The Way Things Go
OK – time for your comments on the films we saw in class last week, including your general thoughts on either or both film, and ideas on some possible differences between ‘fine art’ and ‘commercial art’ that the films suggest.
The first film was called “The Way Things Go” [Der Lauf der Dinge], by Swiss artists Peter Fischli and David Weiss, made in 1987. The second film is typically referred to as the “Honda Cog Commercial”, by the advertising firm Weiden & Kennedy, made in 2003 for the Honda company. Parts or all of both films can be found on YouTube and similar sites.
10 comments
I think that the ‘fine art’ in the film “The Way Things Go” was much more authentic and ultimately a lot better than the ‘commercial art’ in the “Honda Cog Commercial”. Both pieces were interesting and well done, but I enjoyed the film a lot more than the commercial. There was a difference in the point that each art was trying to get across; the commercial was trying to advertise and the film was for the artists’ own self-fulfillment.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Honda commercial was a real chain reaction, just like the one in the film. However, I felt that it was missing a lot of the personal authenticity that the film had. Both must have taken a lot of effort by the teams/artists behind both projects, but I think a lot of the essence is lost when it is an advertisement for something. The Cog Commercial was very smooth and flashy, but to me art depends on putting a little bit of the person’s self into the idea behind the work. It’s hard to put into words, but its sort of how Zoë sent out her idea to be done by someone else. Zoë seemed to be quite satisfied by saving all of that time by letting someone else do all of the monotonous work, and she still received the satisfaction that she would have if she had done that physical work herself. The guy who she outsourced the work to did not really put much of his own self into the work, just his time and labor like any other job. The self is lacking from the ‘commercial art’, making it sort of mechanical and choppy, and in turn, not as appealing as the ‘fine art’ in “The Way Things Go.”
The fine art “The Way Things Go” was definitely like Walter said more real and original than the commercial art. I really liked the film at first. The explosions, the tires, the liquid nitrogen and all the clever gadgets that were perfectly measured out to cause a chain reaction. It was beautifully done. I wonder how many times they had to test out each station to make sure a reaction was going to happen. After a while, the show became less amusing because it started to seem like a repeating cycle. Overall, I can see how much work and effort was put into this film.
The commercial film was definitely more geared towards the public. The very nice background and smooth reactions made the commercial seem effortless to me. Although I have to admit this kept my attention better because it was short and sweet. The other film dragged on where I eventually lost interest. The main difference is that the Honda commercial was advertising their cars by creating a chain reaction with car parts. The other film didn’t really have a main focus but it was probably just something the artists wanted to make for their own amusement
Like Walter, I also think the two films had a different purpose. One was to advertise and the other one was for art. I really liked both of the pieces for different reasons. The “Honda Cog Commercial” was short, simple, sweet and to the point. More sophisticated technology was used because it was commercial art. I really like how everything came together in three minutes.
The “The Way Things Go” was very unique. It used all kinds of different objects we can commonly see to bring the whole piece together. We can see that so much work was put in it. It was very long yet everything was put together perfectly. Each step was different so it was very enjoyable to watch. I kept wondering at some parts, how the artist came up with the ideas to put certain objects in motion.
I remember seeing the Honda Cog Commercial as a naive 13-year-old. Not knowing it had been based on “The Way Things Go,” I found it rather interesting–it actually drew my attention every time it came on. Having now watched both films, I feel that the latter was somewhat drawn out (with a runtime of 30 minutes). Youtube edits have the film down to about 10 minutes, which offers the same seamless flow as the original film–this fact is perplexing in a way.
Chang and I had argued about whether or not the chain reaction was influenced externally by the producers of the film–Chang’s rather irrefutable argument was essentially based upon the fact that the photographer zooms in on a certain object at a certain point in a vain attempt to hide stitching in post processing. Furthermore, a segment in which a cup slowly slid down a declined ramp seemed artificial–the ramp, which was a board, exhibited a seemingly perpetual motion. Being the erudite individual that he is, Chang made the astute proclamation that this would, in almost all real world applications, be impossible.
