Stats

Following: 41

Favorites: 0

Video: 0

Images: 2

Audio: 0

Bookmarks: 0

Blog: 2

Mazi

born in: Tehran
lives in: Montreal
Originally from Tehran, Iran, Mazi has recieved his BFA in new media arts and cinema from Concordia university. He is currently an active member of the Senselab run by Erin Mannings and Brian Massumi, and a member of Topological Media Lab... [more]

show all Collections

Viewpoints

“Welcome to A+C...I look forward to hearing your perspectives.... ”
Posted over 5 years ago
Add Your Views
Please to comment.
 

Works

view by:

Understanding Interactivity as a Dynamic Narrative

The influence of technology on our daily lives can no longer be confined to science fiction; it has extended onto every aspect of real human behavior, altering its patterns and directing its development, subtly changing the human body and its relationship to the environment. Despite technology’s overwhelming presence, the new inventions are growing ever more invisible, more ubiquitous, and further integrated into already existing habits: the goal is to make them melt into the routine of daily life, become fully invisible in their recreation of nature. Artists in Exposed: Mimic act as a counterforce to this movement, constructing an opposing dialogue between the pieces and their audience. This dialogue is not a subtle element in the works; it is used as a storytelling medium which leads to a profound questioning of the audience’s relationship to their bodies, their environments, and technology. The result is a combination of experiences that build up into a shifting and evolving narrative constructed and told through the symbiosis of artists, works and their viewers. According to Jonathan Culler, the basic narrative plot always carries a transformation, signifying an altering of the initial state throughout the story, and eventually linking back to its beginning, resulting in a continuous structure.[i] All works in this exhibition follow this model, telling their own stories of transformation. However, the central narrative is constructed through incorporating the viewer into the metamorphosis through each work, leading to a new experience of the physicality of body and its environment. The transformation is experienced by the viewer and then reflected back onto the work, giving it new shape; it’s a dynamic narrative of the body which is constantly in flux. For some pieces in the exhibition this process lies at their very core, as the viewer is a part of the piece’s interactive creation, such as in Jerome Delapierre’s Inter-faces or Enactive Walkway by Angela Gabreau, Maziar Javidiani, and Navid Navab. In others, the interaction is less physical, but just as transformative. In Myriane Lemaire Video Interface, for example there is no interaction beyond the choice of individual clips, each showing Myriane’s mimicking of various emotions into the camera, but the audience becomes a part of the piece as the dialogue between the artist’s gestures and the viewer’ reactions emerges. The playfulness of the piece encourages further exploration, while the small fractions of stories in each clip evoke associations, memories, laughter, and surprise. While Culler’s model can easily be applied to new media art, the process through which the narrative emerges is very physical. Interactive pieces involve the viewer in the process of their creation, and the narrative is constructed through this relationship. As a result, they carry the bodily traces of the viewer’s involvement. They are constantly re-created with each new experience, and are therefore inseparable from the process of viewing or participating in the work. The breakdown of the boundary between the piece and its audience suggests a more intimate involvement, and therefore possesses the power to trigger associations, memories, or physical reactions that are tied to the viewer’s experience, which in itself is formed by an array of physical, cultural and psychological factors. The viewer’s body, in all its complexity, therefore, becomes indirectly incorporated into the work through the process of experiencing it, continuously changing the narrative of both the viewer and the exhibition. This intertwining of the artwork with the organic body goes beyond the purely psychological relationship between the viewer and the piece. As data is collected from its source, such as viewer’s location, it is read and interpreted by a program. Before the viewer experiences the interaction, the input is turned into numbers, a quantitative trace of the viewer’s participation. A similar relationship exists in works by Adam Harvie who explores mathematical depictions of natural phenomena and their potential in creating aesthetic experience in Growth System. The trees and flowing organic shapes are tightly connected to their source. Even though they are described within a computer program, they are unlike representations of nature, such as a drawing or a sculpture: they are its mirror image or a dynamic plaster cast of the tree’s inner workings. Storytelling serves a very different purpose in works that carry such a close relationship to their ‘source’ and that shift with their every viewing. The narratives, even though they contain parts of the past, do not focus on telling ancient stories or predicting the future; they are told in the immediate moment about the present, where the physically interacting body is both the protagonist and the narrator. The usual division of time and plot cannot exist in this setting, as they are all collapsed into a narrative which is experienced in the pieces, dynamic and shifting to remain constantly in the moment. The body is creating the piece, thus altering the environment and leaving traces of itself within it. These marks become part of the work and its environment, incorporated and layered into the exhibition’s narrative. The entire gallery participates in the creation of these stories, mimicking the way that the world and its inhabitants are in a constant process of creation and shaping of emotions, bodies, and environments. The physicality of the body, it’s corporeality and agency, are continuously reaffirmed; the exhibition constructs its stories, hoping that they will continue to transform and evolve, traversing the walls of the gallery space. [1] Jonathan Culler, “Narrative,” in Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 80 References: Culler, Jonathan. “Narrative,” in Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997
Collections
rss

Blog

posted on 11.29.09
by Mazi

Artists


Categories

Film
International Film

Themes


Tags

Israeli
Prostitution
Political Cinema
Semiotic
Roland Barthes

In the context of Photography, Roland Barthes in Camera Lucida writes:  “Photography cannot signify except by assuming a mask.” (Barthes, pg. 34) This mask is the meaning that goes beyond that which is depicted. It goes beyond the face and the expression. In the context of film, it is perhaps the meaning that exceeds not only the aesthetics of the composition, but one that surpasses different layers of narrative; a meaning that lays within the form.



