”The greatness of cinema is not that you can repeat natural light with natural sound, but that you can separate it.
In nature no lightning can occur without thunder, no thunder without lightning, but I can separate it.”
-Peter Kubelka, The Theory of Metrical Film.

Kubelka's films have an aura of dis-reality. We are given a hint of what is really happening, he seems to compartmentalize components of reality;sounds, images. He takes the tools given and the subject matter put before him to effectively create what he calls "his own world"; an objective creation that creates an objective.

His approach to film making is very unique and partly a product of his time with the tools he had to work with. Not many people are able to look at a film strip or a cut of footage and see it not as simply footage, but a piece of a puzzle, like that of a beat in a rhythm. This methodology is so unique that when initially searching for artists in modern day that do works like his, I ran into videos on chaos theory. If one can compare his work to a controlled litany of chaos, then this isn't so far fetched.
Take  Adebar, an early experimental film of Kubelka's, for instance. It not put together sequentially in the traditional sense. It is arranged in a way that pays close attention to silhouettes and timing, not of a clear sequence of movement and story. It creates a repetitive and for me unsettling piece.

I do however, identify with his thinking, that most art is too preoccupied with explanations or defining the subject. Because we all experience life differently, we will interpret art differently, even from what the artist thinks about his or her own work. By allowing the work to be non objective, it invites the artist and the viewer a freedom of interpretation and experience.

A Theory of Metrical Film

Peter Kubelko expresses his feelings about how artist tries to define their work too much. The vision becomes one sided and the chance for exploration and discovery may be lost. I for one, completely understand his mindset and share his view in allowing the audience to discover and interpret what they see, hear, feel. He speaks of how even though we all live this world, that all of our experiences in how we perceive life is different. The world doesn't revolve around you; so what triggers one may not be the same for another. "Each of you, as you sit here, lives a different life, so to say: the same time" a different consciousness, a different mood, different observations, different evaluation of the observations. These things or courses of interest come out from practically the past of humanity-- come out from your age, your experience, your education, your state of health, your parents, your parents' parents and where they have been and so on."-- Adevbar

Project 2 notes and references for Project 3

starting in Ae                                            

       
inputs for New Comp.

Next make a New Layer



In effects this is to make the "fireworks" effect


when ready to export go to Render Queue



Two ways to render- this option you might get color loss FYI






To have a live feed between Pr - Ae

Go into Pr and import your Ae and right click your .mov in Pr and go to "Replace with Ae Com"


(can do this with Au also)


Add Ps Layers that can be manipulated in Ae 

open photoshop-



if you can change background to transparent and keep doc type in film in video do it other wise just stay with custom


export you psd file and do not flatten your layers you want to change
go to import in Ae



Retain Layer Sizes



2nd screen will show match to above
you now have all your photoshop layers


good tool to use for your layers




can animate







PROJECT 3
'
download PD-Extended



good reference ^ cheetomoskeeto -youtube


good resource ^


Light Surgeons - Super Everything
example shown in class
http://www.lightsurgeons.com/art/supereverything/

100 Year of Zombie Evolution in Pop Culture

Jordan Belson is not from Earth

"Certain phenomena manage to touch a realm of our consciousness so seldom reached that when it is awakened we are shocked and profoundly moved. It's an experience of self-realization as much as an encounter with the external world. The cosmic films of Jordan Belson possess this rare and enigmatic power." - Gene Youngblood

As a huge fan of weird, I'm shocked to have not viewed much cosmic or psychedelic media. Watching Belson's work and working environment proves to me that success can absolutely come to you if you embrace your weirdness (and if you give people a whole lot of drugs before they see your work). Belson expresses his cosmic visions through incredible fluidity, movement, and colors. The key principles are only enhanced by drugs.  For the time, there was certainly not much out there like the experience Jordan was offering.

Today we have the ability to be bombarded with weird media/content nearly 24/7 with WiFi everywhere and smart phones. This might make it difficult for some to try and truly experience a work. I really enjoy meeting people that are way into drugs and visuals. They're often pretty passionate about their out of this world experiences and I do think they all might be on to something (or just on something).

Some say God is in the mind and these drugs just help you search. Belson's work certainly helped many as well.
Works like these always make me feel so small, like these are things that man shouldn't be able to see--far off galaxies and universes etc. It's pretty crazy maaan~
Bardo (2001) Jordan Belson

The Cosmic Cinema of Jordan Belson

In contrast to last week’s reading, I felt Youngblood’s take on Belson was much more complimentary and inspiring. Sitney was much more focused on Youngblood’s role in the history of film and seemed to be more critical of Belson’s views, such as his belief that he could align his inner vision with his outer work. Youngblood on the other hand is more complimentary. Of course, this essay is solely on Belson rather than a survey of the development of film, so naturally it offers a deeper perspective of Belson’s personality and his work.

However, whereas Sitney seemed skeptical of the artist’s vision of spiritual ascension, Youngblood seems to encourage it, or at least offers it a platform by highlighting Belson and his films. After feeling somewhat discouraged by the previous reading and its skepticism of spiritual-artistic clarity, I was refreshed to read a different perspective of Belson and his achievements. For me at least, my aim as an artist is to get the point where I can “relate external experience to internal experience,” where like Belson felt in Samadhi, he “reached the point where [he] was able to produce externally, with the equipment, what [he] was seeing internally.” 

Cosmic Cinema

The big takeaway: do drugs so you can make psychedelic art. 

-really cool psychedelic art, might i add. I think it is one thing to create original art. And it is another thing to genuinely make other people experience  and enjoy your type of art.. And it is very satisfying to see a person able to do that. That is to say that I think Belson is a good example of the artist who is able to create what he wants to create and be respected for it. His art is based purely on his views and beliefs of the world and his desire to recreate what he sees on film. He isn't motivated by any other external desire other than seeing his work materialized. His goal isn't to have other people like his work. He just creates. And I think that he is very successful, in that he has the very special ability to make others enjoy his work to that extent. 

When considering his works, you can feel the energy. After having read about how he really puts himself into his work, it makes it much more meaningful, and much more of a reality that you get to experience (through his eyes). And i believe it is because of his process. He really understands what he wants you to feel, and to experience, and he works towards that feeling relentlessly. A strong theme is why he is able to create such content. And it all comes down to your inspiration as a person and as an artist (whatever moves you, shapes you as a person), coupled with your ability to realize it so that others may enjoy it as you see it. It's all very inspirational. 

Belson and the Search for Self in the Cosmos

"To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." - William Shakespeare

There is a point in this reading that borders on the sublime.  It comes when Belson describes his experience in creating Samadhi.  He talks about a convergence, of the images he sees in his mind that he translates to film that then merge with the images in the real world sky.  While these effects are very likely tied to Belson's use of psychedelics, it is a state that I would venture to say all artists seek to obtain: a universal truth that reverberates through our artistic output and into the world and all of its inhabitants and up through the heavens and ultimately back to and through us again.

Going into this second project, this seems a pretty lofty, if not impossible goal.  The universal truth that Belson was after seems invariably linked to the time period in which he created his works.  With the psychedelic culture flourishing and with the arts in America still riding the crest of the abstract-expressionist movement, Belson was tapping into a more shallow and easily accessible definition of "universality."

With this, I am in no way discounting the magic that Belson was able to create.  His films transfix and inspire me.  But I wonder if they are capable of drawing in a contemporary audience outside of those already in tune with his vision whether through artistic endeavor or drug fueled hallucination?

What is universal in the here and now?  The world is much smaller today.  Technology has bridged gaps of physical distance and the audience for any artistic output, ranging from a high school student's sketch to a gallery-backed art phenomenon's masterwork, is potentially global now.  How do we tap into truths accepted across cultures and economic strata.  Can fields of color and dancing shapes and lines be "superempirical" any longer?

But maybe I am overanalyzing.  Perhaps like many great artists, Belson created the films he created for himself in the hopes of tapping into the universal by happy accident.  Perhaps his practice was a means of justifying his existence to himself.  Because I feel like this is ultimately at the heart of any successful creative practice: creating things that resonate with the self in the hopes that it affects someone else.  Not in a universal sense so much as an intimate resonance between the artist and an audience member, the artist and a fellow artist, or the artist and God.  And from this resonance, the hope that our pursuits are not in vain grows and we continue to pursue the universal, all the while growing in our craft.

The Spirituality and Mythology of Absolute Animation

I was somewhat confused by Sitney’s discussion of absolute animation (Chapter Eight of Visionary Film). First of all there was the definition of absolute film itself. The term “absolute film” is not mentioned until the very end of the chapter, and even then the definition was elusive. The concept of absolute film is mentioned in relation to Jordan Belson, the last of the filmmakers mentioned in the chapter. Belson’s films are characteristically cosmic and spiritual. When watching his work, such as Samadhi, which he describes as the only film in which is his artistic vision was fully realized, one is transported to the wordless depth of the mind. As with some of his contemporaries and predecessors such as Harry Smith, there is something inherently introspective about the abstract or non-objective nature of the works.

https://vk.com/video-59292187_169443314 (Jordan Belson, Samadhi)

However, Sitney is critical of the view of film as a medium for spiritual transportation. When he quotes Belson’s description of having managed to fully and artistically manifest an inner vision, which every artist strives for, Sitney refers to this possibility as a “myth.” While I can understand the viewpoint that spirituality or God itself are “myths” (regardless of personal beliefs), the view I extracted from Sitney’s writing – that fully realizing one’s artistic vision (in film) is unachievable – struck me as extremely disheartening and something I sincerely hope to be false.

Harry Smith