doron golan animation movies and qtvr works

> http://the9th.com/00/?M=D
>
> I arranged a folder of my works from 2000-2001
> please take a look :)
> doron

interesting contrast with your later works at http://www.the9th.com/04/crow
and http://www.the9th.com/04/revolution and
http://turbulence.org/Works/golan/9allegro .

how do you go from the one to the other?

what is net cinema?

different from cinema on the net?

ja?

> http://the9th.com/00/?M=D
>
> I arranged a folder of my works from 2000-2001
> please take a look :)
> doron

> interesting contrast with your later works at http://
www.the9th.com/04/crow
> and http://www.the9th.com/04/revolution and
> http://turbulence.org/Works/golan/9allegro .

> how do you go from the one to the other?

> what is net cinema?

> different from cinema on the net?

> ja?

hey jim :)

the animation works has been studies and ephemerals for image
manipulation, compression and web presentation.

also, my background, I was a painter/sculpture before and thought of
it as an extension of my work.

later, when i got my first video camera I leaped over to video.
before the works you mention I did some more experimental work

of mostly found objects and appropriation.

http://the9th.com/01/

net cinema ?

is basically cinema that embrace the web as a primary source for
presentation.

as opposed to cinema on the net that use the web for delivery.

but I think that 'net cinema' is very broad with tons of possibilities.

doron

Hi
I'm not so interested in definitional questions -what
is this?, what do we call this? these I think on the
whole are a fairly time consuming red herring (and
almost as dull as the interactivity debate) but I am
*gripped* by the three periods of Doron's work.
Initially I was intrigued in the same way as you, Jim,
by the early folder:
http://the9th.com/00/?M=D
in contrast to new work I was familiar with:
http://the9th.com/04/
- there seemed, as you pointed out, *such* a distance
-my first analogy to get hold of it was thinking of
Diebenkorn & his move from abstract expressionism:
http://www.realart.com/hfg/html/modern-html/diebenkorn-html/DBK-028.html
to figuration:
http://www.jhu.edu/~artwork/slil4.html
in the early sixties, although Doron's "break" seemed
an even sharper one, from the formalism of those early
pieces to the warmth, strangeness and humanistic
complexity of the later films.( although Doron's own
comment about his artistic background seems to me
interesting here)
Then Doron posted the *other* folder:
http://the9th.com/01/
of the intervening experimental pieces which are an
exhilirating revelation - a real display of verve and
nerve and a testing of limits, experiments in a true
sense that nonetheless hold up in my view as discrete
and exciting pieces in their own right.And in a sense
my initial Diebenkorn analogy kind of comes good here
( and of course an analogy can only ever be an
analogy):in Diebenkorn's work there was a third
period, with the Ocean Park series:
http://www.lacma.org/art/perm_col/modern/modern.htm#RICHARD%20DIEBENKORN
where the return to a kind of abstraction appears as a
wonderful dialectical synthesis of the apparently
opposed two previous approaches; not merely a
synthesis, however, but a *transcending* of these -the
third term is not simply the arithmetical sum of the
first two but something greater.
Likewise with these three distinct ( in my view; -I'd
be very interested to know if there is more and
different intervening work [& it also would be really
nice if all this work by Doron was easily available,
clickable, in date of making order]) periods of
Doron's work -again for me there is a great feeling
that the latest period both includes and *transcends*
the earlier work.
On the surface the crow, revolution and the 9th
allegro pieces are in some sense more "conventional"
than what preceded them, but I think this is
misleading - when we discussed this work before on
Netbehaviour I said what struck me about Doron's work
was it's strangeness, and this does seem to me to be
it's key distinguishing feature - the mystery of why
this shot, why this cut, why this music, the
uncertainty of where each piece is taking us and what
the point of view of the film maker is..but on
reflection I'd add to strangeness two more qualities,
first "luminousness", both literally in terms of the
glorious light in the pieces but also a figurative
shining out from the screen. Lastly, warmth. These
pieces, entirely devoid of sentimentality, seem to me
to be suffused with a warmth that arises out a
response to , an understanding of and an empathy with
fellow human beings.
Of course, my Diebenkorn analogy stretches over a
lifetimes work & I hope to see a *great deal* more
work
from Doron, in whatever style.
michael

