L0lz l0lz ZOMG!!1! i hAvE 2 RitE mY fINA1 oN tHZ !!!!!!!!

ForestryIs8nice

ForestryIs8nice

Member
im serious. UC Berkeley final essay requirement for avantgarde film theory class.

flash_video_placeholder.png


if any of you guys think you can make a serious criticism of this SUPRl0lZZZ!!!!! please do. id love to hear what people have to say. for one, id say its an all out attack/joke on how people are subconciously fuckin immature little kids and it really cUMZ 0uT 0N dAA 1nt3Rn3t !!!11!1!!!!

at least writing papers at berkeley is fucking fun
 
Load Records has Yellow Swans, Lightning Bolt, Necronomitron...so it stands to reason they'd release something like that, haha.
 
It is a medium for a modern/graphic representation of how someone is feeling, Multiple things at the same time and such , descriptions of feelings that cannot be expressed in words.
 
The more i watch it the more i see, Eyes are a major thing because they show incredible amount of emotion, there are many sets of eyes and good ones with bad ones cancel each other out. I think the video quickly changes the viewers emotions via visual stimuli . Maybe in an attempt to share the view the creator is trying to get across, the real question you have to answer is how you feel after watching the video.
 
AHA this is fun, OK so the placement of the eyes above and between is a representation of your third eye, After going into the castle with your heart from the outside happy place ,you enter into a deep dark place with scary things, then the third eye comes in eventually and its a mixtures of happy and bad things and maybe its a way of blending the scary things which you see with your 2 eyes with the happy things you FEEL with your third eye in order to maintain a neutral position of existence. So i feel the third eye is your grounding conseince that protects you when you see bad things with your two eyes everyday. get it?
 
i would agree the combo of rando images creates meaning-of course. but like, wtf kinda meaning. maybe- how you feel when you fuck a fat chick? kinda crazy and fetishized b/c you dont care what she thinks but ultimately leaves you confused and angry at yourself? like that kinda meaning??
 
good question, i feel like that is is just the medium ,the meaning is more what should be taken from it because the animation is so ridiculous. But i guess because the artist took the time to create it such a ridiculous way then it has to mean something,i'm going to watch it again.
 
I'm starting to see a story, really basic intertwined with the meaning i got from above posts. I feel its shot in (90's crap because it was a story of the 90's, early 90's started off great , then got tough, then there was a death, then some happy times again, then a women shows up with something goign on , her vessels are showing maybe she had medical problems. Then he gets through that, i definatly see a journey, especially with the mummy walking around in a few frames, maybe he was moving around allot to deal with these deaths and sickness,Still getting through the rought times with his strong consious , Then in the end you see a single 3d triangle, the only 3d thing in the movie maybe thats the new millenium. Its high on the screen maybe it means he has high hopes for the future.
 
honestly i wish i could help but all i thought while watching it was "i hope i have some kind of revelation after waching this," and then after it was over all i thought was "i wish i could erase the last 3 minutes of my life."
 
ok, im going to have to watch this when im not blazed up, cause you made it seem real cool, but i didnt see it...
 
that sucked. why did u choose to make a essay about that shit. it was made poorly and is annoying. all i feel about that is its shit. and if u want a movie with the same contex but a million times better u should wach flashback. it is the sickest internet movie simlar to that one.

http://webzone.k3.mah.se/kit01051/flashback.swf
 
if anything it represents how revolting art has become in the sense that no longer do artists have to produce a completed form of their emotions/expressions for each piece of art. By reversing the roles of those who are producing meaning -- artists to viewer, the artist is free to throw together the sloppiest bit of work and call it done.

I'd say this is a good representation of the DSM IV -- or whatever version psychologists were using to diagnose people with mental illness in 06. Sure you want to be able to but your thoughts on canvas -- or rather in this case a you tube video, but it's shit. It's not worth the critiques time to try and analyze it. Is it enjoyable to watch a writer write, or to read a writer's scratch notes about the novel they'll compile from whatever outline they create? Is it worth going to a concert to listen to the artist who's trying to compose a piece of music from scratch?

