As of Today 11122 Blog Posts


Initially having read and re-read Raymond Queneau's book, 'Exercises in Style',  again and again I wanted to to do something very rigorous, very precise so I thought.

I would do this myself. I would do here in New York.

Then I thought to do this all over the world. 

Then I thought do it as a collective with artists all over the world. 

Then I thought I'd pay using mechanical turk giving out very specific instructions. 

Then I thought I would make it open to the public. 

Along this continuum the thought as to instructions changed.

For myself, the instructions would be very precise, varied along exacting rules. So I enumerated and wrote out the constituent elements. I would make each 'film' . Each  would be conceived of as a whole informed by film history, its genres and authors, by films made for installation, for computation, on the web, by voice, style, editing, sound, actors, location, by a parsing and delineation of a good number of formal rules and references.

At the other end would be Mechanical Turk, where such instructions or references which are short hand for me such as (Oshima, 'Violence at Noon', Germaine Deluc, 'The Seashell and the Cleryman', Michael Snow, 'Wavelength', Cao Fei, "Cos Players', Doug Aitken, 'Electric Earth', Catherine Sullivan, Issac Julian, Chris Marker, Christian Marclay, etc) such references would be too much. (I should think) So then the instructions would be shot to shot. Each 'film' a composite of an index, of tags, themes and keywords. Each contributor or worker would put forward a shot through their understanding of varied keywords: dreamy, angry, kissing, slapping, drunk, bridge, public space wide shot,  reverse angle, Bunuel, Oshima, and many more)

So what level of instructions and for whom?

Or

Variable instructions for a variety of authors

And 

Varied modes along varying models and methods of Material Inscription

Software

How does the software affect the project.

1.

Initially I wanted and continue to explore, the grammar of multi screen mise-en-scene. So the software on cinema engine renders in real time the number of screens (windows) delineated by the author (me). Each image window plays (loops) a discrete shot (a folder) as the sound moves from image window (shot) to image window (shot). Each tableaux of shots constitutes a sequence until the next tableaux of shots come on. Each shots' sound plays once and recast, re-inflects all other shots and thereby the sequence. There is no film per se but a software player (projector) creating a 'film' in real time from a set of folders. Many discrete and interesting things happen through and in this mode of inscription. I wanted to explore this further rather than making 'single channel' films, works. 

2.

Per the Mechanical Turk or Open Public Call strategy, the software takes an index of shots and creates a film along a set of programmable indices feed into the software. These films (film constructs) would be single or multi-channel works not made in imovie or final cut, but put together, on the go according to a variable index. 

3.

Varying software instruments can be written to play or perform the underling data.

Add Your Views
Please to comment.