Just a brief summary of the Database|Narrative|Archive Symposium in Montreal.  I spent last weekend with about 120 others discussing and exploring a range of projects that were mostly non-fiction, interactive and cinema driven.  The scale of the conference was perfect – small enough to weave good conversation, large enough for a range of points of view. Organizers Matt Soar and Monika Kin Gagnon had the participants make 5 min “lightening talks.”  This meant everyone could (and most did) listen to everyone else’s presentation. This created cohesiveness and plenty of opportunity for follow-up discussions. I presented about my The Father Divine Project, a database documentary and archive built on Scalar. See below for  my lightening talk and others as a Korsakow interactive video.

There were some very beautiful, innovative and smart examples of “database narratives” and all very different. Underlying my admiration for much of the work are lingering jealousies of the funding structures that we no longer have in the U.S. – but that’s another story. Besides the interesting content -content that demands multilinear presentation- these projects introduce and teach database thinking in their forms. Although this was not discussed much (too obvious?), the database narrative as a form is an orientation to the human world as a complex adaptive system rather than as a site of large and small “conflicts” centered around individual will and desire. For that reason alone, many of these projects would be great to integrate into learning centers – public, architectural spaces. They are ambient reflections of the world as database.

But…  As Adrian pointed out in the plenary session and in a blog response, there is a troubling gap between the the kind of attention these projects demand and the dwindling attention spans of our networked life worlds. Each participant probably has a laptop and smart phone full of more attention demanding media than our lives have time for. Not to mention the simultaneous flows of information coming at us at any given moment. This is a very different media ecology than the one that gave birth to the novel, the feature film and other weekend rituals that were considered escapes from work and boredom. What is the new ecology?

“Blogs are premised on the personal, polyvocalism, authenticity, trust and porousness….Technically they are premised on granularity, addressability, small world networks and dense connectors ”

-Adrian’ lightening talk

I struggle with this in my own work all the time.

One special feature of DNA – for me- was that it brought together some videobloggers: Adrian, Jenn, Jay and Ryan and myself. In our group discussions we kept returning to the blog and video blog as models or starting points for new projects – especially given the wide interest in tablet apps. But “video blog” is an ugly description. That is one big problem with even raising it in a conference like this. But the presentation and contextualization of video, audio, image and text – whether it is in a blog post,an epub, mobile app, kiosk, wall or website – is going to be most successful in short (3-10  min.) chunks that are network aware and are connected to other chunks. Chunks can integrate into longer, deeper and wider serialized forms, but we need the smaller narrative units to weave into our own lives.

.

Here is my talk embedded in a Korsakow movie with all talks.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“… while I enjoyed Shields’s book, and could see it bringing benefits to those who haven’t thought so much about escaping the undoubtedly dead scene of traditional narrative lit, I’d much rather have seen the book act less as a manual or a ‘manifesto’ and more as the kind of amorphous, transfixing objects that he calls for. This is more a syllabus, less an art….All that said, a syllabus can be a great thing. I wish there’d been more feelers that escaped the book, transcended it, rather than a kind of diatribe. ” -Blake Butler

I was also (sadly) underwhelmed by Reality Manifesto. It traces only part of the history of constructing art from contingent reality. Shields hardly mentions the de-mythologizing influences of cinema and networked culture on narrative form. Hasn’t blogging and video blogging done it’s share of breaking down our sense of reality into bite-sized, multimodal fragments? What really surprised me was Shields’ dismissal of fiction-making as a still vital and powerful art. Just ask BP about the power of fiction. It is not the fabrications of fiction vs. contingent reality that is the issue. It is how artists arrive at the structures of their creations that is changing.

In his Poetics of Cinema 2, in a chapter called Structure and Construction, Raul Ruiz writes:

“Structure relates to the creation of the work, taken as a singular entity; while construction concerns the film in relation to the many circumstances that interact with it, throughout its making; during the many processes that will allow it to surface. That is, its relation with that which is near and far.” -Raul Ruiz

It is this “near and far”, the othernesss that intrudes on “the plan,” that is so hard to pin down in an artist’s statement or teach in the classroom, much less welcome inside the creative process. So much of our training in making things is industrial: pre-production, production, post-production; outline, draft, final draft. And yet, our lives have become more and more influenced by Black Swans.

I get great pleasure in contemplating the structures of art – videos, paintings, novels, poems, movies. So when I embark on my own art project, if structure isn’t clear, I start doubting my choices and the project stumbles. But then sometimes, something happens. I let go of my own plans and start listening for the works’s own desired shape. I start constructing. Good structure is grown inside the contingent circumstances of the work’s construction. It is a dynamic of mind, body and materials.

If we give up worrying about structure and all that that it implies – mediums, genres, markets, audiences – and instead look to practices of construction, we might find that digital art wants to be something very different than most models of (popular and high) art in the industrial age.

