Starry Night

Word of the week: daedal; adjective; Skillful; artistic; ingenious.

For Art 50, I was forced to pick a master work that we are doing studies on. I'm not going to lie, I was more or less in fevered state in trying to pick something off the top of my head. I decided to with Vincent Van Gogh's "Starry Night." At first thought, it didn't seem like anything important to me. However, because of the assignment, it's making me really examine it, and I have to say, I appreciate the daedal work that Van Gogh put into it, exphasising a quality craftsmanship to something that looks so simple on the surface.

Van Gogh may have been less than sane, but the amount of work he put into his paintings always astound me. The painting evokes a state of wonder, as the various hues and shades of the blue night sky seem to move alongside the stars. Much like his other works, it involves very obvious strokes, but the gestures it creates give it a strange life that's hard to capture in something so vast and expansive. While "the night sky" seems like such a broad thing to paint about, it's clear that Van Gogh had a loving and reverent opinion of the his surroundings, capturing a strange essence in the night. The scale is also expanded due to the dwarfed size of the city below it, which pales is given a minute size while still having formidable detail. It's a very interesting piece that has a strange fullness in it's "empty" landscape.

The Third Dimension in Film

I know, to some, this may seem strange talking about film on a blog about art (well, something about art per se). However, I'm hear to talk about a certain technical aspect rather than the shift of dimension from characters to cameras (although I'd damn well prefer to). Of course, dimension is considered an integral part of art today, elevating it from a flat plane to a living world. To achieve this, it requires intertwining techniques amidst the various methods used. It isn't self-reliant on just the shadows of the back grounds or the layering of objects with a constantly shifting size, shape, and perspective. All of these come together as an adjoining whole to make (when this is sought after anyway) a living, breathing world inside a canvas that could make one think that if they stuck their hand forward, it would go through the looking glass and into another dimension.

On this topic, a trend has been recently resurrected within the past several years: 3D films. Originally a gimmicky craze started in the 50s (which died not too long after), it's come back in full force. Although the technology used to film it is fairly new, not a lot has been done to change how it's used. In many cases, it has remained a gimmicky attempt at eclat. One of the problems that has come about in 3D is a person's perception of depth. In many movies such as "My Bloody Valentine 3D" or "The Final Destination," the idea was to send objects flying out at the viewer. If such a thing was done to a painting, it would more or less lose it's effect. The idea isn't to make you flinch back, but rather to suck you in. I'm not saying every film does this, but only some films are truly successful at this.

The latest movie I saw to take advantage of this was "Sanctum" a movie produced by James Cameron who has been considered the godfather of 3D after what he did with "Avatar." I won't delve into the problems of "Sanctum" based on it's substance, but rather what drew me into the 3D. Much like a painting, this movie actually achieved it's goal of creating depth. In the exploration of caves, the director took the time give the image recession, layering everything that came about; the use of the environment and people amidst the foreground and background, as well as use of deep space creating a disturbing sense of distance that many filmmakers (like many artists) attempt to capture. It would make a person really think that they would fall into an oblivion. Also adding to this is the use of dynamic contrast, aiding in the illusion. The waning light into the background helps accentuate that depth that many filmmakers seek.

This might be unconventional, I know, but there is a shared ideal between paintings and 3D movies that must be sought: true depth. It isn't about sending things out, but more so about bringing the viewer into what he or she is viewing. But even then, there must be a harmony present between the objects, layering everything from the foreground, mid-ground, and background in a way that makes the world feel expansive. It is a rather hard thing to seek out, but if done properly, it can help make something a more immersive experience. As long as filmmakers can reel it back (I don't just mean the depth by the way), it's possible that there can be an intriguing experience that is similar to attempting to make an immersive painting. It's difficult, no doubt, but the payoff is worth it.