Robert Irwin Video

After watching this video I did some research on Robert Irwin, out of my own curiosity. What I found interesting was that the work in which he talks about in the video was not the only untitled work that he did. From what I could find, most or all his works were untitled. (don't quote me on this because I'm not to sure about that statement.)

I really liked his thinking behind not putting a label on his works. Like with anything else putting a label puts a thought into a viewers head. But Robert was aiming for the responsibility of thought to be put in the viewer.

I also liked the comment he made about isolating an object that has become so common to the world, that is goes unseen. It is very admirable that he has worked on making common objects in a given room to be viewed in a new way.

I wanted to put up one of his works in the walker art center, but the web address won't show up on my post.

http://www.imamuseum.org/explore/artwork/718?

The Aural Shortcomings of Kiehle

Yesterday I visited the exhibit at Kiehle and spent about half an hour observing, listening, and taking notes on the three works featuring sound. When I entered I first noticed the large organ flanked by spinning skull disks, however I chose to investigate the dark speaker-corner first. When I entered the small side exhibit I didn't notice any immediate sound coming from the four speakers (apx. 3" speaker cones w/1" tweeters). Thinking the device might somehow be activated by motion I made a brisk walk around the strange boxed television in the center of the floorspace and watched the lightening-over-water video. Suddenly I realized there were small chirps coming from each of the speakers. They were so quiet I had been dismissing them as audio glitches and crackles coming from the audio track. When I moved closer (with my ear about an inch from the back left speaker) I heard faint birdsong behind the louder chirps. Moving close proved to be a poor decision however because the birds were quickly replaced with much louder audio of something that sounded like cars accelerating within a large warehouse (added reverb I think). As I jerked my head away from the speaker I heard the sound distort strangely as if granulated or chopped and edited in order to repeat a portion of the acceleration sound. More cars were gradually added to the audio and overlapping accelerations were heard for about two or three minutes. The sound seemed to come primarily from the left and right front speakers with a slight pan between the two of them. After the cars died away it went back to the bird chirps. The full audio loop seems to run about five or six minutes total.
After listening to the loop a second time I was able to form an opinion of the piece (though it would have been helpful to find out what exactly the artist was trying to achieve). I consider this piece to be a failure (at least in its auditory aspects) for several reasons. Though the artist has four speakers surrounding their audience, there was hardly any spacilzation in the piece. Why not make the cars accelerate around the listener? Why not have birds chirping on your left, and then your right, and then in front of you? Additionally, the material itself (cars and bird chirps) was rater dull in my opinion. If this piece is commenting on a contrast between nature and technology, with natural and unnatural sounds, there are plenty more samples they could have used to add variety and keep the listener interested. As for the television in the center of the floor... I guess it's just over my head.
The second exhibit I observed was a projected image of what appeared to be the corner of wall or column slowly changing hues across the spectrum. The projector sat on a raised white block along with a single speaker box about 7" by 5". The speaker was playing what sounded like a young girl making indistinguishable, slightly melodic sounds. Her voice sample was about 2 minutes long and looped on the audio track repeatedly.
As far as the audio goes, I think it could have been looped better. There is an audible click as the loop repeats and it doesn't sound as if it's intentional. This piece seemed more focused on the visual aspect of presentation then the previous exhibit. Without knowing the artist's motivation I don't think I can judge the art as a success or failure. I really have no idea what they were trying to achieve with this and walked away with a general sense of confusion.
The final artwork I examined was the organ with the spinning speakers. Two sets of three 8" speakers mounted to a spinning disk driven by a motor belt. My intimidate interest was drawn to the spinning mechanisms as I wondered how they made the speakers rotate without creating a twisted mess of wires in the back. I discovered that the audio signal was sent through two contacts pressed against the rotating axle. Kudos on the build design. Moving to the front of the organ I saw a loop pedal attached to the organ output and an unplugged 1/4" jack running out from it. A microphone on a stand was also attached to the setup. On top of the left side of the organ a projector displayed a video of what appeared to be the artist recording several chords on the organ into his loop pedal, then picking up his guitar and playing it while singing into the microphone. Audio could barely be heard as it came from a small inaccessible speaker attached to the window of the exhibit hall. I could hear the organ chords but the guitar and vocals were practically inaudible.
This work was also a disappointment to me as it seemed to have great potential. He has an organ, he has a guitar, he has a microphone, he has a loop pedal and six spinning speakers and a complete recording of a performance with his remarkable setup. Why aren't I allowed to hear anything? I'd like to know what six spinning speakers sound like! Instead I get one tiny speaker I can't hear. What gives man? Is this a piece about a performance? Are we supposed to be satisfied with the knowledge that we could have heard something unique and interesting if we had been in the right place at the right time? Artistically and technically the work is quite impressive. From the skulled speakers, to the looming organ with written lyrics and song, to the guitar pick set casually beside the keyboard, the whole setup screams music and sound and showmanship. Where's the show? It's sure not coming through that projector very well.