— doron <[email protected]> wrote:

> > http://the9th.com/00/?M=D
> >
> > I arranged a folder of my works from 2000-2001
> > please take a look :)
> > doron
>
> > interesting contrast with your later works at
> http://
> www.the9th.com/04/crow
> > and http://www.the9th.com/04/revolution and
> > http://turbulence.org/Works/golan/9allegro .
>
> > how do you go from the one to the other?
>
> > what is net cinema?
>
> > different from cinema on the net?
>
> > ja?
>
> hey jim :)
>
> the animation works has been studies and ephemerals
> for image
> manipulation, compression and web presentation.
>
> also, my background, I was a painter/sculpture
> before and thought of
> it as an extension of my work.
>
> later, when i got my first video camera I leaped
> over to video.
> before the works you mention I did some more
> experimental work
>
> of mostly found objects and appropriation.
>
> http://the9th.com/01/
>
> net cinema ?
>
> is basically cinema that embrace the web as a
> primary source for
> presentation.
>
> as opposed to cinema on the net that use the web for
> delivery.
>
> but I think that 'net cinema' is very broad with
> tons of possibilities.
>
> doron
>
>
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

On Sep 2, 2005, at 8:19 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> shining out from the screen. Lastly, warmth. These
> pieces, entirely devoid of sentimentality, seem to me
> to be suffused with a warmth that arises out a
> response to , an understanding of and an empathy with
> fellow human beings.

On a tangent, Michael, i wonder about the tension between
sentimentality (negative) and empathy (positive) that is implicit in
you saying Doron's work is "entirely devoid of sentimentality." i find
Doron's recent movies suffused with sentimentality, as they hint (to
me) at something idiosyncratic and emotional (as opposed to
"universal," but it's hard to get past the surface of that emotion, as
there remains an element of unknowability (existentialist, if you
will). i don't say this to negate the presence of humanist empathy,
which i also find there in an interestingly critical way. i just
question the negative connotations attached to sentiment. i.e.
sentiment == manipulation, empathy == understanding, which seems a
rather arbitrary and ideological value judgment.
the tension between these ideas is what makes documentary interesting
to me…
the Diebenkorn analogy is interesting in this, as critics of figuration
considered this move to be "sentimental" but in retrospect, RD's work
was a pretty "cold" use of figuration towards abstract ends, compared
to others of the same group, like David Park, who went for a much more
material and "fleshy" aesthetic.
best,
ryan

Hi Ryan
gosh, the slipperiness of words, especially on Planet
Postmodern!
My take on the two terms is the time honoured one
-sentimentality for me, is *unearned* emotion, emotion
triggered by a formal, almost Pavlovian, response to
certain standardised stimuli - and in the process real
feeling, empathy, is often effaced. A lot of Brits,
who would kill for their animals, whom they
anthropomorphise and sentimentalise, would equally as
quickly denigrate (and worse) refugees and asylum
seekers, real, suffering, often desperate, human
beings.
The manipulative side of it is where these triggers
are used in culture to direct us to a preforseen, a
desired, conclusion; for example it seems to me that
the bulk of Disney and in fact the bulk of mainstream
cinema is almost exclusively about using sentiment (
and other short cuts -*action*, *excitement* for
example.) to point us in a particular direction.
That rather tortuous definition really just enables me
to repeat myself -I contend that Doron's latest work
lacks sentiment in this sense -the thing that gives it
its mysteriousness is the impossibility of determining
precisely at any point the directorial viewpoint -the
viewer has to contruct a relationship to the folk in
the films herself. In the end the films seem to me to
leave us with a complex( because hard won, or better
*worked for*, by the viewer)kind of empathy for their
subjects and from this emerges a sense of great warmth
for *actual* human beings engaged in living their
complex and mysterious and messy lives.
best
michael

