Friday, June 02, 2006

On the complexity of simple living

The Fishmonger is both a granite sculpture and alive as well. The sculpture was erected at Gammel Strand in 1940, some few years before the local fish market was moved to more modern premisses. The breathing fishmonger woman still sells the catch-of-the-day from her same humble, makeshift flexible waterfront stand next to the sculpture, to loyal, older customers. Tourists mostly glean and take snapshots of this incongruous character from bygone times. Her unassuming, yet powerful and empathic presence, will soon be gone, as she is the last of her breed to practice the art of living a simple life amidst the urban languish along Copenhagen's central canal.

As the granite sculpture most likely will survive this century, Sam Renseiw captured instead a fleeting moment of the activities around the fishmonger's storefront - while the further architectural translations are to be discussed. View the sequence by clicking here, or buy a smoked eel at the icon above. (patafilm # 185, 01'12'', 4.8 MB, quicktime/mov.)


Blogger ps said...

maybe a banal observation but I am intrigued as to why nearly all the patavids posted ( aside from the horse) have a sort of soft focus glow. is this an inherent pata-quality?

Friday, June 02, 2006 1:45:00 pm  
Anonymous sam said...

hmm: yes. good question.
actually i am sort of wondering about it myself; yet, it seems to happen, most of the time...

one of the many answers might be, that in a world focused on the growing millions of pixels, clarity, sharpness and "real" perception, might not, subsequently, be an obvious result.
only some polished retinal surface, that might "blur" what potentially, in a subjective way, eventually has been experienced.

it seem to be the quest to circle around the question of whether a "clear" image or a "blurred" one, might open up to other ways of seeing.
both from a literal point of view and from more "narrative" aspects,
maybe, also, an attempt trying to escape from the usual dramaturgical "models" taught in theatre and film schools, that to me seem to inhibit what is actually seen, covered up in the "intentionality" of a script or a project concept.

or, maybe yet, because as it continues to happen. something else is at work.
it is indeed me, doing the manipulations. but i am not sure, if i actually perform the task consciously, or because i cannot stand the sharpness of the reality i just captured, as it (re) appears shallow, tasteless and without the very powerful haptic implications that i experienced while capturing the footage.

as i never intended or considered the small video pieces as either filmic material or "art videos" i can only consider them to be sketches, attempts to capture parts of what i passed by during the day.
small memos, "poetic" visual tags.

in many ways, i sort of got addicted to the process. it has become a necessity, and a joyful one indeed. and a rhythmic one at the same time. my private obsessive- compulsive gesture.

in regards to the pataphysical aspects, it is indeed something i nevertheless take seriously. "the science of imaginary solutions, which symbolically attributes the properties of objects, described by their virtuality, to their lineaments"; this and the flow of serendipity, gives me no other opportunities, it seems.
thus, i am coming to new spaces, opening other vistas. i travel, like xavier de maistre, in my own small world of vision; sometimes very near, sometimes far away. the look seens to be the same...

and as i like simple games, i only use the most basic amateur hard-and software. their "limitations" are the vastness of creative experimenting. yet, so strangely different.

i hope this answers some of the points.
thank you for your kind question: it gave me the opportunity to formulate some aspects of my activities...

but basically: i still do not have a more correct theoretical clue for why the blur comes in. it might very well be others that might put the work in perspective, when it has grown some more.

it just seems to be some sort of beginning.

Friday, June 02, 2006 5:01:00 pm  
Anonymous sam said...

the horse video, was in a way a sort of threshold:
while capturing this footage, it occured to me, that this was, indeed, what i not only was seeing, but that i was seeing what was. the horse was the horse was the horse.
it was at the same time "generic" and very "particular".
thus i could see clearly.
no need to distort the evidence to make it more compatible with what i experienced.
and no "dramaturgy" either. ( well, actually, it's palindromic, if you care to look closely)

Friday, June 02, 2006 5:11:00 pm  
Blogger ps said...

Ah I see....clearly now

Friday, June 02, 2006 6:42:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On a more serious note I can understand the desire to in some way tamper with the naked video image. Indeed I have often been somewhat uneasy with using a camera at all.

Video used to be described as having a "harder" image than film despite the latter’s greater resolution, scope for rendering colours more accurately and all the rest there is something about video, particularly when shot with a conventional lens at eye level that it is perhaps too uncomfortably "reality like" that one has a desire to in some way alter it so that its inherently illusionary representational qualities areps once more foregrounded. Adding a diffuse blur pushes the image back and out.

Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:57:00 am  
Blogger SAM RENSEIW said...

well, it's a good haptic exercise, alternating between between blur and clarity.
the term "naked video image" is somehow compelling.
let me see. it could be carnivallesque...more to come

Saturday, June 03, 2006 1:04:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home