singing tree

so i found this on youtube after clicking a bunch of links from the Irwin video. its kinda a new "twist" on the wind chime. it thought it was pretty cool and pretty cool looking.

mixed media art.

when i went to the art exhibit in kiehle (sp?) the very first thing that i noticed was the very large organ facing the front window, which appeared to be spin art of some kind but after a later look saw that picture was a skull. not sure if it was because i was visiting the exhibit at 9:30 am and things weren't completely set up but the organ was not making any sounds that i could hear. from there i was immediately drawn by the sound of the baby's voice to behind the pilar to where the sound was coming from and saw thespeaker next to a projector which was projecting mainly a single color onto the pilar. this sound piece didn't make much sense to me and so i was drawn away from that piece fairly quickly to the small boxed in room in the corner, to find a small screen in the middle of the floor with almost a wooden deck around it. i was surprised that i had not heard any sound coming from this corner since the small room was sourounded with four speakers one in each corner. so since i couldnt hear any sound i figured that it had some kind of trigger so i viewed the screen from every angle to see if i would trip a motion sensor of some sort. after not achieving any sound from my circle around the screen i thought maybe i it was in the wood or something so i though "well it looks like a deck maybe you have to step on it". but having a little bit of art knowledge i know you are not supposed to touch art since many times it is fragile. so i proceded to tap the wood with my toe and that didn't seem to do anything so i waited a little and then i heard what i would describe as a thunderous sound (although i may just use that word because of my long analysis of the video being played as being some storm clouds and lightning) after listening to the sound for a bit i my semantic listening makes me think it is the sound of a motorcycle. so i figured the artist was trying to imitate a natural sound with the sound of something man-made.

I had to go to Kiehle twice. The first time I went I could not grasp what I heard and saw. The second time though was different. I still can't say I understand what the artists wanted the viewer to perceive from their works, but I did put some of my own thoughts the second time. When I walked into the art gallery space I noticed right away a child’s voice. At first when I was standing at the entrance I thought the child was trying to sing. As I walked closer to the speakers the sound changed in that I heard the child change pitches in baby babble. Colors were being showing on a wall in front of the speakers, and I’m not sure what to put with them. I thought maybe the change of color had to do with the pitches, but as far as I could tell that was not the case.
The second thing I saw in the gallery was the organ. A small video was being played to one of the sides. There were two wheels spinning on either side of the organ. I was not able to hear anything from the organ till I walked right up to it. When I did that I heard a very quiet organ sound. It was not consistently playing, It seemed to me like an organist practicing with the stops and starts. At first I thought the video was making the sounds, but when a guitar was playing in the video with no sound representing that, I threw that idea out.
The other display I saw had no sound to it. It looked like a white bag that had air put in it and then closed. The background was a sky blue with the white bag kind of floating up and down on the screen. It reminded me of jelly fish, and I mistook it for that till the entire bag was put in view.
The last exhibit I walked right past and did not take notice to it, till a low rumble filled the gallery. It was in a corner of the gallery enclosed in a kind of a boxed area. In the middle was a small screen which lay on the floor. The small TV screen had wood put around it. I’m not sure why, but my thought is it was for the visual effect. The area had surround sound to it, with a video of lighting playing on the TV screen. The first sound I heard when I entered was a high chirp. It sounded like a bird to me. While standing in there for a bit a load sound was played . I could not get an idea of it , because it was gone as fast as it had started. Then the loudest sound came. Along with that the chirping was amplified as well. The sound reminded me of traffic and cars passing by on a wet road. It lasted for a short amount of time and then ended back to the quiet chirping sound.

I found this while looking at the Robert Irwin video. Check the video out.

