This was his greatest work by far; was highly useful in my creative writing classes asking students to immediately respond to what was going on in their heads while watching it. Harry was all about uncovering true self-awareness through art. Boy does this make me miss him.
He's still a big inspiration to me. The scope & innovation in his work, though it may seem simple today, is hard to beat. The anthology alone is a landmark.
I just saw this for the first time over the weekend at an art fair in LA. I couldn't make sense of it but was completely captivated and had to keep watching it even though I wanted to check out the rest of the fair. IDK why you would say this is not aesthetically pleasing, other than it is plain/simple at the lowest level. The style of the images and their movement is interesting and engaging, the drawings are well done, & its even funny at times. Thats dope to me, and I wasn't even stoned!
For anyone who's interested, Wikipedia gives dates for this as 1943-58 or 1950-60 or 1950-61 or 1957-62 or 1959-61 (reedited several times between 1957-62). The question for me is whether Terry Gilliam ever saw it, as he looks very like having learned his entire early schtick from it.
This will be screening in Ann Arbor Mi this weekend as part of the Ann Arbor Film Festival. The soundtrack will be performed live by Flying Lotus. 3.26.10
@diantonovich I think your point was well made. The distinction between opinion and criticism becomes more and more tenuous as social media glorifies opinion and reduces the evaluation of art, music and literature to something "liked" or "disliked," thumbs up or down, or the hardly more useful continuum of 1 to 5 stars. Mass opinion is not the same as informed consensus.
Humans and animals presented as mechanical objects. We could be seen as such because both were created (depending on your beliefs) to perform certain tasks.
Any of you asking about the meaning of this film are missing the point. Might as well ask the meaning of a rose. Does a rose have a meaning? Harry was certainly a genius[and I don't use this word lightly] He was a force in so many fields. You all should read about his life. He was truly an amazing person. There's no meaning to this film or if you like supply your own meaning. Or just watch and enjoy as landonwm did. He didn't come with any preconceived ideas-he just let the film unfold. Perfect.
@ExistentialGirl depends on people who vote. If Lady Gaga is liked by many people, I see the limitations of their taste, and therefore I don't think thier high opinion is an indicator of the quality of her art. On the other hand, art historians have a consensus that Michellangelo and Bach produced art of high quality. Having seen it, and, no less importantly, having read and understood art historian's comments about their art, I start to understand and appreciate the quality aspect of their art
I don't think art neccessarily need aesthetic value ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder") but I do however feel it should contribute something to the human psyche weather it be a philosphy an emotion or an expression to someone other than the artist himself, as it is through art that we find our kindred bond that connects us all...
@troublesaway examples of high art: Michelangelo's sculptures, Bach's St. Matthew's Passion. That's high art - if you "get it", it makes you feel free, inexplicably free, you almost want to cry with joy. this stuff is like adolescent masturbation.
Quality standards only apply within their context of use. A gallery, a company, an industry set their own standards. I would say that this piece fails as a cohesive narrative, and thus fails as a film. However, there is still an overall visual and auditory aesthetic to be gleaned here - one that can be seen in the works of many other films (most notably the early works of David Lynch.) Experimental art is often the playground of the commercial art realm, which tends to hold strict standards.
@ExistentialGirl ok, explain it to me. i promise to try to understand. in fact the reason i post insults here at all is because i am not understanding, but i didn't bother to formulate my commends with enough care. what is the bigger philosophical question?
harry smith was a stoned folk archivist with an interest in sex magic.....The first part depicts the heroine's toothache consequent to the loss of a very valuable watermelon, her dentistry and transportation to heaven. Next follows an elaborate exposition of the heavenly land, in terms of Israel and Montreal. The second part depicts the return to Earth from being eaten by Max Müller on the day Edward VII dedicated the Great Sewer of London.
