An online conversation between students of the BA Fine Art and MArt courses at Sheffield Hallam University.
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday November 24th.
Hosted by Natalie Mortimer, on the subject of death and the familiar, with reference to Death and the Enlightenment by John McManners, Western Attitudes Towards Death From the Middle Ages to the Present by Philip Aries, and Art & Obscenity by Kerstin Mey.
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Daniel Fogarty, Jonny Fox, Zuzana Godalova, Luiza Holub, Pippa Lennox, Natalie Mortimer, Sarah Smizz
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/cjdd2xiob2
POSTSCRIPT:
Madeleine Walton
Thanks for the transcript. These are my thoughts
1. Dead people do not look like themselves. I saw my Dad and my mum
after they died in the funeral parlour and they both looked
completely different. What stays with me is the smell. I can still
smell that horrendous smell from two years ago.
2. The current life expectancy for a British male is 81 and 85 for a
female. For you guys who are in your twenties your life expectancy
will be even higher. I think the issue isn't about life it is about
quality of life. My father's final five years were hell as he had
Alzheimers.
3. My mother was brought up as a catholic and she taught me and my
brothers and sisters divine retribution through the bonker fairies.
The bonker fairies were all knowing, all powerful fairies who watched
our every move. If you did something wrong they punished you. So if I
fell over and cut my knee and went to my mum, she would say, 'what
did you do wrong earlier today because the bonker fairies are
punishing you'. I still worry about those bonker fairies and I admit
I have told my own children about them.
4. On a lighter note I read on the back of a toilet door evoking 'I
think therefore I am', 'I'm pink therefore I am spam.'
Madeleine
Tim Thorpe
Sorry I missed last night. Nat, the subject is one of great interest to me. I'm interested in the role of objects in the process of grieving, the role of memory and objects and the way the consumerist nature of modern society is counteracting the investment we make in objects.
We deny death in our society, not spiritually, but by sanitising; removing it to another place. At the same time it is dramatised in mass media to reinforce a sense of unreality or superficiality. We have become obsessed by recording ourselves and others. From the photograph to the moving image, the process of recording is creating a record of the past in the present. We, in our turn, are becoming increasingly challenged in our capacity to live in the moment.
The dead take up residence in our psyche; they are ghosts within us. We are living crypts of the dead. The objects of the dead can be a symbol of absence, invested with "sacred status" and the representation of the pain of grieving. This may dissipate with time; the custodian of the object is complicit in the conituation of this secret life.
At some point we will not be part of living memory. We will cease to be a memory trace or embodied effect in the lives of the living. We will simply disappear into oblivion.
"We die twice, once physically and the second time in the heart of those who love us" (Victor Hugo).
Tim
RESOURCES:
http://www.box.net/shared/k50tf3bn5f
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Monday, 17 November 2008
WEEK 6: HOSTED BY JAMIE CREWE
An online conversation between students of the BA Fine Art and MArt courses at Sheffield Hallam University.
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday November 17th.
Hosted by Jamie Crewe, in Taylor Le Fín's absence, following on from WEEK 1 with a discussion of Richard Linklater's film Before Sunset, with reference to Victor Burgin's Nietzsche's Paris and the song Quit While I'm Ahead by Lonzine Cannon.
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Jonny Fox, Zuzana Godalova, Matthew Hand, Luiza Holub, Natalie Mortimer
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/xp525lhi88
POSTSCRIPT:
Sarah Smizz
I haven't discovered what love feels like yet. I know the love of a mother and a love ina friendship form, but the love of a man is something that I have yet to discover. And yet, the main reason for me to announce this to gmail and contacts is the fact that i personally would risk losing something in the discovery that my chance of love, a point 2 prove, the meeting of a once stranger and disappointment is just all too good to pass off.
It's the same type of situation, where you haven't seen a close friend in like a year or two... you used to be able to keep the best conversations going. To the point of finishing each others sentences. and then, with this moment of meeting with a year or 2 gap - you start to question yourself and what you had.
Have I changed? Have they changed? What are we going to talk about now. I'm obsessed with the idea of smizz as an artist, and the ideal of sculpturing, nurturing of a future into something positive for the next generation.... they work full time at ASDA Cafe scrapping chicken fat off trays. We no longer have a relation of which we first met, like school and the people who surrounded us. It's just us. what are we going to talk about? Is it what are we going to talk about or is it the acceptance of the fact that we both have changed. Outgrown? Outdated. Unwanted. Uncanny.
before sunset i don't think its necessarily about the stranger, or even love. It's about missing. Sunset in itself is a melochanic element. and in desire you project upon the stranger what is indeed missing from yourself.