Baby Talk

I stopped by Kiehle the other day to check out the sound installation art in the main gallery. There were three different artists on display, all of which were very different and each had on display visual art as well as sonic art. The fist sound I noticed was the voice of what sounded like a baby making unrecognizable speech sounds. The baby's voice was played out of a "super cube" speaker which sat on a table next to a projector. The speaker was small and white and looked like a baby monitor, which could have been intended by the artist. The projector was projecting a colored square which slowly changed gradient to different colors in a looped cycle. The baby's voice was on a loop, several minutes long, and could be heard clearly throughout the space. Although I am usually not the biggest fan of baby audio, it was very interesting how the constant sound of a rambling baby changes the way you perceive the other visual works in the space. When viewing paintings by other artists, the baby's voice is coupled to the visual artwork in the overall, perceptual experience. The colors chosen for the projection as well as the timbre and other acoustic qualities of the recording created an innocent, pure, and simple aesthetic. I believe it was effective as sound installation art. When you enter the gallery as well as how long you stay changes your experience of the baby audio. Because it is on a loop you could enter and begin hearing it at any time during the recording. Also if you stay for an hour, you will hear the baby the whole time, which could be a an intense psychological experience considering it gets a little creepy after a while, especially because there is a giant black organ with slowly rotating skull speakers in the corner. The audio is on a loop but it is difficult to tell. I do not think it was intended to seem like a looped recording of any specific phrase or section of baby talk. There isn't really a melody to the baby's voice but it has a pleasant musical quality. There is a slight rhythm to the way the baby rambles, probably because it has to take breaths. Also the recording is of a voice but it lacks any distinguishable semantic content. I believe it was intended mostly to create the feeling and atmosphere of a small person playing with the creation of sound for the first time, or something like that. There was much more happening there which I could talk more about but I would like to read what others will say about the additional sound art, as well as "the baby one".

Robert Irwin

This week's assignment for Sound Installation is to watch the video below and comment on their content. What kind of work does Robert Irwin do? What are his goals for the audience/viewer? How does he achieve those goals? What sorts of things did he take into account when creating his works?

Interesting

Sound of the stars.

From the BBC.

Check it out.

What is it With Blonde Movies Lately?

This week’s comedy theme is clearly Blondes. First there was Blonde and Blonder and now we have Blonde Ambition. Come to think of it I think I saw at least 5 different new films with the word Blonde in the title when I was picking out this weeks rentals, it's the latest fad I guess. Anyway I figured that any film with Luke Wilson is a good bet for comedy, in this case, a guarantee and that to the one catastrophe after another approach it was absolutely hilarious.

Unfortunately there wasn’t much that was unique as far as sound goes. There was at least one example of Mickey mousing in the scene with the kid’s birthday party disaster when the fireworks that fall out of the piniata are set off, but other than that it’s just a normal comedy. Most of the pit music was added in and synced. There were quite a few good examples of punctuation, especially with the toilet exploding, but the best was the on screen sound when the group of Norwegian priests were at the bar singing karaoke to Baby Got Back. I laughed so hard I almost cried.

Other than that, most of the sound heard was related to the location, it took place in New York, so you heard the normal associated sounds, taxi cabs, car horns, construction, elevator bells in the business scenes etc. Not really all that original, but synced to fit. Aside from its apparent lack of audio originality, it was a fairly good film comically.

A new twist on Dumb and Dumber

I found the greatest example of Mickey mousing this week. In a brief attempt to relax during finals week I rented a few movies. Against my better judgment I picked up the new film Blonde and Blonder and found that while it was extreme corny it was also absolutely hilarious and it was a great example of Mickey mousing.

It wasn’t really special sound effects that worked this way, although there were a few times that followed this usual example, but the musical accompaniment itself. Most of the pit music was made up of empathetic Broadway style motives and songs that worked to punctuate certain scenes and events and make the film absolutely ridiculous. To top that off, the film makers saw fit to decide that they even needed to add verbal punctuation in to the scenes to send it over the top.

I don’t think that there was any music specifically composed for this film, but instead certain motives were added from older comedies that through semantic listening were easily recognizable and extremely noticeable. These specific motives were highly effective combined with the verbal and filmed punctuation within the scenes and made for what I’ve labeled stupid comedy which rates right next to Austin Powers, but with a few less lewd jokes. I’ll just leave it at I was pleasantly surprised with the comical aspect of this film.

