User:LarsNoback/MR/MR
I am a creator. I enjoy putting effort in making things that didn’t exist before.
I am a filmmaker. In my work I use moving images that I’ve captured with my camera. To me, film is a very powerful tool to communicate. Whenever I make something it usually ends up being either a video, or something that contains a video. I enjoy looking at the world through a camera because I can use it to show the world in my own subjective way, while at the same time being relatively honest to the ‘truth’, because you can only capture what already exists. I specifically call myself a filmmaker, before anything else like artist or designer.
I am a director. I direct my own work. Whether I work alone or in a group, I’m always involved during the whole process of creating, from concept to development.
I am a person. Everything I create comes from within. The most important aspect of my craft is being able to express my vision. I am a filmmaker because film is the best medium for me to do that. I use film as a tool to show my view, the things that nobody else sees. I’m a conceptual thinker. What I create usually makes sense to me. I start out with a particular interest towards a certain subject. I start researching and thinking, combining subjects, themes, thoughts, formats and ideas until there’s a point in my mind where everything fits and makes sense. This is also the point of no return, when this concept exists in my mind I have to realize it.
It’s important to me to be aware of the historical context of the medium I practice. You can never make anything that’s relevant if you cannot place it in the context of your craft. You have to know the historical process your medium has gone through in order to make relevant work within that practice. Everything that gets created today is the result of everything that has been created before that.
I think it’s interesting that when a new medium comes into the world, people tend to describe it with things that already existed before. For example film was described as moving photographs, like it was supposed to replace photography altogether. Instead of it being two different mediums. If you look at some developments in film, people have the same reactions. For example, virtual reality supposedly is the next big thing. You know, why watch a film if you can be part of it? But what if film and virtual reality are so much different that neither can really ‘replace’ the other. What I don’t appreciate is progress for the sake of progress. Or progress for the sake of making money. What I personally enjoy about watching films is that you don’t have to make any choices. Which is also the nice thing about making a film, you get to make choices about what you want to show. There are so many decisions to make in film that are completely different in virtual reality. For example camera angles, lenses, focus, camera movement and editing. I watch films as a passive viewer, subjecting myself to the choices of the filmmaker. Virtual reality expects a much more active viewer, having to grab their attention in the right directions in order to tell the right story. Virtual reality needs engagement in order for it to work, which is a completely different attitude from its audience. If you can get your vision across using virtual reality, then use it. But if it’s just a gimmick that provides a fun experience, it’s not for me.
I’m not saying that virtual reality isn’t something exciting. It comes with many new possibilities and experiences, but it’s just something else entirely. So this makes it frustrating for me when people talk about new technologies like it’s just going to revolutionize the world and change everything we know about film. I really enjoy films and I personally don’t feel like anything needs to be changed or developed or revolutionized within this specific form. The technology, to me, is almost at it’s highest capacity. Cameras might get slightly better each year, but it’s not going to drastically change the experience for me.
But film is still a business, so going to movies in the theater has to be more attractive than streaming movies at home. So they come up with 3D movies and moving chairs. What I don’t appreciate is progress for the sake of progress. Or progress for the sake of making money. Film is an art form to me, so I don’t like to be associated with capitalistic systems.
The future is exciting and I would love to try out and explore these new technologies, but I think it’s always important to know what you’re dealing with. To know where your craft came from and where it’ going. The best works I find are often self reflective to the medium it’s using. Referring to the medium itself, in obvious and less obvious ways. Looking at the future also makes me stop and look back at the past. The way I display my work is almost always digital. Even the physical things I make end up as a digital documentation. However, I’m starting to feel more drawn to the physical features of film, like in celluloid film or VHS, but also the physical elements of the way we watch film. Digital film is the result of each of its successors. It’s a historic process, but the physical elements still echo through in the digital realm. Using older technologies can create very strong images. Not just for nostalgic reasons, but also because using outdated technologies is very unexpected to many people and really makes them wonder why you would use them. It focuses their attention towards the specific characteristics of the tool compared to newer technologies and the value of those differences.
Film, has, and always will be connected to technology. As a filmmaker I think it’s very important to always be aware of not just the developments in its technology, but also to be able to look back at where it came from. In other words, always be aware of the context of the medium you’re working in.