And thats why we make a sequal, and thats why we take risks - or becoming needy. You project what you want, and read into signals and thoughts for hope.
For me personally, im very emotionally detached when in a relationship - as result i feel like i'll probably die alone lol. But it doesn't faze me. As long as I have my friends and my books and a copy of before sunrise and before sunset on dvd and that. And New York. It's all goooooood in the hoooood!
RESOURCES:
http://www.christineburgin.com/burgin_victor/nietzsche/index.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_/ai_76333004
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday November 17th.
Hosted by Jamie Crewe, in Taylor Le Fín's absence, following on from WEEK 1 with a discussion of Richard Linklater's film Before Sunset, with reference to Victor Burgin's Nietzsche's Paris and the song Quit While I'm Ahead by Lonzine Cannon.
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Jonny Fox, Zuzana Godalova, Matthew Hand, Luiza Holub, Natalie Mortimer
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/xp525lhi88
POSTSCRIPT:
Sarah Smizz
I haven't discovered what love feels like yet. I know the love of a mother and a love ina friendship form, but the love of a man is something that I have yet to discover. And yet, the main reason for me to announce this to gmail and contacts is the fact that i personally would risk losing something in the discovery that my chance of love, a point 2 prove, the meeting of a once stranger and disappointment is just all too good to pass off.
It's the same type of situation, where you haven't seen a close friend in like a year or two... you used to be able to keep the best conversations going. To the point of finishing each others sentences. and then, with this moment of meeting with a year or 2 gap - you start to question yourself and what you had.
Have I changed? Have they changed? What are we going to talk about now. I'm obsessed with the idea of smizz as an artist, and the ideal of sculpturing, nurturing of a future into something positive for the next generation.... they work full time at ASDA Cafe scrapping chicken fat off trays. We no longer have a relation of which we first met, like school and the people who surrounded us. It's just us. what are we going to talk about? Is it what are we going to talk about or is it the acceptance of the fact that we both have changed. Outgrown? Outdated. Unwanted. Uncanny.
before sunset i don't think its necessarily about the stranger, or even love. It's about missing. Sunset in itself is a melochanic element. and in desire you project upon the stranger what is indeed missing from yourself.
And thats why we make a sequal, and thats why we take risks - or becoming needy. You project what you want, and read into signals and thoughts for hope.
For me personally, im very emotionally detached when in a relationship - as result i feel like i'll probably die alone lol. But it doesn't faze me. As long as I have my friends and my books and a copy of before sunrise and before sunset on dvd and that. And New York. It's all goooooood in the hoooood!
RESOURCES:
http://www.christineburgin.com/burgin_victor/nietzsche/index.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_/ai_76333004
WEEK 5: HOSTED BY LUKE DILNOT
An online conversation between students of the BA Fine Art and MArt courses at Sheffield Hallam University.
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday November 10th.
Hosted by Luke Dilnot, an online tour of the Liverpool Biennial.
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Jonny Fox, Matthew Hand, Luiza Holub, Natalie Mortimer, Sarah Smizz
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/7z7lf5zb4a
POSTSCRIPT:
Madeleine Walton
Thanks Luke so much for the virtual tour of the Liverpool Biennial as I haven't managed to get there myself it was good to get a flavour of the work. I particularly enjoyed the drawing room and the work by Charles Avery, Avish Khebrehzadeh and Rachel Goodyear. I have read about Richard Wilson's Turning the Place Over and it was amazing to see it moving - even watching the other clip from the inside it is still unbelieveable - how did it work for real? Ai Weiwei looked spectacular and when I realised the size of the piece at the end it was amazing. My two favourites from the tour were at the new contemporaries. First, Joe Daldon's intricate lace like floor made of cardboard and second, Paul Westcomb's coffee cups - which were old coffee cups beautifully and intricately painted with watercolour ink.
My overall impression of the biennial was that it seemed to have involved the city. I constantly heard voices in the background and often children and they always had Liverpudlian accents.
