Brad Neely lives in Austin, too (comme moi). And he's funny. real funny. and smart. pretty damn smart.
Watch these specimens of humor and you will inevitably crave more. After that inevitably happens you can go to this link that I have so usefully provided you with. Have fun!
This is a rap about George Washington:
This is part of his series "Baby Cakes":
This is part of his series "Professor Brothers":
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
DeenaOH
Search This Blog
Posts
Followers
Navigation: DOH
I find microblogging can be a great way to quickshare. And of course photos create their own language window of insight. If you're interested in me personally and what I do, my website might tell you a bit more.
TALENTED HOMIES
- Brinking
- Insperal
- Austin Video Bee
- Ginger Anyhow
- Kevin Bewersdorf
- Chris Lyons
- Ben Aqua
- Corkey Sinks
- Josh Duty
- Laura Griffin
- Caitlin Murray
- Benjamin Moses Smith
- Wiley Wiggins
- Jason Yergeau
- DIY Revolution Austin
- Gold Ghost
- Giggo Reblogs
- Women's Garden Cycles
- Zoloscope
- 2057
- Micropony
- Start-Up Dad
- Friends of Pendragon Park
12 comments:
meh. randomness, though it does occasionally stumble upon something truly funny, generally makes for poor comedy in my opinion. it's part of why i can't stand the family guy...besides its dependence on pop culture reference.
i think that lately people are all too eager to embrace what's new and different without actually holding it up to any standard or genuine criticism.
but hey. if people are watching this and really just can't help but laugh out loud at its brilliant humor, then who am i to suggest that's an inauthentic reaction?
to each their own.
As Ivan would say,
What are you: the curator of funny?
---
Regarding this:
"i think that lately people are all too eager to embrace what's new and different without actually holding it up to any standard or genuine criticism."
1. What's lately?
2. Who are these people?
3. What is "genuine criticism"?
---
The key here is what you yourself stated: "who am i to suggest that's an inauthentic reaction?"
Inauthentic laughter is a humorous accusation.
okay. i probably just should've expressed my opinion about random comedy and kept the remaining vague generalization to myself. it's admitedly more a confused personal rant than anything else.
but anyway,
by "people" i simply meant most of the people i come in contact with lately. "lately" i don't think needs explanation. i simply meant that it's a phenomenon i've noticed more and more in last couple of years up to the present. and by "genuine criticism" i simply meant anything more than "it's good" or "it's funny".
we've all seen films for instance that made us cry a little or laugh a little...films that knew how to target a nerve...but still managed to be awful films full of holes and cliches etc... the nerve hitting just wasn't enough to make it which is sort of what i had in mind when i wrote that comment. just that yes, i giggled a little at a couple of moments here, but the comedy feels hollow. empty of any substance. as i said: random. which is not a style of humor i appreciate much.
i realize i am not "the curator of funny", which is why i ended on the "who am i to..." note. i just thought that since this is an art blog, and not a pop entertainment blog, that i might encourage someone to defend brad neely's work in some critical context.
i sincerely want to know what this does for people. because for me, randomness becomes quite predictable after awhile and therefore is no longer intelligent or funny.
I count animation as art. Whether it's funny or not funny.
You said, "this is an art blog, not a pop entertainment blog." Plenty of "art" can be entertaining and/or have a pop sensibility.
For example, I've written about shows I've gone to such as Dan Deacon and Yo Magesty.
Art is the broadest possible term to work with and I mean in it the broadest possible way. I more or less state this in the side of the blog.
"because for me, randomness becomes quite predictable after awhile and therefore is no longer intelligent or funny."
randomness, by definition, is never predictable. randomness is also not funny, because in order to be accomplished, humor, as a branch of rhetoric, is based on tropes. there's a logic to humor. so randomness is a wrong term to apply to it.
language (either spoken or visual) is an approximation of thoughts through symbolic manipulation, and the gap between the expectations inherent in those symbols and the breaking of those expectations leads to emotions such as laughter.
what's the conclusion here? either your humor/language/symbolism machine is broken, or the expectations broken by these particular pieces of comedy do not align with the expectations inherent in your particular symbolic understanding of the language.
of course humor is only understood subjectively. so, the problem here is your subjectivity in regards to these constructs. you don't find them funny because they are probably not meant for someone with your particular set of expectations.
"i think that lately people are all too eager to embrace what's new and different without actually holding it up to any standard or genuine criticism."
so let's look at this sentence. you condemn the eager embrace of the new and different because you see this embracing as lacking "standard" criticism. however, your use of the term "randomness" to describe this particular brand of humor leads the reader to believe that the lack of standardized criticism is the reason you're not understanding it as anything other than "random." the problem is individual perception, as your last sentence suggests. but the problem is that your perception is completely misaligned with what the structure of this humor requires for it to reach you.
so, perhaps a "standard or genuine" critique of the humor (or perceived lack thereof) on your part, instead of a solipsistic and confused dismissal via a misuse of terminology (that belies a lack of understanding of the general conceptual framework of that which is discussed) will reveal to you why other people understand these short animations as "brilliant humor."
