New 16mm test footage - "dance 1"

[Nicholas Kovats]

This is edited test footage featuring dancer, Jillain Peever and the musical group The Visit comprised of Raphael Weinroth-Browne (cello) and Heather Sita Black (voice). It is the first stage of a larger collaborative work to be shot on film.

https://vimeo.com/98244359

metadata:
camera = Bolex Standard 16mm
lens = 10mm Zeiss-Jena Tevidon APO
lens_exposure = T5.6
lens_filter = variable ND
frame_rate = 48
film = Kodak Vision3 color negative 250D (exposure = 250 ASA)
film = Kodak Double-X b/w negative (exposure = 200 ASA)
lab = Niagara Custom
scan = John Gledhill bitworks.org

[JeremyC]

Nicholas,

Liked the quick shot of the shadow on the ground of you holding the camera.

Excuse my ignorance but the effect in the B&W shots - how is that done?

Why did you shoot on 250 ASA for the colour, is this because you intending to shoot this work in a wide range of situations? The transfer - was that a final grade Xfer?

I liked the park setting: the performance happened while people went about their suburban business e.g. children walking past.

[carllooper]

The effect in the black and white footage is quite hypnotic. In terms of causes (or technique?) we can say it will be due to 'misloading' the film in some way - perhaps the loop being too tight and/or the pressure plate not being correctly secured. But whatever the reason, the effect (ie. the image) unlocks a particular kind of beauty that accidents often expose. What won't be an accident will be the artist's decision to use such material. To screen such material rather than toss it. It is this decision which reconstructs the result, transforming it from an 'accident' , back into what it will have been in the first place: that which f/actually happens. A reality. A reality in which there is no such as thing as "mechanical failure". The universe operates according to the laws of physics (whatever those laws might be). To put it another way: it is incapable of mechanically failing. What can fail is our ability to appreciate this. But not in this work.

Duchamp's Large Glass is an important key in this. The work suffers what we might otherwise call an 'accident', in which the glass cracks, but nevertheless producing a beautiful and coherent pattern of fissures in the glass. It is with this 'accident' that Duchamp then declares the work complete. The work had been, until then, missing this final touch. And indeed it becomes impossible to separate the pattern of cracks from the work. Each line of such is in perfect harmony with the underlying graphics/painting, and the overall concept of the work. An act of God? That's one way of putting it. But it is otherwise the way the Universe works anyway. It is capable of extraordinary syncronicities and beauty. Centuries earlier, Leonardo Da Vinci can be found occupying a similar disposition. He will witness in the otherwise 'random' pattern of grime in a plain wall, a work of art already produced. A ready made. In no more need of any further elaboration.

C

[Wade]

The effect in the black and white footage is quite hypnotic. In terms of causes (or technique?) we can say it will be due to 'misloading' the film in some way - perhaps the loop being too tight and/or the pressure plate not being correctly secured. But whatever the reason, the effect (ie. the image) unlocks a particular kind of beauty that accidents often expose. What won't be an accident will be the artist's decision to use such material. To screen such material rather than toss it. It is this decision which reconstructs the result, transforming it from an 'accident' , back into what it will have been in the first place: that which f/actually happens. A reality. A reality in which there is no such as thing as "mechanical failure". The universe operates according to the laws of physics (whatever those laws might be). To put it another way: it is incapable of mechanically failing. What can fail is our ability to appreciate this. But not in this work.

C

Isn’t this the concept behind simple realism? It is the platonistic idea that the machine, in this case a film camera, can’t lie. In the context of some type of films, i.e. common theatrical films, footage can appear defective, but is nevertheless mechanically objective. There is no such thing as pure simple realism since people interfacing with the camera always creates some point of view, some interpretive subjectivity. It is, however, a concept that drives much of film-making past and present.

[woods01]

Looks like the pressure plate didn't get locked down during loading. It looks great. If anything the colour footage looks rather ordinary in comparison. For the right subject matter, this 'mistake' looks like a happy accident. I might try this effect out. Nice project!

