Claes War

[X]

oodh:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304899/Quantifying_and_valuing_the_wellbeing_impacts_of_sport_and_culture.pdf

lol

yeah as someone who only earns ~£7k a year for aimlessly wandering around a library like some kind of ghost I would definitely take a ~£2k pay raise over the opportunity to spend even more time there

but I like how this happiness thing is set up here between “pay raise” and “visiting a library” because those are both things people don’t get under the tories

(and of course that list of “withdrawn” libraries doesn’t include anything on the massively reduced opening hours due to the cuts like what’s happened at my local public library)

Labor of Love, a review in Artforum of Jerome Hiler’s Words of Mercury by P. Adams Sitney

nathanieldorsky:

This article appeared along with several color images from Words of Mercury in the March 2012 issue of Artforum during the time in which Jerome was screening that work at the Whitney Biennial.

Light, seeking light, doth light of light beguile 
Varying hi subjects as the eye doth roll 
To every varied object in his glance …

—William Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s Lost

image

Words of Mercury

Jerome Hiler belongs to that rare company of significant if almost invisible filmmakers of the American avant-garde cinema who have hidden their light under a bushel: For decades, Joseph Cornell was reluctant to show his films; Gregory J. Markopoulos withdrew his work from circulation for the last three decades of his life; Wallace Berman would not exhibit his sublime Aleph, which became available only after his death; Dean Stockwell still does not permit screenings of the films he has made. The very few people who have managed to see any of the handful of works Hiler has filmed over the past forty-eight years have praised his cinema highly—most of all Nathaniel Dorsky, who has been Hiler’s partner all those years. Filmmakers David Brooks and Warren Sonbert not only admired his work but evidently learned much from it. Critics Wheeler Dixon (also a filmmaker) and Scott MacDonald have briefly discussed him in their books. Finally, in 1997, Hiler let the New York Film Festival show the camera original of his then recently finished ten-minute short Gladly Given, and last year he screened a new work, again at the New York Film Festival. That film, Words of Mercury, which he completed just in time for the festival, will be included in the 2012 Whitney Biennial, which opens this month, and a program of his and Dorsky’s recent works will be presented at Lincoln Center’s Elinor Bunin Munroe Film Center on March 15.

image

Words of Mercury

Hiler, a New York-born autodidact, at various times worked for a music copyist, assisted the society photographer Frederick Eberstadt (who commissioned his 2001 film Target Rock), and projected films at the Film-Makers’ Cinematheque—all when he was living in New York and on Lake Owassa in New Jersey; in Hollywood, he and Dorsky worked on the exploitation film Revenge of the Cheerleaders (a cult classic from 1976); and ever since, he has lived in San Francisco, working as a carpenter, a caretaker of a convent, and a stainedglass maker; he recently directed, with Owsley Brown III, the documentary Music Makes a City (2010).

The latter project reflects Hiler’s obsessive passion for obscure domains of music— in this case, the impressive international roster of composers commissioned to write works for the Louisville Orchestra in the 1950s. Even as a teenager, he boasted an encyclopedic knowledge of medieval and Renaissance music; later, he devoted years to the study of French composers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Similarly, he is a scholar of stained glass, and he has lectured widely on it as the “Cinema before 1300.”

The structural principle of Words of Mercury reflects that of the twelfth- and thirteenth-century Notre Dame composers Leonin and Perotin, who alternated Latin verses sung in complex polyphony with verses in plain-chant. Their polyphony highlighted the melodic purity of the plainchant, while the monophonic lines made the multiple voices sound all the richer. In a similar way, especially in the opening half of this twenty-five-minute film, Hiler interlards lengthy superimpositions with one or two shorter shots in a rhythm of alternating poly-optic and monoptic phrases. The superimpositions almost always employ camera movement, and the monoptic shots are typically static. The effect parallels that of Notre Dame polyphony: Following the elaborate superimpositions, the still shots acquire a stressed intensity, giving a distilled concentration to the unobscured movement of reeds in the wind, the flight of birds, or the frolicking of dogs in the ocean. That, in turn, sensitizes the eye to the intricacy and wonder of the next set of superimpositions. The turning point of the film is a monoptic panning movement around a bronze-colored statue of Neptune, incongruously abandoned just out-side the fence of a truck lot.

image

Jerome Hiler in Love’s Refrain

The weathered head of this forsaken god separates the images of winter from those of spring. Since the film was shot primarily in the Bay Area, the seasonal distinctions are subtle. Although there is one monoptic shot of snow in the mountains in the first part of the film, the patterns of hue and tonal value play primary roles in distinguishing the film’s two parts. In the spring poem, the interludes of monopsis nearly disappear. Hiler told the New York Film Festival audience that he sometimes forgot what he had filmed on the underlayer of super-imposition, or even that he had already laid down a track of shots, so that the developed rolls of film were a revelation to him. The contrapuntal rhythm of the finished film transfers and sustains the excitement of the filmmaker’s discovery of the in-camera polyopsis, as the long, superimposed compositions slowly unfold. The monoptic shots, too, are carefully timed, with handmade fades that poignantly recur just before the polyoptic sequences have exhausted their charges.

In a note he wrote to accompany the film, Hiler remarked, “I generally shoot first and ask questions later, but I’m struck at the influences that I see in Words of Mercury because they reach back to the very first times that I saw great 16mm films in the early Sixties: Marie Menken, Gregory Markopoulos, Stan Brakhage, and my lifetime companion Nathaniel Dorsky.” Hiler’s confession of influences is accurate. Menken pioneered the handheld somatic camera, concentrating on and transforming everyday urban life. By running the camera at a slow speed and sweeping over streetlights and neon signs, she created “night-writing” in her Notebook (ca. 1942-70). The opening superimposition of Words of Mercury similarly layers a dance of jittering lights over a crepuscular landscape, as if the pencil-thin white and colored lines of light were swarming midair before a barely discernible background of trees, as night falls. When the layer of night-writing vanishes, the trees remain as so ft-foe used patches of light floating through the foreground, suggestive of the camerawork of Stan Brakhage and his brilliant adaptation of Menken’s cinematic rhetoric in Anticipation of the Night (1958). In fact, the very play of the superimposition owes a debt to Brakhage, who used two layers, constructed largely by chance operations, in his Prelude; Dog Star Man (1962). But unlike Brakhage, Hiler composed his super-impositions in the camera, spontaneously. In this respect, he was preceded by Markopoulos, who made both Lysis and Charmides in the camera in 1948 and refined the technique in 1966, with rhythmically staccato superimpositions, for Ming Green and the portraits of Galaxie. In-camera superimposition provides a more vivid palette than multitrack printing, and perhaps the most obvious debt Hiler owes to Markopoulos is his color sense.

image

Jerome Hiler in Hours for Jerome

Viewers familiar with Dorsky’s films who see Hiler’s work for the first time might conclude that his greatest influence has been Dorsky’s mature cinema. For instance, the first monoptic shot—ten static seconds of a field of overgrown weeds before a bramble of brush—sustains the poetic charge of the previous three-minutelong polyopsis in the manner of Dorsky’s stanzaic “open form.” Yet one might, with equal justification, claim that Hiler has been the primary influence on Dorsky. For many years, their filmmaking practice consisted largely of showing unedited footage to each other and to a small circle of friends. Dorsky withdrew from public exhibition in 1965. When he resurfaced, in 1980, the open-form lyric mode he had developed brought him a degree of recognition he had not known with his earlier films; this was especially true after 1998, when he began to issue one or two new works each year. What Dorsky calls “open form” and “polyvalent editing” characterize Hiler’s films as well, and evidently were as much his invention. In “Tone Poems: The Films of Nathaniel Dorsky” an essay published in these pages in November 2007,1 described this mode as “organizing the shots and rhythms of a film so that associations will ‘resonate’ ([Dorsky’s] word) several shots later,” The structural or generic similarities between Words of Mercury and Dorsky’s films bring into focus their fundamental differences. The rhythmic tension between poly-optic and monoptic images is unique to Hiler. He is also the more sophisticated colorist. At the New York Film Festival s screening of Words of Mercury and Dorsky’s The Return (2011), I was seated beside the German filmmaker Klaus Wyborny, who had never seen films by either man. Deeply impressed, he offered me his first impression with an apt analogy: “If Hiler is Monet, Dorsky is Sisley.” Unlike Dorsky, who has a keen eye for human gesture, Hiler nearly eliminates people from his film. The distant figures of two men walking their dogs on a beach, in the winter half of Words, minimally inscribe human presences almost to underline their absence from the rest of the film. The result is an undertone of gorgeous melancholy in which the power of cinema to wring sheer beauty from loneliness becomes a compensation for the mortal, solipsistic consciousness of the isolato behind the camera.

Shortly before editing Words of Mercury, Hiler saw Love’s Labour’s Lost three times. At the end of Shakespeare’s most word-intoxicated comedy, “as the cast is frolicking around,” or so Hiler puts it in his note to the film, “a messenger comes in to announce a death, which brings a sudden shift to the very end of the play. One of the most comical characters, now newly sober, ends the play with a quick dismissal of the audience: ‘The words of Mercury are harsh after the songs of Apollo. You that way-we this way,” In short, the words of Mercury bear the message of death. By extension, in the images of Hiler’s silent film, the visual-rhythmic “songs of Apollo” are tinged with the “words of Mercury.” These images, as if delivered by the gods’ messenger, Mercury-Hermes, are at once mercurial and hermetic. Their connotative penumbra is the most elusive and daunting aspect of the film for a critic daring to write about it. At the risk of putting too much weight on the title (and on the filmmaker’s note), one is tempted to read the conclusion of Love’s Labour Lost as a clue to the delicate moods of the film. In the play, the “songs of Apollo” are the two performed just before the end, “Hiems” (Winter) and “Ver” (Spring), which neatly correspond, though in reverse order, to the two seasons of the film. For Shakespeare’s frustrated, aristocratic lovers whose labors are lost because of the message of a death, the cuckoo in the song of spring heralds the specter of cuckoldry in that season’s erotic frenzy, while the owl of winter wisely oversees the “merry” consolations of the humblest aspects of domestic life. Hiler’s film proffers the wisdom, in turn, of a visually luscious acquiescence to time and to nature’s mortal and erotic betrayals.

Words of Mercury carries an undertone of gorgeous melancholy in which the power of cinema to wring sheer beauty from loneliness becomes a compensation for the mortal, solipsistic consciousness behind the camera.

image

Jerome Hiler in Triste

* Wheeler W. Dixon, The Exploding Eye: A Re-visionary History of 1960s American Experimental Cinema (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997); Scott MacDonald, A Critical Cinema S: interviews with Independent Filmmakers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006) .

Jerome Hiler and P. Adams Sitney will conduct a dialogue at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York on March 18 in conjunction with the filmmaker’s participation in the 2012 Whitney Biennial.

P. Adams Sitney on Jerome Hiler’s Words of Mercury

P. Adams Sitney. The Author of Eyes Upside Down: Visionary Filmmakers and the Heritage of Emerson by Oxford University Press (2008), is currently writing a book on cinema and poetry. Her teaches at the Lewis Center for the Arts, Princeton University.

Copyright 2012 Artforum International Magazine, Inc.

BIRON

Why, all delights are vain; but that most vain,
Which with pain purchased doth inherit pain:
As, painfully to pore upon a book
To seek the light of truth; while truth the while
Doth falsely blind the eyesight of his look:
Light seeking light doth light of light beguile:
So, ere you find where light in darkness lies,
Your light grows dark by losing of your eyes.
Study me how to please the eye indeed
By fixing it upon a fairer eye,
Who dazzling so, that eye shall be his heed
And give him light that it was blinded by.
Study is like the heaven’s glorious sun
That will not be deep-search’d with saucy looks:
Small have continual plodders ever won
Save base authority from others’ books
These earthly godfathers of heaven’s lights
That give a name to every fixed star
Have no more profit of their shining nights
Than those that walk and wot not what they are.
Too much to know is to know nought but fame;
And every godfather can give a name.

FERDINAND

How well he’s read, to reason against reading!

so i’ve been told that on tuesday evening, a day i wasn’t working, the library started to flood from the 2nd floor toilets

plumber’s called in, there’s a blockage in the runoff pipe for the sinks, but the bathrooms are all in the centre of the building one on top of the other, and apparently there’s just one pipe connecting them all, so from 2nd to 5th floor all the water is building up and flowing out of a water fountain or something cos it’s got nowhere else to go

anyway plumber can only fix this for some reason by unblocking a pipe which is also connected to the main toilet sewer thing

so they close the lobby doors on floor 2, unblock the pipe, and then 4 floors worth of backed up sewage gas comes out, into the closed off lobby, and from there into the main stairwell, which is in the centre of the building also, no windows, only ventilation is out the roof right up at the top, so the gas rises, spreads immediately onto floor 4 and 5

and apparently this smell was unholy

we looked at the stats and saw that around when this happened the occupancy graph has a sheer drop where ~200 people leave almost all at once

several of them started literally throwing up all over the stairwell because that’s the first way out they think to take but is also the place where the smell is most concentrated

everyone is also then returning books at the same time on floor 1 so the returns machines overflow and shut down

all of this happening within a few minutes with the team leader running around trying to open windows, fix the machines, explain what’s happening, clean up the vomit etc.

pretty hilarious

The eminent Shakespearean scholar John Barton has suggested that Shakespeare’s accent would have sounded to modern ears like a cross between a contemporary Irish, Yorkshire and West Country accent.

buttwyatt:

david duchovny doesn’t know what frogs are

now this is really nice

serriform:

Album

break the cycle morty

rise above

focus on dialectics

humancomputer:

The internet IRL

humancomputer:

The internet IRL