— ryan griffis <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sep 2, 2005, at 8:19 AM, Michael Szpakowski
> wrote:
> >
> > shining out from the screen. Lastly, warmth. These
> > pieces, entirely devoid of sentimentality, seem to
> me
> > to be suffused with a warmth that arises out a
> > response to , an understanding of and an empathy
> with
> > fellow human beings.
>
> On a tangent, Michael, i wonder about the tension
> between
> sentimentality (negative) and empathy (positive)
> that is implicit in
> you saying Doron's work is "entirely devoid of
> sentimentality." i find
> Doron's recent movies suffused with sentimentality,
> as they hint (to
> me) at something idiosyncratic and emotional (as
> opposed to
> "universal," but it's hard to get past the surface
> of that emotion, as
> there remains an element of unknowability
> (existentialist, if you
> will). i don't say this to negate the presence of
> humanist empathy,
> which i also find there in an interestingly critical
> way. i just
> question the negative connotations attached to
> sentiment. i.e.
> sentiment == manipulation, empathy == understanding,
> which seems a
> rather arbitrary and ideological value judgment.
> the tension between these ideas is what makes
> documentary interesting
> to me…
> the Diebenkorn analogy is interesting in this, as
> critics of figuration
> considered this move to be "sentimental" but in
> retrospect, RD's work
> was a pretty "cold" use of figuration towards
> abstract ends, compared
> to others of the same group, like David Park, who
> went for a much more
> material and "fleshy" aesthetic.
> best,
> ryan
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

> -I contend that Doron's latest work
> lacks sentiment in this sense -the thing that gives it
> its mysteriousness is the impossibility of determining
> precisely at any point the directorial viewpoint -the
> viewer has to contruct a relationship to the folk in
> the films herself. In the end the films seem to me to
> leave us with a complex( because hard won, or better
> *worked for*, by the viewer)kind of empathy for their
> subjects and from this emerges a sense of great warmth
> for *actual* human beings engaged in living their
> complex and mysterious and messy lives.
> best
> michael

point taken, Michael. i certainly don't argue with your definitions and
qualifications of sentiment vs empathy (i'm not wearing a party hat for
postmodernism :) ). but i do see the tension as irresolvable… i don't
think it's possible to erase sentiment, which i think i read you as
defining as the use of conventions for affective ends. i guess this is
what makes Doron's movies more than "documentary" or "journalism" for
me - there seems to be a critical engagement with that tension. making
that line between "sentiment" and "empathy" (and i would even add
"indifference") almost visible. maybe it's just me ;)
thanks for the conversation.
ryan

Hi Michael (and Ryan),

It's interesting you mention pet ownership in a discussion about documentary film. I just got through watching Errol Morris's "Gates of Heaven" (the one about the pet cemetary) for the first time, and it rocked my world. I was weeping at the end as he showed the plastic swan floating on the tiny man-made pond. I've always maintained that there is a fine line between sappy and sublime, and the best art gets right up to that line without going over. It's like a cliff and you want to get as close to the edge as you can. Which is why pop music to me can be the highest form of art. But one man's high sublimity is another man's overboard sappiness. Again, empathy is crucial; and how you sneak up on it is crucial. Hardline postmodern cynicism is so easy, but it's too safe. It hesitates to even approach the edge (or admit its existence). And then something like country music television is well over the edge, but you know, as much as I hate country music television, at least it attempts to be in some kind of dialogue with the edge at all.

I also like Morris's second film, "Vernon, Florida" as a cult classic, but he is much less empathetic with those characters, and the more I watch it, the meaner it reads. Whereas "Gates of Heaven" is marvelously sublime (in the bravest, trailer park sense).

peace,
curt



Michael Szpakowski wrote:

