Project 6: Photography: the new reality

(Sorry about the delay. I've had problems uploading images onto my blog - will build on the descriptions of the paintings)

This week’s task was to read, Photography versus Painting by Osip Brik (pp. 470-473 of Art in Theory).

Osip Brik (1888-1943) was a Russian literary critic and formalist. In Photography versus Painting, he argued that photography was in the position to eclipse painting as a means of representing reality. This also causes Brik to attack a contemporary revival in figurative painting.

Birk believed photography superseded painting because of its precision (faithful reproduction), speed and cheapness (Compared to painting). At the time the essay was written, the mid-1920s, colour was still unique to painting. Still, it could not reproduce more faithfully as photography as it could not transpose ‘real/natural’ colour. Photography was unable to falsify objects by giving them the wrong colour.

The skill of painting relied on mimesis until the invention of photography, and then the aim of painting was not to be identical to reality; but a recreation through imitation e.g. impressionism, cubism etc. If painters just copied reality they would be accused of copying the techniques of photography. Photographers capture life.

According to Brik, photographers have an important task. He hails them with social importance and calls them ‘humble workers’. They are removed from high art because of their commission work.  Obviously, this is to do with Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Brik states it is wrong for a photographer to pursue painterly effects as ‘he moves away from the faithful reproduction of nature and submits to the aesthetic laws which distort this very nature’. Ultimately, he wished for a new theory on the art of photography that was independent from the laws of painting.

Do you think that Brik’s article points to a practice that was taken up by photographers or other artists to any great extent?

No, I don’t believe that Brik’s ideas were taken up extensively by either photographers or artists due to the suppression of his work by the state.

Regardless of his article, the ‘humble’ photographer now has the status of a painter. Painterly effects, most importantly composition and perspective, are used by photographers due to it being a visual medium. The medium of photography changed with the introduction of colour, as photographers can be subjective in their use of colour. Back to the point, even Brik’s contemporaries, especially A.M Rodchenko (1891-1956), instead of photographing reality, he chose to manipulate it (in Rodchenko’s case photomontage and the creation of ‘dynamic’ images: an influence of the conceptual artist Barbara Kruger). For example, look at the contemporary intertextual use of Rodenchenko’s 1924 of Lilya Brik.

Despite, the popularity of Constructivism and the avant-garde following the October Revolution this period of formal experimentation in the Soviet Union didn’t last long. Photography still represented reality during Stalin’s socialist-realism but so did painting become figurative once again, this time to glorify the workers. Though, I can see his article pointing to a practice that could be taken up by photo-journalists.

It should be noted that sanctioned Soviet art can be considered in one form or another as political propaganda, espousing the ideology of the party.  Even Brik’s article can be seen as informed by Marxist-Leninist ideology and its influence on art and culture in the early Soviet Union. The support for the camera (importantly, it is wholly reliant on technology), links in with the mechanisation of the Soviet state.

Do you find any resonances with Brik’s ideas in contemporary discussions of photography and painting? 

Yes I do find some resonances of Brik in contemporary discussions of photography and painting, especially in the area of representation. Although written in late 1970s, I feel some resonances in Susan Sontag’s On Photography; especially, ‘In Plato’s Cave’. Which, still holds relevance to contemporary discussions about photography in the ‘Digital Age’. Both Brik and Sontag are trying to theorise the essence of photography and its relation to reality. Though I understand critical discussion has changed and developed since the writings of Brik and Sontag

I think an interesting application of Brik’s ideas about photography and painting would be to artwork and advertising in relation to Postmodernism.

To try and create a cohesive study plan I try and link with my OCA projects with my selective reading on film studies. This week, with the exploration of photography’s superiority in representing reality, I though appropriate reading was the French film critic, André Bazin’s ‘The Ontology of the Photographic Image’. Bazin’s conclusion is that photography allowed Western painting to achieve aesthetic autonomy as it was no longer obsessed with realism.

Find two examples of images that demonstrate the impact of photography on painting.
Annotate them noting, in particular, how the images acknowledge the shift in visual culture that came about with the advent photography?

I have chosen two images that demonstrate the impact of photography on painting. It is generally accepted that Modernist painting began as a reaction to the development and widespread use of photography. Painting was no longer enslaved to mimesis, which was inherent in photography. I have chosen paintings by French Post-Impressionist painters, Paul Cézanne and Henri Matisse which acknowledge a shift in visual culture because of the advent of photography.

Mountains in Provence (L'Estaque) c.1879 (oil on canvas); Paul Cézanne (1839-1906)

There is a distinct lack of stylistic elements (e.g. shading, outline) to suggest solidity in this landscape. Pure primary colours would, still endanger the illusion of reality so Cézanne uses natural tones. Ultimately, it gives the affect of tranquillity.

Still life with a Red Rug, 1906 (oil on canvas); Henri Matisse (1869-1954)

·     What I find important about Matisse is his vivid use of colour compared to the Cézanne. This still life has a table full of objects. The figures are distorted and almost simplified with simple outlines.  The use of red creates a warm affect.

Both pieces of art do not constitute to mimesis as in a photograph, they constitute to a subjective form of reality. There is a clear shift from the objective representation of reality in painting because of the advent of photography and its ability to document. Instead there is a distinct shift in visual culture between photography (a mass art form) and painting. Both [Clement] Greenberg (Modernist Painting, 1960) and Brik implied what constitutes as Modern art.

Bibliography


Bazin, Andre. (1967) What is Cinema?: Volume 1. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press

Brik, Osip. (1926). Photography versus Painting. In: Harrison, C  & Wood P. (eds) Art in Theory, 1900-2000: an anthology of changing ideas. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Cézanne, P. (1879). Mountains in Provence (L'Estaque). [Painting]. National Museum, Wales.

Gombrich, E.H. (195) The Story of Art. New York: Phaidon Press.

Matisse, H. (1906). Still Life with a Red Rug. [Painting]. Musee des Beaux-Arts, Grenoble, France.

Extended Reading Summary: Political Economy and Mass Culture Theory

 - Project 6: 'Photography: the new reality' will be posted tomorrow -

As I have recently been introduced to Marxist cultural theory, through the course the OCA, I thought that I would do some further reading in my spare time about mass culture theory.

Before I summarise my research, I would like to state I am aware that both Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall were critical of mass culture theory. Firstly, Cultural artefacts (including) are products of industry, which are part of a wider economic and political system.

Mass culture theory began in the 1930s and 1940s and it developed as a way for critics to make sense of new mass cultural forms, a product of industrialisation e.g. cinema, radio and television. Commercial interests now governed the consumption of culture as it had become an economic activity.

Critics argued that as the conditions of production were based on a search for economies of scale, cultural forms had become standardised and homogenised. A result of this is standardised audiences responses. This rise in an audience for mass culture is usually seen as cultural decline. An example of the insidious nature of mass culture would be the cinema; its success wholly reliant on technology, through mechanical reproduction, evident through industrial production and mass distribution.

Important early theorists to this movement belonged to The Frankfurt School. For example, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer believed mass culture was dangerous politically and a threat to aesthetic standards. They felt a need to explain why Capitalism, in spite of Marx, hadn’t collapsed. The context for their pessimistic attitude towards mass culture can be seen in part as a reaction to the conditions in Germany during the 1920s and 30s. They also applied the values of European avant-garde aesthetics to the culture industry.

This culture industry, they believed, had become integrated with the capitalist economy and had transformed into a new and powerful mechanism for control.

I have made extensive notes from:

Bibliography:

Adorno, T.W & Horkheimer, M., 1979. ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception’ From: Dialectic of Enlightenment, pp. 120-167. London: Verso.

Garnham, N., 1987. Concepts of Culture: Public Policy and the Cultural Industries. Cultural Studies, 1(1), pp.23-37.

Hollows, Joanne., 1995. Mass culture theory and political economy. In: J. Hollows, M. Jancovich ed. Approaches to popular film. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 15-36.

Hollows, J. Hutchings, P. Jancovich, M. eds., 2000. The Film Studies Reader. London: Hodder Education, pp. 1-6.

Macdonald, D., 1964. ‘A Theory of Mass Culture’ From: Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America. Rosenberg, B. & Manning White, D. (eds.) pp. 59-73. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Stam, Robert., 2000. Film Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Part I: A2 Film Studies Small Scale Research Project - Ken Russell (2009-2010)

As part of my A level Film Studies study I undertook in my A2 year some original research. This was part of my FM3 coursework. The project consisted of an annotated catalogue, which included evaluations of our sources, and a power point presentation (although the presentation was not marked).

The small scale research project was to apply learning from other areas of study within the course and develop work around a pre-existing interest from your studies in film.

The contexts of our structured research included: Star/performer; Genre; Auteur (in the broadest sense); Social, political and cultural studies; Gender Issues; Ethnicity; Institution; Technology.

I chose the auteur project context as my area of investigation. I had the opportunity to expand my understanding and knowledge of the film director, Ken Russell. I chose Russell, as it would be original for a piece of A' Level coursework because there is little knowledge of his work within my age group.

As part of the research we had to make notes on both focus (and related) films and research resources (specific libraries and archives, books, magazines, websites and people). I made several trips to Staffordshire University Library but there was little information in texts regarding Russell so I had to purchase those I eventually used. A bibliography of these texts is included at the end of the slideshow.

Further texts I would suggest about Russell, because I have since read them, are Keith Barry Grant’s 'The Body Politic: Ken Russell in the Eighties' (1993) and P. Church Gibson & A. Hill’s 'Tutte e marchio!': Excess, Masquerade and Performativity in 70s Cinema’.

I have posted this to demonstrate my research skills and self-motivation. Hopefully, this shows my engagement with film as an academic subject. I really enjoy doing research and hope that I will be able to do something of a bigger scale when I attend an undergraduate degree course in the future.

