“With the close-up, space expands; with slow motion, movement is extended. The enlargement of a snapshot does not simply render more precise what in any case was visible, though unclear: it reveals entirely new structural formations of the subject.”

– Walter Benjamin 1936. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

Last week I wrote about a few things that I was still trying to grasp which I wanted to understand by the end of semester.
More specifically, I wrote about how I want to learn the distinction between maintaining anthropocentric storytelling methods, and cinematic literacy and aesthetic, and abandoning the stories in which we tell and what we tell them about.

“During this class I’ve thought a bit about creating and composing images that abandon ‘good storytelling’
Putting less thought into my reasoning behind when to cut a shot, or how long to let a clip play out, less thought into how to film an object or a space, no rule of thirds, no golden ratio, no wide lens for landscape etc. Initially I thought this was a way to rid my own agency as a film literate. It would allow the object to speak for itself without third party mediation in a sense. I thought that abandoning film structure, patterns, shot technique and so forth is apart of the abandonment of anthropocentric stories.”

My exact contention of this is still unclear to myself, but I feel that in doing the above muddies the water of what it means to tell stories that aren’t necessarily for people or of people, but still made by people. It goes back to the question put forth by Adrian, “what would it look like or sound like for the trees to communicate to one another?” and I’m sure trees don’t care much about framing or the fact that we favour a person anchored to the right third of the frame, or even dynamic range or colour etc.

My question is this: Does the abandonment of this film literacy have a place in our ontographic methods and exquisite corpse documenting? If so, to what extent?
I understand the theory more than the practical implementation of it. The practice has no rules which is why I’m uncertain. That being said I’m happy with what I’ve produced so far from the exquisite corpse exercise.

To learn this, I should investigate both methods during the production of Assessment 4. Maybe shoot one that is pretty and cinematically coded and one that is just me trying to tell it as it is. Although I am aware that this is problematic, because a decision to shoot without these tropes is a mediated decision nonetheless. What would a purely unmediated film look like? Does that exist? Even without me the camera itself is still a tool for mediation.
Maybe for my final short 1 minute film, I’ll tackle the question of ‘what is it like for trees to communicate to one another?’ or something of the equivalent from the readings. Or look at trying to create a pure minute of unmediated reality. Of what? How? A decision to film one thing instead of something else is still curating.

The only way to learn it is to test it really. So I’ll do that.

My question is basically this:

This class is about breaking down the process of the teleological narrative and anthropocene. It is about creating and documenting things that reveal more about thing itself than to tell a story about the thing.
My short description of the class in itself is probably problematic. Nevertheless…

Is there a difference in the way we tell the story and what we tell the story about?

To break this down…

During this class I’ve thought a bit about creating and composing images that abandon ‘good storytelling’
Putting less thought into my reasoning behind when to cut a shot, or how long to let a clip play out, less thought into how to film an object or a space, no rule of thirds, no golden ratio, no wide lens for landscape etc. Initially I thought this was a way to rid my own agency as a film literate. It would allow the object to speak for itself without third party mediation in a sense. I thought that abandoning film structure, patterns, shot technique and so forth is apart of the abandonment of anthropocentric stories. And in a sense I still think this is the case. Because they are stories for US, and we code them with these things to have the film perceived with more beauty or whatever.  I can’t really think of examples but this is how I have reasoned it all in my head.

As of the past few weeks, I’ve realised that this probably isn’t the way to go. To get ride of these filmic codes and to film something just makes it bad. It doesn’t do the object justice. I think I’ve realised that the shots still need reason, and the ‘art’ of filmmaking still needs to remain on screen. I think it is more of a quest to focus on what we film and an awareness around that. Of course, an awareness of how we film is still important, I just think that my seeming ‘carelessness’ for how to shoot isn’t making proper use of film tools. So in a way, I’m saying that I need to bring my agency back as a filmmaker and put more thought into how I film.

I’m not even sure if I asked a question in all of this. But this is just something that I’ve been trying to tease out of my brain for a week or two now. Perhaps it’s something I’d like to fully understand by the end of semester.

Losing track of how to categorise my posts etc.
But categorising and the need to document is so much a part of the anthroprocene – so i’ll let it be.

A few thoughts and things on my mind.

Last week (?) we talked about changing our final assessment to an individual one, or talked about a side project, but this was dismissed as being a Vanity Project. I made the comment that I didn’t think I would learn anything or that I figured I would already know what I would learn by the end of it. Adrian dismissed this as being insane.

So I took it upon myself to start a small documenting project over the past week or so since that class.
I often arrive home late from Uni and from work, and most of my family is already asleep or away. The first thing to greet me is my dog – and I thought this was an integral part of my routine or day that I had not noticed; every time I arrive home, my dog is there, and I wake him by stepping by him and saying hello.

I thought it would be interesting to take a photo of him every time I arrive home – the interest arriving in the different times of day I arrive home, and the different places he sleeps. I planned to do this for the rest of the semester.

However, three days ago my dog got very sick. He is an old farm dog so I can’t say it was unexpected. Today we made the decision to have him put to rest.

I don’t know how to continue this project – but to see it abandoned at the sight of change seems counterintuitive. It’s been a very sad weekend so I don’t want to put too much thought into it.

My logic would be to continue to take the photos as I arrive home, of the space or of his burial place. But I think for this to have happened so soon after starting the project has some sort of cliche about it and I don’t want that to tarnish the nuance of what was a very loving dog who – to apply to our research – was endlessly multifaceted and complex. It would be unfair to surmount his life to my narrative project of ‘alive, happy, and then gone.’

All in all, I guess I was insane to think I wouldn’t notice anything. I just wish this subject wasn’t what I was attuned to.

R.I.P
Paddy ‘Padfoot’ Powlett
2002 – 2017
‘Born with six toes,
Lived on three feet.’

Relations are external to the thing.

They are not innate within the thing.

Sort of like the Kuleshov effect.

Something is constituted only through its relationship to something else.

Notions of change. instead of stable.

Nothing is in itself whole, it is defined by others and relations.

What does poetics mean in relation to documentary?
What are the laws of documentary? Are there any?
‘It is the film of fact nonfiction… rather then enjoyment or imagination’ (talking about documentary) does this mean it is presumed to favour truth over poetics? Does the dichotomy of description and interpretation relate solely as binary opposites?
Foucalt: the attempt to think in the term of the totality has in fact proved a hinderance to research… How one infinite answer can cause a hinderance to our documentary?

Half way through the term – figured I should reflect back on the first week where we charted what we wanted to get out of the class, what we’d learn and how.
5 key things for learning:
Critique work – Yes. been trying to blog about my work, and include stuff about that in essay submissions as well.
Discuss ideas – Yes. been trying to talk more in class and facilitate discussion in class and group work.
Consolidate knowledge – Yes, but can improve. Prepare my ideas more concisely in the blogs.
Take notes – sort of. I’m not really taking as many notes anymore, but i’m still learning as much as I did while I was taking them. Not sure what to make of this. Maybe reevaluate this goal? Does it matter much to me now?
Attend class – I’ve missed 2 Tuesday classes now. 1 because I was lazy and 1 because I missed the train. Cold weather is making it harder to get up at 5:30am. I just need to stick it out.

Learning curve:
We graphed how much we thought we would learn over the course of 12 weeks.
Mine was like a f(x) = (‑(2*​x))+​0.5*​x^​2-​6, [0,12] or something like that. A curve that went down – a period of confusion and misunderstanding, which then begins to rise around week 4 and then continue upwards till week 12. I think I predicted my learning habits pretty accurate there.

A few pictures of the classes this week.

Haven’t posted that much so here’s some teaser pictures I took over the weekend for a business in development.
Points from brief:
– intentionally vague.
– attention on lightness and dark.

This is a film that is written by an LSTM RNN Artificial Intelligence. (Called Jetson, but then named itself Benjamin) The process involved feeding the computer scripts of hundreds of movies, giving a prompt, and then giving the machine agency to create. It spat out its own script, which was then filmed by humans. It has this weird charm to it, a sort of lyricism in the screenplay that transcends the odd use of language.

We might not understand it, but maybe future robots will.