Well's response

After reading the essay by Wells I find myself aligning with experimental animation over what he refers to as “orthodox” animation. This isn’t surprising though, given that I am in an experimental film class and that Wells is extremely bias on the subject. I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that I am much more of an abstract thinker, geared towards a creative, artistic mindset. So of course I’m going to favor a kind of animation where a “presence of the artist” is a key factor. Also, I really like that experimental animation redefines aspects of orthodox storytelling and focuses on things like rhythm and movement, not just in a character, but as their own entities. 

Thereare a lot of other points I agree with, but for me reading this, I feel like

it’s stuff I already know and have drilled into my brain pretty well. Yes, experimental film is different from mainstream, narrative filmmaking. This just talked about it in terms of animation. Don’t get me wrong, I found the article interesting and enjoyable to read. I especially found inspiration in the quotes by Leopold Survage and William Moritz. I have an equal passion for both painting and filmmaking, which Survage considers to go hand in hand. I too could probably spend my days painting on film, making moving art filled with rhythm and movement. Corny I know, but it’s true and I’m feeling in a cornball today. I also this Moritz’s words are sentiments that should not be forgotten. If you’re going to make an experimental film then great, but don’t forget to give it some depth along the way. Otherwise, its just another amateur mess that people either derive a single meaning out of or don’t get at all. 

One thing I always notice when someone writes about commercialism and mass

production, it always seems that the mass produced art is barely even

recognized as art. It has no passion, no depth, no originality. Wells even goes so far as to say that it lacks a presence of the artist. How can you have art without an artist?  Now while I do tend to agree with this theory for the most part, I feel like there must be some legitimate art that is thrown to the masses and widely accepted. It just has to be out there somewhere getting looked over because everyone likes it and the artist is making lots of money off of it. I do wish it could be different, that the praise would go to the authentic work rather than the most commercial, but thus is life and I guess then all those hipsters who only like things that no one else has ever heard of would have to like some really crappy stuff.

a vacation from the norm

Going in to 6x1 I knew we were going to be learning about scratching and painting on film, but other than that, I didn’t really know much past that. I had no idea just how hands on things would be every single class. When I sit back and think about everything we’ve done with film, it’s a little daunting to think about how much I still don’t know about experimental film. We’ve already learned about painting, scratching and drawing on film. Then there are magazine transfers, stop animation, rayograms and bleaching and we’re only a few weeks into the semester.

         I’m completely digging getting into things and using my own two hands to make a film. I think it’s almost more rewarding in a sense than making any other kind of film because of how personal the process is. Normally I would spend all kinds of time and money storyboarding, finding locations for shoots, and looking for actors and so on and so forth. Then, there’s the time shooting, usually with a lot of hoping and praying that I’ve got all the coverage I need and that it looks as good as I envisioned it. Everything is done with a machine as well. I’m using all different kinds of equipment and computer programs to make my film, but what we’ve been doing is so different from that. Taking a strip of film and painting on it is something I can do with my own two hands. The whole experience is very organic and raw. I can do anything I want with it and I only need filmstrip, paint and me. I think I can compare it best to drawing a simple picture in my sketchbook and creating a picture in Photoshop. Sure, I can do amazing things on the computer, but compare it to a hand-drawn portrait. Anything I do with a click of my mouse is never ever going to have the look I can achieve with a pencil and piece of paper. The texture, the details, the imperfections, they’re what makes that not-so-perfect drawing so valuable. It’s one of a kind, and I think I’ll always have a greater appreciation for that.

         Another process I really enjoy is the magazine transfer. It’s amazing to see the amount of material available in a single magazine or newspaper. I could make a feature length film with one issue of national geographic. The best part is, everything looks good with them. I feel like no matter what kind of texture the fibers of the paper have or colors or prints or whatever it’s really cool and exciting to see it up on screen. It’s like using found footage. You take this mainstream, bland product and recycle it into something unique and innovative. I also love that I can do this at home. My bedroom might look like a daycare on crack afterwards, but what fun is it if you can’t get down and dirty a little? Anyways, I’m loving this class and I can’t wait to test my hand at this whole animation business coming up.

A Moving Picture Giving and Taking Book

I found the reading by Brakhage to be extremely informative. There was such a large amount of helpful facts, including step-by-step instructions for even the most basic of beginners. I really like how he assumes that the reader has no special tools for filmmaking. That way, I could be at home, looking at this article and should I so happen to be in the mood for making a film, I could do it. He discusses how you really only need to pick up a strip of film. Other than that, an entire movie can be made with markers and a sharp edge of some sort. As long as you have time, dedication, and precision, the options are limitless.

         What is most interesting about the article is that everything is up the readers’ choice. There are several points when Brakhage pauses to say something to the means of “In case you feel inspired, good luck and I hope you do something awesome with you’re film. See ya later.” Not only that, but as I was reading, I felt like I had a lot of room to work with. If I were to follow Brakhage’s instructions, that doesn’t inhibit my ability to work with clear or black leader film, paint or magazine transfer, etc. In addition, I love that he also offers up different experiments to try, such as making crystal explosions and exposing film with tiny objects and a flashlight in a dark room.

         This article, however, was a tough one to get through. While filled with useful information, the onslaught of technical terms and wordiness used by Brakhage was a little much. The way that he writes sounds almost as if he’s trying to sound “academic” or “intelligent” by using writing reminiscent (to me at least) of Old English. Obviously, Stan Brakhage knows what he’s talking about, and I fully respect his writing, but I wish he could have been a less convoluted in his language. Writing style aside, I know this is one article I will keep long after the end of this class. It’s an amazing reference for making short experimental films and has an array of great ideas to try for myself.