I agree with Nancy in saying that the commercial was more geared towards the public–its fundamental purpose is to sell cars. However, the art aspect of the commercial is made apparent by the lack of information given. Should the narrator have explained to us that the individual parts we were looking at were made from high grade material, the commercial would have been more effective in selling the car. As it is, the beauty of the chain reaction is inherent. Sorry Walter, but I can’t, under any circumstances, believe that the reaction in the commercial was authentic in that it wasn’t digitally altered.
The intricacy of the chain reaction in “The Way Things Go” is commendable. I personally believe the video perfectly epitomizes a type of unconventional art–an art that isn’t glitzy or glamorous, but rather natural and physical, in a sense. The handheld camera adds to the aspect of the reaction being art–a professional filming of the events would seem too contrived.
I think both pieces of work were interesting to watch. I agree with everyone who says “The Way Things go” is much more authentic and impressive, but I personally think it was dragged on too long. Everything that occurred was unique and entertaining at first, but soon the ideas kept repeating itself. The expected finale of the mysterious piece never occurred and that was somewhat disappointing for me. I do acknowledge all the thinking and preparation needed to put together such high art though. I loved the effects of the chemical reactions and how fire was such a big part of the project. This was the most interesting part to watch in my opinion.
As for Corey and Chang’s argument, I would definitely have to agree with Chang. I found the part with the cup on the ramp impossible unless someone was holding the board. I believe someone must have been there, but not actually shown on camera. The recorder also zooms in on certain parts leaving room for editing. Corey mentioned this as well. Though I don’t believe certain parts of it can just happen without outside influence, I do agree with Corey that this is an art that isn’t “glitzy or glamorous.” Like Walter said, the artist did this for his own self-fulfillment rather than advertisement.
The “Honda Cog Commercial” was very effective as a commercial. It grabbed my attention from beginning to the end. I love how all the parts fit together as a whole in the end. The commercial was short and brief, which made it even better. Everything was bright and organized compared to “The Way Things Go.” Being the shallow person that I am, I liked how everything was pretty and clean. True, everything was probably put together by a computer, but it was still impressive to watch.
I would like the “Honda Cog Commercial” a lot more if I haven’t seen “The Way Things Go.” Knowing that the commercial may have exploited someone else’s idea just seems very disrespectful to me. I am sure many people have not seen the original work; therefore, it’s not fair to the artists. I am utterly amazed by the artists’ creativity because I know I will probably never be able to do that. It is hard to choose which one I like more though. Each has its own uniqueness and special parts.
I agree with a lot of the arguments that everyone else has been making. Personally, I wasn’t quite sure why exactly Honda decided to mimic “Der Lauf der Dinge” for their commercial – in reality, it really isn’t a commercial that tells you much about the product that they are trying to sell to you. I would suppose, of course, that this undoubtedly is meant to draw in consumers through the interest and entertainment value of the piece, more than any actual information other than an opinion — which I’ll admit it does fairly effectively, if you like that sort of advertising. In this respect, this type of commercial art doesn’t serve the purpose of really informing or providing – it simply draws the viewer’s attention to one aspect or quality of the product that the artist/advertiser wishes the audience to focus on. The art that is shown is used as a medium by which a message can be conveyed to the viewer. In the case of Honda’s ad, it would appear that by using the same form as “Der Lauf der Dinge”, except using car parts, Honda wishes to convey to the audience the sense that everything about their car is designed in such a way that it comes together perfectly. Plus, it is visually appealing and entertaining, of course.
But in the case of “Der Lauf der Dinge”, as a standalone art form, and not as an advertisement/commercial device, I don’t feel like it conveys such a direct relationship between anything by itself, the way commercial art does. Rather, the video sort of leaves you hanging – it’s really up to the viewers themselves to attach some sort of meaning to the piece. While this is definitely not true of all forms of art, I felt that “Der Lauf der Dinge” particularly can be interpreted on different levels, connected back to its name, “the way things work”. It can be seen as a machine, where every piece relies on another piece in order for the whole to work – “the way the ‘things’ in our lives work”. I thought of it as a sort of chain reaction that shows how one action has consequences, or how one event sets into motion so many other things, much like historical events, or even happenings in our own lives – in effect, “the way our lives work”. And in a more macroscopic respect, it can also be seen as an expression of “the way the universe works” – even one small event can set into motion so many others, with everything relying on everything else to constitute the whole of existence.
