Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#426 Post by vogler » Tue May 26, 2009 7:11 am

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".
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: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.

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.
Last edited by vogler on Thu May 28, 2009 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

planetjake

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#427 Post by planetjake » Tue May 26, 2009 12:32 pm

I think the most bitterly ironic thing about this topic of conversation here is that it's clearly Nothing that feels that Avant-Garde filmmaking is inferior to other forms (ones that he likes). This debate began with him insisting that certain filmmakers were more deserving than other filmmakers at having their work represented through cinema projection:
Nothing wrote:Btw, I've projected my Brakhage DVDs and seen Brakhage projected and there isn't a huge difference, quite frankly. Both are 2D projections, so the "photographs in a book" analogy doesn't stand up. Of course, there is a difference in resolution, latitude and colour space, a gap which a Blu-Ray would help to close further. But the high-end 35mm cinematography of a Kubrick or Antonioni actually benefits far more from watching a real print.
After this, everyone contributing to the thread attempted to ask Nothing to justify the statement, even illustrating why certain aspects of these filmmakers aesthetics might make them more appropriate for DVD viewing than the films of some Avant-Garde filmmakers (this goes on repeatedly throughout the rest of the thread).

Nothings reply was an attempt to deride the films of Brakhage by calling them "Semi-amatuer" and paint-splattered.
Nothing wrote:Perhaps I was needling you a little on Brakhage in rejoinder, but "paint-splattered" and "semi-amateur" are words that do apply to many, if not all, his films - without necessarily implying any kind of value judgement.
The implication? When asked to clarify by Gregory:
Gregory wrote:4) Trivial, but I'm curious: if you did not mean "amateur" or "semi-amateur" as a put-down, then what was the point in using it as a qualification in your description of Brakhage's films?
Nothing chose not to respond. Then, after a childish kerfuffle between Nothing and myself the thread began an actual sustainable dialogue. Then Nothing chimed in again with this gem:
Nothing wrote:How many up and coming filmmakers have even heard of, let alone been inspired by, Snow or Connor - as opposed to the Coen Bros, Tarantino, etc...? Fight the fight! Don't withdraw into your tiny little niche, mumbling that you're better than everybody else.
Tiny little niche? Mumbling? I attend hundreds of "underground" festivals each year. Sometimes it's to present my own work, sometimes it's just to throw down with some filmmakers. I meet literally thousands of people a year who are inspired by Snow, Connor, Anