14_0308 post 112
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?”
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.