Author
|
Topic: Advice required RE projection and destruction
|
Martin Jones
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1269
From: Thetford , Norfolk,England
Registered: May 2008
|
posted January 16, 2013 12:18 PM
No Sam, it wasn't a "joke"... but you and Hugh seem to be the only ones who got near to the real meaning of the statement. It was an attempt to use an extremely banal comment to illustrate the fact that anything and everything that seems to be puerile, bizarre or extremely stupid is considered in this pathetic modern society of ours to be permissible..... because it's "ART (?)". It was banal because it was intended to be banal; I lived through the Second World War and certainly wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination consider what happened to be "artistic". But throughout my life I have always thought of Art as being Creative. Apparently now, it can also be Destructive? Heaven help us if "destructiveness" becomes the artistic norm, which is why I made my (sarcastic)comment. As I observed before, nothing can be "Creatively Destructive"... it's an Oxymoron (the last five letters of the word say it all). Jake I don't consider that being 18 debars you from logical thought and opinions (I know, I've been there four times already and have all the T shirts), but to paraphrase Mark Twain (apologies to those who don't know who he was!)... "When I was 18 I thought my parents were the most ignorant, boorish, stupid and unfeeling persons on this planet. When I turned 21, I was AMAZED by what they had learnt in just THREE years!"
Goodnight. Martin
-------------------- Retired TV Service Engineer Ongoing interest in Telecine....
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted January 24, 2013 08:10 AM
Excuse me Winbert, but I for one am not a prude in any way, shape or form.Nudes or hardcore porn is fine by me, but someone needlessly destroying cine gear in this quest for to be seen as an "artist" is purile, and for someone like yourself to be openly encouraging such action is sad.It isn't artistic and it isn't clever, perhaps you want to be seen as chic,well there comes a time when the diplomacy takes a back seat and you decide whose side you're on, people trying to maintain our hobby or vandals out to destroy equipment.You can't hunt with the hounds and run with the hare!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Winbert Hutahaean
Film God
Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted January 24, 2013 08:45 AM
Calm down Hugh....
We also bin those GAF, Hanimex, etc projectors if we see they are not performing well.
We don't live in an ideal world.
When people seeing the Monster Cars destroy those small cars, the Monster cars' fan are cheering up, and the small cars' fan are sad.
ps: in 1980s the small cars destroyed were VW or Holden/Chevy.
As human, art is also changing. You cannot define "the art" using your time frame. What is considered not an "art" in 1960 may be seen differently now and vice versa.
Long time ago, there was a place where people had long ear (by hanging heavy stuff on their ears since they were baby) was said to be beautiful because that was considered an art, but no longer now.
Today's people heat Vinyls (records) to make Vase or bowls, and that is a new art. As I am also a records collector, do I need get mad of it because they destroy vinyls? NO.... !
photo taken from: Art Fire
Cheers,
-------------------- Winbert
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted January 24, 2013 09:32 AM
Winbert, people have been using vinyls to make stuff from since the 1950s, it isn't new,it's an old idea.The vinyl was plentiful, it was the only way to hear popular music of the time.Today our hobby and equipment is shrinking,there are no more machines made,filmstock is drying up.On a different thread,we were debating the future of cinema and 35mm film where the analogy was drawn between cineastes and railway enthusiasts, would it be in the same context to encourage a train wreck, as it is destructive, and could be construed as art, although perhaps the railway enthusiasts might take the same view as myself and some others.I could'nt give a monkey's f'#/# what these jokers do in their own time,they can kid themselves they're Andy Warhol, who cares, but destroying something that is a part of our hobby and coming on this forum to stir up trouble is not on, and to find encouragement from a fellow member is a bit hard to swallow.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rob Koeling
Master Film Handler
Posts: 399
From: Brighton, UK
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted January 24, 2013 10:04 AM
Sam, that sounds like a very interesting project. Some tips below.
Hugh,
You don't read the posts very well. You clearly haven't read what Sam's installation is going to be like and what it stands for. I think the project sounds great! I really like the idea of a commenting on a society that is obsessed by consumption.
