Hokay, so I didn't actually do any sort of editing, but I did spend a copious amount of time logging shots yesterday. A copious amount. There were two and half tapes. Especially with Paul's interview, a lot of ground was covered and his alone was worth a lot of pages in my notebook. And at the time, it was too much to handle. Thus, impetus to figure out what kind of approach I should go for. I basically couldn't do any workshopping in Wednesday's class, but did my best to help those who did have shots and compositions and what not.
I figure I should talk about the racial sensitivity debate, in that the pro-chief movement does not think that the chief is itself racist or creates an environment of racism. I should proabably mention that I'll be wearing my "racial stereotypes dehumanize" t-shirt that day. Either that, or that the pro-chief movement, or at least the more sensible elements of which, were willing to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the opposition and were otherwise flexible in their demands to keep the Chief somehow, in some form. We'll see how it works when I import the footage.
I don't think I'll be doing the investigative video-journalistic thing. A lot of people may already know that the issue was decided a long time ago and in a non-transparent way, well.. obviously. If not many people know about how it was done, but know that it was done, then yeah, it was non-transparent. Really I don't see myself doing something without a wider-release that will just end up pissing people off and could potentially not end up how I want it, i.e. the trails I take lead no where. Also, it's a dead issue. And only people who are pissed off would care. I'm not pissed off. Therefore, I really shouldn't care. However, it would have been really cool to rock the boat with this one, but I'd be appealing to a crowd that I completely disagree with and frankly, don't want to see come to fruition. And luckily, the situation won't ever come to fruition. We retired the Chief and we did it, at least in a public fashion, with as much decorum as the university could muster.
Really, I think my desire to do this only stemmed from the fact that I was taking so much footage of Paul Schmitt and have felt bad not intending to use it to it's full extent. That, and when you keep an objective mindset and go into a situation, you tend to be more easily convinced. And he was persuasive, let me tell you what. He actually made me think that the board of trustees, or that some members thereon are a bunch of malicious pricks whether or not you like the Chief. But again, the issue is: who cares? One should care that the university is not making decisions democratically, yes, but this issue has been plaguing the university and it's reputation and whatever for 20-some years. It was time to take some initiative, and that's exactly what happened. Sometimes things shouldn't be done democratically, which is why I would love to see this country headed by an enlightened despot, like back in the 18th century. Oh, we have a despot for a leader, but he's certainly not enlightened. I'm talking about somone who will make decisions that are in the best interests of the country or body they run, not just a select few, and shouldn't buckle under external pressures. Of course, if there's a massive bread shortage or genocide, there's going to be problems. But so long as everyone is happy, fed, and unoppressed I'm perfectly fine with giving away my vote in return for someone sensible and intelligent (which, is pretty much how our democracy works now, except for the intelligence part). Oh, and so long as we can keep capitalism. That would be hunky-dory.
Rant aside, this footage in some other edited form should be passed on to Paul or some organization that would take a vested interest in it's contents for historical or sociological purposes. It really is an interesting narrative and whether or not you like it, a part of the history of this university. The pro-chief folks should just be happy we're not erasing him and sending him down the memory hole, just stopping him from doing his silly halftime dance. And the anti-chief folks need to focus their attention on something like Darfur or solving the problems of world hunger and overpopulation somehow. Please, for the love of jebus, these are real problems that will affect us in the future. I'm not saying that there's not racism on campus and that it's not a problem, just that there are larger social issues in larger, off-campuser contexts which are ultimately more important in the long-term. Please think of the children.
Okay, now this time I'll put the rant aside. I'm making an executive decision when I say that, I will approach for my next project, the idea that Farmbot should be our mascot and exactly why this is the case. What could be cooler than a 9-foot tall robot that shoots corn pellets out of it's arm cannon at its foes and launches fireworks from its stovepipe hat? I ask you...
Now back to being objective and looking past peoples' inability to see cultural insensitivity...
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Representing Production notes part 2 of probably this is it
Success! I had my interview with Paul Schmitt after many hours of phone tag and other uneventful anticipatory moments. He showed up to the Armory in a blue suit with an orange tie in true Illini fashion. He made it clear that he likes going here and its traditions. Except for maybe the fact that its traditions are being taken away. We started at 8 in what I claimed would only take an hour. We left the room we were interviewing in at 10. He had that much to say and to elaborate about, he really knew his stuff and was not nearly as nuts as people make him out to be.
Again, I was very transparent about my beliefs but kept them to a minimum, that is to say, a level of non-existence, and I found a lot of things we agreed on, as much as we could in a filming context wherein I am supposed to ask a question and shut up until it's been answered and was otherwise, very enlightening and engaging. He said a lot and this is going to be very difficult to pare down, given that I have his interview on two tapes and another tape of B-roll-worthy material. By the 60 minute mark, it began running in my mind that I should continue this issue for the next project. At least this means I can stop shooting and stop making production notes and start the editing process as soon as possible.
In specific, we spoke off the record about a few subjects that are potentially explosive and, well, very laden with heresay and conjecture that if I follow close enough, may turn out to be true. I won't say anything else about the manner, except that whether or not you like the Chief, you would care if you knew what I knew.
I was a little concerned about sound, I didn't use an external mic due to my previous experience and mistrust with the things, especially given the cinder-block and tile classroom that also happened to be located in the same hallway where a stepping set was practicing, but listening to the audio in the video lab gave me some confidence that you can hear what Paul was saying. So yay. I'm ready to edit tomorrow in class.
Again, I was very transparent about my beliefs but kept them to a minimum, that is to say, a level of non-existence, and I found a lot of things we agreed on, as much as we could in a filming context wherein I am supposed to ask a question and shut up until it's been answered and was otherwise, very enlightening and engaging. He said a lot and this is going to be very difficult to pare down, given that I have his interview on two tapes and another tape of B-roll-worthy material. By the 60 minute mark, it began running in my mind that I should continue this issue for the next project. At least this means I can stop shooting and stop making production notes and start the editing process as soon as possible.
In specific, we spoke off the record about a few subjects that are potentially explosive and, well, very laden with heresay and conjecture that if I follow close enough, may turn out to be true. I won't say anything else about the manner, except that whether or not you like the Chief, you would care if you knew what I knew.
I was a little concerned about sound, I didn't use an external mic due to my previous experience and mistrust with the things, especially given the cinder-block and tile classroom that also happened to be located in the same hallway where a stepping set was practicing, but listening to the audio in the video lab gave me some confidence that you can hear what Paul was saying. So yay. I'm ready to edit tomorrow in class.
Representing Production notes part 1 of many
I sent out an e-mail detailing my project to Paul Schmitt and got a positive response. However, he never followed up on my second e-mail, so I have to hunt him down or find another person of great authority and knowledge on the issue. Yesterday I interviewed Danielle Perlin and got some good responses out of her. A lot of what she said related to the fact that people will try to force their opinion on others in a manner that is either rude or condescending, and the lack of respect of one representitive of one side of the argument towards the other. She told me that she had a poster of the Chief stolen from her door anonymously and it was only returned after our RA intervened. What I percieve out of her interview is a lack of constructive dialogue or other respectful means of communication one's beliefs.
The interview process took longer than I thought. For one thing, it helps to know how much tape you have left. I ended up running out during a pivitol part of our conversation, that I made her redo with less extemporaneous effect. What I was going for was a level of spontaneity that underwrites an incredible amount of feeling and meaning in what the subject says. Also, I had to give her some coaching about doing an interview to edit. For one thing, it helps to pause before responding to questions, between main thoughts, and to phrase responses completely, as in "I think the sky is blue" rather than, "yes, I believe it's true" if I were to ask "Do you think the sky is blue?" Also the shotgun mics are unamplified so the signal is rather low, causing me to just use the camera mic. They take great sound for sure, but it would just be nice to get amplified levels out of them. Oh well. I think the project is going smoothly and I'll have a great finished product.
The interview process took longer than I thought. For one thing, it helps to know how much tape you have left. I ended up running out during a pivitol part of our conversation, that I made her redo with less extemporaneous effect. What I was going for was a level of spontaneity that underwrites an incredible amount of feeling and meaning in what the subject says. Also, I had to give her some coaching about doing an interview to edit. For one thing, it helps to pause before responding to questions, between main thoughts, and to phrase responses completely, as in "I think the sky is blue" rather than, "yes, I believe it's true" if I were to ask "Do you think the sky is blue?" Also the shotgun mics are unamplified so the signal is rather low, causing me to just use the camera mic. They take great sound for sure, but it would just be nice to get amplified levels out of them. Oh well. I think the project is going smoothly and I'll have a great finished product.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Representing Pre-production interview queries
Yeah, so about that spring break. It was a doozy. I spent the week in the sun and in the end, all I got was a lousy reaction to the sunlight causing a bad rash and a severe lack of productivity. And while neither really hurt that bad, they both leave a sting that is only satisfied by scratching at it gently and then vigorously, possibly making them worse.
Anyways, I came up with a preliminary list of ultimate questions that I will grill my interview subjects with. They are, as follows:
Yeah that about does it. Now I just have to guarantee some interviewees!
Anyways, I came up with a preliminary list of ultimate questions that I will grill my interview subjects with. They are, as follows:
- Introduce yourself, name, major, year, etc.
- What does the Chief mean to you?
- Why do you support the Chief?
- When were you first aware of the Chief? How did this initial encounter make you feel?
- What do you believe the Chief symbolizes?
- Why is it important to have a symbol that embodies those values, especially for our university?
- Are the playing fields and ball courts not an appropriate venue for the Chief? Should he and his image be primarily confined to an athletic context?
- How would you respond to the anti-Chief movement's argument that the chief embodies racism on campus or is racially insensitive?
- What are some other misconceptions surrounding the Chief and why do you believe they are false?
- How would you account for the turnout at the February 1 I-Resist forum?
- Can you comment on the following incidents:
- The NCAA's condemnation of Chief Illiniwek as a "hostile and abusive figure"?
- Recent racially-themed parties?
- The Ogllala Sioux's demand of the return of the Chief's regalia made by Frank Fool's Crow?
- The facebook incident wherein someone threatened to "throw a tomohawk" in someone's face?
- The outcry of alumni who will no longer support the university?
- The alleged profiteering of the Chief's image in the wake of the initial announcement?
- The NCAA's condemnation of Chief Illiniwek as a "hostile and abusive figure"?
- What is your opinion on what and how we learn and how much we learn about Native American history and culture in an educational setting? How might the Chief fit into this scheme? Do you feel what and how we learn is not truly representitive of Native history and culture?
- What can be said about the manner with which the board initially handled this decision?
- Who among the pro-Chief student body was consulted on this issue?
- What will you do to save the Chief? What must be done to have him appear next September?
- What should students do to reinstate the Chief?
- Why should students care about this issue?
- Can you say "I'm (blank) and I support the Chief" ?
- Any other comments or questions that may give insight into the issue?
Yeah that about does it. Now I just have to guarantee some interviewees!
Can you say... hiatus? Representing pre-production notes and other mumbo-jumbo
If I could choose a working title, it would be “an ultimate test of objectivity.” The purpose of this assignment, as I see it, is to represent someone or someplace with which I have little or no familiarity. As a person of opinions leaning in a certain direction, I can honestly say that such opinions are the formation of in-group biases, and that we tend to vilify at worst, or detract from the credibility of, at the bare minimum, those who do not share the same opinions as ours. We do not understand the opinions of others at times because we fail to understand who holds those opinions. I hope to gain an understanding of that person in the process of creating an objective representation of that person.
In specific, I want to, in part, document the series of events surrounding the retirement of Chief Illiniwek from the initial pro-chief reaction to the present. I believe that, like the symbol or not, it represents a pivotal time of change in our University’s history. I am not keen on the symbol, and own a t-shirt stating my opinion on the matter, but feel that the controversy it has created shows a lot about our university body. I specifically filmed certain pro-chief events believing they would make for good context regarding this subject in this project. I even had the opportunity to interview or capture the interviews of some students who had rallied in support of the chief. In particular, these were Paul Schmitt, president of Students for Chief Illiniwek, and Danielle Perlin, a journalism student and acquaintance of mine from down the hall. Because of certain untempered ambitions, I want to interview Paul Schmitt in depth. The difficulty presented is that I am not personally acquainted with him and may not be able to interview him for various reasons. Thus, an interview of Danielle lends itself to convenience, a situation that I try to avoid, but realize I must embrace at times. There’s another point I also need to get at. Also I realize I’m not following the proposal guidelines. Please bear with me.
