I found the lecture on American Falls interesting. I have always had a deep interest in various art forms, and I was excited to be able to go to such an amazing lecture led by a great filmmaker. I have another interest, photography, which made this lecture even more interesting. A fair amount people who went for the Honors Option did not really understand what the film or lecture was about, and felt lost. I understood the lecture quite clearly, mainly because of my interest in the arts.
Phil Solomon, the filmmaker behind American Falls, was commissioned by the Corcoran Gallery of Art to create an expressive film based on the "Downfall of America" and how it is portrayed in various films and photographs. Solomon was ranked as the #5 filmmaker of the century, and after seeing clips from American Falls, I can tell why. The piece is one of the most interesting and artistic works that I have ever seen. Solomon made the film by taking old film from various movies and exposing it to chemicals which caused a chemical reaction on the film strip, lifting the silver base from the film creating a "bubble" effect. This effect also changed the film from the traditional black-and-white color to a very interesting bronze color.
Some of these images in this piece include Lincoln's Night Train carrying his body, JFK's assassination, Walt Whitman, the Twin Towers, Annie Edson Taylor, numerous presidents, oil, guns, the Titanic, WWI and WWII, and even Daniel Day Lewis and King Kong.
One thing that struck me during the lecture was how Solomon referenced the "Art world versus the experimental art world." I have never thought of the two worlds as being separate, and now I find this perception quite fascinating. Solomon said that he tried to be in the "art world" but he could not fit in and create sufficient works to be accepted, but after trying to do more "experimental art," he was commonly accepted and has become one of the greater filmmakers of the century.
Solomon describes the essence of the film as the "romantic disappointment in America." I can see how this is true, from the various topics/images that are portrayed in the film. Solomon also said something that I did not agree with, which was "How can we compete with painters?" He said this referring to the fact that no one can ever be as talented as a painter. I do not agree, since I found Solomon's work a lot better than many of the paintings I have seen. The talent and time taken to create American Falls (12 years) far surpasses the normal timeframe it takes to paint a typical, average painting. Yes, there are exceptions to this, some paintings take decades to complete, but who could say that time is a concrete factor in the quality of the work that it produces? Some painters spend decades on paintings, but they are not regarded in high esteem.
All in all, I had an interesting time at the Hood, and I hope to return for another lecture from an artist soon. My friend who I went with enjoyed the lecture as well, and is looking for other lectures in the future that we can go to.
So I went and saw the "American Falls" lecture, by Phil Solomon. After looking at my notes again, I still have no idea what the lecture was about. The "Falls" part of the title has to do with the idea of falling, literally and metaphorically. So, I can only assume it is all about America from the rest of the title. Okay, that is a really good idea that would work perfectly when displayed in the entrance to one of the art museums in Washington (which it was). But most of the stuff he showed us was about waterfalls, Niagara Falls particularly. So, Phil Solomon took a great idea, the fallen of America, and used the word "Falls" quite literally. He successfully made a play on words ruin the entire lecture for me because I spent the entire time wondering if it was about the fallen of water. Kudos.
But back to the actual lecture. Actually no, the lecture was rather boring even though I actually enjoyed the subject he was talking about. So instead, lets talk more about his installment. It reminds me of something similar I saw in the national art gallery in Washington last summer. They also used three pictures playing simultaneously and used dramatic sounds instead of words. This one was only about eight minutes long instead of an hour and a half, it used real footage instead of chemically altered film, and it was exponentially more interesting. It was literally five guys running around a graveyard in Spain doing gymnastics and whatnot. It contained very little forced thought and left you to do a lot of the thinking. I thought that was great, I thought for hours about what the point of that film was, and think it to be very deep. Solomon's "film" made it straight forward, "America is falling." Move on with your life now and forget you saw this idea. I did not like that. It actually taught me that art can be incredibly simplistic and still be better than something a team of people worked on for months.
Solomon also talked about the process he went through to make he segments. Okay, that was cool. A long complicated process, nitrogen film, one picture for every three frames; the nerd in me loved that. On my notes it says he used a double mirrored triplic instead of a standard flat triplic or something. My hand writing is bad, I can't tell. Very cool stuff in my opinion. And he said he did all this to produce a kind of high contrast. All that beautiful complicated work failed, in my opinion. The final product was bubbly, as Nic said, and had a kind of fiery overtone, as Solomon said. It looked very cool but extremely lacked contract because there were points were I was completely unsure what I was looking at. But as a pure visual effect as an entrance to an art gallery, I must say it was decent. But perhaps it was too long that no one person would ever sit thought the entire thing and appreciate it fully.
Yes, this response drags on for a little bit. But in my defense it is because I fell very strongly about the whole ordeal.
The American Falls lecture I attended was “different”. When I first arrived, I was quite content. The theater where it was held, had a college feel to it, which excited me. Also knowing the lecture was going to be about art caught my interest. The intro to the presentation was introduced by 2 people, who were not Phil Solomon himself. Which kinda confused me because they rambled about such a good person he was, when I hadn’t even seen what he had to say, but I went along with it.
Phil Solomon stepped up. He was an awkward character, although he was funny. He introduced himself and such for five or so minutes, which was fine and all, until he started rambling. He went on talking about surround sound and different projectors, which Dartmouth didn’t have in their theater, he made an ordeal out of it. After he mentioned the lack of certain technology, he started referring his jokes and lines to Youtube and saying he should watch what he says for Youtube to hear, mainly because there was a camera recording his presentation. That was when I lost focus, mostly because I saw no need for the comments, that’s when more confusion stuck for me.
When he finally began talking about his film and the filmmaking process I found it interesting, however, I had no clue what he was saying. He started using words that I had never heard of, possibly because I’m uneducated on the topics of film, but it would've been nice for him to explain some of the more intricate words. It almost felt like he was speaking another language, which was fine I guess.
