In discussing the contrast of information mediums and their effectiveness, my mind left the conversation and started to think about the group presentations of last Tuesday and of the effectiveness of those presentations.
While all the groups shared a common interest, and the same subject matter. They all found their own path or direction as a means of conveying information. (The ideas i have about this are somewhat abstract and I fear that my language might sound contrived but bare with me because I don't really know how to put this) but i started to think that the question of quality focusing or categorizing by the medium is improper. It is not the medium that posses varied quality. The quality or type of medium does not determines it's effectiveness. rather the inverse, the effectiveness of said medium determines quality (if that is determinable).
This may seem really pointless to delve into but, at least for me this is significant, I continue: Whether the artist is given, clay, marble, canvas or a pen and paper should not and does not assign any level of quality or effectiveness, it is the thing the artist does with his tools that can be judged (I think everyone can agree with this simplification. this is essentially what my point is just reduced)
But on to the groups:
group 4. The use of Film as a medium. The image, and more importantly the idea of using a chess match speaks endlessly and tirelessly. It was this image of the game, the complexities of the game that make it so profound. The "castling" play that was delved into, is a perfect example of these ever appearing rabbit holes that Nabokov attuned our eyes to. The pun of such a thing is far more than a play on words as we have seen, but rather, another door of perception we have found.
Stylistically group four's film shows how it's chosen medium excels. The passing of time/ the expression of deep thought played out in a simple gesture of smoking cigarettes. the seemingly magical movement of the chess pieces, is an example of cinematic prowess that enunciates this groups quality in their chosen form. Anyways this was unbelievably good (as were they all) but good most importantly in a unique and powerful way-this again applies to all the groups
Group 5.
The medium of poetics. I again was awed at how (for lack of a better word) good this group was and how capable everyone in class is of expressing these crazy levels of quality and mass levels of knowledge representable in a 20 minute presentation. The use of the written word (performed orally) is as we have seen/read/heard incredibly concentrated and purified. The very fact that the group used names as inspiration, and the writings/bloggings of those names for their material, and beyond that as Chelsae (Kinbote) used the writing of Roberts Shade is evidence of this fractal-ed flower that this class has seemed to sprout. The voice it gives to characters or themes that have a limited* voice in their original is just crazy. *I don't mean to say that Nabokov's characters are in anyway limited, but they are limited to what is written, Micheal Wood discusses this and even calls on Humbert to explain. As he puts it best in his novel The Magician's Doubts, "Humbert points for example to what seems to be the rigidity of the textual characters, their hopeless inability to change their tune: 'No matter how many times we reopen 'King Lear', never shall we find the good king banging his tankard in high revelry, all woes forgotten, at a jolly reunion, with all three daughters and their lapdogs. Never will Emma rally, revived by the sympathetic salts in Flaubert's father's timely tear.'"
But the works of Jessica's Lolita and the whole group's character continuation give life out of salted earth.
Group 5. An array of mediums, but for me it was the medium of action. Live theater so to speak. As the old adage sates: actions speak louder than words. (this even had both, and Disney!) But the use of physical action speak so loudly and so poignantly, i feel that some of most significant moments were moments of silence. One of these moments was namely the scene in which the wolf and Humbert stare quietly at the group of children. Creepy needless to say but so much more than that as well, especially when the character of Frankenstein appeared we didn't need an explanation (though it did help) that this was a moment, one of the most shattering in the book, that is Humbert's self realization. The entire production spoke loudly as well, and the incorporation of song/dance is even another endless topic or point of power. The allusion to fairy tale is again a Major and Hugely effective and productive means and medium. On a side note to this groups imagery, I found Zach's dress and presentation of Little Red Riding Hood a shocking and suspicious relation to MT's own Una-bomber see here.
anyway. Hand's down amazing all of them. and all for their own reasons and merits. The idea that one type or form effects quality is clearly out the window. I was amazed and am still trying to get my mind around this idea of fruition through different artistic directions, but the proof is in the pudding.
-back to my side note earlier about the question of Quality. I read (or tried to read) Robert Pirsig'sZen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, meaning I read it but I did not really understand it. But the idea that this book focuses on, is the question of defining quality and whether or not that is even a possible task to accomplish. He started this train of thought hear at MSU and it took him so far into himself that he had to be hospitalized and undergo shock therapy none the less. This just got me thinking about this class and about the focus and attention we all have had on thoughts and ideas stemming from Nabokov's work, And I say this not as though i'm worried anybody will go crazy or that we should cease from exploration rather it is just interesting to me that when a person commits himself to the pursuit of knowledge when he travels inwardly to the point of outward infinity he is deemed crazy. Now i dont know enough to really challange the pyshcological community and i don't really doubt that Pirsig went crazy but it just seems to me that the ventured into a realm of pure conciousness that i suppose was too powerful. And i don't really know if that is a bad thing. as Leary put it"You have to be out of your mind to use your head". I am getting off topic hear, but i guess I'm just trying to say that I'm grateful or this class because we've been shown power of the mind and the capabilities that it has, stemming from simplest of things. It is this notion that we started with, that all the groups employed that we can take a single image, or a single line of prose, a gesture of some kind, a photograph for example* and from this no matter how simple, conjure an entirety
Great insights. I enjoyed reading this. =D
ReplyDelete