In your piece "R+J," you found the young couple, then had them remain still for an extended period of time. Why did you choose to make this an almost still film piece rather than a photograph?
In many of your pieces you chose to omit your voice and questions from the piece. In what ways does this absence strengthen or add to the piece? How would the viewer's perception change if your voice was audible? Was this your initial plan, or did it come about after editing the footage?
In your piece "R+J," you found the young couple, then had them remain still for an extended period of time. Why did you choose to make this an almost still film piece rather than a photograph?
Response:
After the lecture, I felt that slightly disappointed. Seeing as how none of her work is available to view online, I was hoping to see more of it. Also the fact that she was hesitant to show her work because of the poor projector quality was frustrating. I would be able to better understand her work if I could view some of her work in its entirety. I thought it was very interesting to learn that she used to be only involved in creating documentaries and how this falseness led her to create art. I also found it interesting how much she controlled the subjects. Before the lecture I assumed these people were just documented then edited to her liking. This answers the first question that I had. The lack of her voice makes these appear as small documentaries, but really she is "creating" these characters and their events by directing. My second question was not touched on but I think that the slight movements of breathing and ripples in the water add to the irony of the piece.
Three words to define Rudelius' practice and artwork:
1. Truth
2. Interaction
3. Control
The most interesting quote of the lecture was in reference to her piece "Economic Primacy." She said that finding the subjects was, "almost like a sport if I could get them." Finding subjects became like a game, full of excitement and challenge. She became exactly like the men she filmed. They are powerful, wealthy, and charismatic, and use these qualities to gain more. Their clients are money and they "sell" themselves to generate more wealth. Rudelius, in the same way, must "sell" herself to these men in order to be granted permission to film. While she wants these sort of clients for her art, instead of money, she does profit from this. She and these men are both business people.
Her piece "Rites of Passage," was the most compelling. It was such a strange relationship she showed/created between the older men and their young interns. The pairs talked in such a programmed language, it didn't seem human. Everything was a tactic, from their dress to their movements and expressions. It was all to emotional reach others and gain their support. The thing that I thought was most interesting about the piece was that she was manipulating the man, who was in turn manipulating the young intern. She calls the people in the pieces her "creations." I am wondering how much of that is true. While yes, she tells the subjects what to say and when to move, they still put part of themselves into it. She could tell ten people to do and say the same things. All would do it in their own individual way. Therefore it seems like somewhat of a collaboration between the two.
No comments:
Post a Comment