Moshe Ladanga

1W7- Reflection on Proposal Draft

with one comment

For two days in a row, we discussed how we would go about writing our proposal drafts with Andy. It was such an invigorating discussion and finally I am understanding how important it is to thresh out ideas, working them out with a class that I’m really excited about- the range of work is such a rich slice, and being there, talking and contributing, listening and digesting things that also inform your work is a great experience.

Which brings me to my own proposal. Admittedly, our project is kind of a mind-bender, the collaboration dynamic being a monkey wrench. Katrin and I keep throwing ideas, catching them like balls bouncing in virtual air; but I think we hit something last night. We were discussing the feedback we got from the aims we presented, and yes, it is still too broad and we’re stretching it a bit. We also reviewed the work we’ve done (the film) and the techniques, skills and film language we’ve developed. We also took a step back and saw the positive points that we only see now because of the discussions and tutorials. Here they are, the good the bad the ugly:

Liabilities of being a couple and being both artists:

  • star signs- being both leos, we like doing excellent work and strive insanely to better ourselves to be better than the other
  • The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. household chores- doing laundry for me is like applying for sainthood; washing dishes for Katrin is like doing laundry for me
  • political budgeting- we both like having our own resources- our life eased when we both had access to the internet- independently. For food and toiletries, we adopt the UN mantra- all refugees share. But when it comes to First World amenities, we go to the high magistrates court and play Solomon.

The flipside:

  • David Cross sorting though the pennies Recognizing our respective personalities and acknowledging that yes, we both like being good at what we do, we have to use it productively, consciously even. This evening we had the pleasure of chatting with David Cross, (Cornford&Cross) and he talked about their collaborative process. We both instantly recognized it, the process of presenting ideas and challenging them, throwing it back, debunking it, analysing it- this topic came up with our dinner talk last night, and for the first time we acknowledged it. Hearing David Cross describe it, this sort of combative discourse as a way of collaboration gave us the answer. This is how we work, but we always saw it as a negative aspect of our process before (we can get really fired up, us leos), and never really thought that it can be a productive way of collaboration.
  • Addendum to the conflict/combat process- I realized that the theoretical concept of our collaborative work is analogous to the nature of our collaboration. Eisenstein’s theory of montage is not merely about putting two things together and producing meaning; montage is juxtaposition of opposing elements. The elements have to be charged differently to produce something else. Manovich’s theory of hybridity sort of describes this, but not yet in depth; there is a theoretical thread I think between the two.
  • Laundry & Dishes: Roles in an artistic collaboration are always tricky for leos. We are both independent thinkers, although we may have different dispositions (Katrin is outgoing and I am intro…speculative). We also like to believe that utopia exists within our relationship constantly, but we fail I think to acknowledge that there is hierarchy. The twist is that it changes, like a steady flux of electricity. Roles change; sometimes I do the dishes, Katrin the laundry. Authorship in collaboration is not a straight line, or mere addition: it is a waveform of a stereo track, mixed, or like sunlight, both particle and wave- waxing pseudo-poetic-scientific here I know- my point is that the collaboration we want is a dynamic one, one that acknowledges our strengths individually and challenges them.
  • The Personal is Political…to a point: We have had the good fortune of receiving a modest grant, enough to buy another mac (buying it this Friday). Regarding resources, we have to strategize. The old mac (specs- pre intelcore duo, ’nuff said) can handle video and audio work old style, meaning looong rendering time. This is not a problem- we can utilize this as a way of planning work, trying out video experiments. The New Mac can be for learning and experimenting with new software, especially 3d animation, and can be the hub for our collaborations- “jamming” the work together in AfterEffects, mapping out 3d representations, perhaps trying out programming in software that involves interactivity. But maybe I’m getting ahead of myself.
  • Let’s revise, let’s remix: Having two macs will enable us to exchange sizable files (like FCP Project files for example) without a hitch. But the subtle implication of this strategy is that we’ll be dependent on the features of the machines. We can be tactical about this, and as of now, from where we’re at in the experiments, we still have to feel it through and observe our individual processes. The advantage though of the new mac is the web cam perched on the display, and this is a strategic device for documentation- we can easily record our conversations and quickly upload them as podcasts. I think this resource will be very valuable to us because we can review how we react to each other, study it and even let this inform the way we want to present our project.

Bringing it all together v2.0: I would hazard to say that TENSION is the keyword here, the thing that happens between our works. It’s sort of like making a violin in 2 parts, and the strings are invisible but you can hear the music when you walk in between the two films- the viewer is the one who runs the bow across the strings. Hmmm….


Written by mosheladanga

October 25, 2007 at 12:42 AM

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The idea of the tension is great…and the viewer as the bower and we are the strings is a very interesting one.

    I agree that we never saw our combative process as positive…in fact, I think in a way we tried to sort of calm each other down…or ‘try’ our best not to ‘negate’ each other as Jem Mackay said. But I like the challenge Cornford and Cross presented.

    In a way, their collaboration still had rules. No one fought for the sake of being right. It was the supremacy of the idea and discourse that they kept as a shared ideal. That way, it was always fair fighting. How do we not get our emotions into this? Is it worth it?

    These questions arise…but I’m up for the challenge. How about you?

    Btw, I really love the idea of linking the two films via a set of rules and regulations that the sound produces. Quite interesting. Wondering how it will all turn out.

    Another thought…I realized that C & C in all of their work got inspired by places that they visited together. It was almost like a shared experience. A neutral ground/platform from which they could both stand equally and get creative…what neutral ground do we share? What experience? Specifically. Our home? The commute? The home is arguable…and the discourse on that one would take days…the commute…there is more equality there..but can we think of someplace more creative? How about a new place?

    Tell me what you think.


    October 25, 2007 at 9:34 AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: