oooOoOOo YESsssssss men

This approach to show the issue of culture jamming is a big dual between what people think is acceptable ways of controlling others. They used settings which were normal and within those settings worked as a part of the problem but exaggerating. And people still didn't catch on. It is all just a way of tipping the scale away from selfish behavior and spreading wealth and power among others. That's the huge struggle is surviving for yourself vs surviving for others. A lot of their arguments were moral issues, showing that the distribution of wealth and power was a moral issue and selfishness and surviving for ones self is not the right way to live. it's hard to change whats already in power because those with the most wealth help out their wealthy friends because they are not a threat to each other. And its hard to tell how many people would flip and turn selfish once they acquire that much money. We're hypocritical beings and money enhances those behaviors. Money is the new consumption to live. It seems like it would take a catastrophic disaster for the wealth distribution to change to the point where the majority of people are satisfied which might not ever happen as long as money is around or at least it will never happen with capitalism. Capitalism supports that range of distribution so we as a people can't be happy with each other. If we find a way to devalue materials on earth and appreciate the good things about human behavior and interaction we could all have a more meaningful life instead of working really hard to have 3 garages and stand in a huge living room to sigh and go yes i made it. Fuck that I wish we could just be happy with tasty food, laughing, and fucking. Our creativity and imagination is the curse. We can have more complex ideologies about living and that our lives stand for something more than just eating, laughing and fucking but we can also dig ourselves deeper in a meaningless materialistic life but in the end at the way way way end does any of it matter at all. It's nice to say that we tried really hard to give everyone around us the best lives possible but no one is going to care when it's all over. And I think thats the underlying problem for not changing and not giving up our material possessions bevcause we all know deep down this is our only go around at the world. And we're going to take everything wihle we still can EVEN if that is a gratification that you're helping out for the greater good and not just money.

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -einstein

I've thought about this idea of how much influence is copying in art forms. As in the article with the molotov man I feel like the right was there to make the picture into a painting and it would be nice to credit the photographer. I don't think ther'es anything wrong with copying the picture and making it into a painting. Making the painting and then selling it I feel is a slightly diffferent story. I wouldn't care if anyone copied my pictures or adapted them but if they made money off of an exact same reprint I'd be pissed. The closer the adaptation is to the real piece the more pissed I would be. I don't think it was wrong for hte painter to paint it and not give credit to the photographer it just devalues the painting in my opinion. The Lethem article talked about all these famous artist who used other pieces of art/literature and became more successful with it. as human beings we copy we're mimickers we do that to everything thats how we learn, and when it comes to the creative realm when you can break off more ties to where the influence came from it feels more special and valuable. Alot of times it's impossible to trace where the influence came from for a piece of art but there have been many shots in films or scenes in films I thought were amazing then realized where they got the ideas from and then I don't credit it with as high value anymore. It's amazing if a painter can re-create a picture and make it look very similar but it's even more amazing if that painter could create an image wtih that sort of detail from his own imagination. Unfortunately imagination only stems so far from the behaviors and images you mimic in your expereinces and I guess the more the idea is recycled through our creative mines and the further away you can get from the original source the more unique and special it seems but maybe its just our lack of ability to connect teh dots from all the creative sources to find the source(s). There's a different kinds of appreciation. Appreciation for the skill and the way the art is polished according it its own craft. And the appreciation for the originality (or the lack of ability to figure out where the source came from). A "true artist" i guess wouldn't care if their pieces were copied and the new art gained monetary benefits and praise from it but I would. It's hypocritical because that piece I would make is just bits and pieces ripped off from everything else.

LOoooooong Take experienco -BLOBOOBOBloBLO!!!

I rushed through the long take experience because I only had the camera for a day and had to check it out at 1:30, and it was dark/cloudy/raining so my exposure opportunities were running out fast. When I first opened the can of film it was yellow and a big chunk of it slid to the right of the daylight spool so I was very afraid that we had exposed a huge section of the film. I put the film in and off we went. I didn't have many people working on it just me and one other person. I didn't really have any good ideas for action so I wanted to just go for something simple but have it very polished and execute the camera work nicely. I was going to follow my friend with a dolly move then switch to a steady handheld motion while he's being dragged into the woods. I switched it to 12fps, and couldn't remember if I needed to switch anything else on the camera. I ran through it one time but was afraid since I was guessing and had it on 1.8 that everything would be in focus. I had a mini tripod attached to the Bolex and mounted it on the back of my friends truck while driving behind the actor. Moving off the truck while keeping the eyepiece to my eye and not letting any light in while making it as smooth of a transition as I could was very difficult. I decided a slight shake would work with the narrative if he got hit in the head at the same time. While filiming the take the dolly up looked fine and even the handheld low angle shot looked smooth. I ran the rest of the film and hoped for the best. Once I was ready to develop I had all of my tubs out. Mark was helping me and said that their roll of film was not nearly as big as mine. I had to develop the whole spool and it was a huge handful of crimpled up film I had to quickly dip into the devloper. Fearing that the 1.8 was too much I only left the negative in the developer for about 3-4 seconds and quickly put it in the wash. Except it was the fix. I messed up and switched the buckets around. I put it in the wash immediately in hopes that I could devlop it further if necessary. I started to see a define image and thought maybe it had developed just enough. After much contemplation I put the film back into the fix for several minutes. I washed it out and dryed the film. I could see many scatches from a close examination and was worried they would show up everywhere and they did. Im not sure where it got so scratched probalby just the hand processing bunching up all the film together and rubbing against the edges. However at that point I was just happy that I got an image considering the potential exposing the raw stock at the beginning, guessing on exposure while it was getting darker, and putting the film directly in the fix after the developer. Mark and I tried a technique to get a better transfer. We set the projector up against a white card and made the frame small compared to a large screen. The smaller the projection the sharper the image looked. I recorded the footage on 1080p, brought it in final cut and adjusted some contrast. Again it's scratchy but oh well. I think it looks alot more interested when the motion is fast at 12fps rather than the normal 24fps. Despite all the potential for failure I'm glad I got an image.

LOoooooong Take experienco

Scratch **erra errra (turntable sound)**

I like this film from the junkies better than the first couple we watched. It seemed to have more interesting effects. I liked how the frame was moving from side to side, it caught my eye and I don't believe they did that in the first videos. Another part that had side to side motion was when they had the shapes move from left to right. Most of it was an assortment of colors and indistinguishable patterns but there were things like the CO2 symbol. I also liked the live action of the plane and the sand creature was the best part of the film. My views on the style was pretty much the same from the first screening. I don't respond to it emotionally and it didn't keep my interest after awhile. I wanted it to slow down so I could really take it all in, instead its so hectic I can't even notice the details of the picture. I problaby wouldn't like a live action film that flashed by that fast either, even if it looked colorful and interesting. There are beautiful images and colors and pattersn everywhere that it takes more for me to be interested or care about the piece. I just don't have a desire to watch it again because I'm not emotionally invested in it. Even if you saw a painting that you really loved you appreciate the image but you also respond emotionally which is why you hang onto that painting. The scratch film junkies film didn't give me any kind of special connection, maybe because the images went by so fast. If this was a serious of paintings I could probably have more time to look at the image and respond. After writing this I have identified that the duration of these images being shown is the primary reason I don't respond to it. I don't like very quick cuts in films either. I just need more time to really apprecaite it instead of it having just glaze over. The process is defenitley unique and difficult and I apprecaite the work that goes into these films but its not what I prefer to watch. Because all the objects are indistinguishable there's no way for a close to universal meaning to be dispalyed so I also don't like that it's so subjective to the filmmaker that the viewer is on his own to write the story. I wouldn't watch a film if that's what it was for I would just make it myself.

Chion, here's a sound: BLOBOBOBOBOBBBL!!!!

I've always wondered how music/sound for a lot of people is very emotional. Certain notes and progression of notes tend to make people's emotions react to it. Some psychologists say that when we "feel music" or those few notes that "hit us" are because of deep rooted memories we have of sounds from the outside world bouncing off the womb before we were born. I feel that the right choice of music in a film can turn a good film into a great one. Music can be the soul of a piece because it works the emotions so strongly. When people have asked me hypothetical situations would you rather be blind or deaf and I always chose deaf. Sound is important in film but to me images speak much more volume than sound. I feel like the sound is the spice or the extra life to the film. Sound not only speaks to our emotions but also other parts of our psychology. The article talked about tempo and sound speed affects our behavior. Many restaurants will pace their music based on the type of service. For example fast food restaurants play fast paced music because it will cause people to eat faster and get them out quicker. I've thought that people's responses in movies has much to do with the music and how much it affected their emotions. There are so many other factors but people with very similar taste in films I feel music is the dividing line on how much they liked the movie. Everybody that can hear enjoys some type of sound on their own and theres no proven reason to why they like particular types of sound. Sound never has to explain itself, its just instantaneously explained when it enters your brain, a movie or book or painting you have to look at and somewhat try to understand it, but with a sound it's quicker, your reaction is almost immediately without having to interpret and form it into a meaning. It's hard to explain why people like certain notes in teh same order or certain sounds played in sequence next to each other but theres no exact explanation as to why that's appealing. Sound is personal. It is very individual. People debate all the time about what music is better or what sounds are better because it's so individual. You don't have to think when you hear music or sounds its a gut feeling, I feel that's why much scores are in the background but still has a big impact. I feel that sound especially sound that accompanies an image is like the backbone of the piece. Theres a certain type of validation that comes with an image and a fitting sound. The ability to hear is possibly for just defense and a tool to help hunt for food and somewhere along the line it got strung with emotion. And now it seems that the primary purpose of sound is to elicit an emotion then it serves a purpose: defend/hunt.