remodernism is a reaction to that mammothine (sic) beast postmodernism, according to my quick and dirty wikiperesearch (sic, again).

the remodernists call for a (re)infusion of emotion and “spirituality” into art. they see (that other mammoth-like creature) modernism as having had the potential for this, but never succeeded before it was squashed out by the popularity of pomo.

the ideology of remodernism can be discovered lurking in the fringes of the film world as well, with such remodernist filmmakers as jesse richards and nicholas watson, harris smith, and wolf howard, and has included the recent work of (famously No Wave Cinema) filmmaker amos poe.

the remodernist movement grew out of what is popularly known as the stuckist movement in art, a pseudo-revolutionary movement whose own STUCKIST MANIFESTO called for an end to the cynicism of conceptual and pomo and a rejuvenation of a deeper and more spiritually profound direction in art.

the stuckist name and subsequent manifesto was inspired by a quote from Tracey Emin:

“Your paintings are stuck,
you are stuck!
Stuck! Stuck! Stuck!”

here’s a trailer for amos poe’s EMPIRE II (2007), which is a kind of follow-up to warhol’s own EMPIRE (1964).

Brandon Herman, Larry Clark, and Ryan McGinley are three photographers whose work focuses on youth, identity, and sexuality. Their photographs range from overly stylized to rather understated, but it is the subjects of their lenses that make their work stand out. Each chooses a subject (usually young people, often men/boys, with a varying range of homo-eroticism) that is compelling to look at and also depicts that subject in a way that implies something that is more-than-meets-the-eye.

Miranda Purves of the CBC pointed out in an article on Larry Clark that there is perhaps something “sinister” about his photographs of young people, which is an attack that could be fielded against any three of the photographers showcased here. When photographically depicting young people in relative states of undress, the photographer is treading on ethically shaky ground (it would be so easy to accuse him of exploiting such subjects). This is one aspect of their bodies of work that makes these artists so popular and has given them their respective states of fame (everybody loves scandal!!). But is it too easy? They seem to have the formula down pat: take photos of nude youths — get fame, fortune, and notoriety.

A recent article entitled Young Gay Rites in the New York Times Magazine explores gay marriage and the phenomenon of young gay men settling down together in the hetero-tradition of married life. The article seems to (at least subconsciously) pose the (rhetorical) question: Are the gays going straight?

The article comes at a pertinent time for me, as I’ve recently been exploring the issue of queer identity through my own long-term relationship with my boyfriend. We’ve been together for over eight years now, and though we are not officially “married”, we do lead a lifestyle that is effectively as committed and codependent as if we were.

This is short video I made at the Emily Carr Institute (where I am currently a third-year Film/Video/Media Arts major), exploring the ideas of commitment and difference:

FUNNY GAMES is Michael Haneke’s 2007 remake of his 1997 film by the same name. It’s a shot-for-shot replica of the original, however this time with American actors instead of German ones. The plot synopsis is simple: an unsuspecting family is mercilessly tortured and murdered by two young men. And that’s the extent of the film’s action. The film runs just under two hours.

Both versions of FUNNY GAMES are unrelenting in their portrayals of the scenario — and in that way, we as the audience are tortured along with the on-screen family. We are submitted to a rather unflinching gaze, although very little of the violence is directly shown, but it is nonetheless viscerally portrayed through sound, reactions of the other characters, cuts away, etc.

Because of the intensity of the portrayal, and the seemingly pointlessness of the torture/murders, one is inclined to ask, “What’s the point? Why subject me to such degradation without redemption?” And I think this reaction is valid, and eludes to one of the possible “points” of FUNNY GAMES, that being violence is unnecessary and its portrayal in the entertainment media is often pointless and essentially degrading to the audience and the society that has produced it. FUNNY GAMES illuminates the institution of violence within the world of movies, and by taking its own representation to such an extreme end, exposes the problematic nature of that institution.

Of course, not everyone is going to get that out of a viewing of FUNNY GAMES (either the ‘97 version or the ‘07 one). Some people are going to dismiss it for garbage, and that’s valid too. On one level, it is garbage. The story events are despicable and the characters of the murderers are equally deplorable. A person might not need to watch this sort of thing to realize that murder is wrong, or that Hollywood is ethically vapid, or even that certain representations of violence within the media are excessive and glorify the subject.

But that should not detract from the importance of FUNNY GAMES as a critical text within cultural discourse. In a dialectical way, Haneke’s films are an antithesis to the thesis that is the standard across the world of entertainment. What is the synthesis? If nothing else, a renewed awareness of one’s own position as a viewer and a consumer of information mediated by popular culture. And hopefully, one will come away from FUNNY GAMES with a newfound propensity to think and be critical of what one is taking in through the movies one watches, the music one listens to, and even the blogs one reads …

As another part of that discourse check out Jim Emerson’s blog about FUNNY GAMES (2007).

this VIDEO HAIKU was constructed by myself, incorporating appropriated images, sound, and text.

the subject of appropriation has come up in some of my previous blog postings.  is appropriation ethical? is art supposed to be ethical? appropriation has a long and contentious history in art making and the art world. my VIDEO HAIKU speaks to identity and self discovery — but also, through my use of appropriation, brings into question how personal identity is constructed? it also raises concerns around originality and authenticity in the realms of art, the artist, and the individual.

the artists represented in my VIDEO HAIKU are Attila Richard Lukacs (images), Animal Collective (sound), and Kijo Murakami (text).

I made this short piece from footage we shot in Video Art class during our bluescreen workshop.

Video brings what happened into the what’s happening.

Louise Poissant positions the role of video in her article Video: Writing History as “an electronic pen … [that] makes events” (Poissant 190). She distinguishes a pre-video “era” by a specific ideology that “separated a deed and its description, reality and fiction, history and history writing” (Poissant 190), which boundaries the introduction of film and video blurred, confused, and even erased. There is an immediacy inherent in video that lends itself to this end.

Poissant also suggests that video “manages to open up space” through “installations and … video environments” that re-position the viewer into the world brought into being by the medium (Poissant 191). The She also touches on the “fragmentation” encouraged by video as it allows for the articulation of multiple (and sometimes simultaneous) subjectivities, and opens a discourse for many points of view to be witnessed and expressed (Poissant 192).

More critically, if video is as Poissant states “a tool used by many artists to introduce and explore something different, slices of other cultures … [to write] segments of histories” (Poissant 193) then what is to be believed, and whom or what information is to be trusted? And if video can be used as a “tool … by … artists” cannot it then be used as a weapon by ideologues to control and construct information and subsequently wield power over a group or nation?

Optimism is a good thing, and like Poissant I believe in the power of video to build identity, define relationships, and unite peoples and groups (Poissant 194). Video gives the individual the ability to re-evaluate her “limits and borders” (Poissant 194) and to deconstruct those limits and re-position himself over such borders, if not altogether to make them disappear.

Cited:  Poissant, Louise.  “Video: Writing History”  Video Re/View: the (best) source for critical writings on Canadian artists’ video.  Eds. Peggy Gale & Lisa Steele.  Toronto: Art Metropole, 1996.

My good friend Brenna just had a little baby boy, Ezra! I’m so proud of, happy for, in awe of her! She’s the best! This is the silliest post ever, but I don’t care! Yay Brenna!