This is my word.
Comprehensive, flowing, intelligent. 3 words my essay writing lives by now.
Documentary practice focuses on the specific. It may make general claims but it ties these to the specific. Contemporary documentary is usually ‘arty-sociology’ or ‘arty-politics’, according to Adrian.
Epistemological act of violence in taking someone’s story and creating one of these documentaries. Insistence on narrative arc is inherent in this person’s life (digital storytelling). Manipulation of subjects for professional gain.
Become more specific. Go more narrow. Break it down to its parts.
Better soundscapes played with voice, eg. alliteration. Treat voice as something to be manipulated, another part of the soundscape.
Ants are more or less communists.
Technology is not separate from the human as it is spoken about in readings. Humans have always been technological.
Take one (narrow) part of the German soundtrack and enlarge it visually – bring Qs and problems on Thursday.
Fix the problems from your first soundscape in the next one – redeem yourself.
Qs: How do you make a list, a video list? What makes a good list? What makes a good list visually?
Creativity requires restraints. A six string guitar can’t make every sound in the world.
Adrian brought up James Benning in class on Thursday. This switched the reminder button back on which beamed the title “LANDSCAPE SUICIDE” in big neon lights intermittently, kinda like a combination of the genesis of Dirk Diggler in Boogie Nights and the blinking ‘SILENZIO’ sign in Berberian Sound Studio, but in a less sensationalised, less wow!-producing motion. So, in reality it only popped up for a second and I had since forgotten about it.
I woke up late this morning, feeling lethargic and with a resounding sigh at having to write this essay (that my brain keeps sparking off randomly about with great thoughts that soon get forgotten — PSA: get that little notebook you were talking about in that other blog post). I felt like watching something. And then the neon lights flickered for a second and I found my answer.
Landscape Suicide, directed by James Benning in 1987. My friend had given me and another friend an .avi file a couple of years and of the group of the three of us — one welcomed it with open arms while the other’s attempts to decipher it were fruitless — I was the only one who hadn’t seen it yet. And thankfully so. I feel like right now was the perfect time for me to have watched it. The version of me before I started this studio would definitely have taken up arms with my friend who drew nothing out of the film.
Benning has been described as “a quiet, unassuming investigator of filmic ontology” (shoutout Senses of Cinema). In Landscape Suicide, his camera sits static. He lets the frame unfold by itself — watching, waiting — but interrupts the scene with blackouts, not even second long cuts to black. At first, it’s disorientating in its aggression but once you find the rhythm inherent in the cuts it makes the experience all the more engaging. A reviewer on Letterboxd links this effect to the human act of blinking, where doing so causes you to “lose an almost indivisible amount of time” — “blink and you’ll miss it”, they say. As the film unfolds as an ‘investigation’ of sorts, this effect is at its most vital during the interview scenes — reenacted with sheer brilliance by Rhonda Bell and Elion Sucher, who portray small-town high-school killer Bernadette Protti, and infamous murderer Ed Gein, respectively — where the importance of collecting and literally seeing the truth is essential.
Benning’s images bear resemblance to Bogost’s reading of Stephen Shore’s ontographical photograph. Indeed, ‘the Shore ontograph takes things already gathered and explodes them into their tiny, separate, but contiguous universes’ and through Benning’s recording of rural America, his static frame seeks to emulate this and explode the relations of Americana, to uncover the truth in the mundane. His documenting is unbiased (he gives equal time to small time high school killer as he does body snatcher Ed Geins) as he plays out both halves of the film in the most parallel of fashions. The result is truly mesmerising. It’s more dense than I can describe in a couple hundred words.
So, the answer to all this is to accidentally turn your alarm off, sleep in until 11am and hope that you wake up and remember about that movie that your friend put on your hard drive that one time, and it might help you collect your thoughts on philosophy and ultimately help you write an essay.
From now on, I’ll be sure to replace the batteries in the neon lights in my head so that these ideas don’t blow out in the future.
Alien phenomenology – everything is alien to everything else.
Stop viewing things as ‘snapshots’.
Expansion of relations.
The artefact beholds the maker – not a photographer without a photograph with your name on it.
What’s the difference between ontography and typology? Ontography rejects that things belong in one place (like library classification.)
It is impossible to identify all relations things have to one another, that’s why they’re all alien to each other.
Instead of thinking of things as a fixed entity, think about where they will be in 10–100 years.
We are just containers for our DNA and once you pass reproductive age your body starts to break down because you’re no longer needed.
Make lists that arrive from specific constraints.
Oulipo.
Find a constraint upfront and follow it.
Better work after surrendering some of your agency to your technology.
Ecology
Our agency is a participant in an ecology.
Documentary as a way of trying to listen to something instead of imposing ourselves on it.
Sound file to image, image file to sound.
Technical media can record accidents whereas writing can not.
What can the image track become for the sound track rather than just service it?
Exploded view diagram in sound of something** – think like a different species.
I give myself a generous 4/10 for this week.
Today’s lesson (yesterday’s lesson; refer to previous blog post(/s) about being slack, and attempting to find (and fail) the need to blog ASAP) taught me that our technical media (cameras, recording devices) are nonhuman, indifferent sampling machines which still leaves me with questions. Our devices may not be concerned with what they record and can’t discriminate based on this, but ultimately who presses record? Who sets the 5 minute interval timer that captures these whales? Who assembles the footage into an actual ‘documentary’?
Johnathan Harris seems like an incredibly interesting guy (I hope one day he comes knocking at my door and chronicles a story about how we are long lost relatives) and part of me aspires to create something as he has done.
Need to enact on blog posts better. These words won’t stay floating around in your brain forever, you’ve gotta grab them as they appear.
Bogost returns with what is his Batman Returns, his Toy Story 2, his Empire Strikes Back. This chapter comes with a more comprehensible dialect than its predecessor and in turn becomes a better read.
Bogost adopts ontography as ‘a name for a general inscriptive strategy, one that uncovers the repleteness of units and their interobjectivity.’ He states that his adoption of the word differs in meaning than that of Harman’s (still unsure on specifics of Harman’s definition). To-do: file this definition.
Ontography’s comparison to a ‘medieval bestiary’ is perhaps its most revealing in understanding in simple terms how it may work.
Furthermore, it is ‘a record of things juxtaposed to demonstrate their overlap and imply interaction through collocation’, collocation being a linguistics term for a word or phrase that is often used with another word or phrase, in a way that sounds correct to people who have spoken the language all their lives, but might not be expected from the meaning. Cool.
Later, Bogost goes on to say that ontological cataloging’s strengths lie in its abandonment of ‘anthropocentric narrative coherence in favour of worldly detail’. True as this may be, again considering the thoughts in my previous post , how does one list things without splurging their human viewpoint all other the order or content of the list. I realise Bogost’s ideas may not be as radical as a complete eradication of an anthropocentric perspective, so where do his boundaries lie? As interesting as his writing may be (very!), what does he hope to achieve with his writing? (obviously time to re-read).