Technology and recording the world

 

Musings on technology and recording the world.

Since our last conversation I’ve been pondering, and enjoying the sensation.  There are lots of interesting concepts bobbing around in a sea of confusion/misunderstanding, and I’m wading around (I think my feet can just about touch the bottom) and attempting to retrieve some and dry them off on my damp sleeve.

As I’m not strictly speaking a ‘digital native’ (perhaps non of us have a choice now) ‘The Digital’ is something I’ve wrestled with pretty much since its arrival.  When I was training to teach I.C.T. I tried to figure out the differences between digital and analogue computers, so it’s interesting to consider what ‘analogue’ means in the context of image production.

I have a lot of home made cassette recordings of music I made in the 80’s and 90’s.  I guess this was ‘artisanal’ music making.  It was hands on, messy (imprecise), and the results were hit and miss.  There was no going back and correcting, just re-doing.  This became denoted as ‘8 bit’ recording quality.  It was full of noise.  As soon as the desktop computer arrived, I got one and installed a £250 sound card so that I could make recordings that more closely resembled ‘professional’ recordings.  I was more than happy to switch from the medium of 3.17 mm tape to a digital medium that offered a signal to noise ratio only available at very expensive professional recording studios.  What counted was making clear recordings where you could hear all the elements (even if you were working in the genre me and my friends jokingly referred to as ‘noise-racket fusion’).

If I found and restored a wax cylinder recorder it would be interesting to experiment with.  The crackle and hiss is evocative.  A recording of a Trump rally on this medium would make an effective social comment.  Early recordings of jazz were poor facsimiles as they were unable to capture bass frequencies.  The bass drum reverberations would make the recording needle jump.  I suspect (though have no direct knowledge) that this affected the development of jazz.  Singing style certainly changed when amplification arrived.  Crooning began, for better or worse.

So to what extent are we to go along with technological determinism?  And how might this impact on our investigations in to imaging the world, and the mediums we have to do this with? 

Steam is a technology that people don’t want to loose.  They rely on it to give them a nice day out whilst holidaying in areas of ‘outstanding natural beauty’.  There is something about a steam engine.  I was chatting to my retired photography technician friend the other day and was a little surprised to hear this Apple-toting technophile express a similar sentiment about the medium of film stock when compared to the very best that digital imaging can offer.  He said ‘there is something about film’.  An undefinable quality.  And this can not be reduced to measurable factors like dynamic range, though this does seem to become an important consideration where projection is concerned. 

I followed some click-bait to an advert for a 24k (yes really!) professional (‘Black magic’) digital camera recently, which was selling itself as equal to the dynamic range of film stock.  It was billed as a ‘digital film’ camera (not ‘digital video’).  The term ‘digital video’ is confusing, since ‘video’ is actually an analogue medium, despite being an electronic one.  It uses (used) magnetic tape.  Anyway, the camera was being advertised to high-end professional filmmakers and cinematographers, who, according to some web sources, are still opting to use film stock to capture their images.  The blurb talked of ‘exceptional low light capabilities’.  This is an area where film stock can not compete.  ‘No more rushing around to capture the last few minutes of daylight’. 

There are many areas however, where the digital medium can not compete.  There are horses for courses.  Am I sitting on ‘Becher’s Brook’?

'Trying to get technology to be a solution...'

From article on asthma inhalers:

The important thing to concentrate on is, what is the problem?” he says. “Solutions are the easy bit. What I worry about is people falling in love with the technology and then trying to get it to be a solution. Good design is always about understanding the problem first, and coming up with the solution second.”

Digital vs Film

 Affordances and Constraints in analogue and digital moving image production.

What are the experimental limitations caused by the relative immateriality of digital image making?  What are the creative affordances of film stock?  Is there an ideal meeting point between these two technologies, that optimises innovation in production and presentation?

By looking at the history of artesanal filmmaking and the impact of the digital revolution on this non-commercial artistic activity, I intend to interrogate both mediums and produce a series of films that illustrate the affordances and constraints of each that manifest themselves in the filmmaking process.

Moving image artefacts will be made in both mediums, and a comparative commentary will be written that describes processes and critiques results.  Reference will be made to current theories of medium specificity and the cinema apparatus.  

A compromise will be sought between the extremes of structural materialist forms and experimental narrative.  Alternative forms of presentation will be embraced to highlight the importance of scale and location on audience reception.

To what extent does a particular technology dictate how it is used, and what is produced by it?  What can be learnt by examining the historic uses of an obsolete technology?  Can this inform the uses of a current technology?  

What are the parallels to be found outside of the cinematic realm?  Look at the history of cars/typewriters/paper and writing/weapons?  What are the arguments about technological determinism?

Enough threads to weave a face mask?

Pulling together ideas into some kind of coherence is time-consuming.  Writing is part of that process, so as part of the discipline of research I think it is time to make a short note of the reading and ideas I am formulating.

Some important texts have come to light that have helped point the way in a bracken-laiden corner of the field of avant garde film.  Definitions are vitally important if the writer wants to ensure that the reader is on the same conceptual page and not just the word/pdf one.  What are we actually talking about?

'Film' is a metonym for all the associated practices involved in making, producing, distributing, showing and receiving a work of moving images with sound.  It is an outdated and confusing term, as 'film' in the original sense of the word, is rarely used as a medium for audio-visual works.  What is actually used is digital video.  Video uses electronics, not chemicals, to create audio-visuals.  The distinction is an important one, because there seems to be a confusion that has promulgated a lot of discussion, debate and academic writing.  

As a maker, I have no time for arguments over the authenticity of the medium used in making.  What counts is what you can do with it.  Film and video are just different.  No one is better or worse in terms of indexicality.  In fact, as an artist, indexicality is not of particular interest to me.  Film provides a material substrate that you can work on in the manner of for example distressing the canvas or sticking things to it.  Remarkable results have been achieved (see the usual suspects - Brackage et al).  

In 2020, using film is not widely available as an option to the average journeyman filmmaker.  It may continue in certain backwaters like mid-Wales or Cornwall (see 'Bait'), making the most of the bourgeois trend for artisanal making, but it is like fitting the metal rim to a wooden cart wheel compared to the Quick-Fit of digital video.  If you want to get 'From A to B (and back again)' forget the cartwheel.  That belongs in the craft park as a Sunday afternoon family outing curiosity.

The previous metaphor is apt, as the artisanal movement is associated with slowing down.  I am certainly for less haste, but I think speed is of the essence as 2020 comes to a close.  The Eco-catastrophe is upon us.  DV is misused everywhere, but is the go-to medium for the Eco-Artist.  It requires electricity to make works, but avoids plastic and chemicals, and is available to most people in the developed world.

Is this a face mask which I see before me?

In defence of the backwater.

 Radical filmmaking is important.  Radical films force the audience to confront their prejudices, question their perceptions, and form opinions that challenge accepted norms.

Film for film's sake.  Film made for deeper reasons than entertainment.

However, this form of filmmaking can alienate and confuse.  For some fundamentalists, this might be a test for the seriousness of a text.

Is entertainment bad?  Why? If an artwork entertains, is this a weakness?

Radical politics and radical filmmaking are bedfellows.

How does art change society?  By embodying ideas (making people think).

Does the revolutionary aid or hinder the evolutionary?

What does an analysis of history suggest?

How has radical film influenced visual mediums - modes and ways of seeing and interpreting.

Visual literacy has lots of parallels with literacy per se: it is intrinsically valuable, it enriches society, defines diverse cultures.

Poetry develops language and ways of communicating ideas.  It is a forum for radical experimentation with language.  It expands perceptions of the world.  This is true of radical film.

Paddling up a backwater is exciting.  There are difficult passages, past fallen trees, and up shallow rapids, but the effort is always worth it because it takes your head to a different place.  Radical film amounts to many backwaters that feed the mainstream, but only if they are regularly visited.  And there is always a way to get further upstream if you try.

Narrative shapes people's lives.  Narrative film reinforces common narratives (myths) that are often reactionary.  Radical film works with concepts.  Can narrative be a part of radical film?

A recuperation of narrative?

Is metafiction really the enemy?  Does radical film really need to define itself in terms that dismiss narrative and its apologists?  Is being 'anti-illusionist' its only justification?

I can't really believe anything I'm seeing on any screen, but I am seduced by moving images combined with sound, and let myself be entranced.  I know a painting is just paint on canvas, but I let myself drift off into the world of the painting.  I acquiesce, but know that I can move on from screen or painting at any time it suits me.

Re:structural/materialists like Peter Gidel - 

I suspect that there was an anti-acrylic paint group when this particular technology arose, populated by those who swore by the political, moral, and technical superiority of oil paints.  The material used to communicate ideas in artworks might not be not irrelevant, but is not very important either.  Acrylic and oil can happily be combined.  What counts is actually the content.

That was the climax of this particular blog post, narratively speaking.  There is no escape from narrative.  This next bit is the denouement - even the most apparently narrativeless films have a narrative.  It is the story of their creation, the context of their making, the history of their viewing audience, their influence on filmmaking, but also their content - if a blank screen has duration, it has narrative.  If a blank screen doesn't have duration, it still has narrative.  This is because narrative is the way everyone attempts to understand the world and navigate life.

There are backwater narratives that don't appear to have any story, but they still have meaning.

Project Nantlle Coed

 

Some films are made just for the maker, who is the only audience.  A private diary.  But film is a powerful medium, and impacts on society: governments across the world have a history of funding national film making. 

Question the whole cinematic apparatus: writing, making, marketing, showing, the audience.  Create ‘Nantllewood’?  Create a market by selecting your audience personally.

Fashion a structure for a cultural action group.

A kickstarter – 100 Audience members – An exclusive film for only those who sign up.  Each member is a director = ‘distributed direction’.

Options are offered to the closed group for the presentation of the film.

So – recruit a group of people who are to be the audience for the film that they will decide the structure/context for, based on the options provided / shared with them by the director (me).

Each member/fan pays a fee and has votes on what happens in the film and when.

Clips are provided for each one minute section to make 17 minute film.

17 sections of music are shared and voted on where they are played.  The ‘premier’ is by private internet share.

To question what the relationship of the audience is to a film – a reverse marketting of the medium?

To apply structural principles ( a set of rules that are predetermined) to a whole film production. (as opposed to narrative principles).

To document the whole process/project in a documentary film.

A cinematic cult who are chosen to be members, and who vote on various options for the film as provided by me.

To subvert the current industry model for filmmaking (or to usurp the current model and apply it to a radical context).

Mainstream film starts with the selection of a script that is judged to be a financial success.  (Or does it?)  This judgement is based on what has been a money-earner before, and on focus groups and market research.  Standard practice dictates that a film maker/director decides on, or has a clear concept of, the audience for the film.  For mainstream film, this is the biggest audience possible.  Thus, a children’s film that has reference to adult issues is a winner as both children and adults will enjoy it.

So maybe a mainstream film starts by analysing the market (audience) for a potential film, and then looking for a story/script that could meet the needs of the audience/production? Thus genre - ‘What kind of films do you like?

Statistics concerning who, demographically speaking, attends the cinema is also important.  So the idea of selecting an audience and letting them have a hand in making the film which is aimed at them is in one respect a radical framing of what happens in all funded, mainstream cinema, but also could be seen as a radical recuperation of the methods of capitalist cultural making.

The spectator vs the audience.

The private film whose only publicity/proof of existence is the PhD.

A three year project to make a film comparison about the film industry versus artist made films.  To apply radical ideas of structural film: that narrative forces identification and thus perpetuates the lie that everything is fine.

Filmmaking as a process.

Makers have developed various technical processes to produce interesting effects in the actual body of the film.  Options for experimentation in the other elements of process involved in filmmaking are available.  

The process of marketing and promoting: 

the process of writing/scripting:

Knowledge and the nettle situation.

Taking a walking route along ill-defined paths, and with a small scale map, in an area that is attractive but unfamiliar, is the kind of exploration achievable by everyone of reasonable fitness.  When navigation is easy, the journey does not engage the mind, and so is less satisfying.  If the way forward is obscured, judgement is required if backtracking, and it's associated waste of energy, is to be avoided.

It is in the nature of judgement that sometimes our decisions are incorrect.  We are forced to take responsibility for this fact, and allow for this when deciding to use judgement as opposed to more reliable forms of decision-making. 

So, when I find myself in a forest of nettles, with barbed wire in front of me and a steep and recently descended incline behind me, I revel in my self-created problematic situation.  I have created a situation - a problem - that I must solve, through further acts of will, by making judgements.

Experiential knowledge is used in times of navigational challenge.  This particular kind of knowledge is most emphatically learnt by getting lost, and lost in extremis.  In some ways, this is like taking responsibility for one's own learning.

I test my abilities to navigate, and these abilities in part rely on knowledge of how to get unlost.  A theory of navigation may be applied.  This might amount to principles, like following a watercourse, or looking for hard-to-see evidence that walkers have passed your way before.

Theories are utilitarian.  A good theory is useful.  It enables you to do something.  It enables you to know something.  It enables you to understand something.

Doing and thinking: Practice and theory

       Theory and doing: Thinking and practice