Video and sound

Final, final.


Its a documentary of Court Square cross-section with famous 5 Pointz and MoMA PS1. Mind that, people are spending days there; this is about them; their eventful cross-section.

We (Zoe, Jay and me) had the initial script and 1st rough cut based on that, then we rewrote it and finished 7-hours ‘second cut’ video editing just in the evening before dead line. The script was nicely planed but the video turned out to be so confusing and hard to follow. You can’t edit the video on written words. It’s about timing, visuals, rhythm, and dear god we’ve just read about that, about emotions. All emotions in, third cut came out 3x faster and almost smoothly. Almost ’cause we had to finally make that decision to ‘kill one of our babies’; the perfect shut we had but just didn’t go along with the story. We chased the drivers first cabin of train to get a fabulous gratifies-shot from moving train; And we did it! And it’s not there. And it was smart decision. And here is documentary on locals: (and goblins : ))




I remember spending good half an hour deciding whether I like that frame


rather than that frame:


Emotion is the thing. Is the story more real on that one or on the other. It’s a slight difference but atmosphere tell the story so it must not be changed even for a millimeter.

But compared to what, it must not be changed if the image is there as representing reality? Born from the context how can photography question the authenticity of one? How can a frame be true or less true; can it?

Yes. The thing is you are transferring only true emotion. The atmosphere is what you are editing.

On its own, one is never poetic. It can only posses those delicate qualities that at special moment enable us to understand a thing that we have never understood before and not in such a delicate way.

(by E.M. Forster (1909))

I find that this is a beautiful story.

Parallels are many and so as works on this subject. The paradox of technology. Even today’s cartoons (WALL·E (2008)), science fiction movies and books (there are rather many). To be honest, all these new works are pushing hard on the paradox of technology.

That way I see this story more like a hardware version of Matrix movie.

So, are we putting the same question for last hundred years? Has our relationship to technology changed from 1909?

Plenty of warnings on machines, their development and implementation. Great fear that we do not become slaves of machines we have created.

But how can a man run out of ideas? How can they lose expression? How technology can withhold the inspiration? If not inspiration itself, technology shook parts of the mind that you did not even know were there. That is wonderful. Technology is wonderful.

And human is wonderful. Inspiration in man comes from outside and technology serves as a tool for expression. Man should embrace machines and consider it as a tool for deeper inspiration. Many times, it gives unexpected results. How else that result would be possible to happen? If you didn’t come to it with your thought, in a process like that the medium created the idea for you. It is just the extension of our capabilities; And extension of our ideas.

So a line from the book: ”I find comfort in machine, my friend. ”

Laura and  moi:



Speakers are positioned in a way that will demonstrate that you are in a cooking pot. They are divided and assigned to the left and right and top and bottom speaker.





Sounds of pouring comes from above and hazelnut crunch or simmering comes from below. It would be far more effective with a bunch of speakers directed from the ceiling to the floor, and vice versa (floor ones towards ceiling).

Mixing was interesting; Indeed nothing less was the recording.

IMG_20130916_110705 copy copy

Failed to here the plum than assumed the apple might can.



image (1) image (2)image (5)


We fought to the end. 3d effect is attainable! Can not be compared with the sound for the computer, but what we got here.






Originality, who goes to Wikipedia to read about it?

The issue of some appears to be appropriation /remix out of their work.

If an artist does not (want to) inspire further with his art, than we should question the art itself.

Set in context is an art piece; Set it in another, makes another art piece.

And copyrights should stand there for branders. An artist claiming copyrights is not more than designer. Artist makes a story and well-spoken one can not leave one being indolent. It inspires.

Inspiring another by your creation; how beautiful that is; how profound.

As the inspiration does not comes from inside but from outside, the only rightful point to be discussed would be the methodology and media; Media in terms of methodology.

The same might be said of all art.

“I knew my teachers would have called plagiarism. Some of these borrowings had been lifted from American science fiction of the Forties and Fifties, adding a secondary shock of recognition for me. By then I knew that this “cut-up method,” as Burroughs called it, was central to whatever he thought he was doing, and that he quite literally believed it to be akin to magic. When he wrote about his process, the hairs on my neck stood up, so palpable was the excitement. Burroughs was interrogating the universe with scissors and a paste pot, and the least imitative of authors was no plagiarist at all.”

// On the Rights of the Molotov Man: Appropriation and the Art of Context                                                    // Kirby Ferguson’s Embrace the Remix