Richland Digital Video Fall 2018

I feel that many of the things that Vertov spoke on about the advantages of recording video still apply today. Over time we have developed the technology to make the advantages he spoke of like being able to capture impressions in a manner completely different from the human eye rings more true today than when he wrote it. For example on a social media "story" site like SnapChat everyone can pull out their phone and record the same event from entirely different perspectives. What may look like a grand time from one persons point of view can look like an epic fail from anothers. Quotes like "we cannot improve the making of our eyes, but we can endlessly perfect the camera" are evident every year with manufactures competing to put the most high resolution cameras in their devices. I had a "Go Pro" camera in mind when he talked about capturing a boxing match from the viewpoint of the competitors. I enjoyed reading this excerpt of Kino Eye, it has a lot of sim...

Based on the reading of the Kino-Eye, I've seen that it not only describes the technique and workings behind not just film and camera work, but vision in general. Enhancing vision has given others capabilities for ages as they see reality around them, giving them unique viewpoints and perspectives that they sometimes showcase through their art and other actions, whether through technology such as cameras or simply drawing with a pencil. With technology and other devices used today, that same enhancement is, in my opinion, amplified and capable of being customized to fit the user's style, but sometimes it's better to just use the two eyes you've got because you'd be surprised how a natural sight can seem to you.

I realize that Dziga Vertov wanted to change the rejection of the Kino-Eye. He wanted us to see the power of film. To prove his point, he explains that the Kino-Eye is stronger than the human eye, and that it shows us things we can’t see.   I like to think that film is powerful It allows us to have a better understanding of the world around us. For example, when we see a ballerina, we might think that she is graceful and delicate. Film can show us how strong and talented a ballerina is. We can get a closeup of the way in which they move. Their muscles working hard, and the pain they go through for hours. Imagine The amount of control they must have to keep a serene and calm expression. Film can make us aware of things we couldn’t see before, not just in ballet but everywhere around us. Depending on the way something is edited we can see many different versions of one story all thanks to the camera. 

Dziga Vertov talks about the camera like if it was perfect. He explains how it can capture something perfectly on the moment. He also talks about the act of shooting video, how it is a form of art, talent, and precision. In fact, when filming, the cameraman should feel the emotions that pushes him or her to do what they are doing. However, we cannot forget about the traditional manual arts such as painting and drawing. Those forms of art stay the base for everything and sets the point where art started to get recognise. Overall I really liked reading “Kino Eye”, it made me understand more about the philosophy behind filming and using a camera opposed to manual arts.

I liked how he made the Camera seem more powerful than the human eye. He made me feel more appreciation for the Camera and even gave me ideas and a little motivation. I feel like I will now be a little more creative and driven next time I go on a shoot. I thought it was funny how he discredited the Theatre. Not that I fully agree with his statements but he did have some good points. He did credit the writers and other people involved in theatre, if I am not mistaken. Which is good. Overall I thought it was an interesting read, mostly because I felt more appreciation for a device that I take for granted.

In The Ontology of the Photographic Image the author talk about photography and manual arts such as painting or drawing. He compares the two and makes it clear that a photograph is “perfect” in the way that it captures exactly a certain whereas a painting is just trying to reproduce what reality was. He also says that the art of photography is the new age and that it should kind of take over the traditional manual arts. I think that art is art no matter how it was made. What matters is the meaning behind it and the work put into it by the artist.

In The Onotology of the Photographic Image, the author explains that photography is the art of our time because it's more realistic than paintings. I agree that photography is more realistic than traditional art, however it does not mean that only photography should be considered the art of our time. In my opinion paintings can still have a modern feeling depending on what the subject is and if a new technique is being applied. While photography allows artists to express themselves in new ways, drawing or painting gives us more opportunity to shape, manipulate, and express our ideas better.

I found this reading very interesting, I feel that Bazin did a really good job comparing and contrasting the difference in realism and interpretation between a painting and a photograph. Photographs aren't nearly as subjected to biases as paintings because a picture takes a "reality of nature" moment, freezes it, and captures it in a time capsule. Though photographs are by nature considerably less subject to biases compared to a painting they still are made with many of the same creative freedoms due to the fact that you (the photographer or videographer) can decide to capture "real" things in a different way by not shooting certain parts, using different angles, techniques, etc. Two pictures or videos could be of the same subjects and tell completely different stories.

Interesting CGI video for Boardwalk Empire-Brainstorm Digital https://youtu.be/eay7YRgYQgQ

https://vimeo.com/290214803

What is Cinema? According to this reading “art and civilization has evolved side by side and photography/cinema is the art of our time” To me it sounds like photography is seen as portraying more realistic images than for example painting. The author explains that a painting is easily manipulated by the artist. I think it’s very interesting that a when comparing painting and photography, photography can more easily convince someone of a reality.   For me personally I agree with photography being the art of our time. I love to paint but as I gotten older I realize that I have less and less time to do so. Now I have a phone like most people and taking pictures capturing a special moment can be done in one instant. It amazing to see that art will adapt and remain alive forever in one way or another.

I honestly didn't understand much of this story, but I went back over it a couple times to see if anything stood out to me, and I started flashing back a little. A few semesters back, I learned I had a knack for certain forms of art, liking to draw, use pastel, etc. Over that time, I learned I had a thing for art, whether by drawing or Photoshop. Looking back in the story, I got the message that time goes on, things change and evolve, and art is no different, but people would find it nice to see something from the older ages and the more original works like the Mona Lisa and other famous works. New or old, I like to believe that art and other forms of work should depend on the views of the maker and not just the viewing audience.

I was honestly concern when we read F.T. Marinetti thoughts during the aftermath of the war. On one hand, I understand why he wanted newer artist to tear down older artist. Back then and today, new artist are afraid to put themselves out there, constantly comparing themselves to the artist that made their mark in history. It also doesn't help that the people who believe they know all about art tend to use old art as golden standards, making it hard for new artists to earn their approval unless they somehow meet the standard in the way the person wants. This can lead to unoriginal art for a long time. It also doesn't make sense to get rid of old art altogether. People sometimes takes inspiration from old art, spinning it into something new. I don't entirely agree with Marinetti's views, but I do agree new and upcoming artists shouldn't be discouraged by the high bar past artist set.

The Futurist Manifesto has a curious ring to it in that only by violence can you break free of the shackles of previous generations. Many have plodded along this path. I agree that the future must push the boundaries of past generations, much like man’s attempt fly in motocross or X-Games, but commercialization has the goal of potential billions in potential marketing and this has made the journey to a new art form much more complex. I need an explanation of this one: “We went up to the three snorting machines to caress their breasts. (say WHAT?) I lay along mine like a corpse on its bier, but I suddenly revived again beneath the steering wheel - a guillotine knife - which threatened my stomach.”  4. We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. (Check out the highway at rush hour…speed indeed!) A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath ... a roaring motor car wh...

Not sure this is the place to add this but...HEY! Has anyone seen the movie "Mother"? It has elements of "Rosemary's Baby" and critics seem to think that the movie is a cutting edge story telling! I saw it with family and 15 minutes into the movie everyone was laughing! It became a laughfest and generated lots of  yelling at the screen. Much fun! See it with a group and you'll see what I mean. Any critical review is welcome. Don't be fooled by the trailer...Stupidity abounds and I'm really very open to all genres!-Gary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpICoc65uh0

Anyone-I'm interested in how a student can obtain a password. I'm sent in a loop then told that I can't get a password to access ecampus...any help is appreciated.-Gary Angle

In his manifesto, the author is stating that he wants “this land”, which is Italy, to be free of its smelly gangrene of professors, archaeologists, ciceroni and antiquarians. By that he means that he wants everyone and everything that evokes the past to be destroyed or forgotten about. His ideology is to have the future generation to be looking towards the future and not back into the past. This is most likely one of the only point everyone would agree with on with the author, but not entirely. In fact, looking ahead of us is important but we can’t ignore the past; we must learn from it to teach us how to make the future even better.

The Futurist Manifesto is a rather interesting read to me. It almost reminds me of one of my close friends in a sense because the author comes off as intensely dedicated to a plan that was hatched just hours ago. While its message of grasping and focusing on the now is one that I agree with, it doesn't seem that it was really much thought put into it on a philosophical level and the author comes off as angry or bitter about a particular thing that has taken place, almost like he is going through an early mid-life crisis or maybe failed a class.

I really enjoyed this reading. I am an artist and I always paint abstract and cartoony pictures. I often get frustrated because everyone wants to see something realistic. In the art community I see portraits and landscapes sell like crazy. The author is right, people crave realism. But what I also liked what that he pointed out that Photography kind of broke the painting scene away from realism and caused more abstract works like Picasso to emerge. My art has done surprisingly well considering it is unique, odd, and sometimes funny. I think a lot of that has to do with the world getting saturated with photos. With all of the social medias and emerging photographers with digital imaging and phones, I can often tell that people are relieved to see a painting thats so unique and hilarious. I dont take painting very seriously and sell my work for cheap because I do it quickly. That being said, I also do photography and have friends who do it professionally and I like how he said that photo...

I've read the story twice and the message was the same: that we should let go of the past and focus on the future. The way the author uses the terms of “museum” and “archaeology” suggest that those who make history or focus ON history have little place in the long run. The way I see it, there IS no future without the past.    It may not always be a good thing to let the past rule EVERYTHING, but not everyone is like that, and it's not always good to let thoughts of the FUTURE rule you either. What the author is stating falls under the old saying “Out with the old, in with the new”, but I disagree with this view since throwing away the past and the old wouldn't be a good idea since it would mean throwing ages of work and experience out the window. The list at the end of the story made little sense to me, but from what I was able to draw from it, the author is suggesting living life fast trying to take ...

The author is clearly upset at the past and history for some reason. He wants another war to start so that more newer art and history can be made and possibly to destroy all artifacts from the past. While being aware of all the things that are going on the world right now is important,  knowing about and preserving the past is just as important so that we don't make the same mistakes our ancestors made. For this reason I believe the Futurist Manifesto is an irrelevant piece of document that should not be taken seriously.

I believe that this author wants to not only wage war on art, but on humanity. He is telling us not to take past artists so seriously and I think that is something good that I got from it. I tend to put other artists on pedestals and become intimidated. I compare myself to other artists that I perceive as being better than me and it affects my work in a negative way. I think that although I tend to look at past talent in a comparing type way, I also look at it in an inspirational type way. If I grew up without seeing all of the beautiful artwork on television and in school, I would probably not be the same artist or have the same level of creativity as I do today. I think the author could have been less aggressive and could have made more accomplishments if he had been more calm because he does seem to be creative and driven. He should have channeled that energy in a more positive way but human error is to be expected. I am not sure how he was conditioned as a human being and I do appr...

In this piece the author is tired of looking to the past, so much that he shows a strong dislike for anything that represent the time before him. He is aggressive and is passionate about destroying all art and museums in Italy. I agree that new generations should look to the future and advance forward, creating and building new things. However, I have to say that the past is there to teach us how to improve our future, and therefore it should be respected and appreciate it. In film I think there has been many advances, sometimes it can be hard to connect them to the past. Film has gotten to where it’s now thanks to people like Alfred Hitchcock for example, and many other who devoted their lives and careers to exploring this field. We have been able to move forward thanks to what others before us started it.