He then began showing us clips of the film. I began to understand and put the pieces together on what he had explained to us about the film process.
As someone judging the work I felt like it was a tedious, but good film about how America has grown and escalated through many examples and experiences. Some examples shown were Amelia Earhart, JFK, and the founding fathers of this country. He also brought Native Americans and slavery into the film. He seemed to have an obsession with waterfalls especially Niagara Falls. which complemented the title, America Falls. After all of this, it gave me a different, darker perspective on the title.
Although if I was to judge it personally I would have to say I really disliked it. I felt super uncomfortable watching it. It put a knot in my stomach, and left an uneasy feeling in my throat. There were three frames playing simultaneously, some which coordinated with each other, but others that didn’t, which to me made no sense at all. It was too much going on, and not enough time for myself to process it either. It was too dark for me and it was a nightmare, literally. It was the equivalent of a horror film, but in history terms. I felt like walking out because I was feeling so uncomfortable.
Overall it was very artistic, I’ll have to credit him for that much. Although it wasn’t my cup of tea. I think the process took him a long while and he must of had some patience to produce that film using 3 shots a second. Keeping in mind he one by one edited each shot (not using a computer,) and the film was over an hour long, that’s what I call dedication! So I’d say he did a pretty good job he deserves all the awards that he received for it.
The American Falls lecture I attended was “different”. When I first arrived, I was quite content. The theater where it was held, had a college feel to it, which excited me. Also knowing the lecture was going to be about art caught my interest. The intro to the presentation was introduced by 2 people, who were not Phil Solomon himself. Which kinda confused me because they rambled about such a good person he was, when I hadn’t even seen what he had to say, but I went along with it.
Phil Solomon stepped up. He was an awkward character, although he was funny. He introduced himself and such for five or so minutes, which was fine and all, until he started rambling. He went on talking about surround sound and different projectors, which Dartmouth didn’t have in their theater, he made an ordeal out of it. After he mentioned the lack of certain technology, he started referring his jokes and lines to Youtube and saying he should watch what he says for Youtube to hear, mainly because there was a camera recording his presentation. That was when I lost focus, mostly because I saw no need for the comments, that’s when more confusion stuck for me.
When he finally began talking about his film and the filmmaking process I found it interesting, however, I had no clue what he was saying. He started using words that I had never heard of, possibly because I’m uneducated on the topics of film, but it would've been nice for him to explain some of the more intricate words. It almost felt like he was speaking another language, which was fine I guess.
He then began showing us clips of the film. I began to understand and put the pieces together on what he had explained to us about the film process.
As someone judging the work I felt like it was a tedious, but good film about how America has grown and escalated through many examples and experiences. Some examples shown were Amelia Earhart, JFK, and the founding fathers of this country. He also brought Native Americans and slavery into the film. He seemed to have an obsession with waterfalls especially Niagara Falls. which complemented the title, America Falls. After all of this, it gave me a different, darker perspective on the title.
Although if I was to judge it personally I would have to say I really disliked it. I felt super uncomfortable watching it. It put a knot in my stomach, and left an uneasy feeling in my throat. There were three frames playing simultaneously, some which coordinated with each other, but others that didn’t, which to me made no sense at all. It was too much going on, and not enough time for myself to process it either. It was too dark for me and it was a nightmare, literally. It was the equivalent of a horror film, but in history terms. I felt like walking out because I was feeling so uncomfortable.
Overall it was very artistic, I’ll have to credit him for that much. Although it wasn’t my cup of tea. I think the process took him a long while and he must of had some patience to produce that film using 3 shots a second. Keeping in mind he one by one edited each shot (not using a computer,) and the film was over an hour long, that’s what I call dedication! So I’d say he did a pretty good job he deserves all the awards that he received for it.
I attended a lecture at Dartmouth on November 8th called “America Falls.” This lecture was done by an experimental filmmaker named Phil Solomon. I learned that experimental films were art pieces mixing both visual arts and cinema. Phil Solomon told us about his about the process of making his film “American Falls.” He went to Washington DC and visited many of the american memorials there. He said that many of these inspired him to create his theme “Falling in America.” The film he made was about what it meant to ‘fall’ in america with clips of major historic events fading through each frame such as assassinations, plane crashes, wars, and slavery. The whole sequence of images tied back to Niagara falls which symbolized water and power. I don’t quite understand what his films are. All of the frames had a strange fire-rusty effect. There were always three frames on the screen, playing with symmetry and interactions between the people in each frame. I like how he mentioned that once people see an image, they have a connection to that image and the content from it can no longer be separated from it. Meaning that when you see something with a story behind it, and are constantly told that story with that image in front of it, they come together and kind of attack inside your head. I, personally, found the lecture to be confusing and have no exact meaning. He seemed to jump from subject to subject too often. I do, though, find interest in the product he created. I think with more of an understanding of them, the film would have made more sense and have a deeper meaning to me. It seemed like most of the people attending the lecture had already known who he was and what he does. Knowing background on his work probable would have made it easier to understand the lecture as a whole.