Bibliography

Casey Benyahia, Sarah. Gaffney, Freddie and White, .John., 2009. A2 Film Studies: The Essential Introduction. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge

Church, Gibson P.  & Hill A.  'Tutte e marchio!': Excess, Masquerade and Performativity in 70s Cinema’ in Robert Murphy (ed.) The British Cinema Book. 3^rd ed. (London: BFI, 2009).

Grant, Barry Keith, 'The Body Politic: Ken Russell in the Eighties', in Lester Friedman (ed.) Fires were started: British Cinema and Thatcherism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993).

Part II: A2 Film Studies Small Scale Research Project - Ken Russell (2009-2010)

Here is the main part of my small scale research project, the annotated catalogue. What frustrated me about the specification is that it ignores the greater part of your research: the note taking. I spent hours watching and analysing Russell’s films to then only be able to choose three; which I flippantly had to evaluate.  It also shows no evidence that I actually took the time to annotate and select the written sources that suited my argument.

This research would have been more productive if an academic essay was the result of it. I guess this is the problem with A’ Level study, the curriculum is too restrictive to the mark scheme. As a result It only allows for schooling (your only to taught to pass an exam, the institution only interested in the league table- the politics of education?) which does not have the ability to provide scope for a wider education.  I understand that this then becomes the role of higher education.

I can only apologise for any grammatical, lexical or errors regarding my syntax. I have posted this coursework unedited from when they were originally submitted.

…………………………………………………………………………………

Stewart Williams: A2 FILM STUDIES (FM3) – Annotated Catalogue: ‘Excess: An Investigation into Ken Russell’s Status as Auteur’


FILMS

Item 1:  Women in Love, 1969. Film. Directed by Ken RUSSELL. UK: Brandywine Productions     

This is Russell’s third feature and in my opinion his most accessible film. Russell has adapted D.H Lawrence to his unique, although I believe in this case relatively tame, cinematic style.  I feel there are already themes and stylistic techniques evident in this film which are later repeated in his work. I consider his cinematic style, themes and issues addressed had already been developed while working as a director for the Monitor and Omnibus arts programmes for the BBC throughout 1960s.

Item 2:  The Devils, 1971. Film. Directed by Ken RUSSELL. UK: Russo Productions.

I consider this text as the premature peak of Russell’s directorial talent, this being his most self-indulgent film which is considered his ‘masterpiece’. I feel the style and tone has more to do with European Auteur Cinema than of British Cinema of the period. Over time The Devils is still a Controversial film, dealing with religious corruption and political power, I have concluded it is reaction to Russell’s own personal disillusion with the Catholic faith.  Although a historical film I feel the issues are still prevalent today. A weakness of this film is that it is not in its complete form, denying the spectator Russell’s original vision, as the studio imposed cuts upon it’s theatrical release. The film was adapted from two sources: The Devils of Loudon (1952) by Aldous Huxley; and the stage adaption, The Devils (1960), by John Whiting.  I regard Russell successfully adapting source material by applying his unique, and personal, cinematic style through his manipulation of mise-en-scene, themes and issues.

Item 3:  Tommy, 1975. Film. Directed by Ken RUSSELL. UK: Hemdale Films, Robert Stigwood                Organisation Ltd.

Russell had previously directed a musical (The Boy Friend, MGM, US/UK 1971, Dir. Ken Russell), which although commercial unsuccessfully I feel transcends the source material by becoming a pastiche of Busby Berkeley, and was renowned for his distinct biopic’s of classical composers. As a commercially successful mainstream film, I feel Tommy is perfect example where Russell has to comprise his artistic vision with that of another; Pete Townsend. I am impressed how Russell translates The Who’s concept album Tommy to fit into his own themes, by imposing his visual style.

BOOKS

Item 4: BAXTER, J., 1973. An Appalling Talent: Ken Russell. 1^st ed. London: Michael Joseph.

This book consists of part critical analysis and part interview with Russell up to the making of the film Savage Messiah (Russ-Arts, UK, 1972, Dir. Ken Russell). The interview is focused towards Russell’s style of direction and the meanings thus created in his work so I did gain insight into his directorial methods. I found this piece of research useful as Russell discussed both Women in Love and The Devils so I had on offer the preferred reading of the films.

Item 5: GOMEZ, J.A., 1976. Ken Russell: Adaptor as Creator. 1^st ed. London: Frederick Muller.

This essential piece of research which I have used extensively as not only is it a critical perspective of Russell’s work but it also provides an argument regarding Russell’s status as Auteur. Despite only covering his films up to the date of publication, which limited the choices of films to choose, I feel this was Russell most creative and innovative period. I believe the majority of the films he directed after the 1970s, unlike his television work, were diluted products as he lost his ability to shock but they are still distinct enough to be recognised as Russell’s work. This is the most useful piece of research in the catalogue.

