14_0308 post 112
Caught Odyssey by UK’s The Paper Cinema at Komunitas Salihara tonight. The hipster side of me was really entertained.
Watching them ‘performing’ animation with one screen taking the mainstage, with the animators (they call themselves “puppeteers”) playing with their paper figures in front of cameras to animate them real-time, while the musicians playing live, all facing the main screen + their backs towards the audience, it got me thinking about the value of transparency. By opening the kitchen of animated movies to the audience, rendering them as performance, they question the form of animated movies as products, recorded + spread out effectively. Instead of designing, recording, producing, syncing once + reaping the most of out it by selling it to anyone who is willing to consume it, they ‘perform’ their animation, only once at a time. If we understand art as a one-off exclusive phenomenon, then their practice could be understood as artistic. After watching all of the process as audience, it’s not difficult for anyone to do what they do. In this case, they are demystifying animation. Not surprising, a friend commented after the show, “Ok, let’s do what they do, no?”
Problems arise when these understandings were no longer the norm. If we understand movies not as objects, but as an innovation that already democratized entertainment industry—so now anyone can watch an opera—then what they do can be seen as a relapse. If we understand art as no longer a one-off exclusive object, their practice reintroduces high-cost economy into the stage one more time. The object is no longer special but the makers artists behind them are, so there is value in flying 5 peformers + crew members for two nights to Jakarta for anyone interested in what they are offering with a price of a ticket (if I’m not mistaken, they are going to continue their tour to Yogyakarta after this). It can be considered as the revenge of performers against major capital-owners: by playing live. But can it be done without offering exclusivity in return? And finally back to the notion of transparency: by making the meatgrinding process visible, does it actually demystify the sausage itself? Is it not another marketing gimmick? Letterpress printing in publishing, pinhole technique in photography. It’s like using morse-code as a form of protest against GMail privacy policy. Painstaking process introduces back high-cost economy.
Further, nothing in their set tonight can be said to be original. The story is an adaptation while their music + visuals are referential. I loved them for this, but then where is the irony? This, I realized, is bricollage in human spatial temporal scale, being done after Gaga did Dada. With so much stuff going on in one stage at the same time, this is entertainment for people who live with + for distraction. If entertainment today is comfortable distractions, art today needs to be entertaining in order to be popular.
All these are issues I am struggling with in my writing myself. Is there any value by making my writing method transparent? What kind of transparency am I talking about? On how things actually were made + work in order for people to built further on it (open-source Linux style) or as an aesthetic so people can cruise + moving on with what they really want to do with/on/in/at it (Mac’s iFascism)? I like the former as a concept, but I really appreciate the later as an experience. Does being clear that creating solely with affordable smart devices actually says that now anyone can create? Or is it still true that creation (+ therefore being creative) is indeed a luxury, to be achieved by those who have their basic needs fulfilled? Maybe, I know when I see it.
farid wrote on Mar 15:
Matt, yes. tX for the link. It's a great piece, summarizing a lot of difficult stuff + serving it as a really digestible form.
That bring the ‘popular’ question home. The base of my question is actually impact, I think. The populist imagination being reproduced by the channels Chris Hedges touched upon are the reality that has the biggest impact. How can we operate within these structures to expose how it works + reach that ekstasis? How can architecture operate in a condition where real estate exhibitions form the popular imagination? Should it oppose this by turning it back against the reality? I am trying to see that this is not the case. How? I'm still trying to find out. Maybe that's where I am right now. tX for the discussion. Keep it coming!
Matt wrote on Mar 11:
hmm, I wonder if art really needs to be popular, or rather, if being popular really serves art's best interests. Questions are often more interesting than answers. This also reminds me of the Chris Hedges quote. Gaga quoting Dada is nostalgia more than art - I think