The Interview

Interview with Reba

Q: Who is your favorite artist?

A: I don't have a favorite artist because I love so many different types of art and artist I could never pick a favorite.

Q: What art are you a contributor to?

A: The kind of art I do is the performing arts, I like to sing dance and act. I want to be in musicals, and I would like people to see the musical I am in.

Q: How do you want your specific art to affect people?

A: I would like for it to affect them in a way that they enjoy them and feel like it was worth it to come see. 

Q: Why does this type of work matter to you?

A: This type of art matters to me because I love doing it and seeing it. I have such a huge passion for it I could never imagine myself doing something else. It matters because I want to be apart of it, and give what I can to the musical theater world. 

I had interviewed Reba:)

My questions to Reba:
1. Q:What's your major?
A:I am a theater major.

2.Q:How you want others to perceive your art work?
A:My artwork is singing, acting, and dancing. I want others to be entertained if they see me perform and I want them to walk away thinking it was worth it for them to come see me.

3.Q:What inspires you the most about your field?
A: I am inspired most when I watch others perform. It makes me want to go onstage and join them.

4.Q. Do you have a favorite artist?Why or why not?
A: I do not have a favorite artist because I like so many different types of art and artists that I could never just pick one and say "this person is my favorite."

hey everyone

if anyone wants to work with me for the third study let me know!

Also, i wanted to share this because today in class we saw Mr Brainwash's piece with the text "follow your dreams" on his website. I wonder if Banksy really did this piece.

Interview with Matthew

http://soundcloud.com/ondiestella/interviewing-matthew

WHAT? WHAT-CHA WHAT-CHA, want?

FRANK said this- Who is your favorite artist and why?

*I chose my favorite artist when I was in middle school. I was envious of my mother and other artist that could paint with oil, rather than acrylics. This artist is Mark Ryden. You can view his work @ www.markryden.com

FRANK also said- Why do they inspire you?

*He inspires me because his work is so beautiful. The soft edges and smooth texture plays against his message. Which is usually a message regarding reality and reality isn't always beautiful.

FRANK wondered -What are the obligations of creators to their creations?

*I feel the only obligation of the creator is to make clear, to the 'creator' only, what his/her message depicts. This is their expression. They own the message. 

FRANK wanted more- Do you consider your favorite artist to create "good art"? and why?

*Of course I do. It's not my favorite because I dislike it.

FRANK ended with- Do you and Banksy share a similarity in how you care or advocate for works of art?

*Occasionally, I do. When I do work I'm told to do is when I find that feeling to be provoked. Sometimes I feel it's bullshit to have someone critique my work or someone else's work at that. I enjoy retaining the feeling that it was developed by personal emotions or thought, who are "you" to examine and say what is art. Then I rethink my determination to 'major' in art. I'd say it's a current ongoing battle. (:

DAWN responded.

who hasn't done an interview?

who still needs to do an interview?

Matthew interviewing Andrea!

Memo by matthewmcmillin1

Being interviewed by Dawn

• Who's artwork moves or inspires you?
• Andrej Pejic (I've attached a picture of him above)
• What inspires you to make art?
• When I'm making my own art, which is frequently drawing fashion sketches, I'm inspired by the unusual. Something so odd and different that it strikes my interest. I think this is why I've expressed so much interest in Andrej Pejic, he's a very androgynous male model who refers to himself as a "gender bending supernova."
• What are the repercussions of a misguiding vision/art piece?
• Art with multiple meanings can commonly be misread or taken the wrong way. Some people find certain art offensive while others find it amazing and revolutionary. 
• What is your favorite aspect of art?
• I love how through any art form, the artist can truly express themselves through multiple mediums, any way they want. 
• Is there such a thing as bad art?
• No, I don't think there is such a thing as bad art. I believe that some art is unfinished and further needs completion to better convey its message. I also believe some art is incorrectly read and therefor labeled as bad.
• When you create art, who is your audience? 
• Currently the work I create at this point in my life is for the audience of my peers and my professors. Sometimes I have to tailor my sketches to match that of what my teachers will accept, even though I would like to use my own stylized version, learning to work with different people and styles will be beneficial in my long term career. Later on in life, my audience will be my customers and the critics, those you like and critique my designs.

The best of the interviews

Amber Forbes and Jasmine Jackson's interview

Jasmine Alexia Hollllllaaaaaaaaaaa !
4 hours ago · Like
Amber Forbes How are you?
4 hours ago · Like
Jasmine Alexia greatt and youu ?
3 hours ago · Like
Amber Forbes I'm good. I have a job interview in the morning and I have no idea what to wear any ideas?
3 hours ago · Like
Jasmine Alexia Something mod. Bright fun shirt with a solid high wasted skirt or pants and some closed solid pumps. It will make you stand out and also professional (;
3 hours ago · Like · 1
Amber Forbes Aww thanks think I will be going for the skirt I'm so excited.
Jasmine Alexia uhm. letsss seeee
3 hours ago · Like
Amber Forbes ‎1)What type of work matters to you?
3 hours ago · Like
Jasmine Alexia ‎1. Work that matters to me is any work that makes an impact. That includes all forms and genres of Art whether I like or appreciate it or not. As long as it challenges new ideals, people to thing, and especially positive change then that is art I support and matters to me the most.
3 hours ago · Like
Jasmine Alexia What do you think is the over all purpose of art? and do you think that street artists such as Invader, Banksy, and others are executing that ideal? What where their political percussion and do you think it was fair? Also, do you consider what these "Artists" are doing as a crime?
about an hour ago · Like
Jasmine Alexia Then, What do you think about the movement these artists have created? has it influenced your art?
59 minutes ago · Like
Amber Forbes I think the over all purpose of art is expression,purpose, and basically a voice..a door through another dimension. 2. I think those street artists are excluding those ideas and also show there own form of true identity. I there political percussion ummm I don't know. I just think they had did what they felt was right. I do and don't consider it a crime. Because art is beautiful no matter what form it is and should be shared. But than again its a crime b/c its a illegal
Amber Forbes Now, I will ask you a few more questions. Are you an aspiring Artist? Why did you choose to study that field? Do you think everyone has someone that inspires them? How do you want your artwork to be perceived? Do you think the art world could be just as corrupt as the government? and who's your favorite artist and why?
Jasmine Alexia Alright well I am an Artist, and I chose my field of study as a way to progress from what I have been working on most of my life. Personally I was inspired by seeing so much art around me and how that can impact an environment So, yes I do believe that its not that everyone has a something that inspired them but maybe a piece by someone or something. My art work could be perceived as dark humor, intellectual, colorful, and broad. As well as dumb, confusing, and alright. It honestly depends on the one looking at it, but in the end I do want it to be perceived as Beautiful, intriguing, and to encourage others to think and inspire positive effects.
And art as corrupt as the government? yes, of course.. It already has been in the past and honestly what is not these days?
Though my favorite artist has been Banksy, also why I am so thrilled over this assignment! I love what he stands for and how he is not afraid to challenge the authority. He is an art activist and I share his political views and Ideals as well as admire the quality and originality of his work...
Amanda Forbes Well, that is all for tonight, have a good evening.
Jasmine Alexia You to! and good luck on your interview.


<3

Interview with Amber

Q.(Reba) What kind of artwork do you enjoy most and why?
A.(Amber) The kind of artwork I enjoy most would be poetry. It may not be a piece of artwork but that's why I like it. You can paint an image in your head, and it's relaxing.
Q. Do you practice any type of art? If so, how do you want your artwork to affect people?
A. I am a fashion design major, most of the time I am drawing the clothing rather than sewing I know, weird. I'm just more comfortable with drawing since I have been doing it for 12 years now. I want my clothing to be worn and I want it to make people happy. I want it to be affordable.
Q. Who is your favorite artist and why?
A. My favorite artist is Maya Angelo. She is a poet. I like her because she speaks words of wisdom and a person I would love to meet.

Peer Review - Nick and Alex

Alexander Cumming

Nick Patel

Peer Interview

Nick Questioning Alex

Q: Do you think art that can be interpreted in any way is good or bad?

A: I think that no matter how clear an art form is, people will ultimately interpret in their own way regardless of the artists original intent. It’s not about how the artist views his work but rather how the outside person views it.

Q: What is your favorite type of art?

A: I would have to say novels, essays, and films. For me, I find emotional and spritiual or whatever your theme is expressed more deeply in these mediums. I can say that about a lot of other mediums too but the ones I said are the most influential to me.

Alex Questioning Nick

Q: How do you know if we are changing and creating ways that matter?

A: I don’t think you will ever know, it’s just the expression of the artist.

Q: What’s the obligation of the creators to the creation?

A: There’s no real obligation, there is only an obligation when you intend to make a piece that speaks to people other than you.