I attended the lecture, The Color of Color Blindness, by Dr.Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. The lecture was about racism in America, and how many people think that racism has ended with the election of President Obama, but it really has not. Dr.Bonilla-Silva us what racism has become. His main point was that people have become more civil and politically correct, but there is hidden-racism. It is, as he called it, “racism without racists”. Dr.Bonilla-Silva showed that there were 4 “frames” that white adults used when interviewed about racism. One of them is Abstract liberalism. When I first heard that term, I had no idea what it meant. I then learned that it means that many white people will say that all Americans, regardless of race, should have equal rights and equal opportunities. But when asked about government policies that could bring that change, they find some reason oppose them. For example, affirmative action. People suggest that there should be consideration for Blacks for some jobs, but too many people object and nothing happens. The second frame is Minimization of racism, where whites believe that there still is discrimination against blacks, but it is way less than it used to be. Some whites believe that nothing is really holding blacks back from getting jobs, or blacks are just using race to get things, or as excuses, or being hypersensitive. The third frame is Cultural racism. (This one seems a lot like the second frame). Unlike Jim Crow racists- most whites no longer believe that there is nothing wrong biologically with blacks. Instead they say the problem is with their culture. That they mostly have bad families, bad values and bad work ethic, and sometime they use racism to get handouts. The last frame is Naturalization of racism – racist practices in society, like segregated schools or neighborhoods and low rates of interracial marriage, are seen as “normal”, as a part of human nature and not seen as the outcome of white racism. That means it is no one’s fault, that there is little that can be done to change it. All of this is was very interesting learn about, as I, first, don’t think a lot about racism, and two, I don’t experience it that much in Vermont, as we are one of the most white states in America, (that itself might be racism). Overall, I think that lecture really taught me about current racism in America.
I attended the lecture, The Color of Color Blindness, by Dr.Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. The lecture was about racism in America, and how many people think that racism has ended with the election of President Obama, but it really has not. Dr.Bonilla-Silva us what racism has become. His main point was that people have become more civil and politically correct, but there is hidden-racism. It is, as he called it, “racism without racists”. Dr.Bonilla-Silva showed that there were 4 “frames” that white adults used when interviewed about racism. One of them is Abstract liberalism. When I first heard that term, I had no idea what it meant. I then learned that it means that many white people will say that all Americans, regardless of race, should have equal rights and equal opportunities. But when asked about government policies that could bring that change, they find some reason oppose them. For example, affirmative action. People suggest that there should be consideration for Blacks for some jobs, but too many people object and nothing happens. The second frame is Minimization of racism, where whites believe that there still is discrimination against blacks, but it is way less than it used to be. Some whites believe that nothing is really holding blacks back from getting jobs, or blacks are just using race to get things, or as excuses, or being hypersensitive. The third frame is Cultural racism. (This one seems a lot like the second frame). Unlike Jim Crow racists- most whites no longer believe that there is nothing wrong biologically with blacks. Instead they say the problem is with their culture. That they mostly have bad families, bad values and bad work ethic, and sometime they use racism to get handouts. The last frame is Naturalization of racism – racist practices in society, like segregated schools or neighborhoods and low rates of interracial marriage, are seen as “normal”, as a part of human nature and not seen as the outcome of white racism. That means it is no one’s fault, that there is little that can be done to change it. All of this is was very interesting learn about, as I, first, don’t think a lot about racism, and two, I don’t experience it that much in Vermont, as we are one of the most white states in America, (that itself might be racism). Overall, I think that lecture really taught me about current racism in America.
Before I attended this lecture I did not know the background story or really what the lecture was going to be all about. I think that really made a difference with me understanding what the whole idea of this lecture was, because for me I only barely had an idea by the time I left.
Phil Solomon a well known experimental filmmaker created a movie called "The American Falls" Between the years 2000-2012. His film was different than any other that I have ever seen before. There was 3 frames that showed all different scenes of examples of important events of America falling. The three frames were all his experiments of combining art and chemistry into a film. He started with black white frames but when he experimented with the chemistry it ended up mostly a bronzy, rusty color. He also played around with the symmetry in the film. The film started silent and with only one frame but soon added 2 more frames and we heard the audio of the film which was mostly the recurring shot of Niagara Falls. Phil Solomon talked about how in each frame there was deeper meaning that all connected to idea of what it means to fall. I think that is what he was trying to getting across and even try to answer during the whole movie, but I was too lost in this lecture to follow.
I also did not like the lecture very much, there was too much going and it was very hard to make sense of anything. Like I said before, maybe if I had an idea of what the film was about before I saw it. I would have taken more interest, but I did not. So over all as amazing as his idea of mixing chemistry, art and film together and making this movie, I really did not find this interesting and almost fell asleep a couple of times.
Before I attended this lecture I did not know the background story or really what the lecture was going to be all about. I think that really made a difference with me understanding what the whole idea of this lecture was, because for me I only barely had an idea by the time I left.
Phil Solomon a well known experimental filmmaker created a movie called "The American Falls" Between the years 2000-2012. His film was different than any other that I have ever seen before. There was 3 frames that showed all different scenes of examples of important events of America falling. The three frames were all his experiments of combining art and chemistry into a film. He started with black white frames but when he experimented with the chemistry it ended up mostly a bronzy, rusty color. He also played around with the symmetry in the film. The film started silent and with only one frame but soon added 2 more frames and we heard the audio of the film which was mostly the recurring shot of Niagara Falls. Phil Solomon talked about how in each frame there was deeper meaning that all connected to idea of what it means to fall. I think that is what he was trying to getting across and even try to answer during the whole movie, but I was too lost in this lecture to follow.
I also did not like the lecture very much, there was too much going and it was very hard to make sense of anything. Like I said before, maybe if I had an idea of what the film was about before I saw it. I would have taken more interest, but I did not. So over all as amazing as his idea of mixing chemistry, art and film together and making this movie, I really did not find this interesting and almost fell asleep a couple of times.
