Cameraless filmmaking blboboboblblblo!

I think cameraless filmmaking is very creative and also very difficult. It seems that the filmmaker "does more work" in order to get an image, instead of using a camera. It's also much harder to control the image and get what you want out of it if you're trying to produce a coherent streamed idea. It also seems more difficult because we're using 16 rather than a larger format. I think it would be much eaier if we had a bigger space to work in. I think the process of making cameraless work is fun but I don't appreciate the end product as much as other experiementals. I like animation, but I don't really like the end products of ink application/scratching etc. I just like images that have a more direct meaning. The colors and designs are nice but they go by so fast I feel like I dont have time to suck them in and appreciate them. I think the newspaper/magazine transfers could be really interesting if you could see what was being put onto the film instead of a closeup of the ink dyed on the paper. I'd appreciate it more if I saw an intention of the filmmker clearly through that process. I've done contact printing before in high school but it was on 8X10 sheets which gave us alot of freedom but of course it wasn't a moving image. I wish I had brought in smaller objects so I could form some sort of rhythmic pattern. My favorite technique in cameraless filmmaking is probably scratching an animation. It can get tedious especially on a small 16mm square but I like the end product. I want to see if there are any feature length cameraless films, but that have some sort of structure. Cameraless filmmaking is good because it gets you to break your normal patterns and get creative again. Sometimes the creativity can turn into routines or patterns and it loses its purpose.