simon tarr: lecture question and response

Visiting Artist Lecture: Simon Tarr: November 9, 2010
"Simon Tarr made his first movie at the age of eight. The strip of film was fashioned from sandwich bags taped together, with spaceships drawn on it. The projector was a shoebox with a lamp in it, the lens was a magnifying glass on the end of a toilet paper tube. The film premiered on the wall of his bedroom, where the film melted after a few seconds.

Since then, Simon Tarr’s films have been screened on every continent (yes, even Antarctica) in hundreds of film festivals. His prior eleven films are available on DVD from Netflix and Amazon, and as digital downloads from QuarkNova.com. He has performed his live VJ shows at conferences, festivals and clubs from Tokyo to New Orleans and everywhere in between."

1. How is done? Is there an equivalent conversion for elements from the music DJ to a video DJ? Is the only difference the visual element?

2. With all the technology and knowledge that you have come up with, why not mix multiple movies instead of using only clips from Nanook of the North?

Three words: spontaneous, bold, indifferent

Tarr's lecture was not as informational as I would have liked it. I only learned of how he did what he did, but his explanation for the drive or what he enjoys about the aesthetic that is present in his work wasn't told. I was more interested in why he portrays the content that he did, in the way he did. I was please to hear of his methods in working, "hunting and gathering", it is certainly a journey working in that way. The outcome and the product is unpredictably and I am learning to work in that way now too for my project. What I wish Tarr had done, was also explain to the audience the reason he chose to incorporate the combination of footage that he did for each of the shorts he showed.

I was not very fond of the sound that accompanied the pieces. The visual elements were too chaotic and ruthless. I understand and enjoy the abstraction, but I feel even in abstraction there is a flow, I did not feel a sense of flow in some of the pieces. The visual imagery for some part was rather eye-sore.

The performance piece with Nanook of the North was probably the strongest piece shown and the most intriguing piece. The technological aspect was absolutely fantastic. I really enjoy the way a movie can be broken down into so many different elements that can then all be control separately and on the fly, the sound, the text, the visual clips, the color, the speed, and repetitions, the scale, the transparency, the transitions, etc. I cannot imagine the numbers of fingers it would take to control all those things simultaneously. It is so exciting to know and see that everything is happening within seconds, controlled right there on the spot. I think with that kind of progression in technology, I felt the pieces performed could be more engaging and more in-tune with the audience. I feel that the psychology of color, sound, and imagery can be played better to fit the audience. If the performer can gauge the audience in what works and what doesn't, it would be more successful. There needs to be an action-and-responds kind of analysis. What seems to perk up the audience should be taken advantage. Certain crowds might enjoy a more tranquil show while others need loud sounds shocking aspects and up beat dynamic visuals to evoke a response. Tarr definitely has thought about that when he talks about whether he should be seen or un-seen during the performance. I feel if he was seen and in a position where he could watch the audience's facial expressions, it would benefit for making a show that causes the most response from the crowd, if people seem bored with an imagery, spice it up and wake them up with something new. I guess the "energy" that he spoke about just was lacking that night. I have no doubt that the energy does exist, just not the other night.