You simply made this all up yourself. The implication is not that it is superior etc. - the implication is simply that it is different. Many avant-garde films have a large number of properties that make it incredibly difficult to successfully encode them on DVD, particularly rapid cutting and the extensive use of single frame techniques. Films with very many layers of superimposition can also present difficulties due to the huge amount of visual information. Speak to Criterion about it and they will tell you what a huge challenge it was to encode the Brakhage films. You seem to have an idea in your head - that everyone involved in avant-garde cinema thinks they are superior etc. - and you seem to want to find evidence of your theory wherever you can.Nothing wrote:But here we are again claiming that the work of Snow et al. is somehow impossible to capture on a format that represents the works of 99.999999% of all other filmmakers. The implication being - perhaps not from yourself, but certainly from others, including Snow and the fool Chodorov - that their work, due to it's lack of narrative, is somehow superior, more elusive, requires better treatment and greater respect. Vogler doesn't help matters when he talks about "the artform of avant-garde cinema". Avant-garde cinema is a sub-categorization of an artform, the artform being "cinema".
This snipe at me is incredibly bizarre and nonsensical. Apart from the fact that I never even wrote "the artform of avant-garde cinema" are you trying to tell me that it's not an artform? No, wait, you just said cinema is an artform. I simply said avant-garde cinema is my own personal artform of choice. My artform of choice is not ALL CINEMA, it is avant-garde cinema (though the label itself is probably not doing us any favours - I've yet to find one that is perfect). Also I think there is often a misconception about avant-garde cinema. Many people would consider it another 'genre' of film-making, a sub-categorisation of the general artform of cinema, but often I think it has more in common with other artforms such as painting and sculpture. In fact many avant-garde films have come from people who are active in other visual arts, as an extension of these other artistic practices. For example the films of Man Ray and Fernand Léger have far more in common with their work in painting and other artforms than with narrative cinema. Many avant-garde film-makers approached film not with a desire to be involved in the artform of cinema in general, but more as artists with the thought 'I wonder what I can create using this medium of film'. In many cases the only similarity in approach is the use of the medium of film and the intentions are completely unrelated. It often makes more sense to consider experimental film an artform alongside others such as painting and sculpture allowing the films to be appreciated for their own visual, rhythmic, sonic and structural qualities without any expectations of narrative or even entertainment in any conventional sense. I'll stress here that none of this is about claiming avant-garde cinema is more important or in some way superior. What I am saying is that it is often fundamentally different in that it explores the possibilities of film as an art in its own right, detatched from the disciplines of literature and theatre. I see no reason why you should find this so objectionable.Nothing wrote:Vogler doesn't help matters when he talks about "the artform of avant-garde cinema". Avant-garde cinema is a sub-categorization of an artform, the artform being "cinema".
My own personal belief is that all creativity is one, regardless of the form it takes. I draw no distinction between my activities in film, experimental forms of music and other visual arts. Of course there are technical and aesthetic differences, but in actual fact it is all a part of one imagination and one will to create. With regards to my films I actually consider them to be far closer to music than any other form of art - I compose them in exactly the same way as my music, even using conventional and unconventional forms of musical notation. The difference is that the rhythms are created visually using varying intensities of light and the timbres are colours and textures created through cinematography and various other film processes. They are my visual compositions which come directly out of my practices as a musician and composer.
I'm used to being attacked for the type of films I create, and I'm sure the film-makers we are discussing in this thread are/were too. It doesn't particularly bother me but I've always been baffled by it. I've never claimed to be superior in any way but people still manage to draw this conclusion - presumably because they want to, for some reason. It's easy to find evidence for a conclusion that you actively want to arrive at.
EDIT: As a small addition to this post I'll just say that I don't generally use the term "avant-garde film" and I'm not entirely sure why I have here. Instead I usually opt for the term "experimental film", although both terms have their drawbacks and potential negative connotations.