Madeleine
Daniel Fogarty
A differing take on e-crit, With regard to the work as I have not seen the Liverpool Biannual, I was able to remember the work that was shown or the range of work that was show from exhibitions I have seen previously, I was keen as always on Rodney Grahams work, but i felt limited by the inexperiense, but a set of works that i would of not seen otherwise. I perticually like the Richard Willson work. I feel that the work that was explained, that was veiwed and explained by the artist spoke to me more, this was mostaly on the FACT.TV website. I find the intrest in the interaction and the descussion between the work and the arctual work of art. I will have to get over to see it all in reality as soon as I can, Thank you Luke
RESOURCES:
http://www.biennial.com/content/LiverpoolBiennial2008MADEUP/AlisonJackson/Overview.aspx
http://www.biennial.com/content/LiverpoolBiennial2008MADEUP/DavidAltmejd/Overview.aspx
http://www.biennial.com/content/LiverpoolBiennial2008MADEUP/RodneyGraham/Overview.aspx
http://www.biennial.com/content/LiverpoolBiennial2008MADEUP/DrawingRoomatTate/Overview.aspx
http://www.biennial.com/content/LiverpoolBiennial2008MADEUP/GuyBenNer/Overview.aspx
http://www.newcontemporaries.org.uk/artist_list.php?app_year=2008&PHPSESSID=673caccb8a0d04e8592d04b84ab9b915
http://www.afoundation.org.uk/greenlandstreet/details.php?id=39
http://www.newcontemporaries.org.uk/artist_list.php?app_year=2008&PHPSESSID=673caccb8a0d04e8592d04b84ab9b915
http://www.fact.tv/videos/watch/239
http://www.fact.tv/videos/watch/234
http://www.fact.tv/videos/watch/236
http://www.fact.tv/videos/watch/237
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday November 10th.
Hosted by Luke Dilnot, an online tour of the Liverpool Biennial.
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Jonny Fox, Matthew Hand, Luiza Holub, Natalie Mortimer, Sarah Smizz
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/7z7lf5zb4a
POSTSCRIPT:
Madeleine Walton
Thanks Luke so much for the virtual tour of the Liverpool Biennial as I haven't managed to get there myself it was good to get a flavour of the work. I particularly enjoyed the drawing room and the work by Charles Avery, Avish Khebrehzadeh and Rachel Goodyear. I have read about Richard Wilson's Turning the Place Over and it was amazing to see it moving - even watching the other clip from the inside it is still unbelieveable - how did it work for real? Ai Weiwei looked spectacular and when I realised the size of the piece at the end it was amazing. My two favourites from the tour were at the new contemporaries. First, Joe Daldon's intricate lace like floor made of cardboard and second, Paul Westcomb's coffee cups - which were old coffee cups beautifully and intricately painted with watercolour ink.
My overall impression of the biennial was that it seemed to have involved the city. I constantly heard voices in the background and often children and they always had Liverpudlian accents.
Madeleine
Daniel Fogarty
A differing take on e-crit, With regard to the work as I have not seen the Liverpool Biannual, I was able to remember the work that was shown or the range of work that was show from exhibitions I have seen previously, I was keen as always on Rodney Grahams work, but i felt limited by the inexperiense, but a set of works that i would of not seen otherwise. I perticually like the Richard Willson work. I feel that the work that was explained, that was veiwed and explained by the artist spoke to me more, this was mostaly on the FACT.TV website. I find the intrest in the interaction and the descussion between the work and the arctual work of art. I will have to get over to see it all in reality as soon as I can, Thank you Luke
RESOURCES:
http://www.biennial.com/content/LiverpoolBiennial2008MADEUP/AlisonJackson/Overview.aspx
http://www.biennial.com/content/LiverpoolBiennial2008MADEUP/DavidAltmejd/Overview.aspx
http://www.biennial.com/content/LiverpoolBiennial2008MADEUP/RodneyGraham/Overview.aspx
http://www.biennial.com/content/LiverpoolBiennial2008MADEUP/DrawingRoomatTate/Overview.aspx
http://www.biennial.com/content/LiverpoolBiennial2008MADEUP/GuyBenNer/Overview.aspx
http://www.newcontemporaries.org.uk/artist_list.php?app_year=2008&PHPSESSID=673caccb8a0d04e8592d04b84ab9b915
http://www.afoundation.org.uk/greenlandstreet/details.php?id=39
http://www.newcontemporaries.org.uk/artist_list.php?app_year=2008&PHPSESSID=673caccb8a0d04e8592d04b84ab9b915
http://www.fact.tv/videos/watch/239
http://www.fact.tv/videos/watch/234
http://www.fact.tv/videos/watch/236
http://www.fact.tv/videos/watch/237
Monday, 10 November 2008
WEEK 3: HOSTED BY SARAH SMIZZ
An online conversation between students of the BA Fine Art and MArt courses at Sheffield Hallam University.
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday October 27th.
Hosted by Sarah Smizz, on art and the everyday, with reference to David A. Ross and Nicholas Serota, Jonas Mekas and Letterist International.
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Daniel Sean Fogarty, Jonny Fox, Zuzana Godalova, Luiza Holub, Natalie Mortimer, Sarah Smizz
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/aur62pkb8c#Transcript_Ecrit3_Smizz
POSTSCRIPT:
Martyn Cashmore
' fundamentals of what the everyday is and what it can be' discussion of art and everyday.
In dialogue with everyday we can find language we can convey its complexity, ambiguity and elusiveness.
Art and galleries - does it need to be in there, if not why does it seem to slip through the nets of the art economy? why do we increase the status of galleries even though they are not necessary? this has even compelled some anti-artist to display in them.
i.e. duchamp. But is this just another protest with many contradictory layers; he wanted to be seen as an artist against art but an in vogue one or vice versa?
why do artist feel a sense of achievement and status when they get something displayed, in a gallery? I don't think that it is a necessity for pieces to be shown in this way even though it has happened to me. I feel that the space should suit the work, not the other way.
But this opinion has holes. It really depends on the viewer to view it as art and not just the mundane. This is where I feel that the artist loses control of the piece, especially in the public sector. can an art object become mundane?
RESOURCES:
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday October 27th.
Hosted by Sarah Smizz, on art and the everyday, with reference to David A. Ross and Nicholas Serota, Jonas Mekas and Letterist International.
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Daniel Sean Fogarty, Jonny Fox, Zuzana Godalova, Luiza Holub, Natalie Mortimer, Sarah Smizz
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/aur62pkb8c#Transcript_Ecrit3_Smizz
POSTSCRIPT:
Martyn Cashmore
' fundamentals of what the everyday is and what it can be' discussion of art and everyday.
In dialogue with everyday we can find language we can convey its complexity, ambiguity and elusiveness.
Art and galleries - does it need to be in there, if not why does it seem to slip through the nets of the art economy? why do we increase the status of galleries even though they are not necessary? this has even compelled some anti-artist to display in them.
i.e. duchamp. But is this just another protest with many contradictory layers; he wanted to be seen as an artist against art but an in vogue one or vice versa?
why do artist feel a sense of achievement and status when they get something displayed, in a gallery? I don't think that it is a necessity for pieces to be shown in this way even though it has happened to me. I feel that the space should suit the work, not the other way.
But this opinion has holes. It really depends on the viewer to view it as art and not just the mundane. This is where I feel that the artist loses control of the piece, especially in the public sector. can an art object become mundane?
RESOURCES:
WEEK 2: HOSTED BY DANIEL FOGARTY
An online conversation between students of the BA Fine Art and MArt courses at Sheffield Hallam University.
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday October 20th.
Hosted by Daniel Fogarty, on an excerpt from Maurice Blanchot's Death Sentence (L'Arrêt de mort).
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Daniel Sean Fogarty, Jonny Fox, Luiza Holub, Natalie Mortimer, Sarah Smizz, Joanne Storey
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/7zmg0g8e2g#E-Crit_20102008
POSTSCRIPTS:
Madeleine Walton
Having read the text you gave us and the e-crit text I would like to make two comments.
Firstly that if you speak more than one language you have a different identity for each of those languages. When I speak Spanish I am not the same person as when I speak English.My personality alters as the language shapes me and how I can express myself in that language.
Secondly, I spent the weekend in Aberdeen with my daughter who is deaf at a Deaf Swimming Camp. Everyone signed and it was the strangest experience being in a room of some thirty people mostly young all communicating at great neck speed in silence. I have only recently started to learn to sign and so I felt an outsider. It struck me that signing is an interesting mode of communication as there is no voice that can be heard and yet there are regional variations in signing.
Thanks
Madeleine
Martyn Cashmore
Disscussion about the role of language in relation to the other, in relqation to the 'Autrui' text.
A few things came to mind out of the transcript and the reading.
firstly, Identify the effect of difference.
Did the encounter happen or was it imaginary?
It's about not understanding the other through the failure of language because we cannot say what we actually intend because of S/s. Language only expresses the symbolic and not the reality. Is language just a futile endeavour or is it a protest against sertainty
The impossibility of understanding what it would be like to be the other.
RESOURCE:
http://www.box.net/shared/pe6bm3i7s1#Death_Sentence
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday October 20th.
Hosted by Daniel Fogarty, on an excerpt from Maurice Blanchot's Death Sentence (L'Arrêt de mort).
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Daniel Sean Fogarty, Jonny Fox, Luiza Holub, Natalie Mortimer, Sarah Smizz, Joanne Storey
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/7zmg0g8e2g#E-Crit_20102008
POSTSCRIPTS:
Madeleine Walton
Having read the text you gave us and the e-crit text I would like to make two comments.
Firstly that if you speak more than one language you have a different identity for each of those languages. When I speak Spanish I am not the same person as when I speak English.My personality alters as the language shapes me and how I can express myself in that language.
Secondly, I spent the weekend in Aberdeen with my daughter who is deaf at a Deaf Swimming Camp. Everyone signed and it was the strangest experience being in a room of some thirty people mostly young all communicating at great neck speed in silence. I have only recently started to learn to sign and so I felt an outsider. It struck me that signing is an interesting mode of communication as there is no voice that can be heard and yet there are regional variations in signing.
Thanks
Madeleine
Martyn Cashmore
Disscussion about the role of language in relation to the other, in relqation to the 'Autrui' text.
A few things came to mind out of the transcript and the reading.
firstly, Identify the effect of difference.
Did the encounter happen or was it imaginary?
It's about not understanding the other through the failure of language because we cannot say what we actually intend because of S/s. Language only expresses the symbolic and not the reality. Is language just a futile endeavour or is it a protest against sertainty
The impossibility of understanding what it would be like to be the other.
RESOURCE:
http://www.box.net/shared/pe6bm3i7s1#Death_Sentence
Monday, 13 October 2008
WEEK 1: HOSTED BY JAMIE CREWE
An online conversation between students of the BA Fine Art and MArt courses at Sheffield Hallam University.
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday October 13th.
Hosted by Jamie Crewe, on the subject of the stranger and falling in love, with reference to Richard Linklater's film Before Sunrise.
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Daniel Sean Fogarty, Jonny Fox, Natalie Mortimer, Sarah Smizz
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/jqq3ndgkhr
POSTSCRIPTS:
Madeleine Walton
I enjoyed reading the transcript though I was somewhat frustrated as technology had excluded me from the conversation. However, this what I would have liked to say had I managed to get on line.
You talk about the stranger, however what you really mean is the stranger you are sexually attracted to just as the Jesse and Celine are attracted to each other from the start. No-one has addressed the issue of the stranger who you don't fancy, the fat woman on the train. (Luke said so much when he talked about her!) It seems that that stranger is of little interest to you and if that is the case then it isn't ever really about the stranger but really about fancying someone and gratifying your own desires.
This morning I listened to a news item on the news about a survivor in Eastern Congo, Zawadi and her daughter Reponse. The item won the 2008 Bayeux Calvados Award for War Correspondents, in the radio category.Zawadi told her horrific experiences which can be heard if you are interested at http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7657000/7657461.stm . Anyway the people who heard this original item, strangers sent money, presents etc and now Zawadi has secured her home, her daughter is in school and she has been able to set up a shop to create an income, Zawadi said "I thank you for everything you have done for me and for helping me have a future. In the past I would often think about killing myself but now that I know you are there I don't feel that urge anymore.".
Madeleine
Sharon Kivland
Do you know, that was my immediate reaction. I was most interested in the fat woman on the train, the alcoholic; these are those we consider to be other to ourselves, absolute others, outside the sphere of our desire and thus abject, with whom we fail to identify (our narcissism will not allow this). If I welcome, embrace, that other, then am I excluded from the exchange of desire; do I become abject? However, a note of caution: there is self-gratification in encompassing the other – one finds this in Hegel – the ‘belle ame’ (lovely soul), an idea of ‘wild’ moral conscience, casting goodness all about her, following the impulse of the heart against the order of the world (Freud and Lacan comment on this, too, in different ways, but in relation to hysteria).
Bests,
Sharon
Joanne Storey
Hey everyone,
My apologies again for my absence at e-crit and for this late reply to the transcript, me and technology do not get along.
I found this subject (that of the stranger and love) very interesting. I probably fall in love with a stranger at least twice a week without engaging in any conversation with them. I think this is because without speaking to them, you can remain in control. There are no faults, boredom, or uncomftable situations. For a moment, you can almost imagine what your life would be like with that person.
I usually find that to know someone ISN'T to love them. They only seem to disapoint, become human and predictable, and who wants that?
In a way, I feel the same about myself. I like to remain a stranger. Read into this what you will.
I really enjoyed the film. Even though I felt quite sad at the end of it. I'm looking forward to watching Before Sunset.
Just another quick point,
I noticed how the two bonded over the other strangers in the film -
The fighting German couple
The men talking about the play
The palm reader
etc...
As soon as you find one thing in common with someone you have bonded to some extent, so I see it as everyone is a stranger, it just comes down to who's stranger.
Jo
x
Martyn Cashmore
Before Sunset Commentary on the Strangers, Progression
The woman tells her husband to put the paper away and then he says that there's something about her in it: 70.000 women are alcoholics.She replies that he's the real alcoholic and he answers that it's only because of him being married to her.Then they start telling each other that they should move back in with their mothers and keep going on about that and storm out.
The couple storming out is the first barrier that is broken between the main characters, a small giggle insues where eye contact is made (another barrier) and a series of small talk questions are asked (more barriers). Notice at this point there is no mention of names. When they move to the lounge car they sit at a table she takes the dominant roll by placing herself over the table whereas he takes a more reserved, defensive position i.e. making his appearance as big and flat as possible against the chair. This maybe anxiety because of her dominance. This is not where her dominance ends, she maintains eye contact (also moving back behind the table barrier folding her arms) whilst he shakes his head from side to side avoiding contact, but laughing (not baring teeth) to keep her amused. He then makes a stand to strive for dominance by becoming kinetic with his arms explaining that he is not ignorant of other languages, he fails.
After he asks about her family and her intentions for the journey she withdraws allowing him to be dominant for a while, he folds his arms (Huzzah!). Rolls change and he maintains eye contact from his new defensive position, knowing that he has found a topic that she is uneasy talking about with a stranger, in order to maintain dominance he must reciprocate and not show the same anxiety.
She mentions the taboo topic of sex, cunningly disguised during his explaination of his mundain show, just to spruce up his droll monologue. Maybe a balance of rolls occurs where he shifts the subject of the conversation to her, whilst she is attentively listening...
The conversation about death is her trying to hell him that she is vulnerable where as he has this profound understanding of it using the imagary of the spirit of his Grandmother in the spray/mist of the hose (very phalic, oedipian).
They arrive at the station and they depart, but something brings him back. Satisfaction of the ideal fantacy, maybe. He offers her the chance of adventure and excitement. They are no longer two strangers/ voyeurs, this is the second encounter of the lover. It’s 15 minutes into the film and the second encounter before they are actually introduced, Jesse & Celine.
How can love be unselfish? It is a gift that has to be recieved and given in response for it’s own gratification. It’s a shame that there arn’t three of them for one to get jealous.
From the point on the bridge where they meet the two actors and she introduces him to them as her husband on their honeymoon all that was going through my head was; Get On With It, just fuck him and leave. They share the moment , the fantacy is fulfilled (without them finding too much out about each other i.e. their faults), how he manages to get her to believe that there will be no strings attatched is beyond me, must be in his trustworthy, blue eyes. Although, before the moment she changes her mind and denys him (poor boy), a sudden strroke of reality in the fantacy, a spanner in the works, it begins to collapse.
Tim Thorpe
Critically, the film is harmless enough; a pleasant ingulgence that threatens to become self indulgent and as such I found it a little tedious. That said, it's perhaps more a comment on me than the film; perhaps the "romance" has finally left my soul.
I felt somewhat uncomfortable at times in recognising the posturing and mutual preening in this courtship dance. Perhaps also a hint of regret. I am a spectator and therefore excluded from the game. As the story of a transitory relationship based on a mutual sense of attraction, each character is role playing in a comfortable fantasy. The realities of the world surround them, but don't intrude to spoil the reverie. I am left with the feeling that they have learned little or nothing about themselves or each other.
Regards
Tim
Luiza Holub
The film is a celebration of youth, time and moments of connection. It's about living in that moment that you will remember for the rest of your life. It is a midsummer enchantment where only each others company is of importance. The relationship between the two characters is something we all want, but too often see slip away.
