I wonder why you or someone else felt the urgent need to alter Paul Sharits work. It seems strange given the original film’s structuralist agenda that I believe are only relevant or perhaps accessible in the 16mm format as a projected event. Maybe I am a romantic.
What is romantic about structuralist/materialist films, we ask?
While it was indeed myself who altered T,O,U,C,H,I,N,G,, I would classify this more as accident then compulsion. I happened to be encoding a transfer of Paul Sharits’ work from VHS, and messed up an x264 codec setting, resulting in what you see above, which could reasonably be classified as digital destruction of both visual and sound elements. At the time, I was struck by the irony of this, given the structuralist nature of the original work (the meaning of which I do certainly agree is tied to the 16mm film medium). I was also struck by a curiosity of how the concepts of the structuralist agenda might be applied to the digital domain.
To me, the work of Paul Sharits (and some other structuralist or materialist films) are very much about utilizing the structural, physical properties of the medium as a means by which to push the boundaries of what it is acceptable to create within that medium, and to experiment with the “boundaries of perception” possible to create by doing so. I have a great respect for his work, and this video above is meant more as a whimsical or ironic and somewhat vapid joke than any serious exploration of his original intent or ideas, or my interpretation of them.
I would like to explore the concepts of structuralism applied to the digital medium more at some point.
Fair enough. Thank you for taking the time to provide some clarification. I do think you should definitely explore the potential for structuralist work in the digital domain. It could be a very complicated endeavor, I think.
5 Comments
first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God would be pleased….
I wonder why you or someone else felt the urgent need to alter Paul Sharits work. It seems strange given the original film’s structuralist agenda that I believe are only relevant or perhaps accessible in the 16mm format as a projected event. Maybe I am a romantic.
What is romantic about structuralist/materialist films, we ask?
While it was indeed myself who altered T,O,U,C,H,I,N,G,, I would classify this more as accident then compulsion. I happened to be encoding a transfer of Paul Sharits’ work from VHS, and messed up an x264 codec setting, resulting in what you see above, which could reasonably be classified as digital destruction of both visual and sound elements. At the time, I was struck by the irony of this, given the structuralist nature of the original work (the meaning of which I do certainly agree is tied to the 16mm film medium). I was also struck by a curiosity of how the concepts of the structuralist agenda might be applied to the digital domain.
To me, the work of Paul Sharits (and some other structuralist or materialist films) are very much about utilizing the structural, physical properties of the medium as a means by which to push the boundaries of what it is acceptable to create within that medium, and to experiment with the “boundaries of perception” possible to create by doing so. I have a great respect for his work, and this video above is meant more as a whimsical or ironic and somewhat vapid joke than any serious exploration of his original intent or ideas, or my interpretation of them.
I would like to explore the concepts of structuralism applied to the digital medium more at some point.
Fair enough. Thank you for taking the time to provide some clarification. I do think you should definitely explore the potential for structuralist work in the digital domain. It could be a very complicated endeavor, I think.