For what its worth, it’s my understanding that both films were made without significant manipulation. The Honda Cog commercial has one (nearly invisible) splice about mid-way through, and the Fischli/Weiss film has multiple splices. But as Walter commented, both films are made using actual objects that actually did what they appear to be doing. The Honda ad looks slick, clean, and contemporary, and so we assume it to have been made using 3d animation, but it’s my understanding that the Honda ad, like the Fischli/Weiss film, was all set up in a big studio and filmed continuously in real-time. I think it’s safe to assume that the Honda people had better cameras, lighting, and technical know-how than the artist team.
On another note, Allison offers a very interesting observation – that the open-endedness of the Fischli/Weiss film allows the viewer to bring her own interpretation to the work, while the Honda commercial’s directed meaning shuts off broader interpretations. In reading Allison’s comments I got to thinking that, in addition to the film’s open-endedness, perhaps the length – and at times, tediousness – of the Fischli/Weiss film also allows time for contemplation during the film’s viewing. So, if the viewer is a bit bored, and also a bit prone to thinking, she will have the time and ability to entertain her thoughts and come up with the kinds of layered meanings that Allison suggests.
Of course, not every viewer will actually sit through something as it gets boring, nor be inclined to entertain herself with her thoughts. Perhaps that’s another difference between fine art and commercial art, though – the attention span and intelligence that the work presupposes in its audience. Or am I getting elitist here…
“The Way Things Go” was much more natural as far as the items involved go. It must have taken the artist a long time to carefully construct this long chain reaction with all the scientific principles and explosions involved. For each part of the chain reaction, it is amazing how each preceding object barely touches the next one but the physical contact is enough to keep the chain reaction going. Along the way it appeared that some parts were not going to work, but they still did in the end. So I agree with the people who said there must have been outside influences besides to help the progression. The film should have been made shorter because many of the reactions that occurred later were repetitive of earlier ones. It did not seem like it had a purpose besides just being long and drawn out, and there was no finished product.
“The Honda Cog Commercial” does a good job at forming a whole car in the end from the individual pieces. All the pieces shined physically and it seemed like everything was made to fit together. It did a good job as a commercial because it was brief and it drew attention to the final product.
The difference between fine and commercial art is that fine art takes many trials and errors to produce an end result that one desires. I am sure that certain scientific reactions did not work out the way the artist wanted to the first time, and he had to keep on retrying. With commercial art, it does not take much effort with the presence of so much technology nowadays. It is purely mechanical of how all the parts fit together.
I was very fascinated by the film “The Way Things Go”. It is amazing how every piece of work in the film fits together to cause a chain of reaction that lead from one thing to another. What I like the most about this film is that it uses everyday objects and brings out the most of it. Although it gets kind of repetitive and annoying as the film goes on, it never failed to stun me how precise each object contacts each other to make the process go on.
The “Honda Cog Commercial” brought out the main theme in “The Way Things Go” and was very effective in promoting the Honda car. I love how modern and sleek the commercial is and how all the objects are parts of the Honda. Since in “The Way Things Go”, the film makers used actual objects, it is more convincing and much more unique than the animation used in the Honda commercial.
Although the Honda commercial was very pretty and easy-on-the-eye, I actually prefer “The Way Things Go” because it is unbelievable how everything in the film works out perfectly for an entire 30 minute. Of course, like what Corey and Chang suggested, there might be some outside influences upon the actual process. However, I am still very impressed by the overall outcome since there is no way the film makers were able to fix every movement to its precision every single time in the process.
I actually disagree with Walter. I liked the Honda commercial better than the “The Way Things Go.” It is amazing to see an entire 30 minute of chain reaction seen in “The Way Things Go”; however, I lost my focus after 5 minute or so. The “Honda Cog Commercial” is more precise, concise, and eye-catching.
Both of videos are amazing in a sense that they both capture the precise calculation of time and energy. I laud all the staff who probably worked millions of times to make the film work out. Props to both forms of art!
You must log in to post a comment.