By tryign to dig down deep for some sort of analysis of that video you are somehow recognizing it as valuable, but it's not. You don't have to have the perfect peice laid out with no room for interpretation, you have your solos, freestyles, jams, etc in music that alow the artist to go off and create something not predetermined. (i'm having trouble closing the authors analogy -- but i think my point stands clear) You walk a fine line between perfected work and spontanuity, a work fully devoted to one or the other is boring, unimaginative, and not worth your time.

the best mesage i think i can derive from that clip is -- don't do meth.
 
1. didnt choose this.

2. you dont think he intended the film to be of this quality? he got his MASTERS in ART from CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY- YA, the place where NASA goes to create its robotics. obviously the guys capable of creating art of substantial consequence. this was made this way for a reason, not because hes a little 6 year old with a penchant for clipart.

3. i would agree that it is a critique on modern art, especially with the exponential poliferation of media on the internetz. really, we as consumerists with loaded pockets have become demanders of instant gratification. with the increase in ecstacy use, techno music, and state of the art video games in HD on 60 inch TVs, wouldnt you agree we as consumers demand constant stimulation? a disgusting symptom of this is the degradation in quality of art- hence, clip art, and 16 bit. its become quantity not quality anymore. We'd rather look at an acid trip on you tube of fucking warping colors than ponder the brushstrokes of impressionist painters. a kid with a damn mac can amuse way more people on youtube than picassco could with a cubist masterpiece.

4. i showed this to my friend he said it was like a perfectly good acid trip interrupted by a seizure so ya- drug use- great. whatever, thats obvious

 
perhaps thats why it actually is valuable. because people do look at this and laugh and say "he he wow im smoking pot! this is good!" for those of us who can honestly look at those people and say, wow, this is what ART has become- shit. what is wrong with america. then take it from there in analysis that i am having a hard time coming up with. so lets pretend it is valuable because the film itself is conscious of its terrible terrible quality. now what does that say about art, us as viewers, the collective social consciousness in 2008? i am going to debate that this thing has substantial value - but why, not so sure
 
then again, theres a a school of thought out there i found out that says nah fuck the quality. the reason why people watch it is because it is of such poor taste. its appealing because its about the worst thing to come out of 1996.

and yet, theres another school of thought that says what was mentioned earlier, that it absolutely is not art and doesnt deserve an ounce of energy of thought.

id have a hard time arguing the latter though, because 1. the smart ass wouldnt have made it if he didnt think it was art and 2. it wouldnt have been assigned to me from the berkeley rhetoric department and constitute 40% of my grade if it was just another trip video

you could argue anything, thats why i came to ns cause lets be honest if you have over 200 posts then youve spent enough time in cyberspace to at least make an opinion on this thing.

 
you could talk about the paradoxical value it has, thus cover both sides of the playing field -- yes it's valuable if you take it as a satire on what art has become but it's also not really worth the time and effort because it encourages more 'art' to be created like it regardless of it's message

(dunno if you can draw Warhol references for a film class -- but because we validated his art, despite it being a satire against postmodernism (right?) it opened the doors for others to play the same tricks when clearly a mac ad -- or using the Warhol effect on your mac isn't the same)
 
valid point on the art comment

warhol had his own film movement, called structuralism. see sleep, empire, blowjob

it wasnt satirical, kinda unrelated to postmodernism in several ways...

by mac i meant the little camera on the top that lets you scream back at youtube videos

 
dude good luck on your thesis, it might be a bitch to put together, but it sounds like you'll throw together one hell of an argument.

Dunno how art classes work out, but hopefully you don't just have to preach to the choir for the guy. If you think you write up a solid paper i'd be interested to see it in some form in a blog post or another thread, hook it up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top