Night and Fog

Night and Fog brings to the views attention how these victims were dehumanized and stripped of everything we've come accustomed to. It shows how they were humiliated, exploited, and tortured and how no one interjected. It plays off of so much emotion from the viewer, but in a way that is different. The viewer is expected to be as emotionless as the Nazis and viewing it from what their intentions and actions were. Watching it makes you wonder how the Nazis could live with themselves or would even create something so evil.

Jasmine.

Night and Fog

How do the objectives of the films differ? 

In Triumaph of The Will, the objective was to show the German nation that Hitler could restore it's pride once again after WWII and the Versailles Treaty. At this time Germany had just lost WWI and lost much of it's wealth and power. Triumph of the Will tried to restore that pride in Germany by using Hitler as a sign of strength and tenacity.

In Night and Fog, the objective was to show the viewer how horrific the Nazi's truly were. This was the first documentary of the Holocaust so Night and Fog had to bring the public attention to the Nazi crimes and their methods of trying to wipe out entire races of people.

How We View Films

While both films Triumph of The Will and Night and Fog Are in regards to the German Nazi party, each film differs in the message they portray to the audience. In Triumph of the Will, Leni Reifenstahl used her filming techniques to glorify the Nazi party and make it seem that they would rescue Germany from their state of dismay. By positioning the camera slightly below Hitler, it makes us, the audience; view him as dominant and above everyone else. Night and Fog gives us the straight facts of the Nazi party and the aftermath that transpired after their rule. Night and Fog shows us a mix of Nazi footage and what they filmed on their own. Ironically, which I took it as very factual without that gray area like Leni Reifenstahl's film had. Both Triumph of The Will and Night and Fog use music as a way to add to the impact of their films. When watching Triumph of The Will the music reminded me of the early Walt Disney movies like Cinderella and Snow White, with that very dreamy beautiful music. With the opening scene, with the clouds and airplane, in conjunction with that Disney like music we would think that what were about to watch is going to be in fact beautiful. And that it was, when thinking about the time period and context that the film was being displayed in. But when we take into consideration Night and Fog and compare the two, we realize that Triumph of The Will is not beautiful and is frightening because we know what really went on when the German Nazi’s had power. Night and Fog and the clips they show are truly heart wrenching and touch our emotions. As many people in class said, after watching, it made it feel like their stomachs were in knots, which I definitely felt as well. When taking into consideration if the filmmakers of either film are successful, we have to think again about the context they were being played and the time period they were released in. Triumph of The Will and Leni Reifenstahl truly reached her goal of glorifying the Nazi party and making it seem that with their help, Germany could turn around and become prosperous once again. And Night and Fog shows the truth of the Nazi party and how they were tyrants of Europe for years. When watched and discussed back to back, each movies original meaning changes.

Slightly biased

How does "Night and Fog" deal with the feeling of guilt? Does the film exploit the audience's feelings? For instance, does it exploit the audience's feeling of outrage and sorrow?

Of course Night and Fog exploits the audience's feelings. I'm not sure if there can be a relatively normal response to the imagery in the film. Parts of the film were perhaps more obviously sardonically mocking Triumph of the will, in sort of a gruesome, ironic way. The subject matter being dealt with is revolting. Reading about it is one thing, but seeing footage provokes a pretty much immediate response. The way most of us were taught history angers me; we know the important facts and dates but not the surrounding story that puts everything in context. The film obviously makes us horrified and guilty for previous ignorance. I don't think people know how to deal with such explicit imagery. It's one thing to talk about it, but this pushes EVERYTHING that was going on in our faces. It isn't bad, it's one way to force everyone to become aware of it. There's so many complexities and atrocities and intricacies involved in the planning of concentration camps and Hitler's overall plan which unveiled in the film. None of the soldiers or Nazis claim responsibility, and the film ends on that note: then who is responsible? It's a pretty heavy bomb that is dropped on us while watching. It's good we all now know, but it was hard to stomach and watch it. The overall feelings we are left with are outrage and sorrow. I felt incredibly depressed and cynical and outraged, which meant it's objectives were completed. The film's intention was to get that reaction out of us, however, I don't know, we will all forever remember the scenes, but it gave us little or no hope to grasp onto. I'm Jewish so I know the history quite well but typically my family and extended family, we don't incessantly mourn about the Holocaust. The inhumanities and atrocities happened, but out of the whole thing created a stronger protection and sustainability for Judaism and stronger sense of dignity about the religion. The film almost makes it about pity and sorrow and outrage, and I think it would've been more effective if it left the audience on a lighter (close to impossible but maybe achievable) note. It is something to be outrageously offended and sickened by, and something no one should forget, and something we should learn about, but the film did exploit audiences feelings. 

