everybody to contribute from their thoughts, works, ideas and wishes about this topic.
Flesh and Film
Flesh as a raw material, as a subject matter, Our own flesh, someone else's flesh, dead flesh, live flesh... Flesh seems to be almost absent from our daily life, pushed away for so many cultural / psychological reasons, and yet - so inherent in it, constantly around, but hardly noticed.
How is this issue addressed through film? is film, or moving image in general, the ideal medium for the exploration of this theme?
The materials library (http://www.materialslibrary.org.uk/) held an event at the welcome collection (http://www.wellcomecollection.org) around the theme of flesh as material.
The event, attended by few hundreds, was stimulating, bringing to mind the absence of flesh in our daily life.
The people participating showed sheer excitement and strong curiosity - touching, eating, smelling, cutting and sawing pieces of flash throughout the evening. The strict health and safety regulations were kept firmly throughout the evening, and provoked our sterile habitual attitude towards flesh. A personal experience of the direct encounter with it generated surprising mixed feelings of excitement, satisfaction and serenity.
Film seems to be the one medium to get us completely immersed. A good film might get you glued to the cinema chair long after the show is over, stimulating you for weeks after. The best films stick around for years. The effect, in a case like that, lasts in the senses and brain, just as much as in the heart.
Where is our heart when making art?
Or especially - when viewing it?
Do you feel unsuccessful in joining it with your brain and senses?
In Tonio Kroger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonio_Kr%C3%B6ger), Thomas Mann says that an artist cannot allow himself to have a truthful, live heart if she wants to generate significant work. What about challenging this statement? Could good art engage our senses, intellect, and feelings, in an honest manner? Should it do so?
Bellow is an unfinished list of films, which address the theme of flesh in an intriguing way (made with the kind help of David Crowley and Jonathan Miles):
Cocteau, Le Sang d'un Poete
Alejandro Jodorowsky's El Topo (In the library)
Piotr Uklansky, Summer Love 2006
Andy Warhol's Blood for Dracula / Flesh for Frankenstein
Andy Warhol’s Couch
Juraj Herz's The Cremator c. 1968
Greenaway's The Pillow Book (In the library)
Lars von Trier's The idiots
David Cronenberg's Dead Ringers / Videodrome etc (In the library)
David Cronenberg’s Crash
McElhinney’s film of Bataille’s Story of the Eye
Jo Ann Kaplan’s The New Flesh
Carolee Schneeman’s Fuses
Un chant D’amour (In the library)
Nagisha Oshima’s In the realm of the senses
Alain Resnais’ Hiroshima Mon Amour (In the library)
Dear group,
this is an interesting issue, however, I don't quite agree on the following "Flesh seems to be almost absent from our daily life, pushed away for so many cultural / psychological reasons, and yet - so inherent in it, constantly around, but hardly noticed."
Our society seems to become more and more 'carnivorous' in the word's widest sense and I strongly disagree that the issue of flesh is 'absent from our daily life', 'pushed away' or 'hardly noticed'. Advertisement and mainstream film all tend to get as much 'flesh' out there as possible, be it through nude, porn or brutal images.
Adverts and commercial films are a small part of the world because this is entertainment. But I think Meital might be talking about a broader meaning of flesh. For me, I am interested in the meaning of flesh in terms of daily life .
In film we don't go close to the object. There is something between us and what is happening in the film. Adverts or commercial films don't show detail and the images are not real. We don't touch and we don't smell and we don't engage with the body as we engage in real life. Real life experience of flesh is such a different experience. For example, when we see a dead body at a funeral, even though they there is no blood showing, we are still so disturbed by it, because there is a body that exists in the same space as us. In film, we are not sharing the same space as the body or flesh that we see.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.
Comments (2)
kristinabuch said
at 6:39 pm on May 27, 2008
Dear group,
this is an interesting issue, however, I don't quite agree on the following "Flesh seems to be almost absent from our daily life, pushed away for so many cultural / psychological reasons, and yet - so inherent in it, constantly around, but hardly noticed."
Our society seems to become more and more 'carnivorous' in the word's widest sense and I strongly disagree that the issue of flesh is 'absent from our daily life', 'pushed away' or 'hardly noticed'. Advertisement and mainstream film all tend to get as much 'flesh' out there as possible, be it through nude, porn or brutal images.
Hitomi Hosono said
at 6:38 pm on May 28, 2008
Adverts and commercial films are a small part of the world because this is entertainment. But I think Meital might be talking about a broader meaning of flesh. For me, I am interested in the meaning of flesh in terms of daily life .
In film we don't go close to the object. There is something between us and what is happening in the film. Adverts or commercial films don't show detail and the images are not real. We don't touch and we don't smell and we don't engage with the body as we engage in real life. Real life experience of flesh is such a different experience. For example, when we see a dead body at a funeral, even though they there is no blood showing, we are still so disturbed by it, because there is a body that exists in the same space as us. In film, we are not sharing the same space as the body or flesh that we see.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.