... So on that basis I would not define this as art as it is purely self-indulgent! Im quite sure that Smith would prefer his work not to be defined as it would again suggest the static. I hope this will clear up the matter
@ExistentialGirl Well, seriously, objective quality is of course a theoretical concept, but it is possible to distinguish between "I like it" and "It is a quality work". For example, I like certain little cartoons, but I don't really think that they are a quality production; I just like it. On the other hand, Metallica is a fairly skilled group of musicians, and I appreciate their quality, but I don't really like it, its not my style. It's a feeling, but there is some consensus, and it depenends
A lot of the kind of filmmaking I like (Brakhage, Deren & like that) doesn't translate well into the youtube video format. I suspect the same problem is at play here with this film. From my one superficial viewing it looks like a lot of Larry Jordan's films----a kind series of animated surrealist collages. My first thought of it is "film as magical operation", maybe along the lines of Anger.
There is no bigger philosophical picture here. Harry Smith was a booze swilled drunk with a penchant for narcotics and a large believer in the occult so any philosphy unless coneyed coherently would be lost to anyone otther than himself. This is merely some product of his abstact mind, yes it could be considered art by those who will endeavour to attach a meaning to it, but that is to miss the point (if there even is one) entirely of Smith's outlook and philosphy...
Harry Smith had a large opposition to non-transformable objects that remained in a state of functonal stasis, he detested mundane facts, rational thought or anything that could be defined, therefore to attribute a meaning to his work would imply that it is solid and has a place, only he would be able to convey the purpose of his work and therefore no one else can...
it's a bit like saying, visually, "bla bla bla bla bla bla". Let's face it: although it is creative, it is not art, and it has no aesthetic value whatsoever.
This was his greatest work by far; was highly useful in my creative writing classes asking students to immediately respond to what was going on in their heads while watching it. Harry was all about uncovering true self-awareness through art. Boy does this make me miss him.
He's still a big inspiration to me. The scope & innovation in his work, though it may seem simple today, is hard to beat. The anthology alone is a landmark.
that was blissful in a disturbing way... pure stream of consciousness
It was an honor to know Harry Smith. I miss him.
i'm so glad you posted this!!!!! amazing
I have this complete on VHS. Harry was a big inspiration to me in my youth.
I just saw this for the first time over the weekend at an art fair in LA. I couldn't make sense of it but was completely captivated and had to keep watching it even though I wanted to check out the rest of the fair.
IDK why you would say this is not aesthetically pleasing, other than it is plain/simple at the lowest level. The style of the images and their movement is interesting and engaging, the drawings are well done, & its even funny at times. Thats dope to me, and I wasn't even stoned!
For anyone who's interested, Wikipedia gives dates for this as 1943-58 or 1950-60 or 1950-61 or 1957-62 or 1959-61 (reedited several times between 1957-62). The question for me is whether Terry Gilliam ever saw it, as he looks very like having learned his entire early schtick from it.
Una obra de arte. Oh' dear Harry
This will be screening in Ann Arbor Mi this weekend as part of the Ann Arbor Film Festival. The soundtrack will be performed live by Flying Lotus. 3.26.10
yes, that was the music video for Herbie Hancock's "rock it"
@diantonovich I think your point was well made. The distinction between opinion and criticism becomes more and more tenuous as social media glorifies opinion and reduces the evaluation of art, music and literature to something "liked" or "disliked," thumbs up or down, or the hardly more useful continuum of 1 to 5 stars. Mass opinion is not the same as informed consensus.
thank you
gonna buy it... on VHS, of course
Humans and animals presented as mechanical objects. We could be seen as such because both were created (depending on your beliefs) to perform certain tasks.
Any of you asking about the meaning of this film are missing the point. Might as well ask the meaning of a rose. Does a rose have a meaning? Harry was certainly a genius[and I don't use this word lightly] He was a force in so many fields. You all should read about his life. He was truly an amazing person. There's no meaning to this film or if you like supply your own meaning. Or just watch and enjoy as landonwm did. He didn't come with any preconceived ideas-he just let the film unfold. Perfect.
best af
I reckon Terry Gilliam must have watched this over and over...
I like it. Hopefully it will get wider release than a $100 dvd
@personna9 it was SO good!
thumbs up!
@ExistentialGirl depends on people who vote. If Lady Gaga is liked by many people, I see the limitations of their taste, and therefore I don't think thier high opinion is an indicator of the quality of her art. On the other hand, art historians have a consensus that Michellangelo and Bach produced art of high quality. Having seen it, and, no less importantly, having read and understood art historian's comments about their art, I start to understand and appreciate the quality aspect of their art
@diantonovich And who determines what is aesthetically pleasing? Who determines what is art?
