5 Obstructions

I think it is a helpful exercise even though Leth had a difficult time but in the end, the challenge of the obstructions probably gave him new perspectives or techniques he could expand on in the future. At first, placing obstructions in general seems to limit a project and its potential but as shown, the artist can find a way out creatively like how Leth uses the screen as the distance Von Trier mentioned. Instead of physically distancing himself, Leth uses the screen as a metaphor to show distance and the setting at the same time. Obstructions can help build an artist.
Flexibility with rules can result in a lot of different interpretations. In the movie, Leth and Von Trier interpreted the screen differently where one thought it successful and the other did not. But since the "rules" are flexible, this adds on to how obstructions helps build an artist by forcing them to think out of the box. Sometimes the box is really open like when Von Trier erases all rules for obstruction 4. That much flexibility can be an obstruction as well because the artist is overwhelmed by all the possibilities so much that they can't focus them into one project. I feel like this "open" obstruction helped Leth form into a more independent artist.

I thought the last one was the worst but that is because it seemed more like a personal message from Von Trier to Leth rather than a real obstruction of "The Perfect Man." As a film by itself, it works well but when tied with the other four, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

The film was definitely inspiring in how Leth used his limits as tools, almost making them disappear as limiters. It makes me think of "rules" and limits as necessary components instead of just annoying requirements.

Five Obstructions

Von Trier's methods were effective because of his in depth knowledge of Jorgen Leth. He studied the techniques Leth excelled at and searched for the ones he avoided. I think this was to help Leth prove his abilities to his self. I think it was successful because sometimes I have ideas bigger then the means i have, so i toss them out, but maybe if I forced myself to come at the ideas from different directions i could have something just as successful using the things i do have. Goodness that sounds so cheesy, this movie is basically like a self help book, "believe in yourself and you can do anything" kind of stuff. I feel like Jorgen Leth saw that movie Yes Man with Jim Carrey and though "I can do that, I can say yes to everything."

The obstruction where VT forces JL to either redo the Bombay sequence or have total freedom was the most difficult. This is me being sort of hypocritical when I say having to reexamine something is way too hard, because I know earlier I said you should reexamine your ideas and blah blah blah but still after you have a final product, remaking it almost exactly the same minus the backdrop would have been so dissatisfying. On the same token, total freedom...where to start. Thats I how I felt with project 2, overwhelmed with choices.

The flexibility of the rules made each new obstruction more focused, and more inflexible. It serves as a process of refinement to reach VT's final statement that JL is totally awesome and capable of anything.

Of course this movie is inspiring, I already compared it to a self help book. As far as the way it is informing my next project, I'm not sure, I'm not sure where my next project is going, but I think it gives me the confidence to know that my next project is going to go somewhere.

obstructions

Obstructions not only create a challenge but also make the project more interesting. If Jorgen were to just recreate “the perfect man” (I think that’s what it was called) then it would seem unoriginal and boring. However, the instructions not only create a challenge for Jorgen in the developing process but also give the film a different meaning because of the different imagery and connotations. However, the integrity and underlying meaning of the original film is still maintained.

After, having to adapt the film to fit the previous obstructions, having no obstructions seemed to be extremely difficult. There are so many possibilities it is hard to be creative. An obstruction allows the creator to interpret something, which creates a base for their concept on origin. Without specific obstructions projects can seem far fetched and shallow almost.

I feel when obstructions are given, the creativity of the project comes from the artist’s interpretation. For a viewer, it is interesting to see the project from someone else’s perspectives and see how far the rules can be challenged. If obstructions were completely black and white, with no gray area (or room for interpretation) the outcome wouldn’t be surprising or interesting. If multiple filmmakers had the same obstructions that were extremely specific and left no leeway all of their projects would be very similar. However, if the limitations were some what vague all of the projects would be completely different, So, in reference to the movie, Trier didn’t expect Jogen to interpret “creating an unseen hell” to be a transparent partition in the middle of the streets of Bombay. Or in reference to our class, everyone had different interpretations of the sound projects that had several unrecognizable origins.

This film has inspired me to question the guidelines of each project and not allow the obstructions to get in the way but instead push the project further by forcing me to think out of the box. So more specifically, don’t just create a project around the obstructions but incorporate the obstructions into the movie.

The Five Obstructions

I think that Lars Von Trier's methodology for challenging Jorgen Leth was kind of like "tough love". He give Jorgen these obstacles that seemed impossible and were completely frustrating to carry out, but in the end Jorgen produced some really great work. So I think that it was a helpful exercise because it made Jorgen go outside of his comfort zone, but it was also restraining to a certain extent as well, since he had to go within the parameters of what Von Trier wanted.

I thought that the worst obstruction out of the five was the one where Von Trier created it but Leth had to narrate it as if it was his own perspective and take credit for it.

I think that the flexibility of the rules (even though Von Trier wasn't very tolerant of the Bombay piece) added to Leth's work. I thought that the transparent screen was a beautiful way to interpret the disconnect that Lars was asking for without taking the viewer completely out of context. The rules challenged Jorgen, but didn't necessarily hinder his creativity, which I appreciated.

The film definitely inspired me and got me thinking about how to take obstructions, twist them, and use them to my advantage.

Site for converting video files to mp3's

http://2conv.com/

The Art of Noise

Ironically as I was reading this article, I could hear man-made noise and also what Russolo considered as "silence" in nature. I could hear a motorized grass cutting machine outside blaring through the sky but whenever it wasn't on, I could hear various birds chirping in nature. Normally I wouldn't think much of this except that the machine sounds pretty loud and probably waking up some people; however this article shed a new light upon sounds and noises for me so I found these noises to be pretty exciting and they actually helped further prove some of Russolo's points. The grass cutting machine had a variety of tones when doing different thing- it mumbled, growled at times, higher pitches when cutting grass, and overpowered and drowned out any other preexisting nature sounds. It made me think that Russolo did have a point in considering nature as silence other than what he stated in the article because man-made noises can also silence nature sounds since man-made noises can be controlled and made louder to drown out sounds.

This article showed a very innovative way of thinking about sounds and how they have progressed through the ages. I had always thought of noises as always existing but Russolo points out successfully that new sounds are always being created and as time goes on, new noises will culminate to form new sounds. Either from new machines, inventions, or maybe even new computer software. He makes it sound like silence no longer exists in our world due to all the machines we have nowadays everywhere we go. If you think about it, we even carry around with us everywhere little machines that make noises - our phones. Russolu encourages Futurists to improve on music and make better and bigger sounds through the addition and combining of noises.

The Art of Noise

I think that Russolo's view on noise and silence is rather confusing. I get confused when Russolo argues that the world was silent until the invention of the machine, but then goes further to exclude hurricanes and other major natural disasters. It's like he disregards natural sound such as wind and water until they reach a point of massive impact. Russolo focuses on the different levels of sound and the reach of noise but maybe he never considered the different levels of silence. Is silence just a state of mind? a peace that we find in ourselves or is it a man made room that stops sound waves. I think Russolo makes a good point that music is stuck on these instruments. In elementary school music class I always learned about persussion strings wind wood ect. and outside of that real the idea of music wasn't really discussed. Everything had to be organized into one of these categories and each one had a similar sound. Does noise have to be classified as music to be an artform though? I feel like music is becoming more accepting or these sounds or noise but i still feel its on the outer realm. To make music we think of instruments, I think electronic music has started to incorporate more "noise" sounds since the computer has become the instrument of choice. I feel like we have been forced to think of music in a linear sense, in the way we write and read it, but i feel like furturists are able to make compositions of sound that defy this linear sensibility creating something more complicated and more gratifying.

The art of noise

Russolo differentiates between noise and silence by saying that noise is something that is man-made, whereas silence is everything that is not- such as nature. Noise arose from the invention of machines, with their unnatural attributes, it was a result of the machinery, rather than the original intention. Sound was something man was conscious of- a string stretched to make a sound, rather than a string stretched and then sound being an afterthought. Sound was mysterious and rare, while noise was just an outcome of another thing. Russolo's explanation makes me believe that he thinks "silence" is something only achieved by the ancient and the natural. I personally don't think that silence exists on Earth. With atmosphere, there is sound, and even the most minute sound can be heard amidst what one may think to be silence. Even if a person were to be completely still, the pulsing of their heart is making a small sound. In an open field without civilization, the small whirr of a breeze can be heard. Even in nature, there can never be complete silence. There can only be attempts at it. Russolo sees current music as boring, with music competing against each other with the same instruments and methods of altering sound-noise. He thinks that the art of noise must not limit itself to imitative reproduction, and says in order to avoid this that musicians must manipulate fantastic juxtapositions of varied tones and rhythms, combining them according to our imagination.

