In Poetics, Portland, Uncategorized on
3 February 2010 tagged ipad, photo, Publishing, sebald with no comments
Many of us know what to do with a web page filled with different media. There is no longer a “web of attractions” where text next to image next to video carries an inherent fascination. What is left of the web’s mystery is just a weary awe at an expanding network of data.
So much time is spent in front screens, it sometimes seems artists might be better off very far away from not-so-new media.
After a week of iPad-frenzy and a bout of shameful techno-lust, I spent Saturday morning easing into the dreamscape of W. G. Sebald. I find his writing difficult. His imagery puzzling. The texture of thought so finely woven, that it demands a very high level of caffeine and concentration. His art is beautiful, mysterious, convulsive. His books are things to pick up, examine and admire. They are stories as well.
Shasei, my iphone blog, is partly inspired by a Sebaldian aesthetic. The weaving of text and photo, the movement through space, the details of everyday life, an amateur’s carefree approach. All very common themes for blogging. Traditional even.
I feel free to think with the iphone. I play with camera apps, shoot spontaneously, type words with a finger and publish instantly. So far I haven’t included much writing or video. Visual fragments seemed more evocative, even friendlier, on their own.
Lately, I am feeling the need to write.
The 19th century haiku poet Masaoka Shiki worked in a practice he called “shasei,” meaning “sketch from life.” Shasei is what I have named this blog for obvious reasons. Haiku as snapshot. Things as they are, objective reality with only an implied observer.
What happens to ideas of “thingness” when thought itself – abstraction, imagination, memory – are increasingly part of things. Like paintings, books, computers, game players, phones, furniture and walls?
How has multimedia screen space already restructured our relationship to things? How has it shaped the sensation, perception, conception and cognition that make up “thingness”?
The iPad is not a new kind of computer. And it is not the device that will “save media.” Far from it. The iPad is a screen made for deep, immersive and interactive experiences. It is the missing technology that, i think, will give birth to a thriving commercial and communal art scene. And like all successful art scenes, it will impact how we “do” everything else: education, journalism, business, government.
My friend Motoya Nakamura is an excellent photo-journalist, who is struggling to keep a career in newspapers.
Saturday night I went to an opening of Motoya’s portraits of Japanese-American WWII veterans. Beautiful large-format photos of the veterans surrounded by their families and the objects of their domestic lives.
These photos were hung in a museum space depicting the internment conditions of the Japanese rounded up by order of President Roosevelt.
After the show, many friends and their kids gathered for pizza and snacks. I spent a lot of time trying to convince Motoya that the new iPad will be good for photojournalists and all photographers. He said his large photos wouldn’t work on a 10′ screen. It’s just not the same. I said that a book of Italian frescoes are the next best thing to visiting Italy for an art tour. An app of the Japanese Veterans would interest a lot of people who couldn’t afford a print.
As beautiful and valuable as the photos are in their “thingness,” they also embody the flow of visual information through a community.
And so on.
The work of web and net artists has so far remained marginal – compared to the established arts – because of commerce, power, access, the materialization of value vs. dematerialization of expression, etc.. The iPad may change that power structure.
There are issues of censorship, percentages of sales, tools, marketing, visibility. But the profit is not in dominating the new medium with professionalism. The profit is in opening the field to mass creativity and in making work that is worthy of attention.
I would never read Sebald on a computer. He provides enough multitasking, thank you very much. Sebald on an iPad, however, would be great. Opening a photo full screen, for example, would encourage a kind oscillation between image and text that the author intended.
The merging of text, image, moving image and interactivity onto the portable screen has been part of an active collective consciousness for about ten years. It’s been part of a dormant unconscious since the beginning of human thought.
In Uncategorized on
21 January 2010 with no comments
In the spirit of the great Japanese travel artists – Hiroshige, Basho and Hosai – I captured 217 video and text fragments from a trip to Japan with my 9-year-old daughter.
Rather than sharing my personal anecdotes, I wanted to evoke the impersonal experience of contemporary travel with its ephemeral jolts and folding repetitions. Maybe the reason why we travel is not to expand our own on-going story, but to find new inputs that shuffle our personal and expanding databases.
Have a look.
You may have to be patient with the quicktime download.
In cinema, Novelty, Poetics on
23 April 2009 tagged 1000fans, art, cinema, distribution, indie, market with 2 comments
Digital filmmaker Alejandro Adams, of the original and newer braintrustdv.com, has organized and posted a self-distribution roundtable.
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.
click to play 