The ultimate goal of this piece would be to identify with a pro-chief student and understand exactly what makes them pro-chief, something I have a difficult time understanding. What makes this a test of objectivity is the fact that, as a film-maker, I would be presenting a viewpoint I disagree with, and the end product would be an expository piece bordering on persuasive. I have wrestled with the thought that successful production is measured by audience reception. Ideally, this film should convert people to the viewpoint I’m representing, because such is the power of moving images. At the same time, I’m not completely willing to compromise my values to sell or proselytize something I wouldn’t buy or believe in. It’s much like Michael Moore making a documentary about the NRA. I’m willing to do this for the truth. It shouldn’t matter whether or not I agree with the viewpoint; I am representing it in a way that is not clouded by my judgments and truly reflects that person or ideal.
It would be, in some ways, wise to choose just anyone, opposed to the leader of a student organization or other publicly visible person. Taking a typical person off the street reinforces the fact that actual people feel this way, rather than exceptional people in positions of influence over said people. Still, it would be cool to interview Paul Schmitt. I digress. I’m also going to follow the prescribed order from here out:
In terms of action sequences, it would be imperative to include the footage I took of the Pro-chief rally on the Monday following the Board of Trustee’s decision. It documents a large body of students protesting the administration’s handling of the decision and their distaste for said decision. It was a funeral, except the people there still held hope that he would remain alive. There was a eulogy, which I unfortunately did not get good audio for. Then there was the dirge, the swaying of bodies to the tune of the Alma Mater. Then the chanting began, and the dispensing of t-shirts and call for petition signatures. It makes good B-roll in a film that centers mainly on the people, or an individual who wants to save the Chief, or serves as a pivotal entrance point to this series of events.
The main character is the student or students I get an interview with. This person has unique opinions, or at least unique in the sense that they hold a specific reason for having it or some variety of opinion that is different from the rest. They drive the film, it is about them, not me, not the Chief, not the board, the attention should rest on them. Obviously, they are the ones who will give the on-screen interview they would need to asked the following, among the myriad of questions that aren’t the five I’m stipulated to include:
As an expository piece, I have no expectations on the part of the characters to undergo some sort of change or narrative crisis. If there is a change in events, such as a vote from the Board on March 13th that contradicts their February 16th decision, that takes place in the context of the piece, then I would want to document some sort of change on the part of the subject(s). However, I probably won’t start principal photography until well after that. In terms of framing, I would want to juxtapose images that make sense for exposition’s sake: introduction, middle, end. First, some sort of clue as to who this person is, then the rising tide of additional information and context and opinions that somehow come into a crucial moment when they have to defend their position. And at the end, the moment of truth, whether or not they have succeeded in explaining their position or failed miserably and given up. Hopefully the former. Although I’m not averse to using the latter if it proves to be objective enough.
The audience of this piece is our class, or whoever among my friends will see it, if I’m very passive about this process. I wouldn’t mind selling this piece if it turns out successfully to some organization like Students for the Chief, or whatever, or putting it on some public display. The audience I suppose already has a working knowledge of this controversy and shouldn’t need the context for the piece. As far as producing for a certain audience, this is not a point of consideration. I am not Fox News and I am not pandering to what is obviously a conservative audience. If anything, the appeal or the approach should be so inherently neutral that anyone can watch it and understand, rather than brush it off as something imbued with an agenda.
I don’t forsee there being anything complex in terms of formal syntax, a rather uncomplicated interview set-up and the images that I’ve already taken or will take if anything happens to develop.
The piece should end gracefully, if there was ever such a way for an expository piece to end. Some sort of truth uttered by the interviewee or conveniently placed footage of people valiant enough to stand up for an issue rather than let some body unilaterally decide on things. I think that would work stylistically. Maybe even the interviewee voicing over the footage as it fades out. In general, it should basically be a summation of the main reason that the particular person holds their particular opinion, but parsed in a manner that is stirring or philosophical or challenges our belief or whatever. In the course of writing this, I’ve become less and less excited and it probably shows.
This will take a camera, preferably a 3-ccd miniDV format digital camera, adequate lighting, an acoustically appropriate space for filming, a video tripod, a shotgun mic, and if I’m lucky, just one DV tape. Maybe some Pocky as an incentive for people to undertake the interview process. That and a willing interviewee.
So here’s the deal with scheduling. It’s Monday, March 12, 2007. I have until April 1. Here’s how it should break down:
As far as a treatment goes, I’m going to have to stretch this a bit:
I begin in the thick of things. There is a throng of coated and heavy jacketed college students standing in the plaza outside the Illini Union. They are clad in orange and blue and adorned with symbols and block letters that suggest their support for the Chief. It’s a dark evening, after classes, after work, but before the late night when people are truly busy and hunkered down. Right now, they are holding signs that read “save the chief.” And they chant those words over again, “save the chief, save the chief, save the chief, etc.” They say it with growing enthusiasm, and the camera gets into the middle and crowd and points down. There are a lot of people. They are a qualified throng. On February 16, the Board of Trustees decided on retiring the Chief. On February 19, a lot of students began the first of what would be a week-long series of visible protests of this decision. It began in force that Monday with the gather of students to rally for their cause, reached a boiling point at the Chief’s last performance at the last regular season home basketball game, as hundreds of students changed out of their festive orange for somber black, and fizzled out with a sparsely attended candle-light vigil on a cold night the following Monday. Our subject introduces him or herself, with the usual name, the class, the major. He or she goes into why he or she supports the Chief, his or her reasons becoming more and more apparent as the interview goes on. We see what how the media has covered this event. We see websites announcing the news, we see the Daily Illini headlines and front page illustrations that, for a week, said the same thing, just in a different pitch or worded differently. We see a whole page of op-ed pieces that denounce the announcement. We see the news crew who cover the events that first Monday, and then we see it again on television. By now, the interviewee has said something stirring, he or she has said something in apparent defense of his or her beliefs, a parry to the thrust of the unseen, unheard interviewer’s line of questioning. It is at this point that I fail to see the effect of a treatment on a piece whose content is driven by probability. I have no idea what they’re going to say, or how they structure their answers. I’m not going to wag the dog or beg the question or lead them out or write out mad-libs for them to fill in. How is any of that or this objective? He or she will make a comment on the board of trustee’s decision and what they plan on doing about it, because he or she believes that their beliefs should be put to action. At this point, he or she makes a plea to the audience to do something similar, like express their distaste for the Board or Trustees or continue to support the Chief by wearing his likeness. At this point, I could include the footage of people swaying back and forth, singing the Alma Mater with a voice-over of my interviewee’s send-off message that easily encapsulates his or her argument in a manner that makes people really think about the issue, and I mean really think.
That really wasn’t all that bad. But still, I can’t expect out of this exactly what I put in; my whole concept revolves around the fact that there are too many unknown, unforeseen variables. This is, however, a reason to be excited rather than scared. I’m going to discover things I haven’t encountered before, and really that’s the point of argumentation, to develop yet unthought, unwritten, and unsaid ideas.
------------------------------------------------
What was this, the monday before break? That sounds about right.
This is unfortunately where I have to wedge my Dark Days response. I thought I had problems, but when you live in a railroad tunnel, then the shit I go through seems stupid. It's nice to live in comfort and have all the trappings of a technological society and struggle towards making a far-above ground living when I get out of school. It's not so nice to live underground in a shack. Sure, the shack is insulated and everything and you can get free electricity and maybe water, and given the outrageous rent in NYC, it's downright desirable in an economic sense, but it's literally a step below homelessness. The people living down there may think otherwise and shy away from shelters for safety's sake, and one can't help but think these are rugged individuals making it out on their own in a cruel world. Marc Singer's aesthetics reflect the stark realities of underground life. For one thing, he chose to use black and white, and arguably this is the best choice for low-light conditions. Still, the lack of color suggests a cold and bleak existence on the part of the tunnel residents. And yet, they continued to live there. Whether out of choice, or out of necessity is explored through the series of intimate dialogues between Singer and the residents. A choice I particularly enjoyed was his use of DJ Shadow in the beginning. I probably first heard that track before 8th grade and I just think it's a cool piece of music to use, and the repeated choral sample suggests something dark and mysterious overall, just a perfect way to suggest what is to come in the work.
As a representation of a group of people or place, this piece works extremely well, the filmmaker does not inject himself into the discussions or serve any purpose in the exposition rather than capturing it and as a sounding board (although on Wikipedia, I read that he had helped to secure their housing vouchers). I think it works well to let the subjects drive the conversation and inject bits of non-incidental anecdotes, as well as let the events in their lives serve as narrative points, like how the one woman's shack burned down. We see and hear their stories directly, rather than through some third-hand channel like in print. And such is the nature of well-exposed film, it is second only to experiencing something in person.
In specific, I want to, in part, document the series of events surrounding the retirement of Chief Illiniwek from the initial pro-chief reaction to the present. I believe that, like the symbol or not, it represents a pivotal time of change in our University’s history. I am not keen on the symbol, and own a t-shirt stating my opinion on the matter, but feel that the controversy it has created shows a lot about our university body. I specifically filmed certain pro-chief events believing they would make for good context regarding this subject in this project. I even had the opportunity to interview or capture the interviews of some students who had rallied in support of the chief. In particular, these were Paul Schmitt, president of Students for Chief Illiniwek, and Danielle Perlin, a journalism student and acquaintance of mine from down the hall. Because of certain untempered ambitions, I want to interview Paul Schmitt in depth. The difficulty presented is that I am not personally acquainted with him and may not be able to interview him for various reasons. Thus, an interview of Danielle lends itself to convenience, a situation that I try to avoid, but realize I must embrace at times. There’s another point I also need to get at. Also I realize I’m not following the proposal guidelines. Please bear with me.
The ultimate goal of this piece would be to identify with a pro-chief student and understand exactly what makes them pro-chief, something I have a difficult time understanding. What makes this a test of objectivity is the fact that, as a film-maker, I would be presenting a viewpoint I disagree with, and the end product would be an expository piece bordering on persuasive. I have wrestled with the thought that successful production is measured by audience reception. Ideally, this film should convert people to the viewpoint I’m representing, because such is the power of moving images. At the same time, I’m not completely willing to compromise my values to sell or proselytize something I wouldn’t buy or believe in. It’s much like Michael Moore making a documentary about the NRA. I’m willing to do this for the truth. It shouldn’t matter whether or not I agree with the viewpoint; I am representing it in a way that is not clouded by my judgments and truly reflects that person or ideal.
It would be, in some ways, wise to choose just anyone, opposed to the leader of a student organization or other publicly visible person. Taking a typical person off the street reinforces the fact that actual people feel this way, rather than exceptional people in positions of influence over said people. Still, it would be cool to interview Paul Schmitt. I digress. I’m also going to follow the prescribed order from here out:
In terms of action sequences, it would be imperative to include the footage I took of the Pro-chief rally on the Monday following the Board of Trustee’s decision. It documents a large body of students protesting the administration’s handling of the decision and their distaste for said decision. It was a funeral, except the people there still held hope that he would remain alive. There was a eulogy, which I unfortunately did not get good audio for. Then there was the dirge, the swaying of bodies to the tune of the Alma Mater. Then the chanting began, and the dispensing of t-shirts and call for petition signatures. It makes good B-roll in a film that centers mainly on the people, or an individual who wants to save the Chief, or serves as a pivotal entrance point to this series of events.
The main character is the student or students I get an interview with. This person has unique opinions, or at least unique in the sense that they hold a specific reason for having it or some variety of opinion that is different from the rest. They drive the film, it is about them, not me, not the Chief, not the board, the attention should rest on them. Obviously, they are the ones who will give the on-screen interview they would need to asked the following, among the myriad of questions that aren’t the five I’m stipulated to include:
- What does the Chief mean to you?
- What is your initial experience with Chief Illiniwek and how did it make you feel?
- What are some misconceptions that you feel the anti-chief movement holds and why are they not valid?
- What is your opinion on what we learn and how much we learn about Native American history and culture in an educational setting? How might the Chief fit into this scheme?
- What will you do to save the Chief?
- Overall, any other questions would develop exactly why someone is pro-chief and not anti-chief.
As an expository piece, I have no expectations on the part of the characters to undergo some sort of change or narrative crisis. If there is a change in events, such as a vote from the Board on March 13th that contradicts their February 16th decision, that takes place in the context of the piece, then I would want to document some sort of change on the part of the subject(s). However, I probably won’t start principal photography until well after that. In terms of framing, I would want to juxtapose images that make sense for exposition’s sake: introduction, middle, end. First, some sort of clue as to who this person is, then the rising tide of additional information and context and opinions that somehow come into a crucial moment when they have to defend their position. And at the end, the moment of truth, whether or not they have succeeded in explaining their position or failed miserably and given up. Hopefully the former. Although I’m not averse to using the latter if it proves to be objective enough.
