Read Write Read

Bust Down the Doors! and its counterpart Bust Down the Doors Again! did a preposterously amazing job of making me ask questions. The most obvious one being why did each viewing repeat the story? To me the most obvious answer was for emphasis, but what are they emphasizing? That someone is being ripped from their home for being a traitor? What did the traitor do? And why is it so important to recall a dream? Interrogative thoughts continued to dictate my opinion of the two works as I watched the other two versions of Bust Down the Doors Again! The different versions even amazed and baffled me. I of course refer to the seizure causing flashing and drum beating of the first version compared to the surprisingly cacophonous strings rendition. It was interesting to me how the background noise and deliver of the words affected how I took the meaning. For example the drum beat was more soothing, and worked to emphasize certain phrases and meanings in the text. While I felt that the strings merely annoyed and retracted my concentration. Also the scrolling delivery of the strings rendition I felt also took away from the amount of time I spent thinking about the words, and was more focused on the anticipation of the next phrase (even though I knew what was coming). As for the hell version it continues to raise similar questions. In short this artist makes me question the relationship between art and literature. While literature can be considered art not all art is literature. So I wonder if this is art or literature?

I cannot begin to tell you how tired I am of hearing the story of someone’s door getting busted down while sleeping, being dragged out of bed in his or her underwear while the neighbors watch his/her in their humiliation, while in bare feet, hands tied behind their back as they approach the place where a bullet will get put in their head as they recall the dream of a cool summers breeze and bossa nova! We discussed in class today about how this form of poetry was unique in the way that it made us pay total attention to the words on the screen. The words flashed so fast that we did not want to look away with the fear that we would possibly miss some part of the story. “Bust Down the Doors!” and “Bust Down the Doors Again!” have the opposite reaction. I became so annoyed with the repetition of the same story so many times that finally stopped paying attention all together. This work almost forced me to ignore it instead of pay attention to it. The exact same story line with very slight diversions became like a static noise in the background. I became so familiar with the plot that I no longer felt the need to even watch the screen, especially in “Bust Down the Doors Again!” with the narration speaking the words flashing on the screen. However, even though I was annoyed to the point of wanting to close the screen I still watched it. It seemed like there was a purposeful point to continuing the same storyline over and over again in contrast to the quickly changing plots of the other Young-Hae Chang works we have seen. I’m not sure what it is at the moment but it seems like there was a purposeful idea that we were supposed to get out of the repetition of this short plot.

I have to say, out of the other Young-Hae Chang Heavy Industry videos we’ve watched so far, Operation Nukorea is probably my favorite (runner-up going to Dakota). This could be because it scrolls downwards, reading more like a normal piece of literature instead of flashing one or two words at a time. But, moving past the way it’s presented, this account of a fictional war between North Korea and America/South Korea is powerful. The raw fashion chosen to describe the atrocities committed during the initial decimation of Seoul makes it almost seem real, like you’re viewing what’s going on in Seoul through the eyes of somebody caught in the maelstrom. The writing stood up on it’s own, to the point where even if the reader just read it on a piece of paper, top to bottom, left to right, without the music in the background or the use of timing, it would still be just as good. I guess I chose Operation Nukorea over any of the other pieces we’ve (read? watched?) because I never had that moment where I stopped being interested in what was happening, and was just waiting for it to be over so I could go to the bathroom or make a sandwich. I mean, Bust Down The Door! was good, but I can only watch the same story happen in a billion different tenses before I lose interest in what’s happening. Same with The Art Of Sleep. The video/writing brought forward some important philosophical views, and used an interesting sense of timing, but there’s only so long I can watch the monotonous ramblings of this person before I just lose interest. Another victim of the era of the short attention span.

It was around 1:30 am that I decided to watch “The Art of Sleep” yesterday. It was not at all what I expected when I clicked on the link. The black letters and white background accompanied with the jazzy elevatoresque music made me want to fall asleep several different times. The video also seemed to ramble at several different points. There was one point where the screen read “The Japanese are making some good cheesecake these days.” My mind then started to wander to food and the Japanese, then Japanese food. However, I think I got the main point of the video, which was that everything is art, art is futile. According to dictionary.com art is the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. I guess it is up to every individual to decide what art is for them. I certainly do not find dogs or turds to be considered art, but maybe that is just me. After watching “The art of sleep” I couldn’t help but look around my room thinking that perhaps everything really is art. Was my trashcan art? Or maybe even the thermostat on the wall? It’s safe to say that this video confused me a little bit. I’m not really sure what the purpose of us watching this video is, but I’m assuming I’ll find out tomorrow in class.

This was really interesting and captures what it’s like trying to fall asleep. It was funny, too, and as I was reading it in the library I had to stifle laughing at how real it is. There always is an annoying dog outside the window and there is always some profound thought that you always forget in a matter of minutes. The rambling was very real too, it was just like reading someone’s mind.

It’s funny how the narrator went from everything is futile to art is futile to everything is art. He walked the reader from a=b=c so a=c. He mentions some artists that we have talked about a little bit in class, like the artist who called a urinal a piece of art. And I’m sure that he meant to title this piece “The ART of Sleep” and says that art is futile then that everything is art. He is saying that sleep is art and art is everything and art is futile. Does that make sleep futile? To the narrator, sleep is hard to come by because he is “WIDE AWAKE.”

Then as it (I’m not sure what to call it… the prose?) the narrator rambles and rambles until he forgets his point and it just becomes something about a piano smashing onto the ground. At one point he said that he could never forget what he was thinking about but should write it down anyways, which he doesn’t. Then eventually forgets but still hears the dog whining. It’s like a cycle that started with the dog whining and ends with the dog whining.