Or (2004, Keren Yedaya) is a film, where its impact is mainly due to the meaning that resides under the layers of the narrative, and signified through the form. The film is empty of any camera movement. The camera never follows anyone. It is always there, but passive. The characters walk freely regardless of the framing. In many times there heads are cut off by the frame. Sometimes all we get is a frame empty of any person, only the off-screen sound. For Yedaya, it’s not so much about the face or the characters, rather how the camera by its mere presence within their everyday life can create meaning.



As in Avedon’s photograph of William Casby, it is not Casby’s face that is affective but what it signifies: the essence of slavery that is laid bare. In the same sense Or is not so much about Or or even her mother. The meaning and the significance even go beyond the issue of prostitution. Or is rather signifier of complex sociopolitical dynamics.



Qouting Barthes: “Society,[…] mistrusts pure meaning, It wants meaning but at the same time it wants this meaning to be surrounded by noise, which will make it less acute. Hence the photograph whose meaning (not its effect) is too impressive is quickly deflected; we consume it aesthetically, not politically.” (Barthes, pg.36) Or rather than a political film is a film that is “made politically.”  It is perhaps for this very reason that Yadeya finds camera movement excessive.  Her minimalism and discount for glorification (what Barthes calls “noise”) is what makes the film more than an aesthetically pleasing and satisfying image. Yadeya does not want her picture to be less acute. She is neither interested in oversimplifying a politic nor reassuring our already existing political beliefs, but rather in creating a context for us to question them.



Barthes writes: “Photography is subversive not when it frightens, repels, or even stigmatizes, but when it is pensive, when it thinks.” (Barthes, pg. 38) Perhaps it is its simple aesthetics, treatment of the form and open politics that create the room for self-reflection. It induces a curiosity to seek the suggested meaning which is different than the literal one, to move beyond the narrative of Or and/or her mother. Or is consumed politically for it speaks, and induce us to think; for it thinks.


Reference:
Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang 1981.

(Hide)  
“Excellent piece. ”
Posted over 5 years ago
Mazi replies:
“thanks Chris. I'm really enjoying A+C so far. good job!”
Posted over 5 years ago
Add Your Views
Please to comment.
 


posted on 11.23.09
by Mazi

Artists


Categories

Film
International Film
Documentary Film

Themes


Tags

Memory
Space
Occupation
Palestine
Curfew

A look at Curfew and The Roof, two Palestinian films depicting the Cinematic Space of Occupation.


Both Curfew by Rashid Masharawi and The Roof  by Kamal Aljafari portray the cinematic space of occupation. Both films are situated in the occupied city of Gaza. The Roof also includes Ramollah, in its non-fiction narrative. The space of occupation is that of once was, the space of preset-time, of hopelessness towards future, a space of vicious circular everydayness. It is a space where the notions of private and public emerge, where home loses its privacy and becomes an absurd notion.


As mentioned in both films the notion of home is of has been. It only exists now in the narrative of the past; a representation of something that once was and now is even difficult to evoke in memory. (Gertz and Khleifi, pg. 102) It is not an actual memory or narrative, rather one that resembles itself indirectly through the present conditions of the Palestinians within the film. In The Roof  Aljafari describes this memory in voice over:


"Everything began in 1948. In May, My grandparents were on a boat on their way to Beirut, after their city Jaffa had been bombed. Over those few days the waves got too big, so they were forced to return. […] But when they came back Palestine was already gone. Their homes were gone as well. The people who remained were forced to live in one neighborhood and they were given the houses of other Palestinians. […] In 1948 the owners of this house were still building the second floor. My parents live on the first floor and the past lives above them."
The memory of once Palestine that now under the occupation has given the idea of home an absurd meaning; a home that is unwillingly shared, and embed the past lives in it.



The private and public spheres are intertwined in the space of the occupation. In Curfew the family’s house is a representation of such relation between the private and public. The privacy of the home is interrupted so many times that the family barely gets through a letter. The neighbors are always present whether on the wall, lurking from the window, or simply passing through the house to get to their home. The curfew itself is an intrusion into the private space transforming each private house into a collective space. At the same time the house also resembles a “prison of exile.” Its claustrophobic quality and the way it has crowded an entire family, and perhaps neighbors, who are forced to stay in that space due to the curfew, accentuates this sad irony of a house which is not a home.


Space of the occupation is also represented as a distanced space; distanced from other part of the world, and distanced from the diasporic space. The distance is emphasized through the importance of the television. The redundant depiction of the habit of TV viewing not only suggests the everydayness of lives but it also shows the distance between the occupied space and the outside, whether it is other parts of the Arab world or Washington where the peace talks are taking place. The distance is sensible through unreachability of those in diaspora.  In Curfew the son in Germany is so inaccessible and remote that even his letter doesn’t get read properly. The film coveys impossibility of communication. In The Roof we witness the similar when Aljafari calls a friend in Lebanon; a phone conversation that is concluded in the realization that they can never meet.



There can be felt  a sense of being second-degree citizen in the Palestinian characters of the both films that blur further the idea of home. In Curfew the humiliating way in which the Israeli soldier interrogates the civilians, whom most of them aren’t accused of anything, is an example of such. In The Roof this feeling is more emphasized by the privileges (whether legal or suggestive) that a holder of an Israeli passport is qualified for.


 


ref: Nurith, Gertz, George Khleifi. “Without Place, Without Time: The Films of Rashid Masharawi.” Palestinian Cinema: Landscape, Trauma and Memory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008. 101-118.

Add Your Views
Please to comment.
 


Favorites

view by:

Products