The audience of this piece is our class, or whoever among my friends will see it, if I’m very passive about this process. I wouldn’t mind selling this piece if it turns out successfully to some organization like Students for the Chief, or whatever, or putting it on some public display. The audience I suppose already has a working knowledge of this controversy and shouldn’t need the context for the piece. As far as producing for a certain audience, this is not a point of consideration. I am not Fox News and I am not pandering to what is obviously a conservative audience. If anything, the appeal or the approach should be so inherently neutral that anyone can watch it and understand, rather than brush it off as something imbued with an agenda.
I don’t forsee there being anything complex in terms of formal syntax, a rather uncomplicated interview set-up and the images that I’ve already taken or will take if anything happens to develop.
The piece should end gracefully, if there was ever such a way for an expository piece to end. Some sort of truth uttered by the interviewee or conveniently placed footage of people valiant enough to stand up for an issue rather than let some body unilaterally decide on things. I think that would work stylistically. Maybe even the interviewee voicing over the footage as it fades out. In general, it should basically be a summation of the main reason that the particular person holds their particular opinion, but parsed in a manner that is stirring or philosophical or challenges our belief or whatever. In the course of writing this, I’ve become less and less excited and it probably shows.
This will take a camera, preferably a 3-ccd miniDV format digital camera, adequate lighting, an acoustically appropriate space for filming, a video tripod, a shotgun mic, and if I’m lucky, just one DV tape. Maybe some Pocky as an incentive for people to undertake the interview process. That and a willing interviewee.
So here’s the deal with scheduling. It’s Monday, March 12, 2007. I have until April 1. Here’s how it should break down:
- Today – have meeting with Cory. We will probably discuss how badly this proposal was written. Sorry. If it isn’t bad, then disregard the apology.
- Tommorrow, March 13 – film the board of trustee’s meeting if they’re public, which I’m not too sure about. Also, cameras may be in short supply.
- Wedneday, March 14. Interview Danielle Perlin with appropriately measured questions that I will have come up with by then.
- Sometime during this, approach Paul Schmitt via e-mail about possibly interviewing him. Also should do the same with Danielle, just so she knows what she’s in for.
- If I do get Paul Schmitt, schedule it very carefully such that it happens when a camera is available. Pray like crazy. This will probably have to happen after break, unfortunately.
- Post-production. As soon as I get my footage in order.
- There is no step three.
- My contingency plan is to cry a lot, or just find other pro-chief supporters and interview them, figuring out what makes their opinions so different from everyone else. There’s a ton of them, unfortunately.
As far as a treatment goes, I’m going to have to stretch this a bit:
I begin in the thick of things. There is a throng of coated and heavy jacketed college students standing in the plaza outside the Illini Union. They are clad in orange and blue and adorned with symbols and block letters that suggest their support for the Chief. It’s a dark evening, after classes, after work, but before the late night when people are truly busy and hunkered down. Right now, they are holding signs that read “save the chief.” And they chant those words over again, “save the chief, save the chief, save the chief, etc.” They say it with growing enthusiasm, and the camera gets into the middle and crowd and points down. There are a lot of people. They are a qualified throng. On February 16, the Board of Trustees decided on retiring the Chief. On February 19, a lot of students began the first of what would be a week-long series of visible protests of this decision. It began in force that Monday with the gather of students to rally for their cause, reached a boiling point at the Chief’s last performance at the last regular season home basketball game, as hundreds of students changed out of their festive orange for somber black, and fizzled out with a sparsely attended candle-light vigil on a cold night the following Monday. Our subject introduces him or herself, with the usual name, the class, the major. He or she goes into why he or she supports the Chief, his or her reasons becoming more and more apparent as the interview goes on. We see what how the media has covered this event. We see websites announcing the news, we see the Daily Illini headlines and front page illustrations that, for a week, said the same thing, just in a different pitch or worded differently. We see a whole page of op-ed pieces that denounce the announcement. We see the news crew who cover the events that first Monday, and then we see it again on television. By now, the interviewee has said something stirring, he or she has said something in apparent defense of his or her beliefs, a parry to the thrust of the unseen, unheard interviewer’s line of questioning. It is at this point that I fail to see the effect of a treatment on a piece whose content is driven by probability. I have no idea what they’re going to say, or how they structure their answers. I’m not going to wag the dog or beg the question or lead them out or write out mad-libs for them to fill in. How is any of that or this objective? He or she will make a comment on the board of trustee’s decision and what they plan on doing about it, because he or she believes that their beliefs should be put to action. At this point, he or she makes a plea to the audience to do something similar, like express their distaste for the Board or Trustees or continue to support the Chief by wearing his likeness. At this point, I could include the footage of people swaying back and forth, singing the Alma Mater with a voice-over of my interviewee’s send-off message that easily encapsulates his or her argument in a manner that makes people really think about the issue, and I mean really think.
That really wasn’t all that bad. But still, I can’t expect out of this exactly what I put in; my whole concept revolves around the fact that there are too many unknown, unforeseen variables. This is, however, a reason to be excited rather than scared. I’m going to discover things I haven’t encountered before, and really that’s the point of argumentation, to develop yet unthought, unwritten, and unsaid ideas.
------------------------------------------------
What was this, the monday before break? That sounds about right.
This is unfortunately where I have to wedge my Dark Days response. I thought I had problems, but when you live in a railroad tunnel, then the shit I go through seems stupid. It's nice to live in comfort and have all the trappings of a technological society and struggle towards making a far-above ground living when I get out of school. It's not so nice to live underground in a shack. Sure, the shack is insulated and everything and you can get free electricity and maybe water, and given the outrageous rent in NYC, it's downright desirable in an economic sense, but it's literally a step below homelessness. The people living down there may think otherwise and shy away from shelters for safety's sake, and one can't help but think these are rugged individuals making it out on their own in a cruel world. Marc Singer's aesthetics reflect the stark realities of underground life. For one thing, he chose to use black and white, and arguably this is the best choice for low-light conditions. Still, the lack of color suggests a cold and bleak existence on the part of the tunnel residents. And yet, they continued to live there. Whether out of choice, or out of necessity is explored through the series of intimate dialogues between Singer and the residents. A choice I particularly enjoyed was his use of DJ Shadow in the beginning. I probably first heard that track before 8th grade and I just think it's a cool piece of music to use, and the repeated choral sample suggests something dark and mysterious overall, just a perfect way to suggest what is to come in the work.