Item 6: LANZA, J., 2007. Phallic Frenzy: Ken Russell and His Films. 1^st ed. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.

I found this piece of research very useful as it is an up to date account of both Russell and his work. As analysis is integrated with biography, I feel the text is not for an entirely academic audience; sometimes it can become difficult to decipher between biography and analysis. I conclude this is the most accessible book written about Russell, not only because it is the most widely available but also in its simple tone. I found it useful as it put the meanings of his films in context with events in his personal life which have impacted upon his filmmaking.

Item 7: MUNDY J., 2007. The British Musical Film. 1^st ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

This intriguing piece of research is a critical analysis of musicals made in Britain. I found this useful as there was a small section entitled: Ken Russell, visual excess and visions of dystopia (pages 226-231). I feel the approach of setting Russell against the conventions of the musical film shows how different, and personal, his approach to the genre is. The section mainly consists of analysis of two films, The Boy Friend and Tommy (one of the texts I have focused on), and their context not only within the musical genre but also within Russell’s body of work.

Contribution from Books

Item 8: FISHER, J., 1976. Three Masterpieces of Sexuality: Women in Love, The Music Lovers, and The Devils. In: T.R. ATKINS, ed. Ken Russell. London: Monarch Press 39-68.

The analysis of the three texts suggests to me common themes in Russell’s films regarding sexual motivation of the characters and how they have been represented through the photography and mise-en-scene. The essay has provided me with analysis of key scenes from Women in Love and The Devils, although they support Fisher’s argument. This essay led to some of the other material selected in the catalogue.

Item 9:  GOMEZ, J.A., 1976. Russell’s Method of Adaption: Savage Messiah and Tommy. In: T. R. ATKINS, ed. Ken Russell. London: Monarch Press, 69-98.

I conclude this essay is a discussion of how Russell adapts source material and shapes this into his own unique cinematic style while retaining original themes and issues and contributing his own. There were limitations with this source as it only discussed the adaptation of Tommy from concept album to film and how Russell incorporated elements from other projects that didn’t get past the development stage. There was no analysis of the film itself. This was a good introductory piece of research regarding Tommy and I feel this has been revised and expanded on in Gomez’s Ken Russell: Adaptor as Creator.

Magazines

Item 10: WILLAMS, L.R., 2007. Ken Russell: Sweet Smell of Success of Excess. Sight & Sound, 17 (7), 28-32.

This was the starting point of my research as it was the first text I had read about the director in light of watching his films. The source is an overview of Russell’s entire career in light of his tendency to overindulge himself when filmmaking. This article follows a linear progression regarding ‘excess’ in his cinematic style. I understand as this source is part of magazine, even though it is from specialist film periodical, it is an introductory text.

Broadcast Media

Item 11:            Hell on Earth: The Desecration & Resurrection of The Devils, Film Four International. TV, Channel 4. 2002.

This is an important piece of my research as it chronicles the making, the meaning and the controversy surrounding Russell’s film The Devils. It provides context of the atmosphere the film was made in and from this I have realised Russell’s ambiguity towards the meaning of the film as an audience can decipher several readings. I found this source useful as it includes contribution from not only Russell himself but also members of the cast and crew.

Websites

Item 12:            FISHER, I., 2001. Savage Messiah: Ken Russell [online]. Available from:
http://www.iainfisher.com/russell.html
[Accessed 10 October 2009].

I found this an invaluable resource as it has helped me immensely with my research. It not only has a moderate filmography, which has basic analytical information about Russell’s work but details books and essays related to his career. This was useful as could use it to locate material when conducting my research. What is especially interesting is that it contained a table of themes and which films they appeared so it easier to group his works together. Without this research I would have found it difficult to trace some pieces of research.

Item 13:            RILEY, J.A., 2009. Great Directors: Ken Russell. Senses of Cinema [Online], 51. Melbourne: AFI Research Collection. Available from:
http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/09/ken-russell.html

A recent publication that I stumbled across which I have found integrates well with my previous research. This Article is an overview of Russell’s career, arguing he should be considered a great director and despite the varied nature of his work there is a distinct authorial voice that runs throughout it. This is relevant as this is the nature of my presentation.

Deselected Material

I found the research concerning Ken Russell difficult as he is not well discussed and there has been little written about him compared to many popular or contemporary film directors. Russell’s peak decade of directorial power was in the 1970s, where it can best be argued about his authorial voice, so majority of the academic research I have found was written within this period. Firstly this makes it quite difficult to attain research about him and secondly it has made it quite hard to deselect material.

The materials I have deselected include work written by Russell himself about his career. His autobiography, A British Picture: an Autobiography (2008. 2^nd Ed. London: Southbank Publishing), I feel does not provide insight in to the reasons behind why he made his films and the meanings he sought to create. I believe it lacks depth as it merely contains anecdotes about his personal life and what happened while in production. Another book by Russell himself I have deselected is Directing Film (2001. 1^st ed. Dulles, Virginia: Brassey’s Inc) as again it deals with anecdotes this time regarding ‘The director’s art from script to cutting room’. Although I feel the source does give some insight into how Russell directs a film, it does not contain material that I could have used within my research.

The film Critic Alexander Walker’s account of the British film industry in 1960s, Hollywood England (2005. 1^st ed. London: Orion Paperback), does contain a review of Women in Love but I believe it quickly descends into a biased attack on Russell’s further work as he saw the self indulgent style as a negative aspect. Although I respect a different opinion on Russell’s work I do believe this source would have been detrimental to my argument. I have deselected further articles from Sight & Sound as they only mention Russell briefly when discussing other directors so to me there is not enough information to use as research. I did not use the BFI’s Screenonline profile of Russell (http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/467596/index.html) because I concluded that it was not detailed enough to use as research though a good aspect of it was that it contained many links to other pages on the website regarding Russell’s work on British television.

Part III: A2 Film Studies Small Scale Research Project - Ken Russell (2009-2010)

Part 3: The Presentation, ‘Excess: An Investigation into Ken Russell’s Status as Auteur’

Here is a copy of the presentation I created for my small scale research project (FM3) as part of my A2 Film Studies coursework (WJEC).

 The investigation, ‘Excess: An Investigation into Ken Russell’s Status as Auteur’, was an original idea. As part of the specification we had to address authorship in the broadest sense (no distinction between Truffaut’s la politique des Auteurs and Sarris’s auteur theory), let alone the complexities of authorship and authorial interpretations within film.

 Cinematic style, themes and key issues are addressed and then applied to three of Russell’s films. My aim was to not only show the similarities in Russell’s work but also the amendments, to demonstrate the complexity of his work.

Ultimately, this coursework contributed to my grade A’ coursework and my A’ Level Film Studies cash-in grade A’.

Ken russell as an auteur

View more presentations from sjwtwin.

Project 5: Art as Commodity

Commodification of the art or cultural object

Marx had a particular view of ‘commodity’ that has informed many views of the consumer society and can be seen to have an impact on the way the collectors of artworks see their desire to collect. 

In summary of Marx (Marx, K.  Das Kapital Vol. 1. 1867), there is nothing mysterious of a commodity’s value being in use.  As a product of human labour its property is to satisfy human desire. Man, by industry, transforms raw materials into a commodity, something that is transcendent from its raw state. This transcendence does not originate from its use value or its production labour because a commodity has no distinction between quality and quantity. The aesthetic form, the character of the product, assumes the form of commodity as human labour is render equal and expressed objectively. Meaning, fetishism of commodities consists of objects seeming to have value inherent in them because the commodity’s form alone connects producing units in the market society, via exchange value; value produced by labour. This puts the power of the workers in definite social relations of production.

Also it is important to stress that the value relation between the products of labour, the commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with material relations arising there from.   The fetishism of commodities arises when the products of labour are inseparable from the
the production of commodities.

·         Can you see ways which this may help us understand the art market?

Yes, I can see this helping me to understand the art market. Though art has never been entirely separate from commerce as Marx and Engels addressed in The German Ideology (1845-1846). Where they stated art was not produced by great geniuses, but simply another form of economic production (evident through patronage e.g. Rembrandt).

It makes sense that art being a commodity is a product that is harvested, extracted or created in order to be sold for profit.  Today, as creative output can be seen as a commodity to be traded does profit become a supplementary factor in the creation of modern art?

Maybe this is the only way capitalism can accommodate art’; reduced to an ‘investment opportunity’, rather than existing for its intrinsic qualities.

Again to repeat myself, in a post-modernist culture, is the determining factor for the creation of contemporary art its ability to generate revenue and profit?

It is important to note that Hungarian Marxist philosopher George Lukas (1885-1971) – No, not Star Wars! – Developed Marx’s idea of the commodity fetish in, History and Class Consciousness (1923); I think this better explains the nature of the art market.  He proposed things could only be understood in a capitalist society in terms of their exchange value in money and objectification.  Though, he allowed for commodities of symbolic capital i.e. prestige.

Lukas also believed in that in the absence of socialism, art is only way to counter commodification because it mediates between the individual and totality, as it inherently relates to both. Isn’t this ignored, as art is sold on a market?

·         Does the article above go any way to explain the sort of work made by artists such as Jeff Koons? Find a couple of examples of artists who work in a similar way to Koons?

The article, by explaining the creation of commodities, explains the context which allows work to be made to by such artists as Jeff Koons (b. 1955). I believe it can be further explored by the work of the Frankfurt School, especially the work of Theodore Adorno (1903-1969) and Max Horkeheimer (1895-1973).

The concept that art and commodity refines social relationships was developed by the Frankfurt School, who focused on popular art and culture. A key example would be the work of Adorno on the culture industry. He believed that art can be used to pacify and co-opt the working classes, to spread dominant ideology.