'Think of it like this: jump ahead, ten, twenty years, okay, and you're married. Only your marriage doesn't have that same energy that it used to have, y'know. You start to blame your husband. You start to think about all those guys you've met in your life and what might have happened if you'd picked up with one of them, right? Well, I'm one of those guys. That's me y'know, so think of this as time travel, from then, to now, to find out what you're missing out on. See, what this really could be is a gigantic favor to both you and your future husband to find out that you're not missing out on anything. I'm just as big a loser as he is, totally unmotivated, totally boring, and, uh, you made the right choice, and you're really happy. '
The strangers we pass on the street but never speak to or only make eye contact with, or even the strangers that we have the smallest conversation with, is what I think Jesse is in a way describing, just before they get off the train together. During their 12 hours in Vienna, Jesse and Celine become soul mates. I would like to think that we meet soul mates all the time, at different times, in different places and for different reasons.
Begun at 9.00PM on Monday October 13th.
Hosted by Jamie Crewe, on the subject of the stranger and falling in love, with reference to Richard Linklater's film Before Sunrise.
In attendance: Luke Chapman, Jamie Crewe, Luke Dilnot, Daniel Sean Fogarty, Jonny Fox, Natalie Mortimer, Sarah Smizz
TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.box.net/shared/jqq3ndgkhr
POSTSCRIPTS:
Madeleine Walton
I enjoyed reading the transcript though I was somewhat frustrated as technology had excluded me from the conversation. However, this what I would have liked to say had I managed to get on line.
You talk about the stranger, however what you really mean is the stranger you are sexually attracted to just as the Jesse and Celine are attracted to each other from the start. No-one has addressed the issue of the stranger who you don't fancy, the fat woman on the train. (Luke said so much when he talked about her!) It seems that that stranger is of little interest to you and if that is the case then it isn't ever really about the stranger but really about fancying someone and gratifying your own desires.
This morning I listened to a news item on the news about a survivor in Eastern Congo, Zawadi and her daughter Reponse. The item won the 2008 Bayeux Calvados Award for War Correspondents, in the radio category.Zawadi told her horrific experiences which can be heard if you are interested at http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7657000/7657461.stm . Anyway the people who heard this original item, strangers sent money, presents etc and now Zawadi has secured her home, her daughter is in school and she has been able to set up a shop to create an income, Zawadi said "I thank you for everything you have done for me and for helping me have a future. In the past I would often think about killing myself but now that I know you are there I don't feel that urge anymore.".
Madeleine
Sharon Kivland
Do you know, that was my immediate reaction. I was most interested in the fat woman on the train, the alcoholic; these are those we consider to be other to ourselves, absolute others, outside the sphere of our desire and thus abject, with whom we fail to identify (our narcissism will not allow this). If I welcome, embrace, that other, then am I excluded from the exchange of desire; do I become abject? However, a note of caution: there is self-gratification in encompassing the other – one finds this in Hegel – the ‘belle ame’ (lovely soul), an idea of ‘wild’ moral conscience, casting goodness all about her, following the impulse of the heart against the order of the world (Freud and Lacan comment on this, too, in different ways, but in relation to hysteria).
Bests,
Sharon
Joanne Storey
Hey everyone,
My apologies again for my absence at e-crit and for this late reply to the transcript, me and technology do not get along.
I found this subject (that of the stranger and love) very interesting. I probably fall in love with a stranger at least twice a week without engaging in any conversation with them. I think this is because without speaking to them, you can remain in control. There are no faults, boredom, or uncomftable situations. For a moment, you can almost imagine what your life would be like with that person.
I usually find that to know someone ISN'T to love them. They only seem to disapoint, become human and predictable, and who wants that?
In a way, I feel the same about myself. I like to remain a stranger. Read into this what you will.
I really enjoyed the film. Even though I felt quite sad at the end of it. I'm looking forward to watching Before Sunset.
Just another quick point,
I noticed how the two bonded over the other strangers in the film -
The fighting German couple
The men talking about the play
The palm reader
etc...
As soon as you find one thing in common with someone you have bonded to some extent, so I see it as everyone is a stranger, it just comes down to who's stranger.