The lecture I attended was titled “American Falls” the lecturer was Phil Solomon who is a filmmaker from New York. I thought that the lecture that was given was different than the one that the paper described. He talked about how he made his movie and where the idea came from. His movie, called American Falls, is many still images of Americans “falling” put into a fast slide show. Some of the images in the film are screenshots of movies so that there appear to be some movie clips in the film as a whole. The pictures in the film are not normal looking though, Phil has taken each picture and put it in some chemicals that changed the colors of the picture (I didn’t think he was very clear on the actual process). Each picture is shown in black and a sort of gold color which makes it hard to tell what the picture is of sometimes. When the movie was going it looked like it was showing things that were on fire because of the way the color was. Phil started the lecture with a joke that some people laughed at; then he said that his jokes were only funny on the east coast, I thought this was an interesting way to start a lecture. He also used a lot of words that I would assume were terms used in art or filmmaking although I don’t actually know what they mean; because of this it was hard to fully understand the meaning of the lecture. Also he seemed to switch between subjects a lot which was slightly confusing if you weren’t paying complete attention.
Last Tuesday, I attended the “Tuesday Evening Film Series. I watched a film called: “ Still Life” directed by Jia Zhangke. There were a lot of people there, but it was mainly parents (and some students). The film class introduced the film with help from the Chinese students.
The story was about two people– a man trying to find his wife and sixteen year old daughter, and a women trying to find her husband. The man’s story was hard to understand at times, and I did not really know what was going on. The women’s story, was also a little confusing.
One thing that really stood out for me– was a point in the movie where a building took off into the air. It was completely out of context and made no sense. There was also a UFO at one point, and I did not understand why the director had those two things in the movie. It did not make sense at all! I could not really focus on the rest of the film, because I was still confused about the building and UFO.
I did enjoy the images in the movie and it was interesting seeing the culture in China. I also learned about the Three Gorges Dam. I had never heard about the Dam, and it would have been nice if I had known about it prior to the film. But after, when there was a talk back, I learned about it more. The Dam really seemed to effect the community, and when they built it, many families had to move from that area. Interestingly, some people wanted to move, because they would have a better life.
I went to go see the “American Falls” lecture with Phil Solomon. Going into it, I did not know what to expect. I figured we were going to watch the “American Falls” movie, with some commentary by Phil Solomon. However, that was far from the case. This was a lecture for people who had already seen his movie, not for people unfamiliar with it. He began with talking about the production of his movie and made references that I knew nothing about. Furthermore, he did not explain anything; he just through out random facts that I struggled to follow. For the first half an hour, I was very lost.
About half way through the lecture, he brought up his movie on a projector and started playing little snippets of it. From there, I began to understand it a bit more. His movie was a collection of Americana pictures and video that he had chemically treated to make make rusty and cracked. They almost looked like negatives that had been burnt. Then, he laid them in a row of three, showing different images at the same time but also playing with the symmetry. The movie followed the timeline of America, beginning with the Revolution, going through the 1800s, and ending up where we are now.
As he played bits of the movie, he explained some of the symbolism of it all. This is where I began to doubt the man. Symbolism is one of those ideas that really annoys me. I can deal with it to a certain point, but when it gets to the level where everything is a symbol, that’s where it really bothers me. Phil Solomon was at that level. He explained that a tiny bird in one frame and what looked to be “inverted twin towers” (I can’t even remember what those were in the film. All I remember is that I thought it resembled nothing of the twin towers.) represented 9/11. That’s where he began to push it a little bit; it was definitely a stretch. Another time, he explained that Walt Whitman looking like Robert E. Lee (because of the chemicals) next to a painting of John Wilkes Booth represented Lincoln’s assassination. Sure, the painting of John Wilkes Booth could have represented it, but along with a picture of Walt Whitman that sort of looks like Robert E. Lee? If he wanted Robert E. Lee in there, why didn’t he just put Robert E. Lee in there? Also, on a historical note, Lee had nothing to do with the assassination of Lincoln. This Solomon guy was really pushing the symbolism, and it was annoying me.
Overall, the lecture would have been good if I had seen the movie before hand. However, I do not think I would have liked the movie. To just sit there, and watch an hour of weird-rusty-chemical videos that I have seen already would definitely bore me. If all of the clips were chemically treated, and the movie had some commentary, then it would be better, but on its own, it would be hard for me to appreciate the art of it.
I’ll give credit to the Solomon guy for his work and vision and everything, but it just was not something I would enjoy.
I attended the "American Falls" lecture by Phil Solomon. I agree 100% with Finbar about the lecture being for people that had already seen the movie. As a matter of fact, I went through most of the lecture thinking the whole thing was about American water falls. A big reason that I thought that was because he didn't explain any of his thinking, it was just like when you write a paper about some topic, and it makes 100% sense to you, but when when you have a peer read it, they don't understand a bit of it. As the lecture progressed I did, however, begin to understand what he was talking about. It was all about people and things in America falling. This to me seemed like interesting topic, I think he could of made a very interesting movie about. What he did instead, I learned in the lecture, was take pictures of various photos and drawings and then take all the negatives of those pictures and put them in some chemical. This chemical altered the negative hugely. He then used a special machine to take pictures of these distorted negatives and put them all into movie. I thought this was kind of a neat idea, it could of looked very neat. But from the little snippets of video he showed us most of the pictures, to me, were nothing more than distorted, blurry, unrecognizable slides. There were some photos that I think turned out really well, but I couldn't make the connection between "American Falling" and "Distorted Photos". Why didn't he just use pictures that we could all understand? I think this relates to what Finbar talked about, all the symbolism. I do think he tried stretching some things a bit to far. I think he was an interesting man, and that he had a great idea. There were just a lot of things that added up to make me a very confused person during that lecture. It would of help tremendously to have seen the movie I think
I found the lecture on American Falls interesting. I have always had a deep interest in various art forms, and I was excited to be able to go to such an amazing lecture led by a great filmmaker. I have another interest, photography, which made this lecture even more interesting. A fair amount people who went for the Honors Option did not really understand what the film or lecture was about, and felt lost. I understood the lecture quite clearly, mainly because of my interest in the arts.
