My work focuses on the idea of time, and how time is perceived. To do so, I focus on memories, and how they can link the present and the past, making the time gap disappear – for the past thoughts become ones of the present. In that sense, I like to think of my video animations as time bending works of art.

To achieve my goals, I create an aesthetic language that fosters a soothing – almost meditative – atmosphere. In turn, this latter atmosphere is meant to make the viewer reflect on the idea of time, consider past memories, and relate them to the present moment.

Examples of works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w-GURB1pvY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTBeSFIpNnc

For my final project, I will be making a website where I will put my previous animation project.

In addition to this animation, I will make another animation which will incorporate a soundtrack. This latter animation will be one about the time and space themes that I was focusing on during this semester.

In that sense, creating this website would be a first step to creating my portfolio.

I really enjoyed watching “RiP: A Remix Manifesto”, for I found myself agreeing with most of what was being said. As a matter of fact, one of the questions that resonated with me most was the following: How do we define ownership, and how does this idea of ownership pertain to culture? In other words, should culture be owned, or should it be in the public domain?

As far as I am concerned, I believe that culture belongs to everyone, and it should be in the public domain. One of the arguments used in the documentary was that copyrights laws were used to stimulate creativity. But one cannot help but notice that nowadays, copyrights laws have steered away from that creative goal, to a more capitalistic one. I was disgusted by this shift from a creative to a capitalistic goal, for I believe that once money is somehow involved in the creative process of art, the former has a slowing, if not blocking effect on the latter.

Another reason that makes me believe culture should be owned by the masses rather than lobbies is that we notice a change between older generations and present ones; and we should make sure that this change is for the better. Let me explain myself: older generations used to have to search for things when they wanted to get cultured, whereas nowadays, we have all the information we want very quickly. My take on that is that older generations were more independent, and were not necessarily influenced. However, I believe that the present generation is spoon-fed. That later process is a bit dangerous since it means that there is an intermediary that is between the source and the recipient. To take that middleman if you will, culture should be accessible to all, and to that, culture should be free, and accessible to download.

Finally, some of the claims that music majors are making are contradictory. For instance, I recall that there was an artist who said himself that he recorded a song with a major music company, where the song was copied from someone else. In that sense, it means that music companies can make infringements on copyright laws, but others could not make similar kinds of infringements. The law should be the same for all, and lobbies/music companies should not be above the laws.

Also, a ridiculous claim was that you would have to pay royalties for singing the “Happy Birthday Song”. Not only is that ridiculous, I would say that it is intrusive. Indeed, how is a music company to tell us how to act, what to think, what to sing. Comes a times where you have to accept the rules, and if you are intruding into people’s minds, you should accept that people intrude (and claim ownership of cultural property). As a matter of fact, not only should they accept, but they should expect to be.

http://bfpa.dreamhosters.com/nma2050/youssef/

As I read Russolo’s “The Art of Noise”, I couldn’t help but agree with his perception of music. As a matter of fact, one idea that resonated with me was that “noise accompanies every manifestation of our life. Noise is familiar to us. Noise has the power to bring us back to life.”

The soundtracks (or noisetrack) I have chosen to relate to the manifesto are Sigur Rós’ “Ba Ba”, and “Ti Ki”. Indeed, these tracks transported me as soon as it started. You have a subtle alarm clock-like tune that sent me back to my alarm going off this morning. There is also some kind of natural aspect to the tracks, for it reminded me of rain, falling off on some glass. Moreover, the sounds played by the wind instruments seem to be very raw, minimalistic if you will. In a sense, they seem like they have not been altered, and I enjoy it quite a lot. In fact, these tracks are a combination of several of the noise categories that Russolo talks about in his manifesto. You have whispers, jingles, cracks, percussion noises, moans, whistles, noises of falling water, et cetera.

In addition, the tracks have a juvenile aspect to them. I could not help but think of a baby going to sleep to Sigur Rós’ “Ti Ki”. As a matter of fact, we can hear the noise of an engine, which we could assume is the sound of the light machine that is rotating on tiop of the baby’s crib.

One of the tenets that really stroke me was the one that had to do with property:

“Hackers must calculate their interests not as owners, but as producers, for this is what distinguishes them from the vectoralist class. Hackers do not merely own, and profit by owning information. They produce new information, and as producers need access to it free from the absolute domination of the commodity form. Hacking as a pure, free experimental activity must be free from any constraint that is not self imposed. Only out of its liberty will it produce the means of producing a surplus of liberty and liberty as a surplus.”

As far as I am concerned, I have mixed feelings concerning this tenet. Indeed, I do agree that in order to produce, a hacker (or a producer if you will) has to have free access to information. To do so, information should not belong to someone.

However, I also feel that sometimes, a producer might have taken a lot of time to be able to produce his work, In that sense, it would be unfair to just take the producer’s work, and use it as if it were one’s own. In this case, I am talking about independent producers. I really don’t mind hacking works produced by multinational corporations, for those works have usually a capitalistic meaning to them.

To conclude, I feel that if it doesn’t follow an “art for art’s sake” approach, and if it mainly is directed by capitalistic motives, it should be hacked. Otherwise, it should not. Property is in the hands of those who are willing to give it away.

“If it is the live-action film’s job to present physical reality, animated film is concerned with metaphysical reality – not how things look, but what they mean.”

As far as I am concerned, I find this quote from Seeing The Brick And Cameraless Animation to be very poignant. Indeed, if we take the definition of animation as “not the art of drawings that move, but rather the art of movements that are drawn,” we could almost conclude that the art of animation is not inclined to be a realistic one. In fact, it is no surprise that surrealist and conceptual artists used animations among other media to express their visions of the world that surrounds us.

Also, I was a bit confused when I read the quote: does the quote mean that realistic art does not express the meaning of things? Is there a dichotomy between the appearance of an object, and its meaning? I feel that what the quote means is that there is a sort of constructivist aspect to animation art, in the sense that this form of art will decompose what we know and perceive as “reality”, in the aim of understanding the core of things. Because of that aspect, I am really fond of this idea, for I feel that art should make the viewer think about his surroundings, and shouldn’t give a preconceived idea. In other words, art is relative, and should create some kind of thought process so that the viewer could understand its aim and essence.