[carllooper]

The effect in the black and white footage is quite hypnotic. In terms of causes (or technique?) we can say it will be due to 'misloading' the film in some way - perhaps the loop being too tight and/or the pressure plate not being correctly secured. But whatever the reason, the effect (ie. the image) unlocks a particular kind of beauty that accidents often expose. What won't be an accident will be the artist's decision to use such material. To screen such material rather than toss it. It is this decision which reconstructs the result, transforming it from an 'accident' , back into what it will have been in the first place: that which f/actually happens. A reality. A reality in which there is no such as thing as "mechanical failure". The universe operates according to the laws of physics (whatever those laws might be). To put it another way: it is incapable of mechanically failing. What can fail is our ability to appreciate this. But not in this work.

C

Isn’t this the concept behind simple realism? It is the platonistic idea that the machine, in this case a film camera, can’t lie. In the context of some type of films, i.e. common theatrical films, footage can appear defective, but is nevertheless mechanically objective. There is no such thing as pure simple realism since people interfacing with the camera always creates some point of view, some interpretive subjectivity. It is, however, a concept that drives much of film-making past and present.

Interesting.

There are at least two types of realism, one of which is platonic. Plato's realism locates reality within a mathematical (or originally geometrical) frame of reference. Within such a frame of reference, images are not considered real. Rather they are regarded as illusions. Mirages. Apparitions. At best explainable as a subjective point of view. The parable of Plato's cave is an effort to instill such a philosophy: that the prisoner's in Plato's cave will be erroneously believing the images on the cave walls (shadows) are real. In a post-modern version of the parable, is the film: The Matrix. Those imprisoned within the Matrix will erroneously believe the world they inhabit is real. The ideas informing such a parable is that behind the image, is a deeper more authentic reality, which Plato elaborates in terms of Forms. Or that the Matrix elaborates in terms of alien invaders that imprison humanity. For Plato the image becomes at best an "instance" of some otherwise ideal universal Form. At best a "copy" of some sort. It will be Plato's Forms that are real - the image to be regarded as otherwise. In Plato the language of such forms which will be mathematics. Reality will be understood as fundamentally mathematical. It is this definition of "Reality" that informs the dominant frame of reference in science since the Renaissance. And it's a powerful frame of reference. Not to be ignored or discounted. However it's not the only definition of reality that the history of thought provides us.

In contrast to Plato, (and in the sense I want to use the word "reality"), belongs a second type of Realism, which can be traced back to the Ancient Stoics. Here it is not a question of some concept of reality, opposed to, and behind an image. Rather the image itself (which we might otherwise call an effect, an illusion, an apparition, a mirage, etc) is to be understood as a reality in itself. This is the direction taken.

In such a philosophy the image will not fundamentally echo, copy, represent or otherwise embody some other reality (such as a God, or a world, or a personal point of view) although obviously one is still free to understand the image in any of these ways ... but the image as a fundamental reality in itself, or at least on equal footing with the other three. A fourth fundamental: in other words, not reducible to a God, or a World or an I, but quite capable of inspiring such concepts. We can, for example, speak of images which might invoke a god like point of view (looking down on the world from the point of view of the heavens), or a sense of a world (a backdrop in theatre, or wide angle nature photography), or someone's point of view (an over the shoulder shot).

So the reality being assigned to the pattern of cracks in Duchamp's Large Glass, or Kovat's Dance 1, is not a reality to be located in terms of any causes proposed for such cracks (be such causes proposed in terms of an act of God, or a world/machine, or an artist's point of view) but to be located in terms of the result: in the effect. In terms of the image.

C

[Nicholas Kovats]

Wow. I am gone for the weekend and Carl expounds magnificently regarding justification of my b/w transport issues. I cannot repeat the effect on demand. Edward Nowill believes it is specifically a b/w perf issue and/or the Bolex pressure pad. But then again perhaps the "magic" should not be detailed. I shot 250D as that is the color negative I had on hand. Yes, as I cannot color correct. Thanks again. It was a busy park with lots of kids.

Nicholas,

Liked the quick shot of the shadow on the ground of you holding the camera.

Excuse my ignorance but the effect in the B&W shots - how is that done?