ReplyDeletePhil Solomon, the filmmaker behind American Falls, was commissioned by the Corcoran Gallery of Art to create an expressive film based on the "Downfall of America" and how it is portrayed in various films and photographs. Solomon was ranked as the #5 filmmaker of the century, and after seeing clips from American Falls, I can tell why. The piece is one of the most interesting and artistic works that I have ever seen.
Solomon made the film by taking old film from various movies and exposing it to chemicals which caused a chemical reaction on the film strip, lifting the silver base from the film creating a "bubble" effect. This effect also changed the film from the traditional black-and-white color to a very interesting bronze color.
Some of these images in this piece include Lincoln's Night Train carrying his body, JFK's assassination, Walt Whitman, the Twin Towers, Annie Edson Taylor, numerous presidents, oil, guns, the Titanic, WWI and WWII, and even Daniel Day Lewis and King Kong.
One thing that struck me during the lecture was how Solomon referenced the "Art world versus the experimental art world." I have never thought of the two worlds as being separate, and now I find this perception quite fascinating. Solomon said that he tried to be in the "art world" but he could not fit in and create sufficient works to be accepted, but after trying to do more "experimental art," he was commonly accepted and has become one of the greater filmmakers of the century.
Solomon describes the essence of the film as the "romantic disappointment in America." I can see how this is true, from the various topics/images that are portrayed in the film. Solomon also said something that I did not agree with, which was "How can we compete with painters?" He said this referring to the fact that no one can ever be as talented as a painter. I do not agree, since I found Solomon's work a lot better than many of the paintings I have seen. The talent and time taken to create American Falls (12 years) far surpasses the normal timeframe it takes to paint a typical, average painting. Yes, there are exceptions to this, some paintings take decades to complete, but who could say that time is a concrete factor in the quality of the work that it produces? Some painters spend decades on paintings, but they are not regarded in high esteem.
All in all, I had an interesting time at the Hood, and I hope to return for another lecture from an artist soon. My friend who I went with enjoyed the lecture as well, and is looking for other lectures in the future that we can go to.
--Nic
So I went and saw the "American Falls" lecture, by Phil Solomon. After looking at my notes again, I still have no idea what the lecture was about. The "Falls" part of the title has to do with the idea of falling, literally and metaphorically. So, I can only assume it is all about America from the rest of the title. Okay, that is a really good idea that would work perfectly when displayed in the entrance to one of the art museums in Washington (which it was). But most of the stuff he showed us was about waterfalls, Niagara Falls particularly. So, Phil Solomon took a great idea, the fallen of America, and used the word "Falls" quite literally. He successfully made a play on words ruin the entire lecture for me because I spent the entire time wondering if it was about the fallen of water. Kudos.
ReplyDeleteBut back to the actual lecture. Actually no, the lecture was rather boring even though I actually enjoyed the subject he was talking about. So instead, lets talk more about his installment. It reminds me of something similar I saw in the national art gallery in Washington last summer. They also used three pictures playing simultaneously and used dramatic sounds instead of words. This one was only about eight minutes long instead of an hour and a half, it used real footage instead of chemically altered film, and it was exponentially more interesting. It was literally five guys running around a graveyard in Spain doing gymnastics and whatnot. It contained very little forced thought and left you to do a lot of the thinking. I thought that was great, I thought for hours about what the point of that film was, and think it to be very deep. Solomon's "film" made it straight forward, "America is falling." Move on with your life now and forget you saw this idea. I did not like that. It actually taught me that art can be incredibly simplistic and still be better than something a team of people worked on for months.
Solomon also talked about the process he went through to make he segments. Okay, that was cool. A long complicated process, nitrogen film, one picture for every three frames; the nerd in me loved that. On my notes it says he used a double mirrored triplic instead of a standard flat triplic or something. My hand writing is bad, I can't tell. Very cool stuff in my opinion. And he said he did all this to produce a kind of high contrast. All that beautiful complicated work failed, in my opinion. The final product was bubbly, as Nic said, and had a kind of fiery overtone, as Solomon said. It looked very cool but extremely lacked contract because there were points were I was completely unsure what I was looking at. But as a pure visual effect as an entrance to an art gallery, I must say it was decent. But perhaps it was too long that no one person would ever sit thought the entire thing and appreciate it fully.
Yes, this response drags on for a little bit. But in my defense it is because I fell very strongly about the whole ordeal.
I don't think your response dragged on. I enjoyed it. Glad you guys went. I think there were others who joined you?
ReplyDeleteThe American Falls lecture I attended was “different”. When I first arrived, I was quite content. The theater where it was held, had a college feel to it, which excited me. Also knowing the lecture was going to be about art caught my interest. The intro to the presentation was introduced by 2 people, who were not Phil Solomon himself. Which kinda confused me because they rambled about such a good person he was, when I hadn’t even seen what he had to say, but I went along with it.
ReplyDeletePhil Solomon stepped up. He was an awkward character, although he was funny. He introduced himself and such for five or so minutes, which was fine and all, until he started rambling. He went on talking about surround sound and different projectors, which Dartmouth didn’t have in their theater, he made an ordeal out of it. After he mentioned the lack of certain technology, he started referring his jokes and lines to Youtube and saying he should watch what he says for Youtube to hear, mainly because there was a camera recording his presentation. That was when I lost focus, mostly because I saw no need for the comments, that’s when more confusion stuck for me.
When he finally began talking about his film and the filmmaking process I found it interesting, however, I had no clue what he was saying. He started using words that I had never heard of, possibly because I’m uneducated on the topics of film, but it would've been nice for him to explain some of the more intricate words. It almost felt like he was speaking another language, which was fine I guess.
