Tag Archives: reflections

Memento

by

I’m still trying to fully comprehend Memento. I understand the true story but the way the director filmed it, using sequence, there’s multiple stories within the actual story. In the beginning of the movie, you believe Teddy is the bad guy who raped Lenard’s wife. At the end of the movie, you learn that Teddy is actually the cop that worked Lenard’s case.

This movie just made me really reconsider how I can approach my sequence project. I can try telling a story backwards or maybe alter what actually happened by placing the photos in a different order to create my own personal narrative. This movie helped me see this sequence project in a new light.

One thing that I thought was interesting with this movie was how similar Sammy and Lenny’s names are. Just how they’re both nicknames for full names that contain the same about of letters. I don’t know if the director or writers did that on purpose to make it more believable that Lenny made up the story about Sammy or not.

I like how Lenny wrote little reminders about the people he met. It makes me think about how I could possibly incorporate text into my own sequence project. After watching this movie, I have a better idea of what to do for my sequence project.

Schindler’s List Reflection

by

Schindler’s List is perhaps the most graphic holocaust movie ever made. The purpose of this film is to show the world what the holocaust was really like for Jewish people. Spielberg, a jewish man himself, knew that if he were to make a movie about the holocaust, he would have to do it brilliantly and accurately. This is why he used actual survivors of the holocaust to play most of the Jewish people in his film. He had the children who experienced the Holocaust play their parents in the movie while the survivor’s children or grandchildren played their parents or grandparents. The casting for this film was done so well that when one of the survivors met Ralph Fiennes, she was trembling with fear because he reminded her so much of his character Amon Goeth.

Spielberg made sure every detail of this movie accurately represented how gruesome and tragic the holocaust was. In the beginning of the movie, you see soldiers making fun of a Jewish man’s payot or side curls. When the jews move to the ghettos, you see the little girl throwing stones at them yelling, “Goodbye Jews!” As the film progresses, things become more graphic. You see people being killed for stopping to tie their shoe. However, the audience does not just hear the gunshot and see that the gun was pointed to a jewish person. Spielberg shows the jewish person’s reaction to being shot; he shows the puddle of blood formed around the person’s head; he shows how all of the other jews are forced to keep walking and not be upset by this tragic spectacle; Spielberg shows what it was actually like to experience the holocaust from a jewish person’s perspective.

One thing that I loved that Spielberg did was how he showed how filthy and inhumane the ghettos were. He shows Schindler’s luxurious new home and then he shows the jewish family walking into the ghettos. Schindler is seen smiling, amazed at how beautiful the house is. The jewish family is in complete shock as they walk into their apartment. There’s a few families already living there; the apartment is overcrowded; their new “home” is filthy. Then the audience sees Schindler laying in his bed, smiling, saying to an officer, “it could not be better”. Right after he says that, the scene changes to the wife of the jewish family saying, “it could be worse.” That dramatic comparison happening simultaneously really showed the audience how unfair and inhumane the whole situation was. Imagine living in a nice home and then one day the government says this home isn’t your home anymore. They tell you that you have to live in this crappy apartment with three other families. And why might you ask? Because of your religion. Because of who you are.

I think Spielberg did a brilliant job directing this movie. I think it was wise of him to use a true story for this movie, because it really resonants with the audience that the events taking place actually happened. If the story wasn’t real, the audience may say, “oh well that didn’t really happen” or “oh it may have happened but probably not.” They won’t fully understand the meaning behind the movie. I like how Spielberg chose to have some parts of the movie in English and some parts in Polish or German. I think it helped make the audience feel what it was like to actually be there. I think Spielberg considered every detail of this film. He chose to do it in black and white instead of color because black and white helped establish the depressing tone of the movie. He made sure to have the actors use certain phrases in the movie to reveal how inhumane the situation was. Instead of the solider saying, “we do not need him”, he says “you’re not essential.” The negative connotation of the phrase makes the audience realize how the Nazis didn’t see the Jews as people. They saw them as equipment or materials. They saw them as things they can dispose of. How can a human being not be essential? How can someone rank someone as not essential? What qualifies as essential? Just the context of the phrase shows how grim the whole situation is. Every aspect of this movie had thought and purpose behind it. It truly is a masterpiece.

Strive to Fail Reflection

by

After reading Strive to Fail, I felt that Lisa Le Feuvre’s argument was that no one can critique a piece of art and classify it as a failure. Only the artist can justify his or her work as a failure based on what their intentions were for a particular piece. For example, an artist may find their sculpture a failure because they could not make what image they had in mind, but the audience could see it as a masterpiece. Sometimes artists have intentions on what they want to make but cannot produce these because they feel like they don’t have the skills to, so they create something different which ends up being better than their original idea.

Failure does not mean that someone is a bad artist or that the piece they made was necessarily bad. Failure for an artist can mean that they were unable to make something from their imagination successfully. However, the audience may not know the artist’s original intentions and may think that their work is a masterpiece. No one can really claim what art pieces are successes and failures. It depends on the person’s interpretation of the piece itself.

As an artist, I think you shouldn’t be afraid to fail. Failing is good because you learn from your mistakes and take the audience’s negative critiques to make yourself a better artist. No matter how talented someone is, there will always be room for improvement. There will always be things that could have been done differently that could make the piece more appealing.

However, an artist should be able to explain their purpose for making something. If the audience knows the purpose of an image or piece of art, it can help them analyze your artwork in a new perspective. They may be able to understand why the artist chose to use certain elements in the piece as opposed to others. For example,”In [John] Baldessari’s Wrong (1967-68) – a technically ‘wrong’ photographic composition, in which the artist stands in front of a palm tree so it appears to sprout from his head…” (Le Feuvre ). From a technical perspective, the photograph is not a good photograph because of the placement of the tree. However, it could be the artist’s intention to take that image that particular way because it could represent something drastically different than what the audience is thinking. This is why it’s hard to justify whether or not a piece of artwork is a failure.

Tunnel 57 Reflection

by

I found Tunnel 57 very interesting. I think Tunnel 57 is a perfect representation of how a design can impact a wide range of people as opposed to just artistic people. The tunnel was used to connect members of East Berlin to West Berlin. I think having people interact with the design itself helped keep the story of Tunnel 57 alive. When designs have significant meaning behind them, they tend to resonant with people. People admire Ground Zero because of the significance behind the site. No one admires or reflects on regular buildings or sites in New York. Perhaps some people do, but it’s not common or popular for someone to reflect on a common building in a city.

I think it was smart of them to be precise with every little detail involved in operating the tunnel. They used the word Tokyo as a code word based on reports of the olympics. Instead of saying we have 5 refugees in the tunnel, they would say we have a family of 5 in the tunnel with 3 little children. I think when an artist thinks about every detail of the design, its use becomes more purposeful or efficient.

I think this piece helped me define the line between art and design. The tunnel was a design used to bring together families who were split due to the Berlin Wall. While the design of the tunnel had some flaws, the project was a success until they were caught. Design has a purpose so an artist may not be able to express themselves. Design is functional and purposeful. Design is efficient and effective. Art is about expression. Those are the differences between design and art.

This piece has inspired me to try to create art that has more meaning behind it. It will be a challenge but it’s something that I would like to achieve. This piece has reminded me that I should be aware of every element I’m incorporating into my photographs.