they would, and Stephanie Hart seems to take others’ thoughts and opinions to show her own when talking about why punk music was the way it was and why they were singing this or taking pictures of that, when maybe, they just really liked to dress that way or sing those words.

Act/React

I can’t help but go Hollywood right away and mention Robin William’s little speech in Good Will Hunting where his character tells Will he may know what the Sistine Chapel looks like, but can’t go beyond that and so on because he never experienced it. I thought of that quote as I was going through the exhibit at the Art Museum because I had read and heard so much beforehand that I thought I knew the exhibit already, I didn’t have to go see it to write the paper, why waste my time? But I was wrong. Because after visiting, I looked at the pieces differently, I could describe them differently than if I hadn’t visited, it made me appreciate them more. I believe all art is interactive; a sculpture could evoke an emotion or memory, an abstract painting could be like looking at the clouds when you were a kid, it doesn’t necessarily have an obvious picture, but you do see something in it. But this exhibit went beyond that with me. It was like a game, an interactive game using all the senses, or at least most of them.

In John McKinnon’s lecture he mentioned quite a few interactive installations like the Infinity Room, which now after visiting Act/React I guess I shouldn’t assume, but doesn’t seem that interactive, but rather a piece you can be in, but I don’t believe you can manipulate it. It may affect you emotionally, but there isn’t much you can do physically to it or it to you. And as for the Lumiere Brothers’ famous ‘Arrival of a Train,’ it definitely affected audiences (supposedly) in a way that they actually thought a train was coming and ran out of the theatre, but they can go back in, and the theatre and the film are exactly the same, just looked at differently. I mention these to, again, argue that the Act/React exhibit is a new kind of interactive. The viewer can become an artist through these pieces.

The first piece I enjoyed was Healing #1 by Brian Knep. I was able to experience it alone and with a group of people. While alone it was like a puzzle, I figured out it followed my movement, my shadow rather than where I stepped, which intrigued me. I then tested it, if you will, and spun around with my purse low to the ground, the cells disappeared, I shuffled, which made the ‘wound’ wider, I then tried, what I’m sure everyone tried, to delete all the cells. At this point a group of grade school students came by and watched me. Not even a second later one of the kids said, ‘Let’s help her get rid of it!’ I know it was obvious what I was doing, but it just amazed me that these kids knew exactly what I was doing and wanted to ‘help.’ Of course they’re kids though and quickly got distracted themselves, making different shapes, having their own objectives.

What was, surprisingly, my favorite piece was Janet Cardiff’s, To Touch. Beforehand I thought it was just a table that you touched and it evoked different sounds to come out of the speakers. And essentially it was, but it was also a lot of fun. I was lucky enough to be in the dark room by myself and right away felt like a conductor or Bugs Bunny in ‘Baton Bunny.’ I’d touch slowly and softly at different areas of the table, one voice or noise going off at a time, maybe two overlapping quietly. Then I’d add a few more noises, let them run, it then gets quiet, maybe touch another area of the table, see what plays, add another, and another, then just run my hands all over the table faster and faster, having each and every speaker play, becoming chaos. At one point one of the security guards came in, and I’m sure I looked like a mad woman practically rubbing my whole body on this table with this wicked smile on my face looking up at him like, ‘Look! Look at what I’m creating!!!’ That definitely brought me back down to reality and I let it become quiet again. Well, after a few more minutes of playing with it.

I still remember visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art for the first time and my sister was getting frustrated because I wasn’t ‘feeling’ the art in the abstract area. I then saw a piece from Joan Mitchell (still one of my favorite pieces), that was just globs of paint creating a 3D look with shadows and shapes. I had my face about two inches from the painting, my sister comes up to me, and I say, ‘I just want to feel it!’ and she looks at me with the most astonished look, and I reply, ‘Well, I’m not really going to, an alarm might go off!’ and she laughed thinking I metaphorically wanted to feel it. I mention that because I believe you can’t just ‘feel’ or appreciate art just by looking. Sure, I can see the Venus Di Milo in an art book, but how big is she? what does her ass look like (ps. If you Google ‘Venus Di Milo, ass,’ one example does show up)? I wouldn’t know unless I go and see her, walk around, smell her even. I appreciate things more when I am able to interact. And these pieces at the Act/React show are the epitome of interaction. You manipulate the pieces, and essentially, create your own art within it, just like I did with my little ‘symphony’ at To Touch or the tunnels and new cells I left behind at Healing #1. John McKinnon gave us a quick rundown of ‘interactive’ art, whether it is a sculpture that moves or a movie that makes crowds run, and although I don’t go against my first argument that all art is interactive, this exhibit was a new level of interactive.