I don't think art neccessarily need aesthetic value ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder") but I do however feel it should contribute something to the human psyche weather it be a philosphy an emotion or an expression to someone other than the artist himself, as it is through art that we find our kindred bond that connects us all...
Spike Milligan once penned “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” get it out with optrex (eye cleaner)
7:04 New Slowdive anyone?
wooooooow you made my day
the album became even better now
Pierre Bourdieu decides what is art.
@troublesaway examples of high art: Michelangelo's sculptures, Bach's St. Matthew's Passion. That's high art - if you "get it", it makes you feel free, inexplicably free, you almost want to cry with joy. this stuff is like adolescent masturbation.
Quality standards only apply within their context of use. A gallery, a company, an industry set their own standards. I would say that this piece fails as a cohesive narrative, and thus fails as a film. However, there is still an overall visual and auditory aesthetic to be gleaned here - one that can be seen in the works of many other films (most notably the early works of David Lynch.) Experimental art is often the playground of the commercial art realm, which tends to hold strict standards.
This is Harry Smith of "The Anthology of American Folk Music" fame, yes?
+Harry Krinkle YES
Is this the same Harry (Anthology Of America Folk Music) Smith?
@ExistentialGirl ok, explain it to me. i promise to try to understand. in fact the reason i post insults here at all is because i am not understanding, but i didn't bother to formulate my commends with enough care. what is the bigger philosophical question?
Uhn... The most weird parts of Tv Tropes can present you to some strange things...
harry smith was a stoned folk archivist with an interest in sex magic.....The first part depicts the heroine's toothache consequent to the loss of a very valuable watermelon, her dentistry and transportation to heaven. Next follows an elaborate exposition of the heavenly land, in terms of Israel and Montreal. The second part depicts the return to Earth from being eaten by Max Müller on the day Edward VII dedicated the Great Sewer of London.
... So on that basis I would not define this as art as it is purely self-indulgent! Im quite sure that Smith would prefer his work not to be defined as it would again suggest the static. I hope this will clear up the matter
@ExistentialGirl Well, seriously, objective quality is of course a theoretical concept, but it is possible to distinguish between "I like it" and "It is a quality work". For example, I like certain little cartoons, but I don't really think that they are a quality production; I just like it. On the other hand, Metallica is a fairly skilled group of musicians, and I appreciate their quality, but I don't really like it, its not my style. It's a feeling, but there is some consensus, and it depenends
A lot of the kind of filmmaking I like (Brakhage, Deren & like that) doesn't translate well into the youtube video format. I suspect the same problem is at play here with this film. From my one superficial viewing it looks like a lot of Larry Jordan's films----a kind series of animated surrealist collages. My first thought of it is "film as magical operation", maybe along the lines of Anger.
There is no bigger philosophical picture here. Harry Smith was a booze swilled drunk with a penchant for narcotics and a large believer in the occult so any philosphy unless coneyed coherently would be lost to anyone otther than himself. This is merely some product of his abstact mind, yes it could be considered art by those who will endeavour to attach a meaning to it, but that is to miss the point (if there even is one) entirely of Smith's outlook and philosphy...
Harry Smith had a large opposition to non-transformable objects that remained in a state of functonal stasis, he detested mundane facts, rational thought or anything that could be defined, therefore to attribute a meaning to his work would imply that it is solid and has a place, only he would be able to convey the purpose of his work and therefore no one else can...
@landonwm Good appreciation. See my comments
i would be laughing my ass off at how random this was if it wasnt so creepy
@orionion more like a stream of regurgitation!!
Is it correct that he was a Thelemite?
I believe so. Dr Hans Utter and Jan Irvin have exposed him as probable MKULTRA as well.
oh, slowdive...
@diantonovich Eh, you're missing the bigger philosophical concept here, and I can see that this will go nowhere.
No wonder Yoko Ono is so weird….
moralism
what the F is this about?
it's a bit like saying, visually, "bla bla bla bla bla bla".
Let's face it: although it is creative, it is not art, and it has no aesthetic value whatsoever.
What the hell is this. It's like black and white south park, except not funny.