“The Art of Sleep” is an interesting visual narrative piece that deals with more than simply the ramblings of an insomniac. The most important aspect “The Art of Sleep” is the author’s continuous grappling with the definition of art, and what may or may not be classified as art. The problem with defining art, or classifying something as art, is that the concept of art entirely too abstract and open-ended. There is a common notion that certain things are considered art, while other things are not. The message of this flash-narrative is that art is everything. In other words, art is whatever one person considers to be art. There is no definitive characteristic that makes something art. On a similar note, I have found several connections between this piece and the idea of both language and mathematics. Language is an abstract concept in that words are simply representations of an emotion or thought. Similarly, numbers are not a concrete thing. They are symbols representing an amount. The point I am trying to make is that art, language, and mathematics are all similar in the sense that they are all abstract ideas in nature.

Watching “Dakota,” in The New and Improved Young-Haw Chang Heavy Industries, was a completely strange and random for me.  I did not know what to expect when I clicked the link and was abruptly awakened after the first drum beat and flashing word.

At first, I tried to read everything that popped up on the screen.  After much reading and hard work, just trying to keep up became impossible.  That is when it became a game to me.  I read what I could and enjoyed the rest.  When, at first, I was trying to connect ideas and thoughts within the statements, now I could just enjoy what I caught and if I could make sense of it, well, that just enhanced my experience.  If I could not, then oh well, nothing was lost—I’ll just catch it next time I see the video.

The words come at you strongly.  They are black, clear text on a white screen.  The writing is literally in black and white, but the meaning is not that simple.  This is what literature, as a whole, is.  The actual art is the black and white writing on the page, yet the meaning is not given or presented as such.

I struggled through Lot 49 because I could not find that black and white meaning, but I have learned that the meaning is most of the times not that identifiable.  And sometimes the meaning and purpose is simply enjoyment.  The video was definitely different and I wonder if this is what literature will eventually become.  Will literature evolve from black and white texts on a page to images on a screen?

What just happened? I was expecting to read another long poem that I would not understand, but then I clicked on the Young-Hae Chang works and discovered something completely different, which of course I did not understand. Immediately the thought of “What the heck,” popped into my brain, but then I just went with it. Even though this time I was not reading a poem in typical textual form, I am still confused about the messages behind the works, especially “Dakota.” Watching this work flash upon the screen while rapid jazz music thumped in the background, I felt as if I was inside a Jack Kerouac novel. It appeared as though some beatnik on speed was sending me these bazaar phrases that were not even visible long enough for me to read them. Maybe the rapidity of the work was trying to create a subliminal message. I kept waiting for a Coke ad to pop up in the middle of it, forcing me to reach into my fridge and grab a soda. Overall, I just don’t know what to think. I just felt drained after watching “Dakota.” I cannot even quote from the work, it all just happened too fast. My inability to connect with this piece makes me wonder, “Why this setting, why present ‘Dakota’ in this medium?” Perhaps, if I could physically hold the poem and read it without all that “jazz,” then maybe I could understand it. But would it be the same, or even mean the same thing if the presentation was different? How important is the format of web-art to the literary work itself?

What just happened? I was expecting to read another long poem that I would not understand, but then I clicked on the Young-Hae Chang works and discovered something completely different, which of course I did not understand. Immediately the thought of “What the heck,” popped into my brain, but then I just went with it. Even though this time I was not reading a poem in typical textual form, I am still confused about the messages behind the works, especially “Dakota.” Watching this work flash upon the screen while rapid jazz music thumped in the background, I felt as if I was inside a Jack Kerouac novel. It appeared as though some beatnik on speed was sending me these bazaar phrases that were not even visible long enough for me to read them. Maybe the rapidity of the work was trying to create a subliminal message. I kept waiting for a Coke ad to pop up in the middle of it, forcing me to reach into my fridge and grab a soda. Overall, I just don’t know what to think. I just felt drained after watching “Dakota.” I cannot even quote from the work, it all just happened too fast. My inability to connect with this piece makes me wonder, “Why this setting, why present ‘Dakota’ in this medium?” Perhaps, if I could physically hold the poem and read it without all that “jazz,” then maybe I could understand it. But would it be the same, or even mean the same thing if the presentation was different? How important is the format of web-art to the literary work itself?

Wow. Oh my gosh! I am sitting and it is the end of Dakota. I cannot possibly recollect on the vast amount of different scenes and scenarios that are in the clip. I remember thinking in the beginning that it was on the redneck side with the words like hollerin’ ending in n’ and all the beer but that did not carry through the entire clip. However, it is again near the end: “GØ —STØP — YØUR —TWØ — BUDDIES —FRØM— BEATING— THE —LIVING —DAYLIGHTS— ØUT — ØF— EACH— ØTHER.”

It was weird because there were times when the words were one at a time and changing really fast and I did not think I could read that fast. So, sometimes I would squint to blur my vision and just stare at the screen. Even when I did that I still was processing the words and understanding the words at a high rate of speed. Crazy.

I also wonder how the moving text makes it different and better? If I had just read the poem in stanzas on a page I would probably have quit halfway through and been guilty of trying too hard to understand.

More than once I wanted to press pause and take a break. There is no pause button. At one point it says, “NØW—WE— PISSED— ØN—PAVEMENT—WEEDS, — WEEDS, — WEEDS, — WEEDS.” I am not real sure what the point of saying “weeds” four times is?

I really liked this even though I’m not fully understanding it, yet.