04: Telepharmavangelism

What I found most interesting about Williams' article happened to be the very end. The 9th page begins to really fill in the picture of what television programming is, that is: the lowest common denominator. Something that started out as a secondary communication devise turned into a rather inexpensive pleasure object in that people watch what companies put on it. In some ways, this is just like Goebbels' idea, except instead of having a definite point, it's slapped together, and shot out, without much thought in between the transmissions.

I think the unfortunate part, not taken from the article, is that people believe programming is on television because the general population wants to see it. Is some ways, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, I believe due to this thought-process, there isn't much innovation in the programming aspect of television broadcasting, despite the technological sides massive complexity.


I mean, what is the point of that robot during football games? Did American culture ask for that, explicitly or not?

03.SCENE BUT NOT HERD

I'm unsure what to think about Kenneth Goldsmith's article. In one way, he shines a light (holds a microphone up to?) an over-'looked' form of art, but on the other hand, I'm not sure if it's that overlooked at all. He tries to make a distinction between Experimental Music and Sound Art, and I'm pretty sure Sound Art is Experimental Music on a pedestal (or, conversely, Experimental Music is Sound Art with a record label).
I'm a big proponent of 'pop' in the sense that if something hits a cultural nerve, it's subjectively 'good' for the time being. If it hits a humanistic nerve, it's deemed 'timeless', but in turn will also be 'pop' so I won't go on about that distinction.
My point is his last paragraph talks about ART as something 'people do'. I don't believe this is true. As for Sound vs. Music, I see it as: It's sound art until enough people get it... then it's Experimental... and then it's "Sub-Genre"... and finally it's "Pop".
It's just got to have it's 'scene' first. Then the rest follow.


Perhaps over a cliff.

01.DIGINEMA

I don't think Manovich says anything mindblowing in this piece. He merely rehashes a point several times, and imagines there is a major ongoing change. The steps between animation, to "live cinema" and back to animation are illusionary. It was animation all along or it was live all along, depending how one wishes to define the words usage. He tries to break this point by stating that film can only show what exists, somewhere, but can never "create the 'never was'" that animation creates. He goes on to talk about special effects and their link to his 'animation' but misses the point, which ironically enough, is the same point Vertov missed. The fact that the artist controls the picture means it's existence in reality stops being 'real', it's an interpretation. That interpretation is in turn translated by the audience into something meaningful. The small shots of the world shown in film do not exist in real life, superficially they may 'happen' and be recorded, but the meaning and value are not added until run at those 24 frames per second, until someone views it. A 'behind the scenes' camera of a movie production is hardly as moving, yet it is capturing the same scene.

The idea of 'storytelling' being the over reaching 'repression' of cinema, but it's difficult to find anything in art which doesn't speak some sort of story, whether it be one word, or many. Even abstract pieces are weaved into stories by its audiences. The 'meta-genre' isn't one of story telling, it's one of being a human who remembers, fits things into logical sequences, and moves through time.

00.INFLUENCZA

1) THE SURREALISTS

2) Steampunk/Dieselpunk, and the Monster/Human Existance.
H.P. Lovecraft and Verne/Verne-esque works have been a fascination of mine for quite some time. Using the classic 'Adventure Story' ideals against the strange or abnormal, while using antiquated yet advanced methods and tools always struck a chord. The use of the 'monster' or 'grotesque' (a sympathetic, yet monstrous character: Frankenstein's Monster) as a parallel for the average human mind, it's heights and it's lows, why we do what we do, has shown up in many of my works. Another usage, most modern, is that in "American Psycho", detailing the depraved depths of the natural human mind. Essentially, I find the complexity of our minds, and our social groupings, to be most exciting.

3) Akira Yamaoka and the Silent Hill game series.
Akira Yamaoka composes some of the darkest, beautiful rock/post-rock pieces around. My musical style has been heavily influenced by him. He writes music for the Silent Hill series, which is a surrealist horror game. The player is not just taken through a game, but through a story, and at many times a visual work of art. The symbolism, darkness, and it's references to human psyche have always interested in me and it's borrowed uses of surrealist art have always been a good reference tool.