On the other hand, Horkheimer (in, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception), proposed that  Capitalist societies produce cheap standardised art that pacifies the mind; making individuals focus on fulfilling false needs, the desire for consumer goods, than to achieve human potential (i.e. T.V, Radio, Film, Mass Media).

Maybe the work created by Koons and others uses irony and ambiguity to challenge Horkheimer’s viewpoint. This idea that post-modernism draws from ‘ahistorical economy of images, subjects, and other representations’ (Carol Armstrong in ‘Visual Culture Questionnaire’, 1996: 27).

Art as commodity is referenced in Koons work, for example Aqui Barcadi (1968) which is in the style of an advert. Advertising uses elements of visual culture to sell commodities. Koons, deliberately makes a work of art that could be denoted as an advert. Could this be seen as ironic; a reference to capitalisms commodification of art.  I tend to agree with him, as it is evident in the saleability of his work in the art market.

Another similar artist who works in a similar way, in regards to treating his art as commodity, is Damien Hirst. Both Koons and Hirst use a team of other people to construct their art work (called art fabrication), this equates as regardless of the labour value of the artwork it is objectively equalled under the persona of the artist.  Does this equate to Marx’s theory of alienation? Also the conception of their work is taken from the ‘ahistorical economy of images, subjects, and other representations’ of post-modernism. Interestingly, they have both been accused of plagiarism.

I think one of the first artists, an influence on both Koons and Hirst, who worked in this way (both in production of his work and what it represented), was Andy Warhol. Warhol also commented on art being a commodity e.g. Campbell’s Soup Cans (1962).

Obviously, I have not discussed the Pop Art movement in general, as from my initial knowledge I consider not such much a comment on art as commodity but more of an exploration of the distinction between high and low art.

A reaction against commodification in art has caused some modernist movements, including Minimalism and Conceptualism, to actively develop practices that it make difficult for this process to happen.


Further Investigation

·         Capitalism infringement on the visual arts (i.e. change in advertising in the 1960s – an adoption of intertextual) in the epoch of post-modernism.

·         How the work of the artist Bansky has gone from alternative, ‘Street’, art to something of a commodity as it is desirable on the art market.

Bibliography

Barry, Peter. (2009) Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp.150-164.

D’Alleva, Anne. (2005) Methods & Theories of Art History. London: Laurence King Publishing.

Koons, J., 2010. Jeff Koons. [online] Available at: < http://www.jeffkoons.com/> [Accessed 03 October 2010]

Marx, K., 2010. Das Kapital Vol. 1: SECTION 4; THE FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES AND THE SECRET THEREOF. [online] Available at: < http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#27b> [Accessed 03 October 2010]

Evans, J. and Hall, S. ed. 1999 Visual culture: a reader. London: Sage Publications

A Selection of this week’s cultural activites (27/09/10 - 03/10/10)

It’s important to see these activities in context with the work I am undertaking with the Open College of the Arts and the Open Studies Department at Warwick University.  

Films

Billy Rose’s Jumbo (Charles Walter, MGM, USA, 1962)
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, RKO, USA, 1941)
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (Phil Lord and Chris Miller, Columbia Pictures,USA,2009)
Double Take (Johan Grimonprez, Nikovantastic Film, BE/GR/FR, 2009)
Imitation of Life (Douglas Sirk, Universal International Pictures, USA, 1959)
Madame X (David Lowell Rich, Universal Pictures, USA, 1966)
Miller’s Crossing (Joel and Ethan Coen, Twentieth Century Fox, USA, 1990)
Soulboy (Shimmy Marcus, Ipso Facto Films, UK, 2010)

·         Double Take was a very interesting idea. Though fictional, it could be considered in the same arena as Adam Curtis’s films. I think the theme of doppelgangers was in line with Hitchcock’s the ‘wrong man’ theme but more specifically the doppelganger is present in Shadow of a Doubt (Alfred Hitchcock, Universal Pictures, USA, 1943).  This is evident in mirroring of the characters, Uncle Charlie and his niece ‘Young Charlie’. It could be suggested, that ultimately they represent the two sides of human nature.

Television

‘The Rejected’, episode four, Mad Men, fourth series, USA, BBCHD, tx. 29.09.2010.
episode two, Downton Abbey, first series, UK, ITV, tx. 03.10.2010
‘Will’s Dilemma’, episode three, The Inbetweeners, third series, UK, E4, tx. 27.09.2010.
episode four, This is England ’86, first series, UK, Channel 4, tx. 28.09.2010

Radio

The Film Programme, 2010. [Radio programme] BBC, BBC Radio 4, 01 October 2010 16.30.

'Lora Meredith' (Lana Turner) poses for an advertisement in
Imitation of Life (Douglas Sirk, Universal International Pictures, USA, 1959)

Reading

Mulvey, Laura. (1977). Notes on Sirk and Melodrama. Movie. 25 (Winter 1977/78) pp. 53-6
Wood Robin. (1989) Hitchcock’s Films Revisited. New York: Columbia University Press.

