Another Gondry video we watched was for a Kylie Minogue song. This video focused more on visualizing the structure of the song than the rhythm. The song has a cyclical construction of several verse-chorus sections of equal length. The video represented this visually by showing Kylie walking around in a circle several times. Every trip around the circle, another version of herself and many of the people she passes is added. Thus, by the end of the video, there are five or six Kylie Minogues walking together and interacting with each other.
The third Gondry video we watched was for Chemical Brothers’ Star Guitar. The video consists of a view from a train as scenery passes by. However, it soon becomes clear that each element of the scenery is representing an element of the music and has been digitally inserted at the proper moment and position to coincide with the rhythm of the song.
The ideas expressed in the music videos of Michel Gondry are fascinating. His perspective on the art of music videos is very different from that of most directors. Rather than show what’s discussed in the song or merely stick a video onto it, he entwines the actual musical structure of the song with his videos, enriching both the film and the song. Gondry’s work makes me consider how video and music can be utilized together in the future. Thus I ask, can video and music someday interact, not just as a way to enhance and promote one’s music or add emotion to one’s film, but as equally vital parts of a piece? Do artistic, musically-based music videos such as those of Gondry prove that this has already occurred?
Our in-class discussion on the idea of “what is art?,” while interesting, did not seem to me to go much of anywhere. Everyone seemed at times to agree that basically anything can be art, but then there always arose exceptions. This discussion made we wonder, what is the point in debating such a vague, general topic? Is there any value, artistic or otherwise, to having a working definition of “art” or is the topic mostly just useful because it makes us question the boundaries of art and perhaps then push them?
Elliot- You raise some interesting points. First in response to the question about music videos. Are you suggesting that one day music will always have a visual component rather than a separate category for a music video? Obviously film utilizes sound as a vital part of the experience. Within the art context a lot of "New Media" works and contemporary digital artwork use both sound and moving pictures. I guess that leaves music as a subject that could potentially expand to include visuals.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your comments about the discussion. It is a bit of a circular argument, but I found it interesting that most of the students agreed on a wide interpretation of art. The purpose was to see that defining something makes us consider the question of what is and what is not art, which is what artists have been doing for years. Perhaps we have finally arrived at a place where everyone accepts everything as art, and artists do not need to continually push the limits?
You make a good point on the discussion we had about what art is. It seemed like our conversation was a broken record of kids saying the same things. Most people believe, just like you do, that art is subjective and it doesn't matter what other peoples opinions are, because they are basically all the same anyway. 99% of people will not argue if someone says that anything can be art, just like was said in class.
ReplyDelete