Losing my points of reference

[Yoshiko Okada]

Yesterday I watched a Japanese movie, "13 Assassins".
Probably some American or European know this film because a lot of audience admired it at the Venezia Film Festival.
The story was about Samurai spirits.

Basically Japanese film makers never use CGI for fighting scenes in Samurai movies.
I don't think most Western people know fightings of Samurai well.
It is a tough work to even drawing a Japanese sword from a sheath for a beginner.
Most Japanese actors should learn how they move and use their swords for fighting scenes.
They never need CGI.
What a Japanese actor can move like genuine Samurai is a kind of Japanese tradition for shooting movies.

As it is very interesting, the director made some movies that used CGI before "13 Assassins".
He is one of young generation in Japanese film directors.(In fact he is fourties.)
I was very surprised that he made a Samurai movie.
But I heard he was taught shooting films by an older director when he was younger.
I guess he also learnt both analogue and digital.
He could shoot both movies with CGI and without CGI.
I mean he can make new movies with a new technology and also make an orthodox movie by learning old movies.
I think it is a good example why students need to learn old things.
I mean people need old things for making new things.

[Laurence Janus]

I work with a 22 year old who is completely unburdened with the baggage of past.

He creates some of the most organic images ever completely digitally. He doesn't know a Polaroid from a gravure and he doesn't care.

I highly recommend finding a young person and listening to them. They are the best treatment for chronic anachronism. Which many (including myself) are suffering from.

Learning from the past is one thing, living in it is another.

[Yoshiko Okada]

Well Laurence,
your comment evokes some French movies that Gerard Philipe starred in.

In 19th century Wagner's revolutionary works surprised a lot of people.
Brahms disliked them, but Mahler admired him very much.
I guess our debate about two mediums is similar to that.
At the present days few people think Wagner's works are very new.
I like his music, but I guess most younger people don't know even his name.
He is just one of composers of classical music now.
Human brains get tired of something easily because they are not digital.

You wrote your co-worker created outstamding images by digital camera.
I think it is very good.
But can you talk with him about Alan Turing or Turing test?
Probably you know why he made a computer during WW2.
If he didn't make it, a lot of soldiers would be killed.

I think there is a difference between professionals and just amateurs.
Professionals always make their films for audience.
In both terms of digital and analogue professional film makers made movies for audience, but not for only making money.
So I want students to learn history of shooting and know minds of audience.
What do they want to watch?

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Laurence Janus

He creates some of the most organic images ever completely digitally. He doesn't know a Polaroid from a gravure and he doesn't care.

I highly recommend finding a young person and listening to them. They are the best treatment for chronic anachronism. Which many (including myself) are suffering from.

Learning from the past is one thing, living in it is another.

I don't think it's a matter of living in the past, it's more understanding a matter where we came from. Many of these past processes were cutting edge, but the important part, which tend to last, is the idea behind the work a person is doing and how it communicates with the viewer/audience.

The person you're talking about mightn't care at the moment, but as he explores he may find the riches that exist in other media and how he make make use of those in his own work.

To develop you need to be open to the new. Although it can happen that the new just repeats the old with a different paint brush.

[Bill Davis]

Originally Posted by Yoshiko Okada

Well Laurence,
your comment evokes some French movies that Gerard Philipe starred in.
SNIP
I think there is a difference between professionals and just amateurs.
Professionals always make their films for audience.
In both terms of digital and analogue professional film makers made movies for audience, but not for only making money.
So I want students to learn history of shooting and know minds of audience.
What do they want to watch?

The biggest sadness I face today, is that most of the people coming into the workforce today simply don't care about ANY of this. Perhaps in school they wanted to communicate in new ways. Or express themselves via images. But what I see today is a generation of young people who just WANT A JOB. Period. They don't care if it's with an arts oriented business or with a corporation shilling feminine hygene products - if it's got a salary attached that keeps them alive, it's fine.

And I have sympathy with them. If starving artists actually STARVE, they stop producing art.

The saddest statistic I've seen lately is those charts that show that 80 to 90% of the wealth being generated in today's America flows to the top tier of our society leaving little for the middle class or the poor.

In history when that happened, (and it OFTEN has era after era across cultures) SOME small percentage of the wealthy with TASTE and a DESIRE to enhance society became PATRONS of the arts.