I’m not ashamed to say I’m a fan of melodrama. After being introduced to Douglas Sirk last year, I’ve developed a fixation on his work. I am also aware of the reconsideration of Sirk’s oeuvre in the 1970’s, in the light of feminism and psychoanalysis.

With the screening of Imitation of Life (Douglas Sirk, USA, 1959) this week, I decided to investigate Sirk a bit further, and dig out my copy of Mulvey’s ‘Notes on Sirk on Melodrama’’. Apart from now being able to understand the psychoanalytical analysis, I was surprised that it linked nicely in with my Open College of the Arts Project 5 (ideology and interpellation).

It states that 1950’s cinematic melodrama, through textual analysis, exposes ideological contradictions that undermine the film’s bourgeoise coherence. Specifically, having the ideological function to work these contradictions to the film’s surface and transforming them into an aesthetic form. 

This could be an example where ideology acts in an overt way in visual culture; especially in classical Hollywood cinema. Though, instead of reinforcing the hegemony of American culture it subverts it.
Image Source:
‘'Lora Meredith' (Lana Turner) poses for an advertisement ' [online] Available at: http://theartofmemory.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html/> [Accessed 09 November 2010]

German Expressionism (02/10/10)

The University of Warwick Open Studies Certificate: ‘Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies’; Term 1 “1895-1950: The Birth and Development of Narrative Film"; Week 2 (02/10/10)

Rooftops over an imagined "Holstenwall": Das Cabinet Des Dr Caligari (Robert Wiene, Decla-Bioscop AG, Germany, 1919)

This week’s sessions consisted of a two hour illustrated lecture given by Julia Larden, on German Expressionism. Cinematic texts studied were The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Robert Wiene, Germany, 1919)and Nosferatu (F.W Murnau, Germany, 1921). As well as discussing the artistic and historical context surrounding these films, we also were able to analyse key scenes.

As our analyses were concerned with the mise-en-scène, we were able to interpret cinematic Expressionism, both thematically and aesthetically, in terms of the artistic movements of Romanticism. As filmmaking is a collaborative process we discussed key personnel who help shaped an aesthetic for cinematic Expressionism.  

I had already had read copies of the some of the texts which were suggested, including: Kracauer’s From Caligari to Hitler, Lotte Eisner’s The Haunted Screen: Expressionism in the German Cinema (University of California Press, 1974) and Ian Roberts German Expressionism: Short Cuts (Wallflower Press, 2008). This was combined with my own private research. Sadly, I have not been able to read The Haunted Screen in entirety but I am aware of Eisner’s argument of the influences on cinematic Expressionism.

My private study this week has been to use various sources to research the movement of Expressionism which lead me to two further films, Pandora’s Box (G.W Pabst, Germany, 1929) and Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (F.W Murnau, USA, 1927), which although not part of the movement per se, were either directed by one of the major directors (Sunrise) or part of the following German film movement, ‘New Objectivity' (Pandora’s Box).


This is not the first time that I have been in contact with German Expressionism as I was fortunately able to study during my A’ Level Studies course (WJEC A2 Film Studies Module: FM4 German Expressionism). As well as studying the artistic, economical and historical context of German Expressionism, we also studied the movements influence on Hollywood cinema, especially as a stylistic trend.  Initially we conducted textual analyses of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu and Metropolis (Fritz Lang, Germany, 1927) but we then applied the aesthetic and thematic conventions to later American genre cinema, including: Melodrama, Sunrise (F.W Murnau, USA, 1927); Fantasy, The Fifth Element (Luc Besson, France, 1997); Film Noir, Gilda (Charles Vidor, USA, 1946); Horror, Frankenstein (James Whale, USA, 1931) and The Bride of Frankenstein (James Whale, USA, 1935); Science-Fiction, 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, UK/USA, 1968) and Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, USA/Hong Kong, 1982). We also discussed Expressionisms influence on the Tim Burton aesthetic through the consideration of Edward Scissorhands (Tim Burton, USA, 1990) and The Nightmare Before Christmas (Henry Selick, USA, 1993).

As we judged German Expressionism, in its initial form, as both a national and a form of Art Cinema which through its mise-en-scène and editing was an alternative to classical Hollywood continuity, we also studied Soviet (‘Montage’) Cinema of the 1920’s. We did not apply Soviet cinema to American cinema to consider its influence as we just accepted it as an alternative to the mode and style of classical Hollywood cinema.

I have not just treated this week as a refresh of my knowledge as I hope it will spur me to continue my understanding and appreciation of the Expressionist film movement. As I also admire the direction of Fritz Lang, I took it upon myself to investigate some of his earlier German work. I viewed Metropolis (Fritz Lang, Germany, 1927), Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler (Fritz Lang, Germany, 1922), a crime drama set in contemporary Germany, and Spione (Fritz Lang, Germany, 1928) which can be considered as part of the 'New Objectivity' movement.

