« Throw Away Your Books, Rally in the Streets, 1971 | Main | Berlin Alexanderplatz, 1980 »


October 19, 2005

Still Life, 1997

still_life.gif The convergence of Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet's A Trip to the Louvre and experimental filmmaker Mark LaPore's transfixing ethnography Kolkata at this year's View from the Avant-Garde provided the proper frame of mind to revisit Harun Farocki's meditation on the art of consumerism, Still Life, a film that on the surface seemed to be a corollary to his interior monologue, self-confessional in Between Two Wars: part conceptual apologia on the necessity for artistic compromise (Farocki had accepted commission work for print advertisement in order to finance the film), and part de-exoticism of the creative process and ritual of aesthetic (re)presentation that underlies all commercial production. From one perspective is Kolkata in which LaPore's stationary camera takes on the characteristics of pre-Renaissance art, creating a composition in which the subject remains fixed while the peripheral frame becomes the dynamic element (an aesthetic similarly employed by Amos Gitai) as objects transect, ornament, or otherwise distract from the foreground, creating complex, seemingly oxymoronic juxtapositions of youth and aging, poverty and opulence, decay and vitality that reflect the state of perpetual transformation in modern-day Calcutta. Similarly, the opening image of the precursor still life painting in Farocki's film contains its own richly textured, baroque, self-encapsulated constructed world where humans and inanimate objects compete on equal footing (or rather, canvas space) for the viewer's attention - each composition revealing an inherent duality (or even multiplicity) of meaning.

From a corollary perspective, the process of engaging the viewer towards decoding meaning by challenging conventional perspective and "ways of seeing" defines the nature of image presentation in A Trip to the Louvre where layers of sub-frames present a logical progression that spirals outward toward the resolution of overarching image. In Still Life, Farocki proposes that contemporary society has become attuned, not to see this structural complexity of image presentation, but rather, to the coding of associative images that converge towards a consumerist ideal. Therefore, in this context, a painting of an open market booth that juxtaposes a vendor selling assorted fruits vegetables in the foreground as two lovers steal a kiss in the background does not serve to convey a richness of ancillary, quotidian detail and sense of realism to the constructed image, but rather, to present a consumer-programmed associative link between inanimate objects and human beings where the consumption of goods (the marketed produce) provides a gateway to pleasure (the lovers' rendezvous). It is this ritualized pursuit of the precise moment of balance between visual composition and image-embedded coding that defines the heart of Farocki's exposition - a visual state in which the synthetic production of images the delineation between art and commercialization is blurred - an aesthetic point of convergence towards a singularity of manufactured illusion.

Posted by acquarello on Oct 19, 2005 | | Filed under 2005, Harun Farocki

Comments

This sounds fascinating, and definitely worth a road trip if it ever shows up anywhere near here!

I've never seen a Farocki but enjoy his book with Kaja Silverman (A. ~ just curious: do you know/like it?) of Godard close readings.

Posted by: girish on Oct 20, 2005 11:35 AM | Permalink

Hmm...another one for my reading pile, I see! ;) I've only read a few articles by Farocki during his stint at Filmkritik, but none of them were about any of Godard's films. I wonder if it's like that last section of the Rosenbaum/Saeed-Vafa book on Abbas Kiarostami.

I find Farocki's approach in Still Life quite unique in that he doesn't discount or praise the production of commercial art as much as point out this mental programming that we now take for granted. It's an interesting thought - how would we perceive an advertisement if we didn't understand its coding?

Posted by: acquarello on Oct 20, 2005 1:45 PM | Permalink

Interesting film and interesting thoughts. I’ll have to wait for it to come out on DVD because there’s no chance it’ll be shown where I live any time soon.

If the coding could be removed, there’s still a problem with advertising being created for purposeful dissatisfaction in the viewer and then offering a product for relief. Granted, commercial art does contain aesthetic qualities that set on the surface, but the seduction is for manipulation, a concept that should never be found in fine art, and, also in contrast, the substance behind the work would be scant at best. Sure the manipulation would exit with decoding, but this would only make the relationship to the work empty and hollow (which is the ultimate problem with materialism). Although, my opinions are entirely different with respect to graphic arts, that being similar to architecture in its cultural/social purpose.

Posted by: brian on Oct 21, 2005 10:57 AM | Permalink

Ah, great point about the motivation (ethics?) behind the seduction. In the aesthetic composition of the "butterfly cheese" shot in the film, there is a kind of "eating cheese=liberation" coding that, even if you didn't know this was for an advertisement, would make you crave cheese. So in that sense, it's not art that makes you "feel", but rather, a pleasant image that makes you feel hungry.

Posted by: acquarello on Oct 21, 2005 2:14 PM | Permalink


Post a comment:

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)