As you (may) know, we'll be showing the first excerpt of this epic mass of stuff that we've been working on very very soon! Sunday April 12th to be precise, as part of danceNOW NYC's RAW showings. Car crashes have been sort of a fixation for me for a while now. Not the bloody, sudden, real ones, but the gorgeous, slow motion, sparkling ones.
I've been talking with Cory and Cristina (the "driver/passenger" for the piece...but abstract)about why i'm so fixated on them, and i think it's a few things.
1. Something about the sudden wreckage of a crash - that it's such a break from the way things normally are, to see sheet metal and glass and all those "strong" and "structural" elements ripped apart like that - keeps taking me back to feelings i had after the end of a certain relationship i emerged from about a year ago. How cliche, i know. But it certainly fits the piece, in that the slow motion study of these images is an attempt to enact or retain some sort of logic or control over something that a) has no control b) is governed by logic, but very unchangeable logic ie. physics and c) can't be undone even if you understand it. The piece itself (as a whole) aims to explore that space of visiting and revisiting - the search to find logic or clarity in something that is much more massive and out of control than yourself.
2. Something about how in slow motion you can isolate the moment when all the howevermany tons of car is completely in the air - it's almost like a lullaby.
3. The physics that make all car crashes pretty much the same. Inside of one, it must feel like the least organized, most instantaneous...crunch and thrash? There aren't really words for it. But looked at objectively from the outside it's pretty self explanatory. If the car is hit at this place at this speed, it will react in this way.
4. There's this whole sub-culture relating car crashes and sex. Recently watched the 199(6?) film Crash (no, not the race relations one) and didn't love it as a film (thought it lacked a lot of basic construction) but thought it was really interesting as a study. Also, Palahaniuk's Book "Rant" rocked my world this past summer, and i'll probably come around for another read sometime soon. When Adrienne was at rehearsal, she noticed a lot of the sexiness in the crashes that we had constructed so far, which surprised me as it hadn't been our focus. Since then we've made crash #7 - "sexytime". You'd like to see a clip of that one, wouldn't you? Well you can't. Not yet.
But enough po-mo mumble jumble, here's what i wanted to share with you: some of the best crashes i've found. It's worth watching till it gets to the slow-mo part, trust me!
And there's also this one, which won't embed, but is pretty cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZQMfb5naz8
Then of course there's the art of the cinematic car crash, for which the second matrix (in my humble opinion) takes the cake:
Yum.
Showing posts with label the Matrix. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Matrix. Show all posts
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Artist Salon Re-Hash Part 1: Defining the Epic
So my program on wed @ Chez Bushwick went really well in my opinion - supper under attended, but interesting and fun nonetheless - and we got into some really great conversations by the end. I'm really grateful that Anna invited me to moderate it - it helped me solidify and test out everything that's been rambling around in my head for the past year or so
Since a lot of you couldn't come, i wanted to post some sort of doug-fox-inspired guide to/artifact of the presentation and discussion. Stick with me, it's going to be a long one.
Shocker, i know.
I'm going to break it down into a few separate posts to make it a little more manageable. I'll serialize it, if you will (for those of you who were there and get how clever i'm being.)
Here's a basic outline of what we talked about, broken down with the media samples to go along.
***
How does one define "epic work"?
While some might stick to the literary definition, others jump to the vernacular understanding - long, dense, hard to get through. Though the definitions are clearly different and quite specific, I actually don't think it aids us a great deal to split hairs between them. What ends up happening (and you'll see this as we go) is that there's so much overlap that what matters is knowing the definitions, not necessarily following them. So let's define!
The literary definition of "epic" (according to wiki - full article here) is as follows:
We can also look at the genre of film to get a slightly different definition. Epic Films are
However, i think this essentializing and cross-meaning can be a great thing, becuase it means that more and more things are becoming entwined in the eipc conversation.
Now, when i was trying to map out how to speak about all these different artists and their individual yet collective epic natures, i grappled a bit with what direction to come at it all from. In terms of their definitions? In terms of why they are made? In terms of how they are recieved?
In the end, i decided to look at these works through the skeleton of five categories, which to me represent the main attractions (both as a audience and a creator) to epic work. I'll lay them out here, and then go into detail using the artists at hand as an example in a post to follow.
