Kamal Aljafari Artist Talk

Comparison between Rafael Lozano-Hemmer and Kamal Aljafari

Different approaches to present works
The talk was a complete opposite to Rafael Lozano-Hemmer's one. Rafael talked in academic language to illustrate his works in a very systematic way with well presented powerpoint and video of the documentation of his works, while Kamal kept explaining "Recollection" film and his thought about the film in his way. The structure was loose, relaxed, not planned. It can also reflects on his film that he did not have a certain strict rule and meaning for his film, he mentioned "freedom" many times and he stood his artist position very firmly that he did not think it is necessary to use another language like what Rafael did to categorize his works, to speak or explain.

The concern of the public's view on their works
What I heard from his talk is that he cares a lot about memory and history. The nostalgic attitude motivated him to create films by creating a new language. He emphasized again and again that he cares only about cinema and he like to do on his way without considering public's view. It is a total opposite to Rafael's attitude because he is very concerned about the judgement from the public, the integrity as an artist, so he took care of the logos and cares about how people's participation to his work is so important.

After thought
To me, I think he would like to be playful with what footages he got, twisted them, manipulating them, change the position of the protagonists and the passerby in the films. I wonder if democracy is a deep rooted idea for artists after listening to Rafael and Kamal's talk. Because of them thought about freedom without taking control were a precious value. To let the footages speak themselves (Kamal), to let the public treated his work as a platform and let them alter the work without strict rules (Rafael).

Is there a contradiction when someone wants to free something but also own the authorship? Although Kamal did not put voice over to the film because he explained that he wanted to let the images speak to themselves, but during the talk, he spoke a whole story when the film was playing, and explain that he wanted to give another experience to the audience. I felt very weird that why he was so firm about the film but contradict himself and use another way to present it?
What is the role of an artist when the final work was presented in another way that was not consistent to the intention of the original piece? Why artist has the right to alter whatever they have publicized already?
What is the power of an artist? Sometimes I wonder if I should change my idea of the original piece that have been shown before. Do the audience allow this power to exist?