If one goes to film festivals to see films…and one goes to concerts to hear music…what happens when one goes to a performance of devised work where the collaborative disciplinary voices create a hybrid, interdisciplinary output? (I am not arguing that yesterday’s experience necessarily be viewed in this way…but I am asking an honest question.)

The two examples you gave would be contrary to the university’s mission (and illegal). So, the university could never allow that. (The UMS is affiliated with the university — correct?)

Showing an art video, on the other hand, isn’t contrary to the university’s mission. So, it’s great as a perfectly acceptable, legal, and ethical tool to get people in at the door.

My favorite moment of “different people see and think differently” was after watching a film short at the Ann Arbor Film Festival a few years ago with my husband. It used a Chopin piano solo as the soundtrack, and the video was close-up shots of a bicycle.

I thought the piece was brilliant – the bicycle images lined up in brightness and complexity with exactly the notes you heard. The louder the music, the brighter the image. The more notes in the chord, the more parts you saw. Technically fascinating. I was able to “see” exactly what I “heard”.

My husband, a pianist, detested the film. He knows the piece well, and thought that the image completely destroyed the intent of the music. He was physically disturbed just watching the five-minute long piece.

To him, it was not “what it should be”. To me, I took it for what it was.

Now, I didn’t see the piece at Hill on Sunday, so I cannot comment on the particular “mashup” as it were. But I did learn that pieces such as this can create intense discussion, as evidenced by the plethora of comments here, and maybe that’s the best part of what arts & culture bring to us. My husband and I still talk about the Chopin piece to this day!

The moral was really that no one view of a piece is ever right or wrong. Maybe, just maybe – “the *discussion’s* the thing!”

Beth Gilliland, UMS

I think you could say safely that many people were disgusted by the video, not just less than enthused.

My problem isn’t that the video failed to respect the music, but that it failed to respect the audience. I have no problem with Landau choosing to make an ugly film. My problem is that the film is poorly made, in the extreme. My disgust was in seeing the juxtaposition of the talent and work of the orchestra against a crap video. The only hope I had for the film is that it be a FILM”. The story, characters, editing and staging were all poorly done and not indicative of any kind of professional talent. The photography was okay at times, but the triptych was basically superfluous and not really used. These things are indicative of a lack of creativity and effort on the part of Landau to create something original, that engages an audience, rather than assemble a series of poorly thought out photographs. The ugliness for me wasn’t in the subject of the images, but the laziness of them and the implication that the audience should accept that laziness as something worth their consideration. Landau started a conversation, but so would belching in an art gallery and while that conversation might even prove interesting, I wouldn’t commission someone just to belch.