Please, follow the link and post your comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t-9qxqdVm4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The course will focus on the relation of art and emerging technologies for art production since the 1960’s. Through examining different forms of media art -- such as video, television, performance and digital art, we will address the ways in which such technologies have transformed the production, reception and interpretation of art.
Antonio Muntadas, The File Room
Greenaway says, "Cinema is passive, we look at it in the dark... it is looking in one direction, the world is all around you, and you have to sit still for two hours. So we have to break all those boundaries down."
ReplyDeleteHe seems to think this is very revolutionary, but artists have been creating interactive, multimedia installations for more than a decade. And while they do offer a more multi-faceted experience for the viewer, it does not necessarily mean that films that fits Greenaway's describtion above are rendered completely useless and obsolete.
I was interested in learning more about Greenaway's revolutionary interactive Tulseluper project. I came across this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdAucw2eX_E
While the imagery he orchestrates before a live audience is very interesting, I am not convinced that he has successfully achieved his goal of breaking down all of the aforementioned barriers. He was successful in creating something non-narrative, shown on more than one screen, and that is different every time it is constructed, however it does not appear in this clip to be tremendously interactive for anyone but him, the VJ. Perhaps it was the club-like atmosphere, but it seemed to exist in the background as a collage of imagery and sound, as opposed to being something truly innovative and interactive.
Greenaway expressed his interest in the post-cinema phenomenon, which he describes as non-narrative, multi-media, and interactive. He goes further to related it to the VJ/DJ phenomenon which is most noteworthy because it brings the body into the art making process. He describes the post-cinema era as a need for choice and interactivity, but is it more about choice or control? The reason I hesitate at the word choice, is because he marks the death of the cinema with the introduction of the remote, which it much more about control than about choice. And then if it is about a sense of control, what were the historical events that created this shift?
ReplyDelete-Jasmine
A very good point, Jasmin. Perhaps we could take the remote control as a metaphor for the way society functions in the high capitalist mode of production on the one hand and representative democracies on the other hand: one has the impression that there is an array of goods, products, parties, candidates, decisions from which one can choose. But on the other hand, this choice has been always already determined.
ReplyDeleteBut do we agree with Greenaway that the conventional cinematic setting requires a passive viewer while interactive touch and play cinema activates the viewer's body. Is this empowering for the viewer?
I have been wanting to watch Tulsa Luper Suitcases for quite some time. Perhaps, we can organize a screening during this extended break.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Greenway. I think he's looking at the cinema from one perspective; his perspective. I don't agree that the cinema requires a passive viewer and play cinema and interactive touch does not necessarily have to empower the viewer.
ReplyDeleteYara, could you elaborate further -why touch and play cinema might not empower the viewer?
ReplyDeleteI think Peter Greenaway is a very respectable director, his film "the belly of an architect" is one of my favorites. However, I disagree with almost every point he made in this interview..
ReplyDeleteHe blames "cinema's death" on remote controls, because people are no more "looking in one direction, the world all around you, and you have to sit still in a seat for two hours."
Cinema is Art, thus has to be enjoyable in my opinion. If the reason for cinema's death is that people now have the choice over watching or not, then I think he's going for the wrong argument. I know for a fact, that if a movie is good enough, no matter when it was released or where it is screened, it would keep my attention enough for me not to reach for the remote control. Why say it's "choice/control" rather than the quality?
He also said "Thirty-five years of silent cinema is gone, no one looks at it anymore. This will happen to the rest of cinema. Cinema is dead."
Starting off with no-one, not true. I personally enjoy silent cinema, and know of many other people who do. If by "no one" he means the majority of the people (in which case he WOULD be referring to the whole commercialism issue which he claims to be against. Most art related works have their audience, small or big it may be, it never meant it was dead.
Assuming that his above argument is correct, why assume that because "no one watches those movies anymore" cinema is dead? Today there are movies that people do watch, which will not be watched in 35 years and so on. It's not dead, rather evolving.
As for the VJ video posted by Emily, it's very innovative, but not really reviving cinema in my opinion. VJ has gradually started becoming a new performance genre, but it's not cinema per se.
The argument cinema's dead has been overused the past few years, I think it's just changing with the world around it, all while remaining cinema, pleasurable to its audience, disregarding figures.
On a completely unrelated note: "31st of September", why so specific? =)
From Mariam Mekiwi:
ReplyDeleteCommentary on Peter Greenaway’s interview
Peter Greenaway one of the most important filmmakers was interviewed while working on a multimedia project “interactive Tulseluper project”. In his interview Peter Greenaway mentioned that Cinema is dead and the classical narrative 3-Act structure should no longer be implemented since the creation of multimedia artworks which involves the spectator. The experience of watching a film has long been discussed before in film theory (Cognitive film theory). The narrative structure of a film whether chronological or fragmented, it is the viewer mental ability that rearranges events and visuals and makes into a film that has a story that had been recognized by the human mind. This I call involvement too but on a different level than with interactive media art and Video art. The approach of Cinema puts weight on intellectual rather than emotional aspect of watching a film or being a spectator in general.
The argument that “Cinema is dead” according to Greenaway is a very risky opinion. If this had been true than Classical Music, Classical literature and Theatre are dead long ago. Furthermore if this argument is valid then the argument of getting rid of historical buildings in the age of skyscrapers can be valid as well. When modern dance and new performance arts had come into existence the classical ballet still made its way in the world’s renowned theatres without this undermining that. It is true that some classical artworks are overrated sometimes but any artwork that gets good criticism from western critics is considered to be good anyway. The scale of aesthetics could never be determined in a scale from 1-10. Understanding art history and the development of art is very important to continue to new media arts that can never had been created without Cinema and Video have preceded them.
Peter Greenaway states that cinema is passive which I disagree with. Maybe one sits still in the dark while watching a film but that does not mean that internally one is necessarily inactive. He also says cinema is looking in one direction while the world is all about you which is too literal and does not take into account personal differences. For even though one sits looking in one direction, cinema can be a very enlightening window to the world around us. Also different films are interpreted differently by different people in different places so I think Greenaway cannot make the generalization that Cinema is dead to everyone just because it is to him.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore I believe the invention of the remote control enlivened cinema rather than killed it. For when one before was trapped between few choices, now one is provided with more diversity to choose what one is really interested in.
So my point is, it's true cinema may be evolving but it is most definitely not dead.