Baghdad in No Particular Order

Danielle Sulikowski
Film 220
After viewing Paul Chan’s Baghdad in No Particular Order, there are two parts, one a film, the other a website. Though they are marked as ‘Part One’ and ‘Part Two,’ Chan says they are companions to each other, and of course, are in no particular order. Throughout our discussion class following the viewings of these parts, there was a debate of what was considered ‘Part One’ and whether or not the website was necessary. I thought that it was awesome that something as simple as a website caused such controversy in a classroom. It made people think more about the work, whether it be that they took the website literally and learned more from it, or it be that it made them appreciate the film more because they wanted to disregard this additional information. As for myself, I thought the website was a great addition to the film. These two parts work well in argument of Marcel Duchamp’s ideas of the artist’s intention to realization.
Whenever we look at art: film, sculptures, paintings, we interpret it in different ways. Baghdad in No Particular Order: Part One was the least narrative documentary in the sense that there was no story we were following or voiceovers or anything that comes with a ‘typical’ documentary. So much is left to the eye of the beholder because we don’t know much about what we are seeing except what we are seeing. Then when one looks at the website, you learn who these people are that we are listening to, or what the books on the street are or even things that aren’t presented in the film. Many argued that that ruined the film for them. I am not sure why to be exactly. One girl said that seeing these beautiful images on the big screen were literally belittling on a little QuickTime file, others said that they just didn’t feel that much more informed, that seeing these images was an impact enough. Others argued that the website informed them in a sense that it helped them understand the film more. It gave them a background to the people and places; it gave them more emotional attachment because it gave these images meaning.
As for what Paul Chan’s intention was with the website, we don’t know. It might be a companion to the film and vice versa, or it might have been his intention to have the two parts viewed as separate pieces of art that had this subject in common. But as Duchamp argues, it isn’t up to the artist. We look back at history and paintings from hundreds of years ago are given a history, a story. Who decided the background to that painting when there is no record of the artist’s intentions? People are still arguing and assuming the meaning behind Mona Lisa’s smile. That is if it is a smile. But this is now, and Paul Chan is still alive and created the website with his own words and statements, but left out, accidentally or purposely, the meaning behind these two pieces, and how they should be viewed. Duchamp says it isn’t the artist’s place to interpret the piece for the audience, but is it our place to interpret it for ourselves and ultimately, the artist?
Being a realist, I found the website helpful in giving me a background to the images. I hadn’t viewed the website before seeing the film, so I looked at what was shown to me as things to look at. I don’t mean to say there wasn’t depth or substance to it, but I didn’t have anything to show me about Haider except a hand. I didn’t even know that this hand belonged to a man named Haider. When I learned who this hand was, it didn’t make me think any less of what I had seen on video but made me closer to it, because now this hand had a name, a history, it was more real.
The intention behind the website and the video is the gap in this work. These two parts can be viewed separately in that someone can happen upon the website and understand it, to an extent. They think that is it, but then turns out there are a video and that can make them look at the website differently. The same can be said about seeing the video and then seeing the website as what happened in my case. Viewed separately and then together changes people’s thoughts and ideas and changes their intentions of what they think about what they are seeing.
Marcel Duchamp talks about gaps in art. And it seems these gaps are what make the difference between the artist’s intention and the realization of the work. And then it seems the realization of the work depends on how the viewer sees this work. In the case of Paul Chan, the intention of the two parts of Baghdad in No Particular Order is the gap in the sense that viewing these two parts separately or together changes the way the viewers thinks and feels toward these pieces. Some may appreciate each part separately or appreciate them both once viewing both. People seem to ‘prefer’ one part over the other and who knows if this was Chan’s intentions. It is up to the viewer to decide.

Field Report One

One aspect that interests me more than a piece of work itself is the artist. Knowing the artist, whether it be their background in art, what has happened in their own life, what they think of their art, changes the way we, or at least I, think of the work. Most would think that is a bad thing, because people like to come up with their own ideas and thoughts on a piece of work, and as Charles Burnett said this past weekend, someone told him when they were critiquing (in his mind) incorrectly, ‘It’s not yours anymore.’ I think that isn’t right. Yes, there have been a few times where I have been disappointed after I have learned the ‘truth’ behind a piece, but most of the time, it makes me appreciate it more and have more respect for the artist.

Prior to our class showing of Stan Brakhage’s ‘Mothlight’ I had studied a little bit of him before, having seen ‘Mothlight’ and ‘Window Water Baby Moving’ and learned that he loved everything about film. Not that he could tell his story, or express his opinions. Not that kind of love for the film, but for the physical piece of film and what you can do with it, what it can capture. It made me appreciate ‘Mothlight’ because it wasn’t just some guy who thought moths would look cool and wanted to show off this neat new trick. He was such a selfless filmmaker. He didn’t want to put his ideas onto other people, he wanted to say, ‘Hey, look at what you can do with film, isn’t it amazing?!’ (of course that’s not a direct quote from him). What intrigued me more was that he didn’t just make films of random objects taped to film, he expanded his subjects, and though many, if not all critics say he didn’t make narrative films, I would disagree. ‘Window Water Baby Moving’ is the birth of his child, how is that not narrative? Though some could say it is documentary of the sorts, which it is, which then leads me to Charles Burnett.

He stopped by the Student Union this past weekend and screened ‘Killer of Sheep’ which was influenced by documentaries. And the thing is, I wouldn’t have known that if he hadn’t stopped by. Yes, of course it has the obvious feel of a documentary, capturing life as it goes, not really have a direct story, but before listening to him, I read about what others had to say about his work and they all said he made films similar to Italian neo-realism and the like. What I liked most about Charles Burnett was his honesty. He admitted he wasn’t professional and people looked into things in his films a little too much. He didn’t mean for the dog mask or the motor to mean something, he just thought it was funny. And why should he have to put meaning into his work? ‘Killer of Sheep’ was a reaction to Blacksploitation films in that he didn’t relate to those films, that’s not how he and the people he knew lived, so why should something so realistic have so much hidden meaning?

It seems my reaction to these two artists and their work has kind of been all over the place, but when it comes down to it, the aspect of these works that interests me is the artists themselves. I would rather know what these artists were like, or what they had to say, then experience their art incorrectly or differently than they intended. Stan Brakhage told stories, but differently in a way than I am used to. He didn’t want to tell a story so that others could share his opinions, but he created these films so he could play with film, show others what you could do with film. Charles Burnett was a little less ‘artistic’ in a sense in that he just wanted to tell a story. He didn’t want to put hidden meaning or crafty tricks in his films because that wasn’t real to him. I have more respect for artists when they are just being straight forward with their work, and these two men did just that.