As a representation of a group of people or place, this piece works extremely well, the filmmaker does not inject himself into the discussions or serve any purpose in the exposition rather than capturing it and as a sounding board (although on Wikipedia, I read that he had helped to secure their housing vouchers). I think it works well to let the subjects drive the conversation and inject bits of non-incidental anecdotes, as well as let the events in their lives serve as narrative points, like how the one woman's shack burned down. We see and hear their stories directly, rather than through some third-hand channel like in print. And such is the nature of well-exposed film, it is second only to experiencing something in person.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Reaction and notes on Berger and Sontag
Excuse me if everything I write from here forward is bitter and well... generally downbeat in mood. My girlfriend of 6 months broke up with me. And we need to remain best friends. And it helps as much as it hurts. Whatever, now's not the time.
What I think about Berger:
Berger suggests that women are objectified, in the sense that they are an exercise in aesthetic pleasure and revered for those qualities. Of the first four images, two of them depict women who are explicitly being watched, reinforcing the fact that they are, in a vulgarmost sense, art. Their qualities fit a narrow criterium of art, in that they take on certain aesthetic forms and qualities, i.e. shape and beauty. Though a stretch, they are "art." The second two-page spread takes this suggestion to the extreme, encapsulating various forms of nudes over the ages. From right to left we see examples of classical, modernist, and impressionistic pieces that depict the same thing with the same exigencies: naked women unaware they are being observed. Is this voyeurism or the highest expression of what is deemed most beautiful, the female figure? The photographs suggest the former, in that they are pornographic and overtly sexual in the sense that we are most used to as members of a relatively hypersexualized culture. Could the other pieces, especially the more life-like, be deemed pornography for the 18th and 19th century? Probably. But these were considered high art and a component of high culture of the time, not something that would be put into a centerfold, or more appropriately for the era, a tawdry woodblock cutting.
The last two sets of photographs completely scrap whatever that idea held, revering the female figure for cruder purposes. It's too irresistable to say that "sex sells," because it does. And sex sells for sex's sake, the products depicted in the third set in particular suggest that you too can be pretty and looked at in an overtly sexual manner if you wear our stockings, our cosmetics, our spray deodorant. The depictions of women in sexually suggestive poses would belong in pornographic print if not for a few key pieces of clothing and their obvious target demographic of women who read fashion magazines. The last has an even more completely different message, in that women are narcissistic and hold themselves and their beauty far and above any ideal, simply for the sake of beauty. I can't really assume much about the classical depiction of some religious or mythological allusion, but I'll just assume it fits in with the photo of the woman being photographed, the final remark on male society's reverence for femaleness and female willingness to self-debasement.
Yes, that was bitter. The "sex sells" part is probably true of all of these paintings. Except maybe the impressionistic or modern pieces, all of these had some sort of financial exigency, some artist was commissioned, some designer salaried, all to profit off the image of women, and to appeal to the proponents of what was and stilll is male-dominated, misogynistic culture. We would really have to ask the painter, the sculptor what their original intent was, but it is safe and convenient to assume the most nefarious of purposes.
What differentiates Berger's second and third essays are words on a superficial level, but meaning on a deeper one. The sum of the uncaptioned images is explicit in the differing ways we've seen women in history. Berger then extends the montage by filling in the blanks with his second essay, addressing a lot of the issues with how the images depict vanity, express the power struggle between genders, and in particular how the works address the audience. It is completely different to step back as a casual observer, as it is to step back as a 14-19th century nobleman and see a painting you've commissioned, obstensibly for your pleasure or sexual gratification. It is not enough to be male in a lopsided world, you have to be reminded you're a male, as if your gender will change without this constant bombardment.
Thus, regarding his statement that "men act, women appear," I believe this is true for the time it was written or for the time of the pieces depicted, and the realist in me must accept the fact that this is still true. The time of high art is dead. There are no classical depictions of recumbent nudes, but in its place, a series of well-shot black and white photographs of nearly-nude, skeletal women inside Vogue. The female body has been usurped to sell fashion or diet cola, whatever kids and not-kids today wear and drink. We do not support realistic views of femininity in the media, we have lost the concept of the ideal woman. She has lost an unhealthy amount of weight and in the next fifteen to thirty years will be dead or the width of toothpick.
It is thus more ethical to represent someone realistically, in an unadultured fashion. Some women are models. Most women aren't. One could choose either to represent and follow around with a camera, but it is more likely going to be one who isn't. Because models are merely figments of our imagination, they're not real. In a similar vein, politicians are people too, just people with sexual deviancies and poor voting records in regards to subsidizing beet farmers. I'm sure they've done good things too, like help a child to read or saving kittens from trees. The latter things are left unnoticed, and are by necessity, not a good thing to include in something negatively subjective. Thus, objectivity is reality. Objectivity is balance. An ethical consideration of anything regards both sides of an argument or situation, and leaves the opinions of the filmmaker or artist out of the picture.
One can too easily distort the message of raw, unedited footage. For example, I took a lot of shots of the Pro-chief rally the monday after the Board of Trustees announcement. A lot of people were there in their orange shirts and hats and signs. I depicted the speakers, I depicted the crowd swaying back and forth while singing the alma mater, I depicted the crowd chanting "save the chief" ad infinitum. I also captured the tv film crews that were there, and the exchange of money for Chief T-shirts. I could have spliced those images in between any of the former images and create a false context, like how the pro-Chief movement is motivated to keep selling an image and profit from his demise, or how Paul Schmitt, the leader of Students for the Chief is media-hungry and wants to use airtime to help his student trustee campaign. I could have done a lot of things. They could have been real, they could have not been, but they're all distortions of the truth. In an objective reality, one avoids commentary and biased narrative and lets the film or artwork actually speak for itself.
What I think about Sontag:
In choosing images that depict warfare, it is important they reflect an neutral agenda. This is, however, impossible. There is no neutral agenda. There is neutrality, but that doesn't sell. Christian Science Monitor does neutrality, as a newsource that is not backed by a major media conglomeration. How they choose images, however, I'm unaware of. Ideally, you don't want images that depict the process of death, like from a gunshot wound or a mortar blast. Body parts and blood in animation are no-no, especially in our sanitized, sensitized world. There's a certain level of gross bodily disfiguration that is not acceptable. Obviously, it's unsafe to capture images of war as it happens, it's always the aftermath or a talking head speaking about an event. One would want to be able to sit a child down and explain what is happening in a frank manner so as not to disturb a child. It is not appropriate ever to sanitize images, like discolor blood so it is less apparent, or crop dead bodies from a photograph. This kind of adultery is avoided online where images are disseminated rapidly and without censorship.