1. Humans are attracted to epic work becuase we are "World Builders".
We create order, structure, and relationships everywhere we go - most notably in our societies and lives. It then is only logical that we are driven to re-create these world-structures in our art, and that we find it satisfying to watch or experience these world in the art of others. Main examples: Myst and Ulysses.
2. On the completly other end of the line (so far that if you make the line a circle the two end up being right next to each other) is the idea that life isn't clean or organized - it's messy, crude, confusing, and infinately complex. Any art that mirrors this complexity may end up being epic in scope. The epic is a mirror to the complexity and largeness of life. Main examples: Ulysses and Sara Rudner.
3. Creating epic work is a process that, for the creator, involves not being able to contain or process the whole work at once. This nessitates the artist's creation of new strategies, processes, and medias, not to mention whole ways of thinking. In this way, epic work is an evolutionary tool for artists, pushing them to evolve their art and art making in ways that are distinctly different from other processes. Main examples: Sara Rudner and my work.
4. Epic work is inherently lends itself to a plethora of marketing posibilities. In our current economy, specifically in the arts, there's a constant focus on reduction and simplification. However, if we look to mainstream culture, we see that things like epic movies (lord of the rings, the matrix) and epic books (Harry Potter) are a commanding presence. Additionally, serialization (Deadwood, the wire, etc.) provides veiwers with a new watching format for the epic. Epic work provides artists with a way to go more in depth and yeild a greater return, and at the same time can be more engrossing and exciting for veiwers and audiences to watch. Main examples: my work and the Matrix.
5. One of the main reasons that epic work is so engrosing to us as audience members is its subtextual (or subvisceral, subaural, etc) abilities and nature. The fact that we can not only take the work at surface level, but are also encouraged to go inside of it to explore on our own, and as a collective group of schollars and thinkers makes the work in a constant state of dialouge with other works, people, and ideas around it. Due to this interconnectivity, we not only experience the work, but all the other works that it is communicating with. Main examples: Girl Talk, Sara Rudner, Ulysses, my work, and the Matrix.
So those are the big five!
In the next few days i'll be posting a more detailed post for each categories, with media examples so you can get a better sense of what i'm talking about. I also want to reserve a post at the end to bring up some of the (amazingly exciting) ideas that came up in our discussion as well. As always, questions and comments are welcome at any stage of the process.
Since a lot of you couldn't come, i wanted to post some sort of doug-fox-inspired guide to/artifact of the presentation and discussion. Stick with me, it's going to be a long one.
Shocker, i know.
I'm going to break it down into a few separate posts to make it a little more manageable. I'll serialize it, if you will (for those of you who were there and get how clever i'm being.)
Here's a basic outline of what we talked about, broken down with the media samples to go along.
***
How does one define "epic work"?
While some might stick to the literary definition, others jump to the vernacular understanding - long, dense, hard to get through. Though the definitions are clearly different and quite specific, I actually don't think it aids us a great deal to split hairs between them. What ends up happening (and you'll see this as we go) is that there's so much overlap that what matters is knowing the definitions, not necessarily following them. So let's define!
The literary definition of "epic" (according to wiki - full article here) is as follows:
a lengthy narrative poem, ordinarily concerning a serious subject containing details of heroic deeds and events significant to a culture or nation.Additionally, traditional epic literature contains these nine characteristics:
- opens in media res
- The setting is vast, covering many nations, the world, or the universe.
- begins with an invocation to a muse
- starts with a statement of the theme
- the use of epithets.
- includes long lists.
- features long and formal speeches.
- shows divine intervention on human affairs.
- "Star" heroes that embody the values of the civilization.