> Hi Ryan
> gosh, the slipperiness of words, especially on Planet
> Postmodern!
> My take on the two terms is the time honoured one
> -sentimentality for me, is *unearned* emotion, emotion
> triggered by a formal, almost Pavlovian, response to
> certain standardised stimuli - and in the process real
> feeling, empathy, is often effaced. A lot of Brits,
> who would kill for their animals, whom they
> anthropomorphise and sentimentalise, would equally as
> quickly denigrate (and worse) refugees and asylum
> seekers, real, suffering, often desperate, human
> beings.
> The manipulative side of it is where these triggers
> are used in culture to direct us to a preforseen, a
> desired, conclusion; for example it seems to me that
> the bulk of Disney and in fact the bulk of mainstream
> cinema is almost exclusively about using sentiment (
> and other short cuts -*action*, *excitement* for
> example.) to point us in a particular direction.
> That rather tortuous definition really just enables me
> to repeat myself -I contend that Doron's latest work
> lacks sentiment in this sense -the thing that gives it
> its mysteriousness is the impossibility of determining
> precisely at any point the directorial viewpoint -the
> viewer has to contruct a relationship to the folk in
> the films herself. In the end the films seem to me to
> leave us with a complex( because hard won, or better
> *worked for*, by the viewer)kind of empathy for their
> subjects and from this emerges a sense of great warmth
> for *actual* human beings engaged in living their
> complex and mysterious and messy lives.
> best
> michael

HI Curt
to my shame I don't know Morris's work but I just did
some digging & it sounds intriguing -I'll definitely
check out Gates of Heaven.
I just got a marvellous DVD of films by Geoffrey
Jones,
who died earler this year -

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1550290,00.html#article_continue


-another exemplar of documentary as near poetry -
"Snow" , in particular, is utterly sublime.
best
michael

— curt cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Michael (and Ryan),
>
> It's interesting you mention pet ownership in a
> discussion about documentary film. I just got
> through watching Errol Morris's "Gates of Heaven"
> (the one about the pet cemetary) for the first time,
> and it rocked my world. I was weeping at the end as
> he showed the plastic swan floating on the tiny
> man-made pond. I've always maintained that there is
> a fine line between sappy and sublime, and the best
> art gets right up to that line without going over.
> It's like a cliff and you want to get as close to
> the edge as you can. Which is why pop music to me
> can be the highest form of art. But one man's high
> sublimity is another man's overboard sappiness.
> Again, empathy is crucial; and how you sneak up on
> it is crucial. Hardline postmodern cynicism is so
> easy, but it's too safe. It hesitates to even
> approach the edge (or admit its existence). And
> then something like country music television is well
> over the edge, but you know, as much as I hate
> country music television, at leas!
> t it attempts to be in some kind of dialogue with
> the edge at all.
>
> I also like Morris's second film, "Vernon, Florida"
> as a cult classic, but he is much less empathetic
> with those characters, and the more I watch it, the
> meaner it reads. Whereas "Gates of Heaven" is
> marvelously sublime (in the bravest, trailer park
> sense).
>
> peace,
> curt
>
>
>
> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > Hi Ryan
> > gosh, the slipperiness of words, especially on
> Planet
> > Postmodern!
> > My take on the two terms is the time honoured one
> > -sentimentality for me, is *unearned* emotion,
> emotion
> > triggered by a formal, almost Pavlovian, response
> to
> > certain standardised stimuli - and in the process
> real
> > feeling, empathy, is often effaced. A lot of
> Brits,
> > who would kill for their animals, whom they
> > anthropomorphise and sentimentalise, would equally
> as
> > quickly denigrate (and worse) refugees and asylum
> > seekers, real, suffering, often desperate, human
> > beings.
> > The manipulative side of it is where these
> triggers
> > are used in culture to direct us to a preforseen,
> a
> > desired, conclusion; for example it seems to me
> that
> > the bulk of Disney and in fact the bulk of
> mainstream
> > cinema is almost exclusively about using sentiment
> (
> > and other short cuts -*action*, *excitement* for
> > example.) to point us in a particular direction.
> > That rather tortuous definition really just
> enables me
> > to repeat myself -I contend that Doron's latest
> work
> > lacks sentiment in this sense -the thing that
> gives it
> > its mysteriousness is the impossibility of
> determining
> > precisely at any point the directorial viewpoint
> -the
> > viewer has to contruct a relationship to the folk
> in
> > the films herself. In the end the films seem to me
> to
> > leave us with a complex( because hard won, or
> better
> > *worked for*, by the viewer)kind of empathy for
> their
> > subjects and from this emerges a sense of great
> warmth
> > for *actual* human beings engaged in living their
> > complex and mysterious and messy lives.
> > best
> > michael
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>