He then began showing us clips of the film. I began to understand and put the pieces together on what he had explained to us about the film process.
As someone judging the work I felt like it was a tedious, but good film about how America has grown and escalated through many examples and experiences. Some examples shown were Amelia Earhart, JFK, and the founding fathers of this country. He also brought Native Americans and slavery into the film. He seemed to have an obsession with waterfalls especially Niagara Falls. which complemented the title, America Falls. After all of this, it gave me a different, darker perspective on the title.
Although if I was to judge it personally I would have to say I really disliked it. I felt super uncomfortable watching it. It put a knot in my stomach, and left an uneasy feeling in my throat. There were three frames playing simultaneously, some which coordinated with each other, but others that didn’t, which to me made no sense at all. It was too much going on, and not enough time for myself to process it either. It was too dark for me and it was a nightmare, literally. It was the equivalent of a horror film, but in history terms. I felt like walking out because I was feeling so uncomfortable.
Overall it was very artistic, I’ll have to credit him for that much. Although it wasn’t my cup of tea. I think the process took him a long while and he must of had some patience to produce that film using 3 shots a second. Keeping in mind he one by one edited each shot (not using a computer,) and the film was over an hour long, that’s what I call dedication! So I’d say he did a pretty good job he deserves all the awards that he received for it.
The American Falls lecture I attended was “different”. When I first arrived, I was quite content. The theater where it was held, had a college feel to it, which excited me. Also knowing the lecture was going to be about art caught my interest. The intro to the presentation was introduced by 2 people, who were not Phil Solomon himself. Which kinda confused me because they rambled about such a good person he was, when I hadn’t even seen what he had to say, but I went along with it.
ReplyDeletePhil Solomon stepped up. He was an awkward character, although he was funny. He introduced himself and such for five or so minutes, which was fine and all, until he started rambling. He went on talking about surround sound and different projectors, which Dartmouth didn’t have in their theater, he made an ordeal out of it. After he mentioned the lack of certain technology, he started referring his jokes and lines to Youtube and saying he should watch what he says for Youtube to hear, mainly because there was a camera recording his presentation. That was when I lost focus, mostly because I saw no need for the comments, that’s when more confusion stuck for me.
When he finally began talking about his film and the filmmaking process I found it interesting, however, I had no clue what he was saying. He started using words that I had never heard of, possibly because I’m uneducated on the topics of film, but it would've been nice for him to explain some of the more intricate words. It almost felt like he was speaking another language, which was fine I guess.
He then began showing us clips of the film. I began to understand and put the pieces together on what he had explained to us about the film process.
As someone judging the work I felt like it was a tedious, but good film about how America has grown and escalated through many examples and experiences. Some examples shown were Amelia Earhart, JFK, and the founding fathers of this country. He also brought Native Americans and slavery into the film. He seemed to have an obsession with waterfalls especially Niagara Falls. which complemented the title, America Falls. After all of this, it gave me a different, darker perspective on the title.
Although if I was to judge it personally I would have to say I really disliked it. I felt super uncomfortable watching it. It put a knot in my stomach, and left an uneasy feeling in my throat. There were three frames playing simultaneously, some which coordinated with each other, but others that didn’t, which to me made no sense at all. It was too much going on, and not enough time for myself to process it either. It was too dark for me and it was a nightmare, literally. It was the equivalent of a horror film, but in history terms. I felt like walking out because I was feeling so uncomfortable.
Overall it was very artistic, I’ll have to credit him for that much. Although it wasn’t my cup of tea. I think the process took him a long while and he must of had some patience to produce that film using 3 shots a second. Keeping in mind he one by one edited each shot (not using a computer,) and the film was over an hour long, that’s what I call dedication! So I’d say he did a pretty good job he deserves all the awards that he received for it.
I attended a lecture at Dartmouth on November 8th called “America Falls.” This lecture was done by an experimental filmmaker named Phil Solomon. I learned that experimental films were art pieces mixing both visual arts and cinema. Phil Solomon told us about his about the process of making his film “American Falls.” He went to Washington DC and visited many of the american memorials there. He said that many of these inspired him to create his theme “Falling in America.”
ReplyDeleteThe film he made was about what it meant to ‘fall’ in america with clips of major historic events fading through each frame such as assassinations, plane crashes, wars, and slavery. The whole sequence of images tied back to Niagara falls which symbolized water and power. I don’t quite understand what his films are. All of the frames had a strange fire-rusty effect. There were always three frames on the screen, playing with symmetry and interactions between the people in each frame.
I like how he mentioned that once people see an image, they have a connection to that image and the content from it can no longer be separated from it. Meaning that when you see something with a story behind it, and are constantly told that story with that image in front of it, they come together and kind of attack inside your head.
I, personally, found the lecture to be confusing and have no exact meaning. He seemed to jump from subject to subject too often. I do, though, find interest in the product he created. I think with more of an understanding of them, the film would have made more sense and have a deeper meaning to me. It seemed like most of the people attending the lecture had already known who he was and what he does. Knowing background on his work probable would have made it easier to understand the lecture as a whole.
I attended the lecture, The Color of Color Blindness, by Dr.Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. The lecture was about racism in America, and how many people think that racism has ended with the election of President Obama, but it really has not. Dr.Bonilla-Silva us what racism has become. His main point was that people have become more civil and politically correct, but there is hidden-racism. It is, as he called it, “racism without racists”. Dr.Bonilla-Silva showed that there were 4 “frames” that white adults used when interviewed about racism.