Mute Math

I was just thinking about some cool music videos and the video "Typical" by a band called Mute Math came to mind. Its a pretty good song in my opinion, i havnt listened to much of their other music, but they seem legit. The video is real freakin cool though. The entire video seems like its running in real time, forward. But its actually a recording being played in reverse. Its not a completely original idea, but i think they pulled it off real well. Its almost obvious the entire time that you are watching a reversed recording, but the music and lyrics seem to synch up fairly well the entire time. For instance, there is a short section in which the lead singer has massive ammounts of paint flying off of his body (reversing the process of splattering it on) however, he is singing right into the camera and his vocals seem to match the forward playing music track, for the most part. Okay, i tried posting links to this video as well as a bunch of others, but it didnt really work out. But you can find the video "typical" on youtube fairly easily. Also, if you havnt seen it, look up "Parabola" by TooL.

Reflection of this Class (before completion of paper)

I remember early on posting an item about how this class could possibly change our perception of movies and the cinema in general, whether it was for the good or the bad.  I'm not sure if it was assigned or a free blog, but I thought I would address the aftermath of my own experience in the class being someone who usually gets pretty burnt out on analysis when it comes to things that I regularly enjoy.

Firstly.  I notice that among some of my peers- analysis is really fun.  Some others... pure hell. I am somewhat in the middle- being that I like analysis of things I like for a very short portion of time (for the most part- some things being excepted from this list).  

So what do I think about picking apart movies...  I think I have survived.  Although I was heavily skeptical when it came to subscribing to some of the ideas put out by the class and by Chion's book and take on analysis, I feel that I actually can enjoy cinema more after taking the class.  The only unfortunate part is that you are able to find where a movie has a hole.  Something that would make a normal movie great, for instance, I began to realize that some movies are still just normal movies although they had the chance to be something more.  This, coming from a non-movie-critic.  So I am definitely not the first choice in saying whether or not a movie *has it* or not.

But in the mean time, if others are taking a look at this class' blog from another class hoping to decide whether or not this class will be enlightening or not- it is.  

This class has not ruined movie watching for me.

Carson Daly Killed Music Video

No truer a statement could be made.

Ok, well maybe he didn't kill them.  He just had a large part in selling it's soul to corporate MTV with the 'top 10' of the week or day or whichever.  Honestly I don't remember when they stopped showing music videos since I despised the reality TV that pre and posted the show.

Where did the days of Beavis and Butthead go?  They were true troopers and protagonists when it came to deciding what music videos were good.

Ha.  No, but really, those days of televised music videos were the best.  And those cartoon two knew it too.  No matter how bad they made fun of Michael Stipe.  The video was sort of weird anyway.

////

In the way that some cinema is televised radio programs- I think that the music video is in a different way- televised music.  They are both related to televised radio, but they each serve a different function.

One is to give a story to the audience- mapped and plotted out to a more semantic degree, and another to a musical degree (causal and reduced listening [depending on the listener and music])- respectively.

Two Thousand Won. 8)

It really is too bad that there isn't really a large monolith deposited in the moon, or that we aren't currently riding personal spacecraft to the moon and back to play golf.  I mean- who doesn't want to go play golf by a screaming monolith where there is 20 some percent of normal gravity there to slow the ball down once you've hit it.  Tiger Woods be afraid.  We are on the moon destroying your long shots.

But more to the point.  The Ligety piece that was placed in the moon scene was probably my favorite.  I could not imagine someone trying to mimic that piece and come anywhere close to the affect that it gives the scene.  I really would like to see the score for the piece, but I think in respect to the movie, the score really isn't all too important- UNLESS- it was performed again for the movie (not just the pre-recording that was available to Kubrick during the direction.)

I also like that it is not necessarily diagetic or non-diagetic since we don't know the exact auditory reference from which it is coming from.  Although we could postulate that since there is no atmosphere that there is no sound- thus non-diagetic.  BUT- if it happened to be some other wavelike force propagating from the monolith- then it could perhaps be diagetic since the high frequency squeal affects the people nearby and there is still no atmosphere to allow 'sound' to occur.  Very interesting.  So in this case- the sound is traveling perhaps by some other medium- electromagnetic waves or some other form of radiation.  Perhaps by dark matter or some other not-yet-discovered force.