XI

Normally I don’t like 3d movies. I don’t feel 3d adds anything and I would just rather watch a normal film without paying a $3.50 extra charge because the film is in 3d and I need their highly sophisticated dinky plastic glasses to view this extravaganza. But when we made our 3d film in class it was a fun experience.

I started by making the 3d glasses. These babies are classic red and blue lens 3d glasses, very retro. I think of them similar to the ones the goon in Back to the Future wore as part of Biff’s crew. Why someone would where 3d glasses all the time I don’t know? but they are cool.

After that it was time to shoot. We got the dual cameras set up and in line down the hall. We quickly thought of things that would emphasize the 3d depth we wanted to achieve. The plan went me, Dana and Sheena would stand at the end of the hall. Dana and I would wave these filters around toward the camera and Sheena would spin a filter like a flag. Then Timmy and Ian would “close the gate” with two black filters. D, S and I would move forward and wave the filters in the same pattern as before, each time moving closer to the cameras. The end would have the gate open toward the cameras and Sheena spinning her filter like a color guard’s flag at the cameras as well.

This whole sequence took a few run-throughs to get down and then we shot it in three takes. Then quickly as time expired in class we ran through the process to change the video we shot to 3d in After Effects. I was a neat process and I would like to take some time with it myself to try it on my own. But for the project we had our three takes but they weren’t labeled, so when my group opened two up to use, the two eyes were from different takes. I hope whoever has the footage corrected the problem and has a file I can take for my own collection.

Overall this was a great experience once again. I don’t know if I’ll ever use it myself but I liked that I had the chance in this class.

(On a side note: I know Hollywood is always going for the “realism” experience but even depth of field with 3d doesn’t look like normal depth of field. 3d separates objects onto planes and I can see that one object is on a separate plane than another but the object itself is still flat. 3d needs to become more rounded if it wants to compete with reality.)

My 3D glasses.

X

I thought the Beet Stretch of Beethoven was very ethereal. The notes were the correct pitch but they lasted for quite some time longer. It reminded me of moving in slow motion and being able to see each individual movement of a person running; it really breaks the music down into its components. The slow motion effect reminded me of watching the film Baraka where there are shots of people from all over the world moving in a slowed down manner. There is no dialogue but a sound track does fill in non-diagetically. I felt like an ant on the side of a ball. To me from that perspective I see the world but not the whole world. To me the world is flat and I can walk in any direction and it’s the same. But if I back up and get perspective on where I am, I can see the world is not flat but in fact round. That’s the difference in listening to Beethoven’s symphony at normal speed and the Beat Stretch speed of incredibly slow. I began to zone out and the music became part of the background of my world. I wasn’t listening to it, just like the sounds of traffic or people’s murmurings. But eventually I would catch myself and realize the music was still playing and listen to the notes as a crescendo build. This reminds me of walking down Chancellor’s Walk and then becoming aware of the sounds and noises around me and then I begin to pay attention to the world around me once again; for instance a conversation between two people as they walk to class. This kind of sound really takes you in and then the body adapts to its presence and you forget about it, or it just fades into the back of your mind. But then it does jump back into your consciousness at times. But I found it difficult to simply listen to for a full hour. I’m a patient person but just hearing a note and then a few minutes later the pitch changes or the volume builds takes its toll on the concentration portion of the mind. It’s just not doing enough to keep the mind’s interest but it can’t be simply ignored either. I think the purpose of Beet Stretching Beethoven is to take something that people know and make something new or look at/hear it from a different angle. Make it new again.

Screen Capture from Baraka (1993)

IX

People use what they like in their art. If they see an image or hear a sound or a line of dialogue that catches their attention, they may use it in their own work. Now the question is: is this plagiarism? In my opinion people can borrow and re-imagine anything they want as long as it’s not a direct copy of what some else has created.

This was the case of the Molotov Man. An artist found the photo of a man throwing a Molotov cocktail. She painted her own work based on the photograph. Later she finds the photographer of the photograph wants credit for the source image and for the painter to pay to recreate to painted work. In my opinion, the photographer has a right to the photograph, but no right to the painting based on the photo because the painting is a re-imagining of the original work and not a direct copy of the work.

The same is said for in the other article, where writers take lines from each other’s works and utilize them in their own novel as text or title. They may be using the words as a reference to a work by another author they admire or they may simply like how that formation of semantics functions. They are not stealing from the other author, because anyone can put words together to form these sentences, but they are re-contextualizing a phrase in their own unique way.

We have already done this in class with the first project. Taking filmstrips and scratching and coloring the enamel, we re-imagined the film sequence and made it our own based on something that already existed. We did not simply pass off what was already on the strip as our own work.

We will do this again in the found footage/recycled project. We will take film or video and edit it with the purpose of creating a new context and meaning diverging from the original’s (most likely entirely).

So this question of ownership of image or phrase I feel is limited to the original work and that work as it stands. Any modifications to the original cannot be held accountable as infringing on copyrights because it is in fact not a direct copy and it is not trying to pass as the original work.

Joy Garnett's Painting

Susan Meiselas's Photo