ReplyDeleteOne of them is Abstract liberalism. When I first heard that term, I had no idea what it meant. I then learned that it means that many white people will say that all Americans, regardless of race, should have equal rights and equal opportunities. But when asked about government policies that could bring that change, they find some reason oppose them. For example, affirmative action. People suggest that there should be consideration for Blacks for some jobs, but too many people object and nothing happens.
The second frame is Minimization of racism, where whites believe that there still is discrimination against blacks, but it is way less than it used to be. Some whites believe that nothing is really holding blacks back from getting jobs, or blacks are just using race to get things, or as excuses, or being hypersensitive.
The third frame is Cultural racism. (This one seems a lot like the second frame). Unlike Jim Crow racists- most whites no longer believe that there is nothing wrong biologically with blacks. Instead they say the problem is with their culture. That they mostly have bad families, bad values and bad work ethic, and sometime they use racism to get handouts.
The last frame is Naturalization of racism – racist practices in society, like segregated schools or neighborhoods and low rates of interracial marriage, are seen as “normal”, as a part of human nature and not seen as the outcome of white racism. That means it is no one’s fault, that there is little that can be done to change it.
All of this is was very interesting learn about, as I, first, don’t think a lot about racism, and two, I don’t experience it that much in Vermont, as we are one of the most white states in America, (that itself might be racism). Overall, I think that lecture really taught me about current racism in America.
I attended the lecture, The Color of Color Blindness, by Dr.Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. The lecture was about racism in America, and how many people think that racism has ended with the election of President Obama, but it really has not. Dr.Bonilla-Silva us what racism has become. His main point was that people have become more civil and politically correct, but there is hidden-racism. It is, as he called it, “racism without racists”. Dr.Bonilla-Silva showed that there were 4 “frames” that white adults used when interviewed about racism.
ReplyDeleteOne of them is Abstract liberalism. When I first heard that term, I had no idea what it meant. I then learned that it means that many white people will say that all Americans, regardless of race, should have equal rights and equal opportunities. But when asked about government policies that could bring that change, they find some reason oppose them. For example, affirmative action. People suggest that there should be consideration for Blacks for some jobs, but too many people object and nothing happens.
The second frame is Minimization of racism, where whites believe that there still is discrimination against blacks, but it is way less than it used to be. Some whites believe that nothing is really holding blacks back from getting jobs, or blacks are just using race to get things, or as excuses, or being hypersensitive.
The third frame is Cultural racism. (This one seems a lot like the second frame). Unlike Jim Crow racists- most whites no longer believe that there is nothing wrong biologically with blacks. Instead they say the problem is with their culture. That they mostly have bad families, bad values and bad work ethic, and sometime they use racism to get handouts.
The last frame is Naturalization of racism – racist practices in society, like segregated schools or neighborhoods and low rates of interracial marriage, are seen as “normal”, as a part of human nature and not seen as the outcome of white racism. That means it is no one’s fault, that there is little that can be done to change it.
All of this is was very interesting learn about, as I, first, don’t think a lot about racism, and two, I don’t experience it that much in Vermont, as we are one of the most white states in America, (that itself might be racism). Overall, I think that lecture really taught me about current racism in America.
Before I attended this lecture I did not know the background story or really what the lecture was going to be all about. I think that really made a difference with me understanding what the whole idea of this lecture was, because for me I only barely had an idea by the time I left.
ReplyDeletePhil Solomon a well known experimental filmmaker created a movie called "The American Falls" Between the years 2000-2012. His film was different than any other that I have ever seen before. There was 3 frames that showed all different scenes of examples of important events of America falling. The three frames were all his experiments of combining art and chemistry into a film. He started with black white frames but when he experimented with the chemistry it ended up mostly a bronzy, rusty color. He also played around with the symmetry in the film. The film started silent and with only one frame but soon added 2 more frames and we heard the audio of the film which was mostly the recurring shot of Niagara Falls. Phil Solomon talked about how in each frame there was deeper meaning that all connected to idea of what it means to fall. I think that is what he was trying to getting across and even try to answer during the whole movie, but I was too lost in this lecture to follow.
I also did not like the lecture very much, there was too much going and it was very hard to make sense of anything. Like I said before, maybe if I had an idea of what the film was about before I saw it. I would have taken more interest, but I did not. So over all as amazing as his idea of mixing chemistry, art and film together and making this movie, I really did not find this interesting and almost fell asleep a couple of times.
Before I attended this lecture I did not know the background story or really what the lecture was going to be all about. I think that really made a difference with me understanding what the whole idea of this lecture was, because for me I only barely had an idea by the time I left.
ReplyDeletePhil Solomon a well known experimental filmmaker created a movie called "The American Falls" Between the years 2000-2012. His film was different than any other that I have ever seen before. There was 3 frames that showed all different scenes of examples of important events of America falling. The three frames were all his experiments of combining art and chemistry into a film. He started with black white frames but when he experimented with the chemistry it ended up mostly a bronzy, rusty color. He also played around with the symmetry in the film. The film started silent and with only one frame but soon added 2 more frames and we heard the audio of the film which was mostly the recurring shot of Niagara Falls. Phil Solomon talked about how in each frame there was deeper meaning that all connected to idea of what it means to fall. I think that is what he was trying to getting across and even try to answer during the whole movie, but I was too lost in this lecture to follow.
I also did not like the lecture very much, there was too much going and it was very hard to make sense of anything. Like I said before, maybe if I had an idea of what the film was about before I saw it. I would have taken more interest, but I did not. So over all as amazing as his idea of mixing chemistry, art and film together and making this movie, I really did not find this interesting and almost fell asleep a couple of times.
The lecture I attended was titled “American Falls” the lecturer was Phil Solomon who is a filmmaker from New York. I thought that the lecture that was given was different than the one that the paper described. He talked about how he made his movie and where the idea came from. His movie, called American Falls, is many still images of Americans “falling” put into a fast slide show. Some of the images in the film are screenshots of movies so that there appear to be some movie clips in the film as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThe pictures in the film are not normal looking though, Phil has taken each picture and put it in some chemicals that changed the colors of the picture (I didn’t think he was very clear on the actual process). Each picture is shown in black and a sort of gold color which makes it hard to tell what the picture is of sometimes. When the movie was going it looked like it was showing things that were on fire because of the way the color was.
Phil started the lecture with a joke that some people laughed at; then he said that his jokes were only funny on the east coast, I thought this was an interesting way to start a lecture. He also used a lot of words that I would assume were terms used in art or filmmaking although I don’t actually know what they mean; because of this it was hard to fully understand the meaning of the lecture. Also he seemed to switch between subjects a lot which was slightly confusing if you weren’t paying complete attention.
Last Tuesday, I attended the “Tuesday Evening Film Series. I watched a film called: “ Still Life” directed by Jia Zhangke. There were a lot of people there, but it was mainly parents (and some students). The film class introduced the film with help from the Chinese students.
ReplyDeleteThe story was about two people– a man trying to find his wife and sixteen year old daughter, and a women trying to find her husband. The man’s story was hard to understand at times, and I did not really know what was going on. The women’s story, was also a little confusing.
One thing that really stood out for me– was a point in the movie where a building took off into the air. It was completely out of context and made no sense. There was also a UFO at one point, and I did not understand why the director had those two things in the movie. It did not make sense at all! I could not really focus on the rest of the film, because I was still confused about the building and UFO.
I did enjoy the images in the movie and it was interesting seeing the culture in China. I also learned about the Three Gorges Dam. I had never heard about the Dam, and it would have been nice if I had known about it prior to the film. But after, when there was a talk back, I learned about it more. The Dam really seemed to effect the community, and when they built it, many families had to move from that area. Interestingly, some people wanted to move, because they would have a better life.
I went to go see the “American Falls” lecture with Phil Solomon. Going into it, I did not know what to expect. I figured we were going to watch the “American Falls” movie, with some commentary by Phil Solomon. However, that was far from the case. This was a lecture for people who had already seen his movie, not for people unfamiliar with it. He began with talking about the production of his movie and made references that I knew nothing about. Furthermore, he did not explain anything; he just through out random facts that I struggled to follow. For the first half an hour, I was very lost.
ReplyDeleteAbout half way through the lecture, he brought up his movie on a projector and started playing little snippets of it. From there, I began to understand it a bit more. His movie was a collection of Americana pictures and video that he had chemically treated to make make rusty and cracked. They almost looked like negatives that had been burnt. Then, he laid them in a row of three, showing different images at the same time but also playing with the symmetry. The movie followed the timeline of America, beginning with the Revolution, going through the 1800s, and ending up where we are now.
As he played bits of the movie, he explained some of the symbolism of it all. This is where I began to doubt the man. Symbolism is one of those ideas that really annoys me. I can deal with it to a certain point, but when it gets to the level where everything is a symbol, that’s where it really bothers me. Phil Solomon was at that level. He explained that a tiny bird in one frame and what looked to be “inverted twin towers” (I can’t even remember what those were in the film. All I remember is that I thought it resembled nothing of the twin towers.) represented 9/11. That’s where he began to push it a little bit; it was definitely a stretch. Another time, he explained that Walt Whitman looking like Robert E. Lee (because of the chemicals) next to a painting of John Wilkes Booth represented Lincoln’s assassination. Sure, the painting of John Wilkes Booth could have represented it, but along with a picture of Walt Whitman that sort of looks like Robert E. Lee? If he wanted Robert E. Lee in there, why didn’t he just put Robert E. Lee in there? Also, on a historical note, Lee had nothing to do with the assassination of Lincoln. This Solomon guy was really pushing the symbolism, and it was annoying me.
Overall, the lecture would have been good if I had seen the movie before hand. However, I do not think I would have liked the movie. To just sit there, and watch an hour of weird-rusty-chemical videos that I have seen already would definitely bore me. If all of the clips were chemically treated, and the movie had some commentary, then it would be better, but on its own, it would be hard for me to appreciate the art of it.
I’ll give credit to the Solomon guy for his work and vision and everything, but it just was not something I would enjoy.
I attended the "American Falls" lecture by Phil Solomon. I agree 100% with Finbar about the lecture being for people that had already seen the movie. As a matter of fact, I went through most of the lecture thinking the whole thing was about American water falls. A big reason that I thought that was because he didn't explain any of his thinking, it was just like when you write a paper about some topic, and it makes 100% sense to you, but when when you have a peer read it, they don't understand a bit of it.
ReplyDeleteAs the lecture progressed I did, however, begin to understand what he was talking about. It was all about people and things in America falling. This to me seemed like interesting topic, I think he could of made a very interesting movie about. What he did instead, I learned in the lecture, was take pictures of various photos and drawings and then take all the negatives of those pictures and put them in some chemical. This chemical altered the negative hugely. He then used a special machine to take pictures of these distorted negatives and put them all into movie. I thought this was kind of a neat idea, it could of looked very neat. But from the little snippets of video he showed us most of the pictures, to me, were nothing more than distorted, blurry, unrecognizable slides.
There were some photos that I think turned out really well, but I couldn't make the connection between "American Falling" and "Distorted Photos". Why didn't he just use pictures that we could all understand? I think this relates to what Finbar talked about, all the symbolism. I do think he tried stretching some things a bit to far.
I think he was an interesting man, and that he had a great idea. There were just a lot of things that added up to make me a very confused person during that lecture. It would of help tremendously to have seen the movie I think