1. As far as being successful in his artwork, Jorgen seemed to have things come together in the end. H did talk about how the obstructions would make things difficult for him, but rather than falling into them or disregarding them, he worked with them.
2. Before he starts off seeing them as a negative thing and maybe being more of a "road block," but as he continues it becomes a part of his work. And I feel like this really adds to the meaning behind it. Whether or not you find meaning it his works themselves, one can appreciate it for the process.
3. I feel like this video helped me to grow a bit just as far as having road blocks or making mistakes and just rolling with them. I'm a control freak. So when things don't go my way it would be better to react like Jorgen.
1. How successfully does Jørgen Leth handle the obstructions?
I think he handles them quiet well. I was most impressed with his ability to handle the obstruction of Lars Von Trier himself....
2. Are the obstructions helpful in making creative work, or are they stumbling blocks?
I think they helped, but I dont think they were necessary...being given obstructions should lead to creative ways to handle those obstructions but I dont think Jorgen Leth really needed the creative help.
3. How might this film help you make your own work?
I liked how raw and exposed these recreated scenes were, especially the when Jorgen Leth becomes the perfect human. Seeing how I like to make my works personal, it's intriguing to see how another visual artist was able to personalize his work to make it about him.
I think he handles them quiet well. I was most impressed with his ability to handle the obstruction of Lars Von Trier himself....
2. Are the obstructions helpful in making creative work, or are they stumbling blocks?
I think they helped, but I dont think they were necessary...being given obstructions should lead to creative ways to handle those obstructions but I dont think Jorgen Leth really needed the creative help.
3. How might this film help you make your own work?
I liked how raw and exposed these recreated scenes were, especially the when Jorgen Leth becomes the perfect human. Seeing how I like to make my works personal, it's intriguing to see how another visual artist was able to personalize his work to make it about him.
1. I think he handled the obstructions well. Aside from the second one, he met the requirements asked for by Trier.
2. I find obstructions helpful because they give you some general guidelines to abide by but they generally aren't that restricting. As a result, it is still possible to have very diverse projects even though the obstructions were the same. I tend to like obstructions because they give you a start on what to do and then the rest is up to the artist.
3. The film served as a good reminder on why there are obstructions set and how they can actually help/
2. I find obstructions helpful because they give you some general guidelines to abide by but they generally aren't that restricting. As a result, it is still possible to have very diverse projects even though the obstructions were the same. I tend to like obstructions because they give you a start on what to do and then the rest is up to the artist.
3. The film served as a good reminder on why there are obstructions set and how they can actually help/
1.
I think that Jorgen did a decent job with his obstructions.
His dislike with working with obstructions at first seemed to negatively affect
the work, but once he embraced them, his work improved quite a bit.
2.
I think that obstructions are a way to push you out of your
comfort zone. This can be a good thing, as everyone needs to be pushed to be
better and different. But, I believe that there is a point in which
obstructions become arbitrary and useless. Obstructions must be thought about
carefully and used effectively.
3.
This film sort of helped me think about obstructions as a way
to further my artistic work and push myself into new mediums, concepts, and
works. It made me shift my thinking of obstructions and useless man made
creativity blockers into creative challenges.
5 Obstructions
1. Overall I think Jorgen was successful in handling his obstructions. He seemed to dislike working around the obstructions at first, but once he accepted the situations he handled the challenges with creativity.
2. Obstructions in art are typically frustrating at first because people get into habits of how they like to do things and don't like to work outside of their own box, but once an artist faces the obstructions head on the artist can really grow and learn from the situation. They're definitely good to have once in a while, no matter how initially frustrating.
3. This film was helpful in that it reminded me that certain obstructions can be helpful and add an interesting twist to an artwork that wouldn't have occurred without the obstruction being there.
2. Obstructions in art are typically frustrating at first because people get into habits of how they like to do things and don't like to work outside of their own box, but once an artist faces the obstructions head on the artist can really grow and learn from the situation. They're definitely good to have once in a while, no matter how initially frustrating.
3. This film was helpful in that it reminded me that certain obstructions can be helpful and add an interesting twist to an artwork that wouldn't have occurred without the obstruction being there.
5 Obstructions
1.
How successfully
does Jørgen Leth handle the obstructions?
