On the ones I was unfamiliar with, (i.e. shape shifter and the trickster) the characters mentioned in class were the river and Charlie (whose intentions change over the course of the movie) and the trickster, which was considered to possibly be Charlie, as he made fun of monkeys, interrupted a church service, and at one point tosses his cigar to the village people.
Before heading into thoughts and responses to what we learned in class I wanted to talk about one of the readings we were assigned this week. These were the articles by Bela Balasz entitles "The Close-up " and "The Face of Man"
Even though I could go deeper into the actual article, "The Close-Up" brings up some really interesting points, that I agreed whole-heartily with. Balasz talks about the emotion behind the close up and how the viewer is positioned in relation to the character, and how the viewer is able to perceive the character. This is a concept I agree with because, when used properly, the close-up has an ability to set a scene with a certain emotion or tell much more to the story than anything a script would ever be able to get across.
In "The Face of Man" I considered one section to strike me the hardest. It is the last part of the reading entitled "Mute Dialogues." The concepts the Balasz speaks about is that use of the close up and how facial expression changed toward the end of the silent age, and an entire films could be dictated simply by the shades and tones ones face could portray. He stated "We saw conversations between the facial expressions of two human beings who understood the movements of each others' faces better than each others' words and could perceive shades of meaning too subtle to be conveyed in words." This is a very telling statement. It did not matter what the lips say, all that matters is what the face says.
In class we were lectured on the origins of cinema, and although this is something that many teachers in many classes have gone over, its interesting to catch the small differences that each teacher brings up in the scope of cinematic beginnings. Here we talk about theory, where the first formal theory was in 1916. As elementary as it may seem today, for the time I could see how the theory was pretty ground breaking and ahead of its time. Especially considering it was just barely the 20th century.
It really is amazing to me how much we take knowledge and information for granted. Think of when movement was first recorded. We were shown and taught about Muybridge's Horse. People wonder, among the motion of the horse, if there was ever a point where all four of its legs were off the ground. This is something that is simple and basic to us today, but it took a series of photographs, before the 20th century, to make that a known matter of fact. Although the first recorded movement was simple and boring by our standards, and possibly even to those looking upon it, I could only imagine what was going through the minds of those witnessing this recorded motion for the first time. It probably blew the mind.
We went on in class to talk about art, and what exactly art is. As talked about by Professor Voytilla, Art is form and content. Form is the means by which a subject is expressed. The content being the subject of the artwork.
We broke off into groups to further the concept, and what our group decided was that art is an object or action that can be interpreted by a person. It can entertain and inspire, and it can also be used as a motivational tool to better a person. The true meaning of an artistic piece is subject to the viewer. It can be an emotional expression of thought or action or an expression of though through a medium.
How are sports considered art?
Sports are entertaining, there is an audience, it inspires, and is conversational. The ways in which sports are a different form of art is because it is unscripted, it is live, contains actions, and the outcome is known only after it occurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment