Ecstacy and molotiv

I'd like to start off by speaking about how two-faced this Susan Meiselas lady is. Granted I do agree with her plea of keeping the photographs context in tact and not letting it be come part of an overall "riot" archetype. The plight of those people and the drama of the situation is a big part of what makes that photograph so artistically important. Her two-facedness comes from the way she reacted to the artist using her photograph in a painting. Instead of rationally explaining to the artist and the public her reasons for not wanting the photograph to go public in way, instead she treats it as if its an investment and she's trying to get the highest return possible. I felt there was a better way for her to handle that situation, especially given her eloquence in speaking about her connection to the photograph.
On the topic of the story itself I have to side with the artist on this one. Even though his painting is practically a direct representation of the man in the photograph, it does isolate a portion of the image, thus recontextualizing it once. He goes further into actually changing the medium by turning the image into a painting; thus giving it a second recontextualization. The fact that people associated it with a riot is because of the photograph being recontextualized in numerous ways. Since one can't see the rest of the photo one isnt assumed to know the exact circumstances behind the image.
It is because of this that I feel the response by many to use the image over and over in many different contexts was justified. I think it's especially funny that a company like pepsi takes the image and uses it for their campaign. I am sure they realize the irony behind a huge corporation using an image of someone that probably hates them (when using it in the riotor type sense).
This discussion of the image reminds me of comments a friend of mine would always make about college students wearing che guevara on their t-shirts. Though it really comes from his hatred of hippies, he brings fourth the same points that Susan Meisalas brought about losing the original intention of meaning. While I think it's a shame that people who overcame great struggles and went up against all odds will not be given the proper respect, I also think it's a shame that their are people out their making money on it. BUT! While I think it's a shame I'm not saying we should stop it. This may be the only way we can get people to actually question who these people are and what they did. Since we now live in the days of wikipedia and the internet the people who dont know who these images are will look them up and get the full story. This is precisely why I feel that people who hate on wikipedia and open internet suck. Instantaneous access to information allows us to cram all kinds of knowledge into our heads thus giving us more things to use in experiences later on in life. I digress.
My views on any use of anything that was made by somebody else goes as this: No matter what the medium is (Music, photography, video) I think anyone can re-use in any sense they want as long as they can: A. Prove the changes they have made to the original (No direct copies) and B. Explain a coherent reason for making these changes and rereleasing it. Then I feel the second artist is free from having to pay and ask permission.

Respone

It was cold. It was raining. I mean seriously, it got up to 70 degrees in the prior weeks and come the Saturday we shoot outside its pouring and its freezing. Luckily I gained access to an umbrella and soldiered on.
Aside from the weather I'd say the most difficult part of this assignment was coming up with a coherent and interesting idea that worked in a 1 minute long shot on campus. I helped with one of the first groups to shoot which came out well but was too short. I just knew i wanted to use a car dolly. When our time to film came we piled in my car and looked for a spot. Upon finding a good location behind a building next to a trash can we began looking at ways to utilize the spot to its full potential. Once we had everyone out there and throwing out ideas we starting rehearsing. I think we did one or two practice runs before we actually shot. The transition to the car was a little rough but it all looks smooth in playback. The film quality leaves something to be desired but understand that its tough to transfer to digital. I was very impressed with how well the developed film came out. Once transferred to video and inverted and slowed down it really looks good. Our F-stop setting was right on for the darker shots in the trees but it became to bright as we drove out into the parking lot.
I'm pretty excited about what im going to be able to do with the sound on this project. Im thinking jungle sounds and having the performers record unintelligible grunting and celebretary noises.
I really like shooting with the bolex. It's not ergonomic at all and the camera itself is very noisey. It's fun because you only get one shot at it so you have to make sure everything is perfect before hand. I cant imagine working on a hollywood feature scale with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of film on the line. Maybe one day we can have a 35mm project to do. That would be awesome.