Hopefully from here I can then privately explore the French Impressionist film movement and French Poetic Realism of the 1930’s.

Further research to be conducted in relation to German Expressionism:

• David Cook, History of Narrative Film,  Chapter 4 (‘German Cinema of  the Weimar Period 1919-1929’).
• Thomas Elsaesser, Weimar Cinema and After: Germany’s Historical Imaginary (London: Routledge, 2000), Chapters 1, 2 & 3.
• Thomas Elsaesser, Metropolis (London: BFI, 2000).
• Joseph Garncarz, Art and Industry: German cinema of the 1920s’, in The Silent Cinema Reader, pp.389-400.
• Andreas Huyssen, “The Vamp and the Machine: Fritz Lang's Metropolis” in After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture and Postmodernism (Basingstoke, Macmillan Press, 1992).
  
• Anton Kaes, “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: Expressionism and Cinema” in ed., Ted Perry, Masterpieces of Modernist Cinema (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006) pp.41-59.
• Anne Leblans, “Inventing Male Wombs: The Fairy Tale Logic of Metropolis” in Kenneth S. Calhoon (ed.) Peripheral Visions: The Hidden Stages of Weimar Cinema (Wayne State University Press, 2001).

Further research to be conducted in regards to Weimar era film theory (including: Béla Balázs, Erwin Panofsky and Siegfried Kracauer):

• Balázs, Theory of the Film [1930] (New York: Dover, 1970), pp. 39-45, 52-77 and 89-92.
• Panofsky, ‘Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures’ [1933], in Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen, eds., Film Theory and Criticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 151-69.
• Siegfried Kracauer, The Mass Ornament (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993): ‘Photography’ [1927], pp. 47-64;  ‘Film 1928’ [1928], pp. 307-22; ‘Cult of Distraction’ [1926], pp. 323-28.

Bibliography

Bordwell, David., Thompson, Kristin. 2006. Film Art: An Introduction. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. pp. 440-450.

Bordwell, David., Thompson, Kristin. 2009. Film History: An Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Chapter 5 ‘Germany in the 1920s’, pp. 87-104.

Casey Benyahia, Sarah. Gaffney, Freddie and White, .John., 2009. A2 Film Studies: The Essential Introduction. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. pp.162-183.

Coleclough, S. (2009). German Expressionism, FM4. [Lecture notes] German Expressionism. A2 Film Studies. Stafford College, Media Studies Department, Room T24, September.

Larden, J. (2010). German Expressionsim, [Lecture]. Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies. The University of Warwick. Open Studies Certificate. Stone Hall Adult Education Centre, 1083 Warwick Road, Acocks Green, Birmingham, 2nd October.

Hayward, Susan. (1996) Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 192-198.

Knight, Julia., Kuhn, Annette.  2008. ‘Weimar Cinema’. In: P. Cook, ed. The Cinema Book. London: BFI Publishing, pp. 208-211.

Kracauer, Siegfried. (1974) From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of German Film. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Marriott, James. (2004) Horror Films. London: Virgin Books. pp. 5-15.

Roberts, Ian. (2008) German Expressionism. Short Cuts. London: Wallflower Press.

Robinson, David. (1997) Das Cabinet Des Dr. Caligari. London: BFI Publishing.

Filmography

Das Cabinet Des Dr Caligari (Robert Wiene, Decla-Bioscop AG, Germany, 1919)

Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler (Fritz Lang, Uco-Film,Germany, 1922)

Faust (F.W Murnau, UFA, Germany, 1926)

Metropolis (Fritz Lang, UFA, Germany, 1927)

Nosferatu (F.W Murnau, Prana-Film, Germany, 1921)

Pandora’s Box (G.W Pabst, Nero-Film, Germany, 1929)

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (F.W Murnau, Fox Film Corporation, USA, 1927)

Spione (Fritz Lang, UFA, Germany, 1928)

A2 Film Studies Filmography

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Polaris, Stanley Kubrick Productions, UK/USA, 1968)

Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, The Ladd Company/ Shaw Brothers/Warner Bros. Pictures, USA/Hong Kong, 1982)

The Bride of Frankenstein (James Whale, Universal Pictures, USA, 1935)

Edward Scissorhands (Tim Burton, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, USA, 1990)

The Fifth Element (Luc Besson, Gaumont, France, 1997)

Frankenstein (James Whale, Universal Pictures, USA, 1931)

Gilda (Charles Vidor, Columbia Pictures, USA, 1946)

The Nightmare Before Christmas (Henry Selick, Touchstone Pictures/Skellington Productions Inc./Tim Burton Productions, USA, 1993)



Further Course Information: 

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/cll/open_courses/certs/filmandcinema/

Image Source:
‘Rooftops over an imagined "Holstenwall"' [online] Available at: < http://cinemasights.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/month-in-review-august-2010/> [Accessed 10 November 2010]