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.