Shane RJ Walter
This means of mass production has proved a stimulus for a range of artists, but also for an audience that cannot be categorized nor defined solely by where they see this work. This has meant that museums, clubs, cinemas and institutions also have to reflect and engage with what is happening. – 이게 중요하다. 지형도의 변화가 일어나고 있단.
As was discussed in the UK Parliament, ‘screen cultrue is a world of constant flux, of endless soudn bites, quick cuts and half-baked ideas. It is a fow of gossip titbits, new headlines and floating first impressions. Nothing don’t stand alone but are massively interlinked to everything else; truth is not delivered by authors and authorities, but is assembled by the audience- (Baroness Susan Greenfield, Neuroscientist in UK parliment, 20 April 2006 from Hansard)’
cross-disciplinary practice, new radical thinking, and unfamiliar aesthetics. … as an effective way of disseminating moving-image ideas to a conservative film area.
Celluloid, Laptops + digital magic
Digital film changed everything, although is can be argued that in Hollywood nothing much has changed. It means digital post-production, and the opportunity to make epic cinema in the editing rooms.
the arrival of digital film이 솔직히 기존의 film industry에 불러온 변화는 그렇게 크지 않다. 그들은 편집 혹은 스페셜 이펙트의 차이 정도만을 의미한다. 기존의 내러티브 구조가 바뀔 수 없기 때문이다. 이러한 디지털 필름의 변화는 오히려 film industry 바깥의 움직임에서 많이 찾을 수 있다.
the arrival of digital film has undoubtedly wrought changes to the aesthetics of film. Yet attempts to reinvigorate film syntax are few, and it is hard to justify a claim that digital filmmakers are offering a genuninly new cinematic experience. Most digital filmmakers- or at least those concerned with the narrative tradition of filmmaking-are content to work within the existing syntax of contemporary film.
Digital film allows the modern filmmaker to make a different sort of film: digital technology allows the creation of a new, hybrid, non-linear, audio-visual cinematic bloodline that contains animation, the sampling of sound and vision and the creation of graphic effects. As Peter Lunenfeld notes in the introduction to his book The Digital Dialectic: ‘no matter how much digital systems resemble film or television, the are fundamentally different. The computer, when liked to a network, is unique in the history of system that offers the user the opportunity to create, distribute, receive and consume audio-visual content with the same box.
In this new frontier, the camera has been replaced by the computer as the principle tool of the digital filmmaker. But, most critically, digital technology has put the ability to make time-based media into the hands of individuals unversed in traditional film craft.
The notion of filmless film, of movies made in computers opens up numerous avenues of exploration, and offers a set of intriguing possibilities not available to the conventional filmmaker. The digital realm is different.
This new fluid meta-universe or change doesn’t always guarantee better art, but it gives us a new syntax for moving image that great artists of the past could not have envisaged.
The digital domain is a magical realm, but one that contains echoes of a much older pre-rational world.