There was no mentioning of destroying equipment, his question was how to prepare a projector in such a way that a small piece of film can go through it in a loop, while the film that is going through it is artificially degraded (triggered by actions in the public). Whether you think this is clever or not, is incredibly uninteresting. What I find rather disappointing and even disturbing, is that you (and Martin) just refuse to read the content of Sam's posts. You made up your mind after reading half a sentence and now keep repeating yourself like a broken record. Only a very small amount of film will be destroyed in the process. I don't know about you, but I certainly have thrown film away in the past, because it was just completely and utterly unusable. If you have never thrown a couple of meters away, because it was unusable, then please let us know. That would be very interesting (and very hard to believe).
You could have made a much more constructive contribution by advising him in a way that would minimize any waste. How about offering the advise to use a roll of film that has caught the dreaded Vinegar Syndrome (although I realise that that is more an issue with 16mm film then S8)? There is tons of film out there for which nobody has any use anymore. Think of B&W silent extracts from color sound films. For most of them it is the case that you can't give away, no matter how hard you try.
I think everybody now knows what your opinion is on this matter. It would be nice if you could stop commenting now, unless you have something new to add. But then again, that is just my opinion...
To go back to Sam's question (which is a lot more interesting then people's opinion what is art and what is not). I used to do a lot of film loops. Some of them were quite funny and I projected them on walls at parties as decoration (and yes Hugh, I cut up several orphaned reels of junk film for that). I never used a special device for it. I just made sure that the loop wasn't too long. Obviously, if you can put the projector on a high pedestal and make sure the film isn't obstructed below, you can make them fairly long (i've had loops up to 3 meters). I wouldn't use a junk projector. Especially if the loop has to run without stopping for up to 6 hours you need a fairly reliable projector. My two favourite machines for loops were the Bolex 18-3 (also works very well in reverse) and the Elmo K100SM (can also use R8mm film). I have used each of these two machines in situations were they ran for up to 12 hours non-stop.
For splicing the loop together, I mostly used tape splices. A carefully made tape splice (I always used the Fujica splicer) will last for years. The added bonus is that you can take the loop out of the projector without removing a frame (we don't want to damage the film, do we now...), by just removing the tape. I used my loops over and over again.
I suppose you have to be careful in how to damage the film. You don't want to put strain on the projector and also minimize the amount of rubbish ending up in your projector. If you've ever seen what happens to a film when it gets stuck in the gate, you know that heat is a perfect means to manipulate the film. The main risk there is that at some point the film will be so warped that it might get stuck. You will have to experiment with the intensity of heat in order to find out how long it takes and what the exact effects are on a loop. The nice thing about the two projectors mentioned above is also that you can vary the speed easily and to great extend. That way, you make a loop last longer.
If you clean the projector carefully afterwards you can use it for many more years to come. I started using the projectors mentioned above more then 20 years ago and they still go strong. I have used a sound projector for loops as well. The one I used most was a Eumig 910. But because of the sound head, I wouldn't do any damage to the film going through that machine. However, I can imagine a similar project where you distort the sound on the magnetic stripe. Then afterwards you can restore the film by re-recording the sound (to keep Hugh and Martin happy).
I've made loops with 16mm film as well. The larger picture area is attractive. Also, lots of junk 16mm film floating around!
Best of luck with your project and I would appreciate if you could report back. I would like to see a video recording at some point of the actual installation (although, maybe not on this forum...)
- Rob
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Jones
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1269
From: Thetford , Norfolk,England
Registered: May 2008
|
posted January 24, 2013 11:11 AM
Sam, you said...
"ok martin I see your reasoning but the second world war does not fit your definition of inane destructive behaviour masquerading as art. It was politically motivated and never sought justification via artistic means."
I didn't say that "the Second World war fitted my definition of inane destructive Art"..... my statements regarding the two world wars were INANE examples of how anyone wishing to call something ART could always find an INANE justification to calling it such. I suspect that every Art College course has a Module on inventing verbose, and usually incomprehensible, reasons to justify ANYTHING as Art. A couple of your posts are prime examples of this: full of repetitive and obscure words and phraseology which amount to nothing in the end. The concept is that if the reader cannot make head or tail of it the writer must be a brilliant Artist.
Winbert, you asked Hugh... "Hugh,
Please answer my question, did you see those modified vinyls as art or not?"
MY answer to that is ... No, I see them as intelligent USE of redundant existing materials to CREATE something both useful and visually attractive. Nothing has been destroyed here.... it's called RECYCLING.
-------------------- Retired TV Service Engineer Ongoing interest in Telecine....
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted January 24, 2013 02:20 PM
Hello Winbert, the use of such materials has been done for years, there's nothing new in it, that's why they have such things in schools & colleges Arts & Crafts. Much the same thing was done in the '60s with wine bottle lamps etc, by some.Then it was trendy, now I can't think anyone would give these objects house room, they didn't fall into the "art" catagory,but "crafts" covered it. I can go out in my garden,and especially at summertime and through the setting sun in the trees, watch a bovine lift it's tail and relieve itself of two gallons of liquid, which through the sunlight looks beautiful, but It's still a cow taking a piss., likewise an oil spill is beautiful on the water, the myriad colours refracting and reflecting the sunlight, but it's still pollution and nobody wants it.When someone reveals skills in creating something from nothing,even modern art,some of it is very good, but I don't think throwing paint thinners over a Rubens or a Canaletto and watching the colour run would be termed as art,would you? Slowly destroying something,with audience participation, it is obviously transcient and not a lasting thing, much like a car or house on fire,after it's all over,what's left.If they like pretty colours etc,just don't retune your TV, and all the pretty little blocks are there,moving and shifting, artfully, if you like that sort of thing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Winbert Hutahaean
Film God
Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted January 24, 2013 03:33 PM
Hugh, if you say "craft" that is actualy = conceptual art. You can read that here: Conceptual Art
OK we are not going to discuss that but here is my thesis:
"A CONCEPT OF ART IS RELATIVE, DEPENDING WHO SEES IT"
From Martin's answer below
quote: MY answer to that is ... No, I see them as intelligent USE of redundant existing materials to CREATE something both useful and visually attractive. Nothing has been destroyed here.... it's called RECYCLING.
There are two components:
1. Unused materials (= redundant existing materials) 2. Without destroying it (= nothing has been destroyed)
For no. 1, who will decide that the materials are unused? That vinyls are usefull for me because I am a vinyl collector. For them (and also for you, Martin) they are just redundant materials, so fell free to make something visually attractive from those vinyls and call it RECYCLING.
Same thing here, films are useful for us but for people who are not having interest with it, they are just redundant materials too. In fact many of us also think some films are not too good to be collected so we may also think they are redundtant materials, right?
For no 2, without destroying it....do you think those vinyls are still playable after getting heatedc like that? Do not see that the vinyl has become a new function, so claiming they are not destroyed. You can say that perhaps you are not a vinyl collector. From vinyl collectors' stand of view, it has been destroyed.
@Hugh, read my thesis above.
Now do you think Martial Art is an art? In Asia that was not an art, that was a self defense mechanism or tool before going to war. It is now an art when Kung fu, Taekwondo, Jiu Jitsu were brought to western countries.
Let us see this:
The above pictures are taken from (real) dead body exhibition.
Do you see them as an art or not?. In western side it is now seen as new art, in Asia we still feel unethical to do this.
Now read again my thesis above, then you can understand that it is not one or two persons who define a thing as an art or not, but the society do that.
We can continue to discuss if you can make an anti-thesis to my thesis above, otherwise let the society to value whether Sam's project is an art or not.
-------------------- Winbert
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted January 24, 2013 03:55 PM
Winbert,instead of all this discussion,when are they actually going to do this thing,soon I HOPE. As for martial arts, I was doing that before you were born. Regarding art from differing viewpoints is fine, onemans meat etc.This farago smacks of taking the piss out of our hobby, that you go along with it is your affair, but as the saying goes "Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining". My taste in art and skills does not require a lecture from you on the subject, and yes Rob I am a nice guy, I am still on speaking terms with lots of old adversaries.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|