I believe we are desensitized to images of war because of their omnipresence, but we do not see what real carnage is. Real carnage is what happens to those who do not fight. They lose limbs, they lose their skin to third-degree burns, they lose family members, they lose houses. We do not see these. We do not want to see these. We want to see headshots of recently fallen soldiers, as Jim Lehrer does every night on the NewsHour. We see the faces of those who have fallen, but not their faces as they have fallen. We are desensitized to the memory of dead but have no real conception of what goes on during a war besides the exchange of fire and the dropping of bombs. What we gain from this is a lack of appreciation for the gravity of the situation, and an expected reverence for those slain servicemen and servicewomen. If they did show the realities of war, we would have completely different reactions, like disgust or anger or maybe indifference. It is a moot point, however, because of this sanitization.
We have thus far not finished Iraq Stories, but overall it is successful in that it is not a major, mainstream depiction of what the war is. The film is mainly about people, in my opinion, and their stories, rather than groups of people or rulings or geopolitical struggles. It is simply about people. There's a certain veracity in the images, like the images Sontag menttioned in Krieg Dem Kriege, they tell the truth, and a not a propagandistic message. What there is to Iraq Stories is this truth, the Jordanian Armor-plated SUV driver, the American soldier who installed an xbox in the barracks, the old Kurdish woman speaking praises of George Bush. These were all new to me when I saw them. I had no idea how controlled and stable Iraq was, and how backwards it is now because of the war. One could derive a negative meaning from the film, like how our intrusion resulted in a lot of unrepaired damage and disorder, but at the same time some semblance of hope within certain people. Before I pass holistic criticism on the film, I would need to watch it in entirety.
I think embedding journalists is a great idea, in theory. Geraldo Rivera kind of screwed that one up, showing troop positions and potentially giving them away to the enemy. I doubt, however, that an entrenched Iraqi soldier would have gotten CNN or Fox News to have much of an effect on the battlefield. In practice, it is necessary. It is necessary and it is right as an American citizen to see exactly what is going on before one passes premature judgement on a situation. It is also a method of independent oversight. There will always be some discrepency between what the top brass reports and what a journalist would. They both reflect seperate agendas. Nevertheless, it is important as a tax payer to see exactly what your portion of the billion or so dollars is going towards. The problem with embedded journalists, however, is that they are limited just to combat, not like Iraq Stories where the filmmaker hoofed it around the country and didn't attach himself to a unit. This provides for more balance and more exposure to something we might not otherwise see.
...Okay, this is where I rip into Iraq days after having seen it in entirety. Yes, the approach is great, and frankly the images we saw we probably hadn't seen, but I can't get the feeling that it does offer the viewer a clear bias, that we're screwing up in there and not taking things with grains of salt, and I can only assume that's the same case four years later. Which is unfortunate, but in our mindset, we should be depicting things without adding our bits of commentary. We should be doing what Fox News advertises, reporting and letting the viewer decide. Evidently his work led up to a conclusion which we can't fault him on for coming to, but rather for presenting it in the way he did. You have to give him props for doing something so brash and idiotic like embedding himself in an armored patrol and getting ordinance certified, that takes cajones which I can say I don't have. I like my life, and I'm sure he likes his, but he values the art that comes out of a bad situation and shared with us what he saw, but unfortunately also how he saw it.
What I think about Berger:
Berger suggests that women are objectified, in the sense that they are an exercise in aesthetic pleasure and revered for those qualities. Of the first four images, two of them depict women who are explicitly being watched, reinforcing the fact that they are, in a vulgarmost sense, art. Their qualities fit a narrow criterium of art, in that they take on certain aesthetic forms and qualities, i.e. shape and beauty. Though a stretch, they are "art." The second two-page spread takes this suggestion to the extreme, encapsulating various forms of nudes over the ages. From right to left we see examples of classical, modernist, and impressionistic pieces that depict the same thing with the same exigencies: naked women unaware they are being observed. Is this voyeurism or the highest expression of what is deemed most beautiful, the female figure? The photographs suggest the former, in that they are pornographic and overtly sexual in the sense that we are most used to as members of a relatively hypersexualized culture. Could the other pieces, especially the more life-like, be deemed pornography for the 18th and 19th century? Probably. But these were considered high art and a component of high culture of the time, not something that would be put into a centerfold, or more appropriately for the era, a tawdry woodblock cutting.
The last two sets of photographs completely scrap whatever that idea held, revering the female figure for cruder purposes. It's too irresistable to say that "sex sells," because it does. And sex sells for sex's sake, the products depicted in the third set in particular suggest that you too can be pretty and looked at in an overtly sexual manner if you wear our stockings, our cosmetics, our spray deodorant. The depictions of women in sexually suggestive poses would belong in pornographic print if not for a few key pieces of clothing and their obvious target demographic of women who read fashion magazines. The last has an even more completely different message, in that women are narcissistic and hold themselves and their beauty far and above any ideal, simply for the sake of beauty. I can't really assume much about the classical depiction of some religious or mythological allusion, but I'll just assume it fits in with the photo of the woman being photographed, the final remark on male society's reverence for femaleness and female willingness to self-debasement.
Yes, that was bitter. The "sex sells" part is probably true of all of these paintings. Except maybe the impressionistic or modern pieces, all of these had some sort of financial exigency, some artist was commissioned, some designer salaried, all to profit off the image of women, and to appeal to the proponents of what was and stilll is male-dominated, misogynistic culture. We would really have to ask the painter, the sculptor what their original intent was, but it is safe and convenient to assume the most nefarious of purposes.
What differentiates Berger's second and third essays are words on a superficial level, but meaning on a deeper one. The sum of the uncaptioned images is explicit in the differing ways we've seen women in history. Berger then extends the montage by filling in the blanks with his second essay, addressing a lot of the issues with how the images depict vanity, express the power struggle between genders, and in particular how the works address the audience. It is completely different to step back as a casual observer, as it is to step back as a 14-19th century nobleman and see a painting you've commissioned, obstensibly for your pleasure or sexual gratification. It is not enough to be male in a lopsided world, you have to be reminded you're a male, as if your gender will change without this constant bombardment.
Thus, regarding his statement that "men act, women appear," I believe this is true for the time it was written or for the time of the pieces depicted, and the realist in me must accept the fact that this is still true. The time of high art is dead. There are no classical depictions of recumbent nudes, but in its place, a series of well-shot black and white photographs of nearly-nude, skeletal women inside Vogue. The female body has been usurped to sell fashion or diet cola, whatever kids and not-kids today wear and drink. We do not support realistic views of femininity in the media, we have lost the concept of the ideal woman. She has lost an unhealthy amount of weight and in the next fifteen to thirty years will be dead or the width of toothpick.
It is thus more ethical to represent someone realistically, in an unadultured fashion. Some women are models. Most women aren't. One could choose either to represent and follow around with a camera, but it is more likely going to be one who isn't. Because models are merely figments of our imagination, they're not real. In a similar vein, politicians are people too, just people with sexual deviancies and poor voting records in regards to subsidizing beet farmers. I'm sure they've done good things too, like help a child to read or saving kittens from trees. The latter things are left unnoticed, and are by necessity, not a good thing to include in something negatively subjective. Thus, objectivity is reality. Objectivity is balance. An ethical consideration of anything regards both sides of an argument or situation, and leaves the opinions of the filmmaker or artist out of the picture.
One can too easily distort the message of raw, unedited footage. For example, I took a lot of shots of the Pro-chief rally the monday after the Board of Trustees announcement. A lot of people were there in their orange shirts and hats and signs. I depicted the speakers, I depicted the crowd swaying back and forth while singing the alma mater, I depicted the crowd chanting "save the chief" ad infinitum. I also captured the tv film crews that were there, and the exchange of money for Chief T-shirts. I could have spliced those images in between any of the former images and create a false context, like how the pro-Chief movement is motivated to keep selling an image and profit from his demise, or how Paul Schmitt, the leader of Students for the Chief is media-hungry and wants to use airtime to help his student trustee campaign. I could have done a lot of things. They could have been real, they could have not been, but they're all distortions of the truth. In an objective reality, one avoids commentary and biased narrative and lets the film or artwork actually speak for itself.
What I think about Sontag:
In choosing images that depict warfare, it is important they reflect an neutral agenda. This is, however, impossible. There is no neutral agenda. There is neutrality, but that doesn't sell. Christian Science Monitor does neutrality, as a newsource that is not backed by a major media conglomeration. How they choose images, however, I'm unaware of. Ideally, you don't want images that depict the process of death, like from a gunshot wound or a mortar blast. Body parts and blood in animation are no-no, especially in our sanitized, sensitized world. There's a certain level of gross bodily disfiguration that is not acceptable. Obviously, it's unsafe to capture images of war as it happens, it's always the aftermath or a talking head speaking about an event. One would want to be able to sit a child down and explain what is happening in a frank manner so as not to disturb a child. It is not appropriate ever to sanitize images, like discolor blood so it is less apparent, or crop dead bodies from a photograph. This kind of adultery is avoided online where images are disseminated rapidly and without censorship.
I believe we are desensitized to images of war because of their omnipresence, but we do not see what real carnage is. Real carnage is what happens to those who do not fight. They lose limbs, they lose their skin to third-degree burns, they lose family members, they lose houses. We do not see these. We do not want to see these. We want to see headshots of recently fallen soldiers, as Jim Lehrer does every night on the NewsHour. We see the faces of those who have fallen, but not their faces as they have fallen. We are desensitized to the memory of dead but have no real conception of what goes on during a war besides the exchange of fire and the dropping of bombs. What we gain from this is a lack of appreciation for the gravity of the situation, and an expected reverence for those slain servicemen and servicewomen. If they did show the realities of war, we would have completely different reactions, like disgust or anger or maybe indifference. It is a moot point, however, because of this sanitization.
We have thus far not finished Iraq Stories, but overall it is successful in that it is not a major, mainstream depiction of what the war is. The film is mainly about people, in my opinion, and their stories, rather than groups of people or rulings or geopolitical struggles. It is simply about people. There's a certain veracity in the images, like the images Sontag menttioned in Krieg Dem Kriege, they tell the truth, and a not a propagandistic message. What there is to Iraq Stories is this truth, the Jordanian Armor-plated SUV driver, the American soldier who installed an xbox in the barracks, the old Kurdish woman speaking praises of George Bush. These were all new to me when I saw them. I had no idea how controlled and stable Iraq was, and how backwards it is now because of the war. One could derive a negative meaning from the film, like how our intrusion resulted in a lot of unrepaired damage and disorder, but at the same time some semblance of hope within certain people. Before I pass holistic criticism on the film, I would need to watch it in entirety.
I think embedding journalists is a great idea, in theory. Geraldo Rivera kind of screwed that one up, showing troop positions and potentially giving them away to the enemy. I doubt, however, that an entrenched Iraqi soldier would have gotten CNN or Fox News to have much of an effect on the battlefield. In practice, it is necessary. It is necessary and it is right as an American citizen to see exactly what is going on before one passes premature judgement on a situation. It is also a method of independent oversight. There will always be some discrepency between what the top brass reports and what a journalist would. They both reflect seperate agendas. Nevertheless, it is important as a tax payer to see exactly what your portion of the billion or so dollars is going towards. The problem with embedded journalists, however, is that they are limited just to combat, not like Iraq Stories where the filmmaker hoofed it around the country and didn't attach himself to a unit. This provides for more balance and more exposure to something we might not otherwise see.
...Okay, this is where I rip into Iraq days after having seen it in entirety. Yes, the approach is great, and frankly the images we saw we probably hadn't seen, but I can't get the feeling that it does offer the viewer a clear bias, that we're screwing up in there and not taking things with grains of salt, and I can only assume that's the same case four years later. Which is unfortunate, but in our mindset, we should be depicting things without adding our bits of commentary. We should be doing what Fox News advertises, reporting and letting the viewer decide. Evidently his work led up to a conclusion which we can't fault him on for coming to, but rather for presenting it in the way he did. You have to give him props for doing something so brash and idiotic like embedding himself in an armored patrol and getting ordinance certified, that takes cajones which I can say I don't have. I like my life, and I'm sure he likes his, but he values the art that comes out of a bad situation and shared with us what he saw, but unfortunately also how he saw it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)