Yeah, what Giggo said.
re: deena-
i get that art "can be entertaining and/or have a pop sensibility". what i meant when i said "this is an art blog and not a pop entertainment blog" was simply that i assume you intend to engage in critical discourse and not just display entertainment. i wasn't saying this isn't art. i was saying that it IS, and that's why i wanted to evaluate it.
re: ivan-
that was just condescending.
i hope you feel really awesome.
p.s. standard was intended as a noun and not as a modifier for criticism.
----------------------------------
i now know better than to express a dissenting opinion on bashamo.
you're right. "banana chowder" is brilliant and not random at all.
Hey Aaron,
I'm not a critic and I don't claim to be in this blog. I just get excited about stuff and write about it. I don't write with an air of authority. I don't expect everyone to share the same sensibilities as me. My tastes are all over the place.
I don't think that you really wanted a discourse on the humor of Neely. I think you wanted to go off. Plus surely you know that no one can really explain why they find something funny; it's too subjective.
It's clear that you are upset by "randomness" and you quickly clumped Neely's work into this greater problem that has been bugging you. about "people." It seems maybe you're experiencing something akin to alienation.
I'm sorry that no one could ease you discomfort over such matters. I don't think Ivan was anymore condescending than you were in your initial comment. In fact, he explored and tried to explain a lot of what you were asking about humor. Something I didn't touch because I was in put a defensive stance.
I enjoy a good discussion. Feel free to express whatever. Even your own personal rants.
You said you're "not going to touch" my Bergman blog. Feel free to trash Bergman if you like. But I must ask, which Bergman films have you seen? From what I recall it was only "Through a Glass Darkly" and maybe one other before you were riding the contrarian high horse.
It's ok to not like things, but it's also ok to like things. Surely you know that your tone often comes across as belittling towards enthusiastic parties.
it's difficult to evaluate what is the contrarian opinion regarding bergman these days. his stock definitely declined at some point (probably around the time of his self-imposed retirement) and seemed to correspond with the rise in esteem of more minimalist directors like bresson and tarkovsky. though i think it's a generational thing and he's probably more appreciated at the moment (prior to his death) than he has been in the past few decades. i rather like most of the bergman that i've seen (admittedly i haven't sought out many of his lesser works), but ultimately i agree with the new consensus that directors like bresson did the austerity + rigor thing more impressively.
p.s. smiles of a summer night is conceivably my favorite of his, perhaps because it is closer to renoir than bergman.
okay, you're certainly right about my tendency to go off. and you're correct that it was at least partially born of feelings of alienation from what so many of my peers seem to praise. i had no intention to condescend or to attack brad neely's enthusiasts. though i acknowledge how i may have come off that way.
though coming off as a rant, i really wanted someone to explain their own version of why neely is considered brilliant.
but instead (and perhaps this is because of my initial tone) i only received defensive attacks against my own lack of authority and/or knowledge. but i'm only responsible for my own opinion and i never claimed otherwise. i'd only hoped to hear some others, which i've yet to. the closest i got was a condescending lecture on the mechanisms of humor. still haven't heard a peep about neeley.
but the oportunity for discourse has clearly passed. and i accept my portion of the responsibility for that.
topic dropped. truce accepted.
-----------------------------
now. regarding your bergman jab.
i'm affraid YOU are the one making assumptions this time. it was never my intent to "trash" bergman.
and, i have to date seen at least 8 of his films (at the time that you and i watched Persona it was 5), which i think is sufficient to form an opinion. furthermore, i think you set the stage for your own defensiveness by assuming i'm on a "contrarian high horse" ...which suggests that i think i'm better than you and everybody else. which i don't. i do however believe in my own opinion and stand by it. particularly where a convincing counter-argument has yet to be offered me. and when i express that opinion, i'm not looking down at you or negating your validity. i just sometimes disagree. and an argument is not always a fight.
that having been said, my recent thoughts on bergman are aleady on display and open for criticism on sarah's blog. i won't be repeating or refining them here.
i don't think i trashed him. but i do take issue with his choice of medium.
that is, until someone convinces me otherwise.
Aaron:
Yeah, I thought in retrospect about erasing that (it's so obviously defensive) but you got to it first so let it be.
What's Sarah's blog?
Funter:
Smiles of a Summer Night was simply wonderful. Very different for Bergman. And an example of why I say there is a Bergman film for everyone; he does venture into other territories occasionally.
I have to redo my list. Or make five different ones. It so depends on the mood. Gawd, Funter, how do you make so many lists? It's so tedious!
i meant her myspace blog. i didn't think it appropriate to advertise its location here. i figure you know where it is.
Post a Comment