Do you hear what I hear?

For this blog installment concerning sound, I visited the Haggerty Museum and checked out the Stop.Look.Listen. exhibit. One thing that Glenn Bach mentioned in our class discussion on field recordings resonated with me in regards to experiencing these films. Sound or absence of it is used, not to impose will on the audience, but helping to create a charged space where the audience can bring their own ideas to the experience. I believe these pieces to illustrate this concept.
In Mircea Cantor’s “Deeparture” (2005), two carnal enemies, a deer and wolf, are enclosed in a white room, much like the gallery its viewers find themselves in. The film is completely silent and is the only piece in the exhibit not containing noise of some form. Though completely silent, this aspect of “Deerapture” adds something to the piece, serving a function. Eventually, the wolf paces around the deer in the white room, visibly panting. The wolf is licking his chops if you will. You can’t hear it, but you can. The viewer makes mentally makes the connection, thus enhancing its effect. The absence of sound adds feelings of paranoia as the viewer nervously awaits the impending, vicious attack by the wolf. The lack of noise helps the viewer to not be distracted by the feelings conjured by the piece and the mental connections made during the film help to make these feelings stronger.
Janet Biggs’ “Predator and Prey” was a side by side, dual projection. Unlike “Deerapture” where silence served feelings of fear and anticipation, Biggs uses sound to illustrate feelings. Some of the memorable subjects in the piece were stampeding horses, loudly pounding the ground, swimming polar bears and soaring eagles. At one point in the film, one projection displayed an eagle and the other projection displayed a man. The eagle belted out a mighty squeal which rang eardrums, and the man on the screen opposite of the eagle appeared to be rubbing his head. The loud sound and imagery conjured up thoughts of having a headache, recalling such feelings. One sequence from “Predator and Prey” consisted of a polar bear swimming increasingly close to the screen. The noise provided here was minimal. The massive polar bear approaching was startling and more shocking the closer it got. I believe the lack of noise accompanying the bear heightened this effect.

“Today’s art world _______________________."

Today’s art world is one in which is progressively growing, testing its boundaries and allowing its viewers to encompass its meanings while also providing new ones, exhibiting a relation between artist and viewer not previously emphasized in generations passed.

Afterall, December.

In Sarah Lehrer-Graiwer’s “Broken Americas: The Cool World and The Exiles”, the journalist speaks about two American independent films from the early 1960’s that are experiencing a resurgence today. Kent Mackenzie's The Exiles (1961) and Shirley Clarke's The Cool World (1964) are the respected films of topic. Both films add commentary to an America exhibiting woeful race relations and economic troubles, effecting the core of its two major metropolises, New York and Los Angeles, the setting of the films. The Cool World in essence is about a troubled 15 year old’s struggles and frustrating journey through manhood in Harlem. In The Exiles, a group of Native Americans living in low rent housing (no longer standing today) is chronicled in Los Angeles. Mackenzie spent 12 hours documenting the people’s lives. Many themes come about, specifically thoughts of despair, ruined hopes, feelings of escapism as well as great frustration. The actions in the film represent a typical night for the documented, and can be seen as somewhat of a repeating loop in their lives.

These two films come from the same era and share a great deal of commonalities. The qualities of life of the characters expressed in the films seem to mirror each other. Both of these films can be seen as the product of a culture that was motivated for change. Both filmmakers brought to light the many impoverished urban communities left behind. Clarke and Mackenzie can be seen as products of their times, expressing the energy of the youth. This aspect of the films is probably what helps them resonate so well with the politically charged culture of today. I think it’s great that these two films, seemingly obscure from nearly 50 years ago, can come back in today’s era and have new life breathed into it. They both carry contemporary meanings, recognizable to viewers. Seeing the experiences from the 1960’s, and being allowed to understand them and also being able to relate to them from a current standpoint provides an interesting experience.