Isn't that GONE now? The patronage trends appear to be in TECH or Medicine, or ANYTHING but the arts ala Buffett and Gates. Who's commissioning art these days?

Who's encouraging artists without it being an INVESTMENT these days - as in a re-sellable commodity as in most of MUSIC, VIDEO, THEATRE, and the DECORATIVE arts today?

Maybe the stress of so many with so little with become an inspiration in the coming years. Hope so.

God knows we need some vigorous ART to counteract what passes for it in pop culture these days.

[Yoshiko Okada]

I can agree with opinions of Brian Drysdale and Bill Davis.

I guess people, especially young people need a symbol of a new term in every period.
Now they found digital medium as a symbol of their generations.
They are thinking people liking analogue medium are still living in ancien regime.
They also think we are rigid and boring.
But I don't care for what they think.

On this forum most people are talking about how they shoot videos or films.
But digital medium is also changing how audience watch movies, but not only how people shoot films.
Recently I heard some young people are thinking even films will be just one of DLC in the near future.
I guess it will be a serious issue for professional film makers.
If people will be able to watch films easier and cheaper by their computers, what kind of movies will they want?
Will they want more serious or artistic films?
Probably film makers will use more money and make blockbusters in order to letting audience go to movie theaters.

Some people believe digital medium will give opportuneties to nameless and poor cameramen, but I'm skeptical about it.
Of course I also believe possibility of digital medium.
But I am worried who will teach students about artistic spirits?
A lot of people will lose artistic works for making money.

[Geoffrey Cox]

A few comments on some recent thoughts in this thread:

The medium does affect what people do with it. I have no doubts about this at all - throughout history technology has helped and formed a functional part in everything including artistic practice. One example: the digital sampler created whole genres of music - hip-hop, techno, glitch etc etc. But the interesting thing is the idea of these musics and indeed proto forms of them already existed in the analogue (tape) age. Each era mourns the loss of good things from the previous which is why we think it is important to know about the past so those things are not lost - not preserved like in an anachronistic museum but modified and incorporated into contemporary practice alongside new things. The balance between the two is where the real interest is for me. Technically though it doesn't matter much how the old stuff works - I first worked with tape for audio recording but would never dream of teaching the practice now (even if I could remember!) but I would talk about how it worked and the way that affected the music making process and final sonic results.

The young person who knows nothing about the past but does things in a fresh, spontaneous way with no baggage is indeed worth knowing and is great to see - some of the best work is produced in this state of 'innocence'. My feeling though is that can only sustain you for so long as without deeper understanding you start to repeat yourself and stagnate. My argument to students who complain about historical / theoretical work v. practice is that it should inform and deepen their practice.

And though it will sound idealistic ivory tower talk, I still believe that the most important thing about any artform is its potential to change our lives for the better, changes our perceptions and perspective on life and those around us. If it can be entertaining and enjoyable at the same time so much the better. Much else is vapid to me and life is too short for that.

[Yoshiko Okada]

Definitely we didn't argue young people vs. elder people.
We didn't decide which medium was better analogue nor digital, either.
We just discussed about if young students should learn analogue medium.

Do you know how old James Cameron is?
In fact many people who learnt analogue medium still be connected with development of digital medium.

[Geoffrey Cox]

Well the short answer for me is teach them *about* analogue and its practitioners but not on a practical level (at least not in any depth - a brief exercises can be useful perhaps).

[Yoshiko Okada]

I cannot agree with whole Geoffrey's opinion.
I think instructors can choose what they teach their students, but I don't think they can decide what the students learn.
It depends on their personal levels or circumstances.

When I worked for a school as an instructor, I found some students having more talents than instructors.
Though I didn't teach them about shooting, I guess other schools are similar.

Actually I don't think all young people don't know analogue medium, nor they aren't interested in them at all.
Probably most parents of them still have plastic records or VHS.
And they cannot get rid of them easily because of their good memories.
I guess they want to tell their children about their old gadget.
Young people can watch very old movies on DVD including black and white movies.

If the students get interested in them, instructors should give them knowledge about analogue medium.
I think children's possibilities is more important than possibilities of digital medium.