Why did you shoot on 250 ASA for the colour, is this because you intending to shoot this work in a wide range of situations? The transfer - was that a final grade Xfer?

I liked the park setting: the performance happened while people went about their suburban business e.g. children walking past.

[carllooper]

I cannot repeat the effect on demand. Edward Nowill believes it is specifically a b/w perf issue and/or the Bolex pressure pad. But then again perhaps the "magic" should not be detailed.

In any reversal of Plato (as it is sometimes known) there is no need or desire to suppress, hide or bury the "wizard behind the curtain". Toto is encouraged to pull aside the curtain. But there is not revealed anything other than than another image. So it is to treat that which is proposed as "behind the image" or "under the hood" in terms of the very images which otherwise provoke or inspire such proposals. But not towards those propositions which would then act as if they were a replacement for the image, or act as if they constituted an exorcism of the image. It would not be towards proposals which ask of us that we abandon or banish the image. Rather it would be towards those that treat the image, not as some demon to be exorcised, but as a reality in it's own right, with it's own power, irreducible to the propositions which the image might otherwise inspire. But the image is always free to inspire any proposition. And does so. That is it's power. Including the idea of images as demons. For we have inherited that tradition: the image as demonic, or ghostly. The image as an apparition. As a mirage. And we can even use these words ourselves, for they remain quite powerful words to use, but no longer as incantations in some exorcism, but on the contrary: as a way of restoring the image. To ask of the image that it become rather than begone. So more like a seance when speaking in this way. For the image is spooky.

So we can certainly speak freely of sprocket holes that might have an incorrect pitch, or a pressure plate that might be improperly secured, or any other proposition the image might suggest, but none of which should be regarded as a substitute for the image itself, or any reason/superstition to abandon, banish or exorcise the image, as if it should not be there. The image is precisely that which is there. Any proposals to the contrary, are somewhat less so.

C

HORATIO
Tush, tush, 'twill not appear.

BARNARDO
Sit down awhile;
And let us once again assail your ears,
That are so fortified against our story
What we have two nights seen.

HORATIO
Well, sit we down,
And let us hear Barnardo speak of this.

BARNARDO
Last night of all,
When yond same star that's westward from the pole
Had made his course to illume that part of heaven
Where now it burns, Marcellus and myself,
The bell then beating one—

Enter Ghost.

MARCELLUS
Peace, break thee off; look, where it comes again!

BARNARDO
In the same figure, like the king that's dead.

MARCELLUS
Thou art a scholar; speak to it, Horatio.

[JeremyC]

Nicholas,

I forgot to say that I found the dancer's work interesting and can you tell us why you and her decided to collaborate and was the material you shot merely a test?

[Pj]

I have accidentally created similar effects when the shutter is out of sync / misalignment.

Pav

[Nicholas Kovats]

Jeremy,

I met the dancer, Jillian, during my ongoing Steadicam S35 digital music project at St. Annes Church, e.g. http://vimeo.com/79076988. I have always wanted to collaborate with dancers and my original inspiration in this area is the magnificent US filmmaker/dancer, Amy Greenfield. This is one my favourites of hers filmed with a Milliken at 250 or 500 fps, i.e. http://vimeo.com/8371967.

Yes, a test towards a larger collaborative work which includes the cellist.

Nicholas,

I forgot to say that I found the dancer's work interesting and can you tell us why you and her decided to collaborate and was the material you shot merely a test?

[Will2]

I really like the dancing and the contrast with B&W. Very cool how you followed her in such a flowing manner.

The only thing I would have liked to have seen different is to have a similar location but without any cars, houses, people or anything else in the background. Just her out in the woods. I'm not sure why but I found it a little distracting. Also having a few clips shot wide on sticks might have been nice too...just to give a break from the camera motion.

I have some wind-up Eyemo 35mm footage very similar to that...I think I failed to load the camera properly.

https://vimeo.com/19752259

[Nicholas Kovats]

Thanks for checking out my work, Will. Your 35mm short film is gorgeous! I am chumping at the bit to shoot some 35mm/70mm.