This week was a good change of pace from last week. I loved the humor in the pieces and thought that the question Carl posed- who controls the piece?/ who is the author? - was a great way to get us to think in a new way. It made watching the pieces more interesting to me.
Personally - I thought that in "Tree", the camera control is what made the piece. Without the motion it would have been just a landscape shot and I think people would have grew tired of it sooner. I liked an idea that had been brought up in our discussion of this piece, how the camera mimics the tree branches, almost making us feel like we are the tree. We feel what it feels.
The 2 pieces with the dogs were so funny, but "Black and White" ran a little too long and lost its spark. The piece "two dogs and a ball " had good timing, I thought, and kept my interest.
"Parents/Dream" prompted a lot of questions. Why did the father dress in a brighter color and look more "alive" than the mother, even though most of his son's dreams about him was about death? Was this on purpose? Was the father as disinterested as he looked or was he uncomfortable in showing that he really did get emotional of these dreams that spoke of his son's feelings of distance from him and his yearning to be closer?
In discussion we were asked if we saw a similarity between Thauberger's work and the pieces that were viewed in class this past week. Besides the pieces that may have lasted longer than need be, I really saw no similarity.
