Ugh so it looks like the text on the quotes i used are way too blurry and small to read so I’ll put them on the bottom of the post just in case sorry…

ok here are what they each say there are four and they appear in this order sorry again:

1)“The most basic aspects of art…length, texture, the space’s scale, the quality of light…are the foundations for any permanent installation” – Victoria Newhouse
2)“…it is easy to overlook the extent to which the perception of these objects is influenced by their presentation” – Victoria Newhouse
3)Author Bernard Gortias argues there is a universal generic formula from which all artistic creations arise from including…
4)“…art is made by the community and for the community” – Shannon Lustig

-black title card that says “Square in Four Parts”
-pic of qc campus then fade out
-shot of piece while camera slowly revolves around it then fade out
-black title card that says “Placement”
-long take of one way to get to the piece from on top of a staircase
-surrounding bushes, flowers, trees while camera moves past them and towards the piece. Then moves past the piece to the bulidings,seats,trees on the other side
-camera moves down another staircase towards the piece and fades out
-black screen with quote from Victoria Newhouse
-cut to walkway at bottom of stairs towards piece passing by trees, grass, people, cafe, bulidings, seats then fade out
-black screen with quote from Victoria Newhouse
-cut to same walkway towards the piece then fade out
-black title card that says “Structure”
-short shot of piece then fade out
-pic of piece from far away
-pic of piece a little closer
-pic of piece even closer
-full frame pic of piece very close
-black screen with intro to Bernard Gortais’s idea of art
-black title card that says “Diagonal Lines”
-pic of some of the pieces diagonal lines
-black title card says “Angles”
-pic of a bottom corner of the piece
-pic of a top corner of piece
-pic of same top corner with camera down on ground level
-close up pic of same top corner
-close up pic of a bottom corner
-pic of top corner from farther away
-pic of zig zags on top of piece
-black title card says “Spaces”
-pic of first hole in the piece
-close up pic of second hole in the center
-pic of first hole from the top of one corner
-black title card says “Surfaces”
-four surfaces of the top of the piece
-one of the edged surfaces of piece
-different angle of surfaces on the top
-black title card says “Campus Community”
-long take of top half of piece on bottom of the frame while people walk through the area in the background then fade out
-community interview #1
-shot of top half of piece then camera moves to totems in background then zoom in on them
-community interview #2
-community interview #3
-short shot of entire piece
-black screen with quote from Shannon Lustig
-close up of plaque on bottom of piece that says “Donated by Class of 1967” then white out

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


8 Responses to “Film Essay”

  1.   Jenny Lu Says:

    I like how you took pictures of your sculpture from various angles instead of going around the sculpture like what I and most students did. I also like how you showed various pathways to come upon your sculptural piece.

  2.   Mathias Kranacher Says:

    I like your first clip of the square. I think you and Carlene were the only people that I saw that didn’t just film where the art piece is but you filmed how to get to it. I liked it because it made it more interesting for someone to watch so if they liked the art piece, they had a much easier time finding it on campus.

  3.   maya1 Says:

    Maya Stella
    December 7, 2010
    ENG 110
    Program Notes: Kino Pravda Film Essay
    Kino Pravda Film Essay (2010) is a student film about a piece of art called Square in Four Parts in the campus of Queens College in New York City. Directed by Maya Stella, the film shows how or if the piece has any importance or presence in the campus. The film is 7 minutes in total and addresses a few things that are important to showing the director’s stance on the piece while still leaving it open enough for the viewer to have their own interpretation of what they saw on the screen. Placement, campus community, and structure are some of the ways the piece is shown for the viewer.
    The term “Kino Pravda” was created by filmmaker Dziga Vertov in the 1920s. He believed that the “cinema eye” was more perfect than the “human eye” in filmmaking and with this film you can see what he is getting at. Maya tried to show the location and close ups of the piece that “human eyes” wouldn’t take notice to or do it justice as a “cinema eye” would have. As shown in the film, its placement may be the reason why not everybody knows about the piece which proves Vertov’s point that not only can “cinema eyes” be more perfect than “human eyes” but they can portray things “human eyes” haven’t even seen before.
    Donated by the class of 1967 to the campus, Square in Four Parts is literally made by and for the Queens College community. Maya quoted Shannon Lustig at one point during the film which said, “…art is made by and for the community”. Never could this quote be any truer than when talking about Square in Four Parts. The piece is a square made of metal, formed by smaller triangles which create the square shape. Placed past the cafe in a small square corner, it’s kind of out of the way of where most people walk around. This is shown in two instances where Maya shows the walkways to get to the piece which can hopefully give students an incentive to go walk over to see it themselves.
    Clearly and concisely, Maya shows the structure of the piece on all angles and different shots. We get to see each part of the piece and how unique and different it actually looks up close which probably not very many people have looked at on their own. She used her interviews from a previous Community Interview film she did and incorporated them with shots of the piece and people walking near it. Collectively, it worked well to show the thoughts and the interactions the piece gets from individuals and from the campus community on any given day.
    Overall, this film was meant to show the importance Maya felt this piece has and it comes across quite well. To be able to see not only one point to why it is important or unique but to see many points like placement, structure, and community really did add to the film’s argument and gave the film a more well rounded feel that it would not of had otherwise. The footage was good, the pictures were good, and the quotes connected perfectly to each part of the film. This is a great example of a film being able to smoothly get its point across and make sense to a general audience.

