Friday, October 15, 2010
Decasia
Mash-ups are basically remixing existent art (sometimes other media that isn't considered art) and presenting it in a different, often augmented way. A lot of people thing this idea is really dumb, and that the original creator should be the only person who takes credit for their productions. I understand this argument, but I think that it is naive to hold this stance. I don't find the literal usage of other artists work much further away from an artist being extremely inspired by another artists work. I dont mean to argue that mash-ups are that simple either, they can be much cooler than that. I watched the film, Decasia, by Bill Morrison, and it was awesome. Basically, he took found footage and made an experimental film that brings the nature of decay to the forefront of our minds through the use of mashing together decaying old film and juxtaposing these obscure scenes together with an intense rhythmic soundscape. I found the movie extremely compelling and often terrifying. The sound was so intense and perfectly mixed with the video; it was really impressive. My initial response was that the film was like a David Lynch short film mixed with a Godspeed track. William Burroughs wrote an article about mash-ups and i found his position about how they are beneficial to the art world very similar to my own. Mash-ups can be used in a variety of mediums, even across mediums. The concept of the mash-up is an easy way towards understanding what experimental art can be. Rearranging finished products, or really anything, and reproducing it with your own artistic vision is very cool.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Decasia was interesting. Who would have thought of mashing up old decaying films and making one long film out of it? Who would have thought that those gooey decaying chemicals would naturally give eerie effects to the projections? The background music was perfectly synthesized with the film. The carefully timed entrance and exist of the music, the squeeky high pitched sounds, all of these details worked together to make this film phenomenal. I don't think mashing up is such an issue if we are talking about decaying anonymous films. I think it will always be an issue, however, if the original artist/owners of the found materials/artworks still exist and do not get credit.
ReplyDeleteIsn't there a difference between being inspired by someone and ripping off someone's work. I feel it is not fair for the original artist who pour their souls in order to attain whatever they have attained. The other "artists" just came by, copied it and published it as their own. It probably took the original artist 10 times the efforts and resources to produce it. Just put yourself in their shoes for one second, you just spent 10 years research on something and just got it finished and published. A guy who you don't even know found your article, tweaked it in an hour, and published it as his. The catch is, he is making more money from it than you. Fair enough?
ReplyDeleteI actually found the soundtrack to the movie abhorrent. It was purposefully out of tune in order to magnify the concept of decay, which is a cool concept in theory, but is completely repellent to watch for a full hour. I felt like the movie would have been much more enjoyable to watch with a more ear-friendly sountrack. I would like to know more about your stance about mash-ups than them being cool, why specifically do you like them so much? Do you think they convey something different than the original artist's intent? Do you have a standard for why you think mash-ups can be better than the original art they are composed of? Why?
ReplyDeleteEvan, I agree with pretty much all of what you said about the film. I thought the soundtrack, though piercing and unpleasant at times, fit the film perfectly. The combination of images, sounds, and the decay of the film was superb.
ReplyDeleteConsider too that when first released, the film was projected and the composition played LIVE. In some ways, by including the soon to melt away Movietone reel footage, Morrison has given it visibility and helped it survive on into another century. If one artist remixes another cultural object to make it new, does it not point to that cultural object's significance? It's worth referencing, commenting upon and reconsidering in a new way, etc.
ReplyDelete