Experiments of multi-screen (Lynn)

Harun Farocki ‘Against What? Against Whom?‘
Raven Row, London. 27.01.2010

The exhibition contains two-screen and multi-screen works of revered German filmmaker Harun Farocki. It makes me think a lot about the relationship between installation and editing or montage as well as the narrative of film essay.

Multi-screen or two-screen works are totally different from the one of single screen. It does extend the imaginary or possibility of montage of film. Sometimes, it make the story go more smoothly, while sometime it seems to disturb the structure of the film and try to make some sense.

Take the Eye/Machine(video, 2 screens, 25minutes, 2003) as an example, the screens show the situation in different space at the same time in different perspectives. In this situation, if it is single screen, there would be more issues about montages. The images in different context would be edited together, and the editor needs to do it carefully to control the rhythm of the film. However, when it is played in two screens, there is nothing about editing between them. One can watch how things are going on about the “bleeding man” and the “guard” at the same time. The author create a feeling of contradiction which is more intensive when they both are going on without disturbing of editing. In another word, the multi-screen maximizes the information what the film can give at one time. This kind of function of the multi-screen of installation can also be reflected by the “comparison via a third”, which shows the industry of brick-making in different countries in different periods, and “workers leaving the factory in eleven decades” (12 monitors) which gives the history of 110 years in less then 110 minutes. Finally, I found that the multi-screen can save the time of the film which essay can not do.


About Lynn

need everything unexpected
This entry was posted in tp0910 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Experiments of multi-screen (Lynn)

  1. Imoh Bare says:

    As a medium of communication, art seems to be the best tool for communal unification and dialogue partly especially in the event of sectarian disputes, due to its eclectic nature.

    Parts of social misunderstandings can be traced to different groups putting too much emphasizes on what makes them different, somehow it is harder to appreciate cultural similarities. However art seems to possess the aesthetic ingredients that appeal to people of diverse cultural influences.

    From Mikhail Bakhtin’s argument which states that a work of art can be view as a form of conversation that can convey “meanings, interpretations and points of view”. It can be safe to put it in my own words by saying that because of its aesthetic, art appeals to the different ethnic or social groups. Making it a Purposeful aesthetic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s