We can also look at the genre of film to get a slightly different definition. Epic Films are
"a genre of film which places emphasis on human drama on a grand scale. They are more ambitious in scope than other genres which helps to differentiate them from similar genres such as the period piece or adventure film. This often entails high production values, a sweeping musical score by an acclaimed film composer, and an ensemble cast of bankable stars, placing them among the most expensive of films to produce" (wiki).And then there's this vernacular understanding. "Epic" as long, big, never ending, dense, a journey, a quest, a search. Also, "Epic" as "awesome", historically reinforced, precidented. It leads to a confusion of terms and an esssentializing of what the epic really is. Take this for example, from wiki:
"Many refer to any film that is "long" (over two hours) as an epic, and as such a definition of an epic film (especially among today's films) is a matter of dispute among many. As Roger Ebert put it, in his "Great Movies" article on Lawrence of Arabia:[3]
"The word epic in recent years has become synonymous with big budget B picture. What you realize watching Lawrence of Arabia is that the word epic refers not to the cost or the elaborate production, but to the size of the ideas and vision. Werner Herzog's 'Aguirre: The Wrath of God' didn't cost as much as the catering in 'Pearl Harbor,' but it is an epic, and 'Pearl Harbor' is not.""
Burn.However, i think this essentializing and cross-meaning can be a great thing, becuase it means that more and more things are becoming entwined in the eipc conversation.
Now, when i was trying to map out how to speak about all these different artists and their individual yet collective epic natures, i grappled a bit with what direction to come at it all from. In terms of their definitions? In terms of why they are made? In terms of how they are recieved?
In the end, i decided to look at these works through the skeleton of five categories, which to me represent the main attractions (both as a audience and a creator) to epic work. I'll lay them out here, and then go into detail using the artists at hand as an example in a post to follow.
1. Humans are attracted to epic work becuase we are "World Builders".
We create order, structure, and relationships everywhere we go - most notably in our societies and lives. It then is only logical that we are driven to re-create these world-structures in our art, and that we find it satisfying to watch or experience these world in the art of others. Main examples: Myst and Ulysses.
2. On the completly other end of the line (so far that if you make the line a circle the two end up being right next to each other) is the idea that life isn't clean or organized - it's messy, crude, confusing, and infinately complex. Any art that mirrors this complexity may end up being epic in scope. The epic is a mirror to the complexity and largeness of life. Main examples: Ulysses and Sara Rudner.
3. Creating epic work is a process that, for the creator, involves not being able to contain or process the whole work at once. This nessitates the artist's creation of new strategies, processes, and medias, not to mention whole ways of thinking. In this way, epic work is an evolutionary tool for artists, pushing them to evolve their art and art making in ways that are distinctly different from other processes. Main examples: Sara Rudner and my work.
4. Epic work is inherently lends itself to a plethora of marketing posibilities. In our current economy, specifically in the arts, there's a constant focus on reduction and simplification. However, if we look to mainstream culture, we see that things like epic movies (lord of the rings, the matrix) and epic books (Harry Potter) are a commanding presence. Additionally, serialization (Deadwood, the wire, etc.) provides veiwers with a new watching format for the epic. Epic work provides artists with a way to go more in depth and yeild a greater return, and at the same time can be more engrossing and exciting for veiwers and audiences to watch. Main examples: my work and the Matrix.
5. One of the main reasons that epic work is so engrosing to us as audience members is its subtextual (or subvisceral, subaural, etc) abilities and nature. The fact that we can not only take the work at surface level, but are also encouraged to go inside of it to explore on our own, and as a collective group of schollars and thinkers makes the work in a constant state of dialouge with other works, people, and ideas around it. Due to this interconnectivity, we not only experience the work, but all the other works that it is communicating with. Main examples: Girl Talk, Sara Rudner, Ulysses, my work, and the Matrix.
So those are the big five!
In the next few days i'll be posting a more detailed post for each categories, with media examples so you can get a better sense of what i'm talking about. I also want to reserve a post at the end to bring up some of the (amazingly exciting) ideas that came up in our discussion as well. As always, questions and comments are welcome at any stage of the process.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Reminder: Artist Salon TONIGHT @ Chez Bushwick
Hey all, just a reminder for you to come on down (up? over?) to Chez Bushwick at 7 to see my program on Epic Work. I'm really excited to share it - i've been doing a ton of research and interviews over the last few weeks to prep for it!For those of you that can't make it, i'll try to get some short version (gross.) posted here with some links within the next few days. If you have any questions, or insights to add that you want me to bring up tonight in liu of your presence, just leave 'em in the comments section of this post and i'll do my best.
Hope to see you there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
