SO CLOSE, SO CLOSE, SO.... AHHHH

i knw how dis cat feelz

Funny Reaction From Frustrated Cat - Watch more Funny Videos

Just workin

So I filmed the rest of the video this weekend-filming is officially wrapped.  Now Im just editing.  I have about 15 hours in on it, it needs another 40 or so.  Im not worried- it'll get done.  Other than the filming I have to print and frame my photos, finish the drawing, collect two of the other four artists work, and frame her set of work.  Thats it.  I wasn't planning on sleeping anyway.

just something

I can't remember where I got this from (it most likely was sent to me by a fellow artists [Sudak] who sends me a lot of un-ignorable things.  This little conversation was from an interview of Gerhard Richter on his art and his opinion of art.  Though it bares no specific correlation to the themes of my IP, I think it is still relevant.  It struck me suddenly now (instead of whenever it was he sent this) because I [we] am graduating in 6 weeks. We cannot call ourselves art students anymore, we [if we so chose] are now artists, and there's an interesting conundrum between creating and selling.  Creating work, and creating as a job- providing for yourself, via your art.  There is no solution, and Im not going to be silly enough to even offer an opinion about that, I just like what Richter says:

So, I've talked previously about the fact I am working with a collaborator, but I have not expanded that idea yet on this blog. In conjunction with that, it's also important to talk more about the final direction of the exhibition, and how that corresponds to collaboration and the formation of artist-groups.  Its become apparent to me that in order to really talk about these ideas of alienation and the formation of collectives present in the work, my final exhibition cannot only be of my work, but has to include the other artists I work with, and have collaborated with, in order to attack the idea of autonomy in production, and drive home the concept of the collective.  Here is a bit from my thesis where I talk more extensively about these ideas:

The key component to all my work, is addressing that it is not done alone.  Though the concept of Primitivism was meant to break apart traditional hegemonic ideologies, it should also be noted that it was a westernized self-invention of the concept of otherness.  This would be problematic, if the success of the envisionment was not dependent on the creation of the ‘family’ in that otherness.  The characters in the pictures were marginalized and alienated because of their invented otherness, and so they formed a collective- a family in which to thrive.  This is a representation for the artist.  The artist commonly works from a marginalized position, but finds other artists to work with in order to breed ideas, sympathies, and ultimately collaborative work.  I address this familial building relationship in the photos, and again reiterate it in two more films produced that expand on these same ideas of alienation and marginalization and the collective and family that rises from that.  The collective not only challenges the ideas of the autonomous ‘genius-artist’, but also recognizes the collective as fostering an artistic wellspring.  In finality, this concept is brought to full actualization through the final exhibition of work.  In recognizing the collective, I am curating three other artists (two of whom are not in the Art and Design Program) into my allotted exhibition space- all of the work exploring the ideas of alienation, marginalization, and the formation of families or collectives, while conceptualing concreting it in show. 

Update

So the final film is now underway, but it has changed a lot from the synopsis I wrote about earlier.  It is still dealing with the same topics of alienation, marginalization, and the communities or families that form from that alienated position, but it is handling the subject matter differently.   What was problematic with the previous synopsis was that I, as  the filmmaker, was envisioning a completely made up concept of 'otherness', then trying to detail the faulty exploitative nature of the film maker trying to inform an unaware audience of this made-up otherness.  But that's what it is- it is a made up or created otherness that i wanted to pass off as genuine in order to place fault with the filmmaker and that ethnographic type of film making.  But since i had to create the otherness in the first place it  doesn't come off correctly.  Especially with the ending being as it was- the boy, alienated by the civilized world, tries to return to his group but finds hes no longer welcome.  The double alienation results in his death.  In this ending ' the other' bears the persecution, not the filmmaker, or that type of film making.  The camera must be turned more retrospectively on the filmmakers and it must be obvious they have created this vision of 'otherness' for the purpose of the film.

better than the ramones

heres the latest film dealing (aesthetically very differently) with the same themes of alienation and the families that form from that presumed alienation:

http://vimeo.com/9308511

Should have posted this before the film synopsis

Even though this post should have been listed first, because I wrote it before I finished the film synopsis, I still wanted to post it in defense of the last photos critique of fashiony... their is ans wa a reason..

Here's some thoughts:

“I”dentification: alienation, and assimilation

 

The term of  “otherness” is a principle of alienation- it is the idea of the outsider: something outside of civilization, outside of normative culture and influence.  Why do we love and hate fashion? Because it can (outwardly) visually identify us as alienated from one sect of people, uninfluenced by what they wear, and, in turn, what they care about. (Fashion after all is a form of self-expression, no? Isn’t that why we tell children who want to wear tie-die, velvet, overalls with knee-high socks and a bucket on their head that its ok to go to school like that, and then send them off to be knowingly slaughtered by their minature, khaki-wearing peers?)

If I wear skinny jeans, side-buckle boots and a colorful grandpa sweater I found at a thrift store to school do I believe I am setting myself apart from, and essentially against, every Barbie doll in a Northface coat? They are what’s normal so I will wear what they don’t- fashion is a way to express an alienation from their lifestyle because we are constantly trying to individualize ourselves. Here’s why that’s problematic: I am trying to disassociate myself from a group of people that I have no interest in otherwise. Why should I re-act to them, when they are rarely present in my daily thoughts? Are they the dominant culture? Who said so? Well, any walk through a cold, campus town will tell you that every other girl looks exactly the same with her stick-straight hair, long down coat and tan boots, so somewhere along the line they became a normative dictation of fashion and youth.  What really grinds the gears of the affected “disaffected” is really their blatant disregard for any attempt at individuality spurred on by a greater desire for a peacock display of their affluence (favoring a monetary affluence over intellectual profusion).  But besides, forget the Northface clad clan, because the second you strip them of their 200 dollar jacket the outfit they have on underneath is rarely something you couldn’t find at any clothing store in your immediate vicinity- the point is, their lives are governed by an implied and carefully regulated standard for what is good, bad, acceptable, normal, and appropriate.  In living by these rules they are not only enforcing their pervasiveness, but also inexplicitly extricating what is not normal..what is “other” (“other” in their normative terms being an extreme negative) (“Defining the norm is [an] instrument of control of idiosyncrasy”-Dave Hickey) Why is this relevant to artists and otherwise creative people- because usually our commonality is a disunification from dominant regulated culture.

    

     So my subconscious inclination towards thrift store clothing rises out of an unacknowledged rebellion from traditional westernized ideals, right? Well, that’s why we hate fashion too- the second you call me a hipster, my gut violently reacts- because you have essentially placed me in another group of people- you have defeated my alienation- I am no longer set apart- just set in a different part, rather. 

So why is “primitivism” making its way back into art and into our lifestyles? Because creative people are re-assimilating it as a principle signifier for otherness, for alienation.  It draws on the idea of cultures untouched by civilization-untouched by the carefully regulated rules of society-a way of life that is not governed by hegemonic culture. It also has an association to the lower or working class- infusing low brow culture. You see a six-point deer skull and may think ‘primitive’, but my best friends dad who lives in the middle of no-wheres-ville Saranac, Michigan, sees a successful deer-hunting season and a lack of taxidermy funds. 

     

    What I am not interested in...? People who are naively, narcissistically and superficially self-absorbed. Indulging ideas is ok when they are not stupid ideas.  If everything you talk about is in context to your own stupid self image, you are simply boring to everyone else who is not you.  You are not alienated in any way, you are not marginal, or unique.  If all you think about is how your “Mary Kate wardrobe” sets you apart from everybody, and you think talking about drugs in the public sphere is a way of dictating to others how much of an outcast (I use this word sensationally because here it is meant as a positive association to alienation and in turn a self-developed sense of ‘individuality) you would be completely incorrect in your assumption that you are marginal or special.  You only care about your cool sense of fashion because others will see it and think how different you are and you talk about drugs and cigarettes (first and foremost because you have nothing actually interesting to say and there is a societal stigma that says drugs are radical and the young people that do them are neato! so you must be interesting for talking about it) because you want to bend peoples perception of you- ultimately it all comes back to you as the centralized theme.  Why does this matter to the first part… because what I am talking about is harmless hipster culture.  People who have self-proclaimed an otherness that is not internalized and therefore renders its radicalism no more destructive (in a good way) than a Northface jacket.  These people have assimilated a challenging idea and have dumbed it into something numbing, and static; incapable of revolt.  These stupid vapid narcissist make me more angry than any ugg-wearing Barbie, fake-baked a nice toner orange.  Why? Because they don’t even pretend to give a shit about radicality, difference, separation, alienation, culture clashing, uprising, or otherness.  At least the Barbie's complacently follow the crowd and dare I say, they are grateful someone has established a set of rules to govern their lives so nothing gets too out of hand or messy for them- this way the hardest choice they will have to make is whether it will be cosmos of margaritas Thursday night.  But those that have taken something that once stood as a direct affront to tradionalized life, something that once lopped the heads off of those that presumed to regulate and govern how everyone should live, have assimilated a potent idea into their own vapidity and completely bastardized its significance.  NOW, let’s redirect the violence.