People Are Talking: UMS presents Ryoji Ikeda’s...
Posted: 10/31/14
POPULAR most recent most commented
PERFORMANCES & EVENTS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-no Derivate Works 3.0 United States License.
© University Musical Society | 881 N University - Ann Arbor, MI 48109 - 734.764.2538 Connecting Audience and Performing Artists in Uncommon and Engaging Experiences
All comments by Michael M
People Are Talking: UMS presents The Hamburg Symphony Orchestra: From the Canyons to the Stars:
I think you could say safely that many people were disgusted by the video, not just less than enthused.
My problem isn’t that the video failed to respect the music, but that it failed to respect the audience. I have no problem with Landau choosing to make an ugly film. My problem is that the film is poorly made, in the extreme. My disgust was in seeing the juxtaposition of the talent and work of the orchestra against a crap video. The only hope I had for the film is that it be a FILM”. The story, characters, editing and staging were all poorly done and not indicative of any kind of professional talent. The photography was okay at times, but the triptych was basically superfluous and not really used. These things are indicative of a lack of creativity and effort on the part of Landau to create something original, that engages an audience, rather than assemble a series of poorly thought out photographs. The ugliness for me wasn’t in the subject of the images, but the laziness of them and the implication that the audience should accept that laziness as something worth their consideration. Landau started a conversation, but so would belching in an art gallery and while that conversation might even prove interesting, I wouldn’t commission someone just to belch.
People Are Talking: UMS presents The Hamburg Symphony Orchestra: From the Canyons to the Stars:
Liked the music, disliked the film. Glad to hear that at least one person liked it, as I tried to imagine if the film had any possible audience.
Anyway, didn’t dislike the film because I couldn’t understand it. I like and I think other people like art that they don’t fully understand. Rather disliked it because to me it was a poorly made film. There were no elements of film making on display, camera movements, editing, direction or story, even the triptych basically wasn’t used. The film was made as if other films didn’t exist and as if no one had ever accomplished anything with a film before. I think there’s a difference between simply using a technology like film or writing and creating with it. I think many audience members got the impression that very little work went into creating anything with the filmed images and I believe they’re correct. There are great films that tackle similar themes, like Von Stroheim’s Greed, that are made with artistry, rather than simply made.
I also agree with you that the Orchestra deserves just as much blame as the artist for agreeing to play with his film.
As I see it, there are two perfectly reasonable reactions to the film. (By the way, let us remember that it is not Landau, but the Hamburg Symphony Orchestra, who is asking us to accept this film. They are the ones who commissioned it and are presenting it to us as part of their package because it makes sense to them. This opens the possibility of inquiring what they, rather than Landau, might have had in mind.) So now to the two plausible reactions:
One, we can say that this music needs no video. It is sufficient unto itself. Any video is too much.
Two, we can say, sure, a good video would be welcome but this is a rotten video because it makes no sense to me and falls flat in every other way. Makes no sense? Maybe yes, maybe no. Everyone can play at this game. But now suppose it does make sense to you. You can try to show others what you see, and they can accept or reject what you say. I tried to make sense of it consistent with my overall interpretation of this work as expressing feelings evoked by the human infiltration and destruction of the Great Western Landscapes – not a new thought, but hardly a trashy idea or a cliché. So I saw the humans with bear, rabbit, and tiger heads as symbols of the Disney-fication and distortion of Nature that is one symptom of destruction comparable to the wildlife preserves we create to atone and compensate for and mask what we do to nature. The cuteness prettifies the general devastation. Within this theme the figures need, therefore, not be seen as clichés of cuteness. There is more coherence here than between Verdi’s Requiem and the selling of cars.
I could go on but there is no need. I just wanted to illustrate a certain approach and attitude toward an artist’s interpretation of someone else’s work of art. (Consider: What sense can we make of Dali’s putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa? One can dismiss it as trash. But one can also look deeper.)
"by Music Lover