Molotov and Ectasy

I personally thought that the Molotov reading was very interesting as I was intrigued by the dynamic of having it being written by both people on the opposing sides of the story. What this does is offer a more complete, objective viewpoint while maintaining emotional resonance that is only attainable through the subjective. In other words, this style is better than having a third party telling the story for both sides. Initially, I was perturbed that Meislas was angry over other people using her photograph. Joy attempted to adapt the photo for her own needs artistically, and actually provided her a credit. Personally, it would be an honor for someone to steal my work as it clearly indicates that it inspired at least one person. However, I came to understand Meislas’ point of view, as she did not want to re-contextualize her subject. In essence, what I gathered from the essay is that art is that it can be interpreted in an infinite amount of different ways, and I think everyone should be allowed to express themselves in any way they desire. However, it is important to be respectful of the original artists that inspired them.

The Ectasy reading was rather intriguing as well, as it approach the subject from an perspective that is unique to my own. It is indeed absolutely impossible not to be influence by other works of art. As film students, we are encouraged to watch films to learn about various styles and techniques that have been traditionally past down in film’s rather brief history. In a sense, speaking in terms of narrative filmmaking, every filmmaker is guilty of ripping off DW Griffith. I believe that the idea is to “steal” other people’s ideas and use them to tell the most personal story that you possibly can. That is where originality really lies. Art is a dialogue between people, and once you release what you have to say you public, you must encourage people to take what your statement and see how it relates to their own lives.