I like playing all three videos simultaneously with the volume turned up and then scrolling down the page through the still images to see how they are affected. They recede. Previously they seemed to express an easy confidence - they weren’t sweatin’ anything - like they knew something that you didn’t. But now, in competition with the sound, their still, mute, lifelessness becomes ever more apparent. Their impotency is glaring. Their poetic idling has been drowned out by the sound of action. They now appear rather pathetic and a bit frightened – actually they remind me of something very human. It’s comforting.
Aesthetically speaking I think the “Vacancy” video is the best, though I thought it was more effective in the beginning when it retained some anonymity - despite the opening footage that shows the building’s sign, I at first thought the demolition footage was of several buildings at different times. The focus on Illich in the conclusion of the video and the subsequent revelation that all of the footage is of a single instance – the demolition of some historical building - seems to me to be redundant and counteractive to what is most striking about the video. Previously, its anonymity gave the footage depth beyond the surface of a particular occurrence. The viewer was opened up to a much deeper and much richer narrative - namely that of our own dissolution, of our own impending demolition.
Before the ending, the footage spoke for itself and the ambiguity of its language facilitated viewer contemplation of what its deeper significance might be. Yet in the ending you (Brandon) attempt to speak for the footage, and in doing this I feel the works significance is lost. In other words, the text at the end erects an insurmountable wall – it tells the viewer what conclusions to draw and thus impedes ones train of though from reaching its own meaningful, and useful, destination. It tells the viewer: don’t think that, think this, because this is what the previous footage has been telling you. It’s like when an artist makes a work then mounts a statement on the wall next to it that outright explains the work (if a statement only hints at a possible starting point then that’s another story). It tends to suffocate the works potentiality to stimulate the viewer to think for oneself.
Also, if we are to penetrate psychologically deeper, it felt more genuine initially because I don’t think you fundamentally care about this particular buildings fate, or of the fate of any building for that matter. No, ultimately I think you’re just saddened about the passing of time and the general degradation of forms. Your lamenting over life’s problem: over death - namely yours. Which of course is totally valid for what is more relevant and compelling than discussions in art concerning ones life and death? It’s just when this gets overshadowed and neglected that I feel a disservice is done. It’s never the building’s / the other’s / the world’s death we’re concerned about: it’s always our own! The buildings demise is just a subtle reminder of our own inevitable destruction. It is poetic foreshadowing.
Furthermore the execution of the Detroit Projection Project is itself the truculent act; it is what is most defiant so that whatever is stated or conveyed within ( it’s content) is, in the final conclusion, of lesser significance than the act itself. Now, where the content retains its relevancy is in how effectively it stimulates others to act. So while content is really of secondary importance as compared to the initial act of creating the work it is still necessary because something must manifest in order for a transmission to occur between creator and recipient. Yet in this case because the ending seems to impede rather than facilitate the viewer’s ability to act - in drawing their own conclusions - it seems to me to be redundant and counteractive.
On another note, the distant, tranquil bridge scene in the “Atomos, Pixilation, and the Neo-Millennial Regime” video is very nice. Though the white, long-winded text at the end is hard to read at times.
Anyways keep up the good work Brandon. Oh and I agree with you: dat dude Illich is a busta.
for more info:
ReplyDeletewww.brandonwalley.org
www.detroitprojectionproject.org
I like playing all three videos simultaneously with the volume turned up and then scrolling down the page through the still images to see how they are affected. They recede. Previously they seemed to express an easy confidence - they weren’t sweatin’ anything - like they knew something that you didn’t. But now, in competition with the sound, their still, mute, lifelessness becomes ever more apparent. Their impotency is glaring. Their poetic idling has been drowned out by the sound of action. They now appear rather pathetic and a bit frightened – actually they remind me of something very human. It’s comforting.
ReplyDeleteAesthetically speaking I think the “Vacancy” video is the best, though I thought it was more effective in the beginning when it retained some anonymity - despite the opening footage that shows the building’s sign, I at first thought the demolition footage was of several buildings at different times. The focus on Illich in the conclusion of the video and the subsequent revelation that all of the footage is of a single instance – the demolition of some historical building - seems to me to be redundant and counteractive to what is most striking about the video. Previously, its anonymity gave the footage depth beyond the surface of a particular occurrence. The viewer was opened up to a much deeper and much richer narrative - namely that of our own dissolution, of our own impending demolition.
ReplyDeleteBefore the ending, the footage spoke for itself and the ambiguity of its language facilitated viewer contemplation of what its deeper significance might be. Yet in the ending you (Brandon) attempt to speak for the footage, and in doing this I feel the works significance is lost. In other words, the text at the end erects an insurmountable wall – it tells the viewer what conclusions to draw and thus impedes ones train of though from reaching its own meaningful, and useful, destination. It tells the viewer: don’t think that, think this, because this is what the previous footage has been telling you. It’s like when an artist makes a work then mounts a statement on the wall next to it that outright explains the work (if a statement only hints at a possible starting point then that’s another story). It tends to suffocate the works potentiality to stimulate the viewer to think for oneself.
Also, if we are to penetrate psychologically deeper, it felt more genuine initially because I don’t think you fundamentally care about this particular buildings fate, or of the fate of any building for that matter. No, ultimately I think you’re just saddened about the passing of time and the general degradation of forms. Your lamenting over life’s problem: over death - namely yours. Which of course is totally valid for what is more relevant and compelling than discussions in art concerning ones life and death? It’s just when this gets overshadowed and neglected that I feel a disservice is done. It’s never the building’s / the other’s / the world’s death we’re concerned about: it’s always our own! The buildings demise is just a subtle reminder of our own inevitable destruction. It is poetic foreshadowing.
Furthermore the execution of the Detroit Projection Project is itself the truculent act; it is what is most defiant so that whatever is stated or conveyed within ( it’s content) is, in the final conclusion, of lesser significance than the act itself. Now, where the content retains its relevancy is in how effectively it stimulates others to act. So while content is really of secondary importance as compared to the initial act of creating the work it is still necessary because something must manifest in order for a transmission to occur between creator and recipient. Yet in this case because the ending seems to impede rather than facilitate the viewer’s ability to act - in drawing their own conclusions - it seems to me to be redundant and counteractive.
On another note, the distant, tranquil bridge scene in the “Atomos, Pixilation, and the Neo-Millennial Regime” video is very nice. Though the white, long-winded text at the end is hard to read at times.
Anyways keep up the good work Brandon. Oh and I agree with you: dat dude Illich is a busta.