The art of noise

When I think of sound or noise I for some reason assume that it has been around it has been around  forever in various forms. However, this article shed light on the fact that music is very much paralleled with the progress of society. Sound didn't actually come around until the invention of machine and the first instruments were viewed with great awe and amazement, music was highly respected and sacred. At one point, music was reserved for only respected religious figures. But now sound and noise are taken for granted because our lives are so heavily drenched and saturated in it  every day. Sound is everywhere, therefore, it becomes boring. The effects and powerful impact a sound can have are diluted to the point that music is almost non existent. Our society is so acclimated to our instant gratification mindset that anything that isn't new, inventive, or avant-garde doesn't even register on our radar. Creator and artists are constantly fighting the battle to keep up with societies demands and thus are "continually enlarging the field of sound" which seems easy since the possibilities with music are infinite. At the same time the possibilities seem so restricting because infinite is a hard concept to wrap the mind around especially when there are only 4 fundamental types of instruments and 6 classifications of fundamental sound. So approaching the task of creating different, new, harsh sound is almost attempted in vain  for everything seems as if it has been done before, which is a phrase several of my art teachers have told me before, very disheartening to say the least having the preconception that nothing you do will ever be original or completely yours and therefore under-celebrated much like music. This is turning into a rant rather than a reflection so to the point, this article was an eye-opener to how under appreciated music has become as well as musicians and artists in general. With the current state of society, it is a great feat to be innovative especially with the lack of encouragement and praise. Artists have the hardest time attracting attention and keeping it and this will only get harder with the future. 

Art of Noise

Throughout the article, Russolo seems to describe about how one can turn noise into sound or music. He first differentiates sound and noise by describing noise as coming from machines, peoples' voices, rumbles and roars etc. Noise is usually from something man-made and part of our usual lifestyles. It is natuarally random but by selecting and dominating certain noises, we can turn it into something that has rhythym like sound. Sound is music, something "distinct and independent of life" which is opposite to how noises are from life.
Because life is filled with noise, silence is almost impossible now. Russolo constitutes silence as something from "ancient life" before the "invention of machine." What I take from this is that silence is when we hear but do not listen and manipulate the noises and sounds in our minds into something symbolic or emotional. When noise came along, we automatically manipulate the noises to objects (howls to dogs/ coughs to people etc.)
Russolo sees the current state of music as only focusing on sounds despite the abundance of noises and their possiblilties. Sounds are overused and he wants to break from the familiar. He believes the Futurists can improve music by combining noises and sounds into a new "noise-sound."

The Art of Noise

Russolo differentiates between noise and silence by stating that all nature is just silence. Earthquakes, tornados, rain, and thunderstorms are all regarded as silent. All man made sound would be considered noise by Russolo. Anything machine oriented or mechanically produced was thought of as noise. Sound on the otherhand was distinct and independent of life. Music was considered to be sound. By reading Russolo's definition of silence, all nature was silent in the ancient past. Anything untouched by man but made by nature was considered silent. What I believe he was trying to get at was if there was no man to make noise then everything was silent even natures weather because there was no man to hear it. Therefore I believe that according to Russolo in today's world there would be no silence.

Russolo sees the state of current music as complicated, harsh, and strange. Futurists can improve on music by enlarging and enriching the field of sounds. Moving away from pure sound and creating noise-sound futurists will be able to improve on the state of music. The adding and substitution of noises for sounds is key according to Russolo.

Pleasures of Light

This made me think of a few people's first video project:

The Pleasures of Light at the Ludwig Museum

The Art of Noises

This is kind of off topic in relation to the purpose of us reading this article, but Russolo's writing style gives me weird vibes about his personality. I keep imagining him being a conceited snob and kiss-up to "Pratella the futurist genius", which made reading the article a strange and slightly comical experience for me, and causing me to be distrustful of the validity of what he says in it.

At the beginning of the article, he's personifying and exaggerating the origin and history of sound, which made sense and was a pretty good description about the auditory aspects of life back in those days. Some distortion is there, but the general ideas seem accurate. Then, he begins to talk about how music (specifically classical music) has gotten boring and stupid. This is where it starts to get a little crazy.

"Meanwhile a repugnant mixture is concocted from monotonous sensations and the idiotic
religious emotion of listeners buddhistically drunk with repeating for the nth time their more or
less snobbish or second-hand ecstasy.
Away! Let us break out since we cannot much longer restrain our desire to create finally a new
musical reality, with a generous distribution of resonant slaps in the face, discarding violins,
pianos, double-basses and plainitive organs. Let us break out!"

His evangelical approach of discussing futurism is kind of annoying, although I have to agree that the idea is innovative and clearly relating to Project 4. When he begins to the list the kinds of sounds that futurists would use to create "music", it reminds me of something a teacher told us in high school. We were discussing the difference between abstract and concrete (figurative) visual artwork, and how the same two categories exist in sound as well. She said that abstract sound is every musical instrument note or noise that we hear in music, and if abstract noise didn't exist, we would all be listening to only natural sounds, like the sounds of waterfalls, wind, etc., pretty much the same examples that Russolo gave as the medium for futurist orchestras. So now I have categorized that futurists use "natural" sounds (also including industrial sounds that are seemingly natural to humans today because they are so commonplace) and regular musicians use "abstract" sounds.