Mr. Fuzzipede

Well, I made a video. And this time I actually recorded the whole thing, instead of using other people's footage. After my last video experience, which just didn't end as I wanted it to, I was a bit nervous about this one. So I just decided not to take it too seriously, and to try to make something that was less direct. My video has a plot and it's a bit melodramatic, but in the end it's just about art. We spend so much time watching experimental films and talking about how profound art videos are, but so many of them are just completely ridiculous. I was perfectly content to make a little video commenting on the silliness of art videos while feeding into the silliness of art videos. I had fun making it, and I'm much happier with how it turned out than I was with my last attempt at a video. I hope you get a giggle or two out of it, don't think too hard.

The Descent

The Descent is a humorous take on the impact of desire. 

(It could also be about bestiality.)

"The Last Refuge of Scoundrels"

Until this week, my knowledge of Fair Use and copyright laws in art was pretty much limited to Shepard Fairey. I'm familiar with Fairey as a mediocre street artist who got a moment of fame, sold out, and turned his street art into a brand of clothing which you can now purchase in department stores. For most people, he's that guy who was accused of copyright infringement by the Associated Press after he used a photo they own for Hope, a poster of Obama. Now, thanks to this project and some literature from Stanford University Libraries I've got a little info on Fair Use and Copyright. 

It looks like I'm not going to get sued. For starters, the purpose of my video is definitely not the same as the purpose of all the videos from which I used footage. It's got a different meaning and a different aesthetic, though I didn't dramatically alter much of the footage. I added some from one video to the visuals of another, I sped some clips up, and I stuck them all into a video critiquing their original intent. Second, I don't think I took anything that was really "the heart" of another work. There's really only one clip where they could even be argued, but I'm not too worried about it. And lastly, I have no plans to ever make a cent of of this video. I will not profit financially, and I don't think I'm a significant risk for the giant corporations who made the original videos. My one minute video might be seen by tens of people, but it's not got to have a lasting financial impact on Fox News, even though I'm clearly critiquing them.  

Though it looks like I'm in the clear in terms of copyright infringement, my other readings did bring up some interesting points. Negativland things that "appropriating from this media assault represents a kind of liberation from our status as helpless sponges," and I think I agree. We are overwhelmed by media all the time, but its goal is not to help us form opinions. Instead, media is giving us opinions which we are encouraged to latch on to without thought. Appropriating from media allows us to question what we've been given and to think through it. Lawrence Lessig also talks about "remixing," and it's similarities to writing. No one would dream of writing to the estate of an author to use one sentence, but in video or sound, it's a necessity. He does discuss the important differences, the concern that people are 'copying' other work instead of creating their own, and the general culture that exists surrounding remixing. And in "Cut: Film as Found Object in Contemporary Video," which Lessig wrote for an exhibition at the Milwaukee Art Museum, he writes about the growth of media and the growth of copyright. Copyright was intended to protect certain items, it required an author to get a copyright, but now anything produced is automatically copyrighted for a hundred years. It's changed the face and purpose of copyrights, and made appropriate much more difficult because of the vast number of copyrighted things. But neither he nor I see what the big deal is. People have been appropriating for ages, it's not a new idea. There are no "new" ideas, there are only reworked ideas.

And since I'm now knowledgeable about copyrights and Final Cut Pro, I had no trouble falling into the Youtube trap. I think my video is sort of missing out on the art bit, but leans heavily on the collage of random clips bit. I'm sure there are 15 years-olds out there who wish they could make videos about their celebrity crushes that are as good as my video about stereotypes on tv. Take a look, get back to me, and I'll try again next week. 

There Is No Spoon

Let's chat about the truth. Reality is quite a tricky thing. Personally, I turn to the The Matrix for some answers (just the first movie, forget about the ten thousand sequels), because Neo really did a lot of the searching for me. And I'm happy to take advantage of other people's hard work. After all, "it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."

Taryn Simon, on the other hand, finds reality in photography. She's a young, but well established photographer who tries to question the idea of photography as reality, or as a single reality. Simon has taken photos the CIA's private art collection in Langley, Virginia, and a deer penis confiscated by U.S. Customs at JFK airport, amongst other things. Her goal is often to show people things that they could never see otherwise, and to "confront the divide between public and privileged access and knowledge." Simon has gotten a ton of press in the past ten or so years, and she talks endlessly about the idea of the truth, of one reality. She argues that there is no single truth. Simon's all about truth in context. Her photos are all accompanied by text, sometimes large amounts of text, and she wants the viewer to see only the truth that she has molded. The text gives her photos an explanation and context so that they represent the truth. Her truth.

Transatlantic Sub-Marine Cables Reaching Land
VSNL International
Avon, New Jersey

What I'm wondering, is why I want Simon's "truth"? I've taken enough anthropology to get on board with the idea that there are multiple truths or realities. But why do I care about Simon's? Her photos are beautiful, I get that. But why take a photo of transatlantic fiber optic cables that stretch from the UK to New Jersey, write 100 words to accompany the image, and not mention that the cables are owned by an Indian conglomerate with no shortage of controversies? It would have made it, well, interesting. I'm clearly no expert, as the critics love her, and some of her photos are both interesting and gorgeous, but it seems to me that she might be taking herself a little too seriously. And by a little, I mean way too seriously.

These days there are so many artists searching for the truth or trying to display it. Ai Weiwei tweets about China while Ryan Trecartin and Kalup Linzy comment on contemporary society. Why is Taryn Simon's truth truer?