I believe that Leth handled the obstructions
successfully. I think that he handled the obstructions well and was able to interpret
the obstructions in interesting and creative ways. Although I believe this
Trier, the man who gave him the challenge did not always think so, because he wanted
Leth to take the obstructions very literally and didn’t seem to like it when
Leth used creative ways around the obstructions like in obstruction 2.
2.
Are
the obstructions helpful in making creative work, or are they
stumbling blocks?
I think that the
obstructions were good guidelines in making creative works. They seem helpful if
a person wants to create work similar to previous work but also very different.
They seem like a good way to push the limits of the work people create, I think
that it helped Leth to think differently about his own work. I do think that
they can be stumbling blocks if the obstructions are taken too literally and aren’t
given enough freedom to expand in a creative way. To me Trier seemed very bossy
and uptight about the obstructions and I believe that this attitude was a
stumbling block. If he was able to have a more lenient attitude I think that
the obstructions could have been even more helpful in making a series of new
creative work.
3.
How might this film
help you make your own work?
This film might help me to make
creative work because if I was to want to make a series of something. I could
make the first one and then like in the movie set a series of guidelines for
the rest of the pieces in the series. I think that the method used in the movie
is helpful for learning to make things that seem similar but are also stylistically
different.
5 Obstructions
- How successfully does Jørgen Leth handle the obstructions?
At first, while he tries to work with them, he lets them distract him from making (or remaking) art and would comment about how hard and choppy these new restrictions would make his work. He didnt want to abide by them, but he still tried to work with them. For the most part, he was able to create something within the limitations of the obstructions, all except for obstruction two which he was punished for and forced to re-create.
- Are the obstructions helpful in making creative work, or are they stumbling blocks?
I believe they start off as stumbling blocks, like most obstructions or obstacles in art do, but they are then helpful because they force the artist to think in different, and often more creative ways. These obstructions force the artist out of their comfort zone and allow them to make something they wouldnt normally think of making.
- How might this film help you make your own work?
This film helped me see that obstructions aren't always as awful as I think they are. While I grumble about them at the time, in most cases they improve my quality of work and help me produce something I would have never dreamed of making before. While obstructions are limiting, they are also mind opening because it forces the artist to find a work around solution to the problem at hand if they want to produce their art.
1. At first Leth complained about his tasks and obstructions, saying it was too hard and would be choppy, but once he started his attitude changes. I believe he was successful with his obstructions because he is able to push the boundries and create his own style of film.
2. I think they are helpful to creating his creative work, because it forces him to come up with and wrestle with new ideas and works that he hasn't done before.
3. This film will help me make my own artwork because is has changed my view about limits and obstructions in works. It changed my mind in a way that i now think of the obstructions not as a creative block by more of a challenge and a way to force me out of my normal routine and get more creative.
2. I think they are helpful to creating his creative work, because it forces him to come up with and wrestle with new ideas and works that he hasn't done before.
3. This film will help me make my own artwork because is has changed my view about limits and obstructions in works. It changed my mind in a way that i now think of the obstructions not as a creative block by more of a challenge and a way to force me out of my normal routine and get more creative.
1. Leth handles the tasks at hand fairly well for the most part; he only does not complete the second obstruction to Trier's liking and is punished for it.
2. The obstructions are helpful in Leth's creative work whether he knows it or not. They seem like stumbling blocks but the way Leth does what he can to go around the instructions to mold them into his own creations he turns these apparent stumbling blocks into instructions that foster creativity.
3. It is very relevant to this class as well as other college art classes because for most projects there are sets of instructions students are expected to follow while students are also expected to add their own twists and creative parts beyond what the instructions say to do.
2. The obstructions are helpful in Leth's creative work whether he knows it or not. They seem like stumbling blocks but the way Leth does what he can to go around the instructions to mold them into his own creations he turns these apparent stumbling blocks into instructions that foster creativity.
3. It is very relevant to this class as well as other college art classes because for most projects there are sets of instructions students are expected to follow while students are also expected to add their own twists and creative parts beyond what the instructions say to do.
The Five Obstructions
How successfully does Jørgen Leth handle the obstructions?
At first, he handles them poorly and he views the obstructions as impossible workarounds. After thinking on it and working with it for awhile, he makes very good work regardless of the obstructions. Although, for the second obstruction, even though he made a good product, he failed to make what Von Trier wanted him to make.
Are the obstructions helpful in making creative work, or are they stumbling block?
I believe that the obstructions are both helpful and stumbling blocks. At first, they limit the artist and make them trip over themselves and sometimes even fall, but after awhile the artist can utilize them to figure out a new method of making what they want to fulfill.
How might this film help you make your own work?
It gives me an understanding that what the client or viewer wants is not always what we can provide with our normal way of thinking. So, if I am told to do something that I have never done before or I believe to be impossible, I need to change my thinking and progress through a new and different route in order to make a successful product.
At first, he handles them poorly and he views the obstructions as impossible workarounds. After thinking on it and working with it for awhile, he makes very good work regardless of the obstructions. Although, for the second obstruction, even though he made a good product, he failed to make what Von Trier wanted him to make.
Are the obstructions helpful in making creative work, or are they stumbling block?
I believe that the obstructions are both helpful and stumbling blocks. At first, they limit the artist and make them trip over themselves and sometimes even fall, but after awhile the artist can utilize them to figure out a new method of making what they want to fulfill.
How might this film help you make your own work?
It gives me an understanding that what the client or viewer wants is not always what we can provide with our normal way of thinking. So, if I am told to do something that I have never done before or I believe to be impossible, I need to change my thinking and progress through a new and different route in order to make a successful product.
The Five Obstructions
How successfully does Jørgen Leth handle the obstructions?
Overall, he seems to be somewhat successful in reading into the different obstructions in his own way, but the 2nd one in particular didn't seem to make Trier happy. This entirely changes the tone of the next challenge, which is complete freedom -- not something Leth can really fail or succeed at, anyway. He seems to like to work around what Trier literally wants out of the obstructions to create a work he is more happy with. A good example of this is how he hates cartoons, so prefers to make an animation using rotoscoping instead.
Are the obstructions helpful in making creative work, or are they stumbling blocks?
How might this film help you make your own work?
Are the obstructions helpful in making creative work, or are they stumbling blocks?
Again, it seems to vary from each obstruction. After the first obstruction -- the limit of 12 frames for each shot -- Leth says he treats it like a gift. However, Leth does seem to feel somewhat limited in how he treats the obstructions; he wants more freedom than he is given, as shown with his decision to go with a transparent screen in the second obstruction. He often also sees them as walls to work around like this, and seems to have the most fun when he's given total freedom. However, he creates entirely different works each time, so there's no doubt that they get him thinking in new ways.
How might this film help you make your own work?
It's helpful in that it gives a new lens with which to view obstructions or rules that feel restricting when it comes to the creative process. Rather than seeing them as limiters, it's important to see the rules as something that can be utilized to create a new and interesting work with a mindset the creator hadn't previously had.
The Five Obstructions
1. Jørgen Leth handles most of the obstructions fairly well, with the exception of the second one, which he only partially completes.
2. I think the obstructions can be helpful in making creative work, because it gives the creator some guidelines that they must create within, thus giving direction to their ideas.
3. I think that this film reminded me a lot of being in a college art program, where most projects have set guidelines and instructions. Although they may seem limiting, I think they help me focus my ideas.
2. I think the obstructions can be helpful in making creative work, because it gives the creator some guidelines that they must create within, thus giving direction to their ideas.
3. I think that this film reminded me a lot of being in a college art program, where most projects have set guidelines and instructions. Although they may seem limiting, I think they help me focus my ideas.
The 5 Struggles...I mean Obstructions
1) Jorgen Leth is successful in my opinion with the fourth film the most even though he hated cartoons. He struggled with all of them though because of the obstructions. Granted, being successful and finishing a project are to different things.
2) I think the obstructions are stumbling blocks for the time being, but in the end they make him a better more creative person for the long run.
3) This film could make my work more creative if I had someone or myself lay out a list of certain rules to follow. It reminded me of an artist whose name I forget, but the artist would make directions, or in this case obstructions for other artists to follow/create. Seeing as how we are all complex individuals, although we'd be given the same instructions, the resulting piece would come out different from one another.
2) I think the obstructions are stumbling blocks for the time being, but in the end they make him a better more creative person for the long run.
3) This film could make my work more creative if I had someone or myself lay out a list of certain rules to follow. It reminded me of an artist whose name I forget, but the artist would make directions, or in this case obstructions for other artists to follow/create. Seeing as how we are all complex individuals, although we'd be given the same instructions, the resulting piece would come out different from one another.
The Five Obstructions
1) I think that Jorgen tries to push the boundaries and limits of the obstructions as much as he can. He believes that he can run with the guidelines and push the edges, when in reality Von Trier is looking for obedience to his instructions. Jorgen proved to not be so happy about having to follow these strict obstructions.
2) At first, the obstructions seem to be stumbling blocks for Jorgen because of his desire to color outside the lines and use all of his creative ideas in the films. After some time though, I believe the obstructions are seen as something to use in a positive way. They can become ideas for great creative films.
3) This film made me think differently about obstructions I come across in my life when I'm creating a project. Instead of trying to avoid this obstruction, it may be in my benefit to work with it and find a way to use it to my advantage.
2) At first, the obstructions seem to be stumbling blocks for Jorgen because of his desire to color outside the lines and use all of his creative ideas in the films. After some time though, I believe the obstructions are seen as something to use in a positive way. They can become ideas for great creative films.
3) This film made me think differently about obstructions I come across in my life when I'm creating a project. Instead of trying to avoid this obstruction, it may be in my benefit to work with it and find a way to use it to my advantage.
Art of Noise
How does Russolo understand sound and noise? Has this changed your understanding of it?
Russolo understands noise and sound to be an made items. He believes nature is mostly silent and that in lies our fascination with music and noises. In a way it has but I think nature is quite noisy. A walk in a "quiet" woods is nothing but. If you're lucky you hear the day to day life of nature. skittering and screeches of birds being only a few.
How is he using language to make this essay a sonic experience?
He places bold words at opportune times.
What are the "categories of noises" that he describes
He describes 6 types of noises that are not made by traditional instruments but by what we may hear on a day to day bases.
Cass Sumera: Art of Noise
How does Russolo understand sound and noise? Has this
changed your understanding of it?
Russolo believes that noise and sound has changed over time
and that sound is now different from sound made before the 19th
century because of the introduction of different types of machinery that can make
noise such as cars. Russolo uses the word sound-noise to describe making sounds
without the use of traditional instruments. He also talks about a futurist
orchestra in which the six categories of sound that he describes will be
incorporated and will expand beyond the traditional categories of instruments.
Basically what Russolo believes is that enjoyable sounds no longer consists of
sounds made by traditional instruments but can be made by sounds that we hear
from everyday life.
This has changed my understanding of sound and noise because
usually when I think of sounds that I want to listen to I think of music made
in traditional ways. I don’t often think of sounds made from cars or crowds of
people as something that I find enjoyable to listen to.
How is he using language to make this essay a sonic
experience?
In order to make his essay a sonic experience, he tries to
use many descriptive words that make it so that the reader can hear sounds in
their heads while they are reading his essay. He also uses lots of language that depicts
sounds such as “Pouah”, “Tatoumb” and “Zang-Toumb-Toumb” in order to make the experience
of reading his essay a sonic experience .
What are the “categories of noise” that he describes?
The six categories of noise that he describes for the
futurist orchestra are:
- Roars, Claps, Noises of Falling Water, Driving Noises, Bellows
- Whistles, Snores, Snorts
- Whispers, Mutterings, Rustlings, Grumbles, Grunts, Gurgles
- Shrill Sounds, Cracks, Buzzings, Jingles, Shuffles
- Percussive Noises Using Metal, Wood, Skin Stone, Baked Earth, Etc.
- Animal and Human Voices: Shouts, Moans, Screams, Laughter, Rattlings, Sobs
How does Russolo understand sound and noise? Has this changed your understanding of it?
It seems Russolo looks at sound as art through its spontaneity. Thus sound noise is more beautiful than musical noise, etc. As a violinist of quite a few years, I am gagging at his portrayal of the symphony and believe that he's being closed minded in ONLY his opinions of the use of musical instruments. They are man-made as well, which seemed important to him in the concepts of noise sound.
Heavy onomatopoeia, especially in that paragraph that he just makes noises/sounds for a while.
What are the "categories of noises" that he describes?
sound noise vs musical noise
It seems Russolo looks at sound as art through its spontaneity. Thus sound noise is more beautiful than musical noise, etc. As a violinist of quite a few years, I am gagging at his portrayal of the symphony and believe that he's being closed minded in ONLY his opinions of the use of musical instruments. They are man-made as well, which seemed important to him in the concepts of noise sound.
How is he using language to make this essay a sonic experience?
Heavy onomatopoeia, especially in that paragraph that he just makes noises/sounds for a while.
What are the "categories of noises" that he describes?
sound noise vs musical noise
How does Russolo understand sound and noise? Has this changed your understanding of it?
Russolo explains the difference between noise and sound. He writes that noise is constant in our life, and sometimes unpleasant, yet familiar. Sound is removed from our every day life, a foreign and musical experience.
How is he using language to make this essay a sonic experience?
He uses intense imagery and very specific language to arouse certain emotions and cause readers to imagine very specific sounds to accompany these words.
What are the "categories of noises" that he describes?
The categories of noises that Russolo describes are noises that are completely organic and unable to be accurately reproduced by technology or machinery. Noises like snores, whispers, gurgles, moans, sobs, etc. cannot be replicated by anything non-human.
Sound
Art
Riley
Patrick
This was an interesting article; it
laid out some interesting ideas about what art can be. I was fascinated by how
the author could weave science and art in and out of each other.
For me, the problem with discussing
so much science was that it brought me out of the art and into the world of
technology. Having jargon like nucleus did not help convince me that sound art
was in fact art.
I think the author also brushed
over many issues with musical noise, such as its unpleasantness. You cannot
bring up a concern and then say “The objection if futile, and don’t intend to
refute it.” One must talk about the issues in new artwork, not simply shrug and
ignore them.
One aspect of the paper that I was
not impressed with was the lack of discussion about other artists. There was no
mention of artists working in this field. It was only about this author’s perspective
on an art form. Art is not about just one person’s perspective and because of
this choice the article is much less strong.
I do not
think this paper did a good job convincing me that noise is art nor telling me
about the art form. The language choice was inaccessible and too varied. One
minute the author is talking about the violence of battery’s and the next he’s
discussing how the author personally wants to regulate sound. The paper was not
direct but skirted actually talking about the art form in favor of pretentious ramblings about how we require sound art. I was not a
personal fan of this article. I was not impressed with it and did find it
helpful in discussing sound art.
Noise
How does Russolo understand sound and noise? Has this changed your understanding of it?
Sound has evolved over time, it has grown from what was initially intrigue over small sounds in the almost silent natural world. He thinks that there needs to be an expansion of orchestration to include all noise. It is something that can be created by chaos and disorder. We need to refine our view of the music from that of the awestruck masses. As someone whose taste in music is pretty ecclectic I feel like this wasn't much news.
How is he using language to make this essay a sonic experience?
The writing was musical
in times laid out
to create a sense of whimsy and flow
much
onomatopoeia
What are the "categories of noises" that he describes?
"rubbed string instruments, pinched string
instruments, metallic wind instruments, wooden wind instruments, and percussion
instruments"
Noise
Russolo understands sound to be musical and noise to be just a part of every day life.
This has changed my understanding of it because before if I heard something that no one else heard, I would ask "Did you hear that?" Based off of Russolo's definitions of sound and noise, I can clarify between the two. He makes this essay a sonic experience by utilizing words like "Tamtoumbs, poumtoumb, boum, and sang-toumb." It becomes like one is reading a set of bar notes a conductor has fabricated. There are 6 different categories of noises he describes which are in my opinion 1) Destructive noises. 2) Peaceful noises. 3) White noise. 4) High pitched noises. 5) Inanimate object noises. 6) Organism noises. After reading this, it makes me want to listen more attentively to the world around us.
This has changed my understanding of it because before if I heard something that no one else heard, I would ask "Did you hear that?" Based off of Russolo's definitions of sound and noise, I can clarify between the two. He makes this essay a sonic experience by utilizing words like "Tamtoumbs, poumtoumb, boum, and sang-toumb." It becomes like one is reading a set of bar notes a conductor has fabricated. There are 6 different categories of noises he describes which are in my opinion 1) Destructive noises. 2) Peaceful noises. 3) White noise. 4) High pitched noises. 5) Inanimate object noises. 6) Organism noises. After reading this, it makes me want to listen more attentively to the world around us.
The Art of Noise
How does Russolo understand sound and noise? Has this changed your understanding of it?
From what I noticed, Russolo sees and understands sound and noise as if they are completely man-made and can only be comprehended by man. He has stated that nature is generally quiet so the only time noise is audible is when it's intentional. I think he makes a very good point, most sounds that are made are made by humans. Music probably would not exist if it wasn't for humans and our technology.
How is he using language to make this essay a sonic experience?
What are the "categories of noises" that he describes?
These categories of noises are noises that are currently not able to be reproduced through human technology, or mechanically. The categories appear to be: noises that are created from primarily the environment, noises that can be made from animals that are not necessarily voice but are through the mouth and have a mild volume, sounds made from humans generally and are low in volume, sounds that often come from the environment when influenced by a creature's action, unique percussive sounds, and uncommon animal/human sounds that are often higher in volume.
From what I noticed, Russolo sees and understands sound and noise as if they are completely man-made and can only be comprehended by man. He has stated that nature is generally quiet so the only time noise is audible is when it's intentional. I think he makes a very good point, most sounds that are made are made by humans. Music probably would not exist if it wasn't for humans and our technology.
How is he using language to make this essay a sonic experience?
He uses onomatopoeia effectively for action sounds in order to describe a scene and provide depth. The words he is using as onomatopoeia can only be translated as such through the reader's experiences with such sounds. If the reader never heard a BOUM sound prior to reading the article, the reader may not comprehend the scene that is trying to be portrayed by the author. He also includes verbal dialogue to add what the characters in his narrative may be thinking or saying.
These categories of noises are noises that are currently not able to be reproduced through human technology, or mechanically. The categories appear to be: noises that are created from primarily the environment, noises that can be made from animals that are not necessarily voice but are through the mouth and have a mild volume, sounds made from humans generally and are low in volume, sounds that often come from the environment when influenced by a creature's action, unique percussive sounds, and uncommon animal/human sounds that are often higher in volume.
The Art of Noise - Luigi Russolo
How does Russolo understand sound and noise? Has this changed your understanding of it?
From what I gather, he approaches a sort of scientific view with an artistic lens to sound and noise. He believes that we, as artists, are limiting ourselves in how we create sound-based art; specifically, instruments. He sees noise as all the sound we haven't approached artistically or musically yet, however, he still applies a sort of musical view to noise. It seems to be that he believes that, while we should take noises from our surroundings, they should still be isolated and vary in pitch and tone to create sound-based art. I do believe we integrate this some in our music today; a lot of electronic music can sound like noise, and scat and hip hop have focused more on the sounds we make with our mouths. Movies have also opened up atmospheric sound design a lot, and have expanded on it past just the idea of "music" in a way.
From what I gather, he approaches a sort of scientific view with an artistic lens to sound and noise. He believes that we, as artists, are limiting ourselves in how we create sound-based art; specifically, instruments. He sees noise as all the sound we haven't approached artistically or musically yet, however, he still applies a sort of musical view to noise. It seems to be that he believes that, while we should take noises from our surroundings, they should still be isolated and vary in pitch and tone to create sound-based art. I do believe we integrate this some in our music today; a lot of electronic music can sound like noise, and scat and hip hop have focused more on the sounds we make with our mouths. Movies have also opened up atmospheric sound design a lot, and have expanded on it past just the idea of "music" in a way.
How is he using language to make this essay a sonic experience?
He uses both scientific and musical words to describe sound, surrounding us with both ends of the spectrum. He refers to the organization of it -- referencing tone, pitch, rhythm and harmony -- and how sound is physically created, such as vibrations and movements/materials made to make noise. He keeps our minds focused on both of these aspects to help open us up to more possibilities for what noise can do. Furthermore, he always provides examples of where to go for new sounds just to paint a picture in our mind; he references a hospital, giving a setting, he lists things like rivers and cascades as well.
He uses both scientific and musical words to describe sound, surrounding us with both ends of the spectrum. He refers to the organization of it -- referencing tone, pitch, rhythm and harmony -- and how sound is physically created, such as vibrations and movements/materials made to make noise. He keeps our minds focused on both of these aspects to help open us up to more possibilities for what noise can do. Furthermore, he always provides examples of where to go for new sounds just to paint a picture in our mind; he references a hospital, giving a setting, he lists things like rivers and cascades as well.
What are the "categories of noises" that he describes?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)