Jo
x
Martyn Cashmore
Before Sunset Commentary on the Strangers, Progression
The woman tells her husband to put the paper away and then he says that there's something about her in it: 70.000 women are alcoholics.She replies that he's the real alcoholic and he answers that it's only because of him being married to her.Then they start telling each other that they should move back in with their mothers and keep going on about that and storm out.
The couple storming out is the first barrier that is broken between the main characters, a small giggle insues where eye contact is made (another barrier) and a series of small talk questions are asked (more barriers). Notice at this point there is no mention of names. When they move to the lounge car they sit at a table she takes the dominant roll by placing herself over the table whereas he takes a more reserved, defensive position i.e. making his appearance as big and flat as possible against the chair. This maybe anxiety because of her dominance. This is not where her dominance ends, she maintains eye contact (also moving back behind the table barrier folding her arms) whilst he shakes his head from side to side avoiding contact, but laughing (not baring teeth) to keep her amused. He then makes a stand to strive for dominance by becoming kinetic with his arms explaining that he is not ignorant of other languages, he fails.
After he asks about her family and her intentions for the journey she withdraws allowing him to be dominant for a while, he folds his arms (Huzzah!). Rolls change and he maintains eye contact from his new defensive position, knowing that he has found a topic that she is uneasy talking about with a stranger, in order to maintain dominance he must reciprocate and not show the same anxiety.
She mentions the taboo topic of sex, cunningly disguised during his explaination of his mundain show, just to spruce up his droll monologue. Maybe a balance of rolls occurs where he shifts the subject of the conversation to her, whilst she is attentively listening...
The conversation about death is her trying to hell him that she is vulnerable where as he has this profound understanding of it using the imagary of the spirit of his Grandmother in the spray/mist of the hose (very phalic, oedipian).
They arrive at the station and they depart, but something brings him back. Satisfaction of the ideal fantacy, maybe. He offers her the chance of adventure and excitement. They are no longer two strangers/ voyeurs, this is the second encounter of the lover. It’s 15 minutes into the film and the second encounter before they are actually introduced, Jesse & Celine.
How can love be unselfish? It is a gift that has to be recieved and given in response for it’s own gratification. It’s a shame that there arn’t three of them for one to get jealous.
From the point on the bridge where they meet the two actors and she introduces him to them as her husband on their honeymoon all that was going through my head was; Get On With It, just fuck him and leave. They share the moment , the fantacy is fulfilled (without them finding too much out about each other i.e. their faults), how he manages to get her to believe that there will be no strings attatched is beyond me, must be in his trustworthy, blue eyes. Although, before the moment she changes her mind and denys him (poor boy), a sudden strroke of reality in the fantacy, a spanner in the works, it begins to collapse.
Tim Thorpe
Critically, the film is harmless enough; a pleasant ingulgence that threatens to become self indulgent and as such I found it a little tedious. That said, it's perhaps more a comment on me than the film; perhaps the "romance" has finally left my soul.
I felt somewhat uncomfortable at times in recognising the posturing and mutual preening in this courtship dance. Perhaps also a hint of regret. I am a spectator and therefore excluded from the game. As the story of a transitory relationship based on a mutual sense of attraction, each character is role playing in a comfortable fantasy. The realities of the world surround them, but don't intrude to spoil the reverie. I am left with the feeling that they have learned little or nothing about themselves or each other.
Regards
Tim
Luiza Holub
The film is a celebration of youth, time and moments of connection. It's about living in that moment that you will remember for the rest of your life. It is a midsummer enchantment where only each others company is of importance. The relationship between the two characters is something we all want, but too often see slip away.
'Think of it like this: jump ahead, ten, twenty years, okay, and you're married. Only your marriage doesn't have that same energy that it used to have, y'know. You start to blame your husband. You start to think about all those guys you've met in your life and what might have happened if you'd picked up with one of them, right? Well, I'm one of those guys. That's me y'know, so think of this as time travel, from then, to now, to find out what you're missing out on. See, what this really could be is a gigantic favor to both you and your future husband to find out that you're not missing out on anything. I'm just as big a loser as he is, totally unmotivated, totally boring, and, uh, you made the right choice, and you're really happy. '
The strangers we pass on the street but never speak to or only make eye contact with, or even the strangers that we have the smallest conversation with, is what I think Jesse is in a way describing, just before they get off the train together. During their 12 hours in Vienna, Jesse and Celine become soul mates. I would like to think that we meet soul mates all the time, at different times, in different places and for different reasons.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)