For example, we know digital art wants speed. It wants to be free or cheap. It wants to be social so that it gets attention. It wants novelty so that it acts like an eddy in the rush of information. It may even want to alter our senses with “mutant percepts and affects” (Guattari), or at least do something that a steady diet of information bits cannot do.

If we abandon knowable forms in favor of hybrid monsters, where do we look for models? Avant-garde and modernist practices, barthesian fragmentation and delluezian rhizomes – where to start? The history is there and will be (re)taught in schools and universities as economies (once again) shed 19th century models of mind and reality. But let’s not mistake storytelling for structure as we create new digital forms.

I’ll leave you with the constructions of Michael Robinson. He has taken remix art to a different level by building improbable and beautiful enigmas of sound, text and image. His cinema is made of the shells of past structures and re-purposed into hybrid monsters. But instead of being diatribes against the mythic past, they weave stories from an inhuman future. Dark and good. Enjoy.

VICTORY OVER THE SUN from Michael Robinson on Vimeo.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

click to play

iPhone

Images from a walk home after a Bruce Connor screening. The twilight blue played with the electric hum of street lights. The magic hour.

Related posts:

1. Steam, Light, Grid click to play An elaborate voodle. It took most of...
2. The Walking Man (phase nine) click to play iPhone With Joel Sugerman....
3. The Walking Man (phase seven) click to play iPhone With Joel Sugerman....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Here is my entry:

What if cinema art’s economic model shifted from its traditional show business roots to something resembling the art market and in the process helped reconstruct the economics of art–making in the digital age. That’s right, moving an art form that has always been democratic toward something elitist. Let’s face it, the great film artists—Dreyer, Bresson, Antonioni, Cassavettes, etc., were stubborn and elitist directors who at one time were the talk of the town not because they were speaking to everyone, but precisely because they were uncompromising and difficult. Show business cinema will continue to give us those big collective experiences that we all love, but without the more exploratory/experimental cinema arts, the language will become stale. Late Hitchcock needs the French New Wave.

What would a cinema art market look like? I guess Matthew Barney is one model, but an unfortunate one. Making the Cremaster cycle limited edition DVDs does not put those images into collective circulation (I’ve been able to see only 2). It would be like owners putting Picasso’s first cubist paintings into a vault. Patrons and collectors should want their artists popular, exposed and of collective value.

Another model is Mark Amerika’s recent cell phone project, Immobilite: a limited edition feature film shown at museums, a website with remixed video segments, an iphone app, a pdf publication, a blog, probably some wall art and performances thrown in. I haven’t seen the 70 min. projected “film”, but what I love about the project is that it is trying to create a model for a new type of art cinema (and a new type of writing) by offering the process of its making and distribution as part of the work. The project is kind of manifesto. You can’t get more democratic than a cell phone. But again, it would be a shame if the limited edition feature were not available for viewing outside major cities.

How to sell a cinema project to collectors and still make it available to everyone? We have to get away from thinking of a cinema work as a 70-100 minute feature. More than anything the work should open up possibilities of seeing in a multi-dimensional way. This could mean something transmedia—a DVD, a book, a database, an installation, a website, wall art, social networking. This does not mean cinema artists should (necessarily) renounce narrative. It does mean looking at narrative as an element in the web of culture and not the dominating force for making meaning. Eija-Liisa Ahtila (with the help of Finland state funding) makes affecting stories for multi-screen installations and linear versions of the same stories for the festival circuit.

What about funding cinema art? What does it cost a painter to get a studio, paints, canvas, model? These costs are figured into the price of the final work. What does it cost a small theater company to put on a show? Public funding and patronage could help digital artists, but costs for shooting are near zero. Actors must be paid however, and though much depends on the nature of the project, their fees should also be included into the price of the final work. How much would a collector pay up front for a limited edition David Lynch project? How much would a collector pay up front for a limited edition newcomer’s project? I don’t know. But wouldn’t it be a bonus for “culture” if the artists were simply paid for the work and then let it go? No need for talk show circuits, promotional events, marketing campaigns. Just the art itself circulating the networks.

By embracing an art market (not the current one necessarily), there might be innovative ways to support novel cinema forms. Galleries and museums could be extraordinary houses for the moving image. Public funding could help everyone make, teach and share cinema art. Authors and musicians could partner with cinema artists to make hybrid works not just adaptations of novels or music video commercials. By owning limited editions of the work, collectors (the 1000 fans?) could choose screenings online and off to publicize their collections. And most importantly artists could make a viable living by making work, sharing their ideas with the public and doing it in a context that celebrates experimental forms. We need novel art to get us through these enormous cultural changes, and I would argue we need novel cinema art most of all.

Related posts:

1. We Are All Publishers Now publishing = making public “Today, many of the key functions...
2. on the coming abundance of cinema The Digital Revolution and The Future Cinema (Samira Makhmalbaf’s Address...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.