The Aesthetics of Narcissism

I thought that the intent behind the article was interesting, but the way that Krauss presented it didn't work for me. I didn't think it was over my head, however, it was too much information. I get that Krauss believes that video art's medium is narcissism, and she makes a good point, but it could have been stated more simply. I feel that she went on and on, giving too many examples to make her point. It was hard for me to stay connected to the article whenever she would describe pieces of video art that I had never seen; even though she described each work in detail, there was a disconnect because I couldn't relate the points she was making to anything I had physically seen, just the images she had constructed for me. With that said, I really do believe she makes some good points about video art, especially when she relates it to psychology. "Narcissism" was a little further than I would have taken it, and I think that if she had just left her main message as "psychology is the medium for video art" I would have found it much more believable. She makes some really interesting points about "medium" itself, using it to refer to a person's body and the way it reacts as being a type of medium. I feel that if she had kept things more simple and to the point she could have made her ideas come across more valid, because she has some really great argumentation in the article about how video and psychology relate, but it is lost in the jumble of her relating pieces to one another and describing them so in-depth.

Video: The Aesthetics of Narcissism

I'm sure like most of the class, I had an extremely hard time following along with this article and understanding it all. Although, what I did get from it was that Krauss was making a point to say that video art many times and in many ways seems to withhold an aesthetic of narcissism. When I think about video I can complelely understand this relationship. When you think of a video camera you immediately think of video taping people, perhaps a christmas gathering. Most often people are the subject in video. Whenever people are involved I feel as though there is always a sort of narcissism attached to the nature of the video. Whether the narcissism is pointed at the videographer or the person that the video is capturing. I feel as though after thinking about the points made in the article and the different art examples shown it is very understandable what this article is trying to say. With video I feel as though the artist may almost be pushed to do work in the aesthetic of narcissism, it's the nature of the equiptment in a way.

More Stop Motion

Pretty sweet music video from Ok Go - nice that they share their trick for a "smooth" animation - 15 frames a second.

Last Leaf

And here's a short created for Soul Pancake, Rainn Wilson's philosophical website.

What is Soul Pancake?

Rosalind Krauss; Narcissism

I found this essay to be a pretty difficult read and hard to follow along. What I got from it though was that Krauss is presenting various examples of narcism, mostly in video works and comparing them to other narcissistic styled works of art. He compares the works with the relationship between the subject, medium, object, artist and viewer. For example, he states that mirror reflections imply the "vanquishing of separateness" and it creates the illusion of erasing the difference between subject and object. Through separation, reflection, projection, and repetition of sound seen in the works of videos he presents video as a sort of narcissistic medium and the artist as self-centered, and sometimes even the audience as well when they are immersed in the video through mirrors and projection. It looks like Krauss might be trying to point out how self-absorbed our society has become and how careful we need to be because it is so easy to become narcissistic without even realizing it being in your own world.

Narcissism

This essay went way over my head, so this attempt at an analysis was a struggle and probably won't make any sense.

This essay presents an intriguing overall theme of sorts through out the entire paper: narcissism as a psychological condition vs. a physical condition and the relationship between the viewer and artists self and the work. Obviously narcissism is a psychological state however in the examples of work presented there is a separation of self and reflection that creates a projected visual of narcissism, usually with the device of a mirror. The mirror projects an exact replica of the viewer, therefore establishing a second reality that is physically detached from the original, so one is able to view or analyze oneself as an art piece almost. Here where the viewer becomes the subject, narcissism is presented because now the viewer or artist in some cases is completely absorbed in themselves, this is also present in the audio feedback loops that are slightly delayed to allow for examination. Krauss says it best when he describes the situation as self-encapsulation. My favorite example of this is mem and dor. Here, there is a constant relationship between the camera, projector, wall, and viewer. The camera is place so that in both pieces the viewer struggles to see themselves projected but is unable to because the must either be leaving the room or up against a wall for the camera to register them and project a clear picture, so the viewer is constantly struggling and and rearranging themselves to see an unattainable image of them self, an action of narcissism, that presents a physical example for the viewer to realize. The essay also discusses the difference between subject and object. Subject being the meaning or intention of the piece, what the art is about and the object being the actual visual presented. In all of the examples Krauss presents the subject and the object are one person the viewer/artist (depending on which piece) creating the study of oneself, or self encapsulation (narcissism). This essay and these pieces not only create a situation in which we must analyze our self but also present the idea of how comfortable we are in doing so and the urge as well, a reflection of the attitudes of today's society where everyone lives for themselves.

The Five Obstructions

I found Lars Von Trier's methodology of challenging Jorgen Leth as very beneficial to the creation of his projects. At first I thought it seemed harsh to put such limitations and such challenges, but after seeing the outcomes of Jorgen Leth's projects I definitely think it helped. It made him think outside the box and explore new possibilities and techniques he would've never explored in his movies. It made him look beyond his comfort zone and what he would normally think to do and His projects turned out really well and unique.

I feel like the obstruction of having complete freedom was the worst since he had been used to having such limitations and now he had endless opportunities and options that it'd be hard to think of where to begin and what to do. However, in Jorgen Leth's eyes, I feel like the cartoon one was the worst for him since he hated cartoons and had never really enjoyed a cartoon. He seemed to hate that idea the most and was worried that "it'd be a load of crap", however he was extremely successful with the cartoon project in the end.

Flexibility with rules in projects definitely affects the outcome of the projects in the end I feel like. It can completely alter the whole project and either make it successful or not. Depending on the flexibility, it can be interpreted differently. The more flexibility, the more loosely based the interpretation can be. I think flexible rules allows for more exciting and varied perspectives on projects.

Yes, the film has inspired me in various ways to approach my current project and future projects. I want to sort of place more limits and guidelines on myself so I can really explore new techniques and interpretations. I feel like this could really help me start thinking outside the box more and push my projects further. I really like how his 12 frame limitation turned out and the cartoon project turned out so I'd like to use those limits on a project somtime in the future, as well.

The Five Obstructions

I think Von Trier's placing obstructions on Leth's projects is helpful; it provided a challenge to help him think critically and evaluate his processes when creating a movie. It caused each version to have a completely different style, which in turn allows the viewer to realize how many ways a director can interpret the same subject.

I thought the "worst" obstruction was the lack of an obstruction. Even though I enjoyed the result of that version, it seemed kind of useless because with any project you are normally without an obstruction. So this wasn't much of a challenge. Although because he had been working with specific constraints before, his mindset was probably already altered. The result of the "no obstruction" movie that we saw was probably different than if that had been the first "obstruction", before any of the constrained exercises had began.

The flexibility of the rules relies in how literally one interprets them. Perhaps Von Trier should have specified that he literally wanted Leth isolated from people in the environment, without any hint of them in the footage. Von Trier expected Leth to rigidly adhere to the rules, whereas Leth ended up only loosely following them. Oftentimes, when rules are loosely followed, it allows for more diverse and personalized interpretations of the project. However, for the sake of this exercise, adhering to the rules at least a reasonable amount was the most productive way.

The film kind of made me want to use people as a subject. However, using people is difficult because they need to be able to act and do exactly what you direct them to do, and that doesn't always work out well. I think that the different angles used and the speed of the cuts between the different angles were the most influential aspects for me, and they made me think about whether those can be utilized in my project.