Triumph of the will response

Triumph of the will is tricky. It's made grippingly beautiful with all sorts of camera shots and angles and light each with extreme precision. The techniques Leni used make it seem like a documentary, however, in my opinion, it is somewhere between that and a propaganda film. It can't be one without being the other. It has too much nationalism and personality to be a documentary. Yes generally documentaries are biased, but usually they present the sometimes self righteous filmmaker's opinions in seemingly objective ways. Triumph had more life in it, which is where the propaganda aspect shines through. Watching it closely the intricacies are impressive. She uses light brilliantly; she makes Hitler into a sex symbol and a God. She makes him larger than life, and it puts his initial position in perspective. Germany was feeling super shitty about World War one, and they were starving. In fact one of America's better moments was when we fed Germany, forgetting politics and remembering humanity. Anyway, Hitler was basically a call from the heavens and the Germans were all relieved when he stepped up, not knowing his sociopathic insane wretched insane envisions of the world. It's a disturbing movie because of the portrayal of something everyone, and I repeat everyone agrees upon: The Holocaust was atrocious, and Hitler is evil; the portrayal of the Nazis and Hitler make them shiny and brilliant and harmless and prideful and powerful and majestic. The movie is between propaganda and documentary, and it's remarkable to say the least. 

I seriously cannot think of a good title.

The objectives in Night and Fog, and Triumph of the Will, both differ yet also resemble each other because each one wanted the audience to learn something. In Triumph of the Will, it was that they wanted the audience to learn more about Hitler, his relationship to the people, and how much influential power he had not only over his people, but his army as well. In Night and Fog, I feel like the objective was to make the audience learn about what was really going on, what Hitler really was doing. The objectives were a little bit of the same, but the emotions that come about as a result of these two films are completely different. For Triumph of the Will, an audience member watching this when it first came around would probably feel good about Germany. They would feel as though something good is going to come out of this, and they would not have a negative thought about Hitler at all. For Night and Fog, someone watching it when it first came around probably cried. They probably were shocked to discover the truth. I know that even now watching Night and Fog, I felt like it had just recently happened, not 70 or so years ago. The emotions that come from this film are just so overwhelming and depressing. Triumph of the Will, wanted to show people that they did a good job in supporting Hitler, and Night and Fog wants to show people what came from that support.

Sarcastic

The film, Night and Fog is almost making fun of Triumph of the Will, or at least calling it to attention. While Triumph of the Will creates this beautiful imagery and scene of Germany, Night and Fog parallels it with similar images of German countrysides, but then shows that even the most beautiful and innocent things can lead to disaster and massacre. Resnais intentionally juxtaposes beauty and disaster immensely in the film. The soundtrack really made me nauseous while the image was focusing in on these bulldozers cramming bodies of skin and bone into mass graves. I will indeed never forget the film because of that. I've never been so disgusted.  This is undoubtedly the objective Resnais wanted to accomplish. If he were to put a typical horror soundtrack over the images, we wouldn't think twice, but he wanted to emphasize that Nazis and a good portion of the Germans actually wanted this and thought it was the right and beautiful thing to do. Night and Fog, to me, was the sarcastic version of Triumph of the Will.

Triumph of the Will and Night and Fog

Triumph of the Will and Night and Fog show many differences.

The idea of Triumph of the Will is to brainwash the people into thinking that Hitler is going to make everything OK.  To make a better country.

Night and Fog is more of an in your face documentary, about what Hitler created and goes in depth into the Nazi concentration camps.

In Triumph of the Will the director had a certain style that was very real and very appealing to the eye.  The shots of the airplanes flying through the clouds are all beautiful shots, making this movie a beautiful movie. 

In Night and Fog the footage was very raw, a lot of the documentary had pictures of the diseased and dead, showing a more brutal and real side to this event in history.

Night and Fog exploits everyone who, contributed and worked in these camps.  These men and women are explained and described as evil.  The audience gets a feeling of hate I think towards these people.    

Blog Question: Night and Fog

Answer/discuss one or more of the following questions:

How do the film techniques in “Triumph of the Will” differ from the techniques used in the making of “Night and Fog?”

Specifically, how do these films employ the use of music, camera angels, edits?

How do the objectives of the films differ?

How does "Night and Fog" deal with the feeling of guilt? Does the film exploit the audience's feelings? For instance, does it exploit the audience's feeling of outrage and sorrow?

How does the film contribute to the film? Does it take away or contribute to the filmmaker's goal? Was this a typical film soundtrack? Why/why not?