Hola,
Rockstars!
First off,
thanks for your insightful work! I
genuinely enjoyed reading your posts and watching you videos this week. Second, here’s some copies of copies of
Edward Norton’s “copy of a copy of a copy” quote from Fight Club.
You all had
a lot to say about my question, so let’s get to it!
Mark starts us off with some “O Fortuna,”
from Carl Orff’s 1930 Cantata Carmina
Burana. I’m sure you’re familiar,
seeing as its been used in various movies, television and radio commercials,
and in my senior dance recital. Nancy
Kerrigan skated to it (when Tonya was unsuccessful in taking her out) and 98
Degrees used it prior to their show to emphasize their awesomeness to their
pre-pubescent fans. Mark shared a
hilarious video for Carlton Draught where the commercial using the song lets us
know for sure that they’re doing it to sell beer. Mark brings up the idea that the execution of
the song, the “sonic artifact,” remains the same each time, but in each
instance, the context around it is diversified.
While the song may stay in its “original” form, it may seem or sound
different in its various uses or intentions.
He goes on to discuss the notion of originality, mentioning the received
influences of the performer/artist, and how those experiences can cause the
creator to create of “cover version” of themselves. That’s deep, yo! But true.
If you think about when a playwright writes a play that speaks to
his/her experience, all it takes is for an editor, director, or publisher to
tweak it and suddenly the original has become a “cover” in a sense.
Dharmik, in a throwback to last semester,
brings up the notion that if the same chords have already been played, is it
even possible for a song to be original?
But he goes on further to point out that how a song affects one musician
may be different from how it affects another.
And the qualities of one’s voice, different musical arrangements, etc. can
contribute the creation of something different.
Perhaps a “heightened original.”
He therefore concluded that to call a cover or a copy "not
real" is not correct. He uses the
example of Bob Seger’s “Turn the Page.”
Metallica covers this song, and it becomes their own because of
Hetfield’s particular voice and the metal sound that Metallica is known
for. Then an artist named Thomas
Pederson covers it, clearly bringing in influences of Seger and Metallica into
the recording. While Pederson’s version
is Dharmik’s favorite, I’d say that the qualities of Pederson’s performance
were clearly defined by the relationship to the original and covered version of
the previous utternaces. Pederson isn’t mimicking
per se, but I don’t know if he’d have gotten there on his own. Dharmik goes on to chat briefly about AI, pondering
why a robot’s version of art may not be considered real. He believes that while AI may have a
programmed consciousness that is capable of creating “real” art, that art
should have human thought (or human consciousness) behind it.
Oh no! I talked about AI on the internet! I support AI!
Please don’t hellishly torture me in the future!
Lisa draws our attention back to the
denseness of Baudrillard, but pulls out a gem that “stuck to the fly paper of
her cerebrum.” Baudrillard “draws the distinction between true and false,
between the ‘produced’ symptom and the authentic symptom.” She goes on to talk about the idea of
“absorbing simulation” in the wonderfully weird movie Being John Malkovich. In the
film, John Cusack plays a puppeteer who begins to create puppets in the image
of real people in his life and manipulates them to act in the way he wishes the
people in his life actually would. Then
he gets to go inside Malkovich, and hijinks ensue. His experiences become copies of copies. Also in a throwback to last semester, Lisa
discusses Pachelbel’s Canon in D, where a simple chord progression is repeated
over 50 times. In a clip she shares, we
see a string quarter reinvent the song right on stage (while skipping about!),
changing bow strokes and utilizing pizzicato.
She ventures that while a song’s value might not be increased, its existence
beyond the original intention may lend for a more sustainable life.
Sarah talks about Edvard Munch’s Expressionist
painting The Scream (which we saw in
class yesterday), and the novelty of the Wilhelm Scream. The Wilhelm Scream (which you can listen to
on her page) was a subpar sound effect used in television and film for 67 seven
some years. Munch’s painting has been
spoofed by Bugs Bunny, Despicable Me’s
Minions, Spongebob, and more. She
definitively notes that in both pieces, what began as a repetition of the archetype
is now the only way the original is verifiable.
She goes on further to say, along the lines of Baudrillard, that there
are things we simply know, but don’t know we know. Furthermore, the knowledge of the original
doesn’t exist until the mind is made aware that there is indeed an original
form from which all these subconscious signposts originated. Hmmm.
Does this perhaps coincide a bit with what we’ve been doing in our
neutral mask work? This idea that we
are, as actors, have to be a blank slate and that everything is an original
thought- a new discovery- is immensely challenging, because how can we unknow
what we know? Back to Bob Seger for a
sec- he says in a song, “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know
then.” And Sarah brings us back to
Baudrillard’s sentiment that a painting is “only as true as it exists in the
mind.” But is it possible to get our mind’s eye that clearly onto canvas
without it being influenced by what we already know? Yikes.
My brain hurts.
Luckily, I
have Austin sharing a Bill Maher
clip which was a palate cleanser. But
first, he posits that as we’ve moved into the 21st century, an increasing
number of works of art or “important art” are developing from a “deepening well
of inspiration,” with a nod to the past being intentional. He cites Picasso’s tenet, “good artists copy,
great artists steal.” He then shares a
clip from Maher’s “Religulous” in which Bill finds himself a Biblical Theme
Park interviewing “Jesus.” Maher tells the “Jesus” about Horus, who was indeed
born of a virgin, healed the sick, walked on water, had twelve disciples- you
get the picture. The Jesus-Actor-Guy is
either really trying to stay in character, or truly can’t believe what Maher is
saying- which goes to Austin’s point: If so many of the major doctrines of the
creation story existed already in older belief systems, is it possible that the
sacredness of the Bible might actually be just an early example of the
repurposing of preceding ideas and creative storytelling? Austin concludes with
the notion that if you personally hold something to be beautiful or
significant- at the end of the day, it is.
Erica moves us into a different art form-
dance! Or specifically, one of her
favorite forms of dance- hip hop (#obsessed).
She maintains that choreography isn’t a copy of a copy, but an
individual interpretation or re-imagining.
As I watch the sick moves, I saw what she was talking about. It’s the same group of dancers doing the same
dance, but their dance is difference each time.
Maybe it has to do with the person/people they are dancing with. Maybe it has to do with a factor like their
hair falling in their eyes and they have to move their head differently so they
can see- who knows? A dance seems to be
new each time because the interpretation is personal and unique to each
individual. Erica further brings up
Auslander’s musings on the robot’s executions, and how the most “traditional
definition of performance” comes with the “agency of the performer as the
interpreter of the text of some kind.”
We know, from our dance class with Claudio last semester, how easy it is
for each of us to interpret choreography differently, just as we would approach
the same piece of text differently.
Mike gets right to the point, stating
that his initial reaction to my blog query is “no.” He argues that art should be characterized by
fluidity or changeability ion its existence.
He furthers Erica’s ideas on interpretation by saying that while a piece
of art may be his in creation, it becomes specific to the person reiterating
it. (Look at what Valentine does to
Thomasina’s iteration in Arcadia!) Mike
goes on to point out that there are hundreds of musicals that use literary
novels as source materials. Wow. I knew there was a lot, but not that
many. I’ll repost his link so you can
see for yourself.
He goes on
to talk about one of my favorite musicals, Spring
Awakening. He suggests that without
the German play written in 1891 by Frank Wedekind, we could not have had the
contemporary hit that the musical is today.
And if art’s purpose is to inspire, what’s a better form of
engagement? A kid who sees the musical
may go back and read the play. Or the
high school English class that reads the play then goes to see the musical.
Artistic win!
Osi begins her post by discussing mimetic behavior
development as infants, which leads to being rewarded for mimesis. She ponders if this mimicry leads to shallow
or fake behavior. She then talks about
mimic poems, which at first I thought I’d never heard of. Then I realized I’d had to write one in my
high school English class. And I use
this exercise sometimes with my kiddos studying sonnets. Mimic poems are written in the style of the
original poet. It can be a jumping off
point to help students write poetry, and some are quite creative (please read
“Anti-Beef Petition”- it’s kinda hilarious).
Osi describes it as a “happy medium between plagiarism and originality.”
She plays devil’s advocate to this as well though, pointing out further that
inspiration must stem from somewhere so it is completely original. The original
work sparked emotions and peaked consciousness in the artist- if we are copying
that artist, why should we be rewarded for something that is potentially
superficial or false? She draws to a
close by talking about the “Paint with a Twist” or “Paint with Pinot” social
art classes that are popular right now.
I’m familiar, as I tried to convince my husband go to with me to one
called “Brushes and Barstools.” He said,
“Why would I want to paint a copy of a painting?” I thought it was kind of a cool idea though-
making my own art. As Osi concludes, if
I’m sentimental about the mediocre painting I create, “all of a sudden it is
priceless.” As Austin said earlier, if
you hold something to be beautiful, it is.
And Osi quips, “Originality is in the eye of the beholder.”
Last but not
least- Fangs For the Memories, Emily! She discusses the many incarnations of Dracula.
Of course, preceding Bela Lugosi’s iconic Dracula was the 1922 monster
movie Nosferatu. Then Lugosi’s Dracula was filmed at Universal. However, Emily brings up a case of the copy
being better than the original. After
the filming of Dracula at Universal
during the day, a night cast and crew would come in and film the same movie
(using the same sets, costumes, et al), but in Spanish. Despite a non-Spanish speaking director,
iconic Mexican actress Lupita Tovar, along with a talented cast and camera crew
made what some argue is a superior Drácula. Spanish Dracula used more fluid camera motion
and innovative techniques. The Spanish
version’s cast/crew would sometime observe the Lugosi version filming during
the day, then arrive at set that night saying, “We can do better.” Jumping back to Nosferatu, a character whose film came out a decade before
Universal’s Dracula, Emily points some kinda strange things. Like, even though he was named Count Orlock
and not Dracula, and even though the location is different, the Dracula
through-line is the same. But as all the versions of Dracula/Nosferatu have
been remixed, comedic bits like “What We Do in the Shadow” are now pretty much
unrecognizable from the original. Which
is fine. Emily’s watched them all anyway
(and probably will again).
Again,
thanks for all your great work this week! I had fun reading. Till next time- Salud!
No comments:
Post a Comment