search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
major city with an adventurous film repertory or museum program.


Jordan was born in Denver, Colorado, in 1934 and became friends with Brakhage in high school. Attending Harvard, he was drawn to the Surreal- ists and became active in the university’s film so- ciety, discovering the works of Jean Cocteau and Sergei Eisenstein. Then he worked for 10 years with Joseph Cornell, whose boxes salvage objects and artworks by bygone eras and re-apply them in new personal constructions. All of these influences are at work in Jordan’s films. Like Czech artist Karel Zeman (THE FABU- LOUS WORLD OF JULES VERNE), Jordan at first seems like the missing link between the collages of Max Ernst and Terry Gilliam’s animations for Monty Python. He doesn’t always make cut-out animations, though he’s most famous for that, and he uses engravings and prints of the 19th century or earlier. Sometimes one recognizes the work of certain artists—eg., William Hogarth, William Blake, J.M. Whistler, Maxfield Parrish. He manipu- lates these “classical” images in ways intended to


tickle an archetypal frisson in the viewers, or at least have us collaborate in the artist’s serene dreams.


The first disc shows the development of Jordan’s style as he adds one element, then an- other, to his basic aesthetic framework and works out the recurrences of his obsessions. Images are often recycled from film to film, such as the lady with the sphere for a head (it looks like a crystal ball), so that repetition and endless transforma- tion become the key themes. By the way, there are liner notes for all the films, though some descriptions are more helpful than others. The first two works, “Duo Concertantes” (1964, 9m) and “Gymnopédies” (1966, 5m), present the images against music in a way that emphasizes film as a musical and surreal form, and yet a clas- sical form, as well—as opposed, that is, to a “logi- cal” dramatic or narrative form, notwithstanding the literary connotations of some of the images. The backgrounds are static while various objects move in the foreground, always floating and trans- forming. Especially popular are eggs, which


“Duo Concertantes”


39

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84