  4.   regiesh Says:

    Regina Harsanyi
    Program Notes

    “Square in Four Parts”, the masterly short film by Maya Stella, may truly speaks for the art community. Maya honors film theorist and director Dziga Vertov by expressing a true grasp on the theory of kino-pravda, displays an appreciation for ambiguous sculpture as well as showing Queens College’s acknowledgement for art. Ms. Stella has not only mastered Vertovian film techniques but with little dialogue has achieved a flowing narrative and structure for the particular sculpture that acts as her subject. She helps familiarize viewers with her sculpture so that they may understand her opinion while constructing their own. Though Maya focuses specifically on “Square in Four Parts” she may have made a statement for the importance of ambiguous art as a whole.
    Maya Stella, a college freshman, has compiled a body of work throughout her first semester at Queens. Professor Kevin Ferguson has encouraged her, as well as nineteen other students to create short observational documentaries and interview films that make a statement for one specific piece of campus artwork. The projects had certain instruction but were still left mostly to the interpretation of the students. In the final film project, the kino pravda essay, Maya has chose to keep it simple, letting the viewer observe the artwork for themselves.
    Maya has shown a mastery of the kino pravda essay film. Her observational documentary, lacking sound, text and opinion has been incorporated into “Square and Four Parts”. Maya displays an unbiased view of the sculpture, solely showing various angles of the artwork as well as it’s placement.
    Maya’s careful decision to show placement truly helps aid to her argument. She doesn’t only show the environment around the artwork, but brilliantly uses the camera as if the it were her own eye. She films as a person would walk up or down the steps towards the sculpture, or simply walk past entering or leaving the dining hall. This technique is unique in that any Queens College student viewing the film could put themselves in her place. They have surely walked down these very stairs and had the same experience. Seeing it through the camera lens may help a viewer appreciate the sculpture in a way they would never had previously if having not viewed it on a screen. Film can have this affect.
    Ms.Stella includes a quote by Victoria Newhouse that states,“…it is easy to overlook the extent to which the perception of these objects is influenced by their presentation.” This quote helps to give true insight into what Maya is trying to vocalize. How and where the object is placed affects how a person may view it. Maya demonstrates how the world may view the sculpture while on campus so we understand the influence of placement. The viewer is truly being familiarized with the artwork.
    Stella continues to focus, without sound, on “Square in Four Parts.” She quotes author Bernard Gortais who believes “there is a universal generic formula from which all artistic creations arise from including diagonal lines, angles, spaces and surfaces.” Maya spends careful time on each fragment of the formula. The film at this period is still observational though the viewer is not being told where specifically to look. Diagonal lines, for literally over five hundred years have been of great importance to painting and sculpture. If one went to the metropolitan museum of art and viewed many works of european art they would see the importance and frequent use of diagonals in art. Maya focuses on these diagonals that cut through and practically encompass the sculpture. Maya repeats this attentive process with the other three elements of Gortais’ formula. She even points her camera into the crevices of her chosen sculpture, a place where many passing students would never think to look but may now appreciate.
    Throughout Ms.Stella’s film she has exhibited a filming style reminiscent of Dziga Vertov’s kino pravda, or film truth. Her best example of film truth is seen during the “Campus Community” chapter. Maya places the camera directly over her sculpture, though part of it is still visible. She doesn’t tamper with the angle from this point on. She lets the camera film on it’s own, capturing life as it would and does exist around the sculpture every day. This acts as yet another perspective. Though each individual passing by the artwork may not be stopping to observe or touch, glancing in itself is interaction.
    Lastly, Maya includes snippets of her interview film. Maya wisely arranges her project in this way so that the viewer may unbiasedly form their own opinion on the sculpture without knowledge of other’s views. Even when Maya does present other views they are still mixed, therefore not solidifying any specific judgement. She even leaves in negative comments like “…It’s not terribly exciting. It’s kind of dull and grey.” One interviewee even believes the sculpture would be better if it had a description which explained it’s meaning. It seems Maya argues for it’s ambiguity with her filming style as she did not seem to lean towards any specific opinion.
    Maya Stella ends her film with a last impression of the sculpture as well as it’s plaque which states that it has been “donated by the class of 1967.” This may have been a statement that the class did not want a description plaque to be placed; that they believed in ambiguous art, her own view all along.

  5.   Jenny Lu Says:

    Regina I liked the way you compared Maya’s film to Vertov’s style of film making. Reading through your program notes for her video I felt that you did an effective analysis on her work. You also incorporated your own thoughts and opinions throughout your program notes to help explaining why she did such brilliant job, which I liked. I think you did an amazing job persuading the audience to go watch it.

  6.   Brad Bujan Says:

    Reggie I enjoyed your review of Maya’s Kino Pravda. You went shot by shot, included the style and showed her unique view of the piece. Aside from that you summarized it all very well, bringing all the info she had to light in your writing synopsis. You also sighted and analyzed what she said in order to give the audience her view of the artwork.

  7.   Carlene Faith Says:

    TO MAYA-
    I love the way you used orienting. You gave the audience bits and pieces of information right when it was needed. I really liked that, you made it easy to read and gave a lot of information in the right way. By using commas and stuff like that you were able to add a lot more information in a quaint way

  8.   Stephanie Shiwram Says:

    Reggie,
    Your review was great! Not only did you give information on the film without giving away to much. And you were subtle in a way. You praised her for her creativity and information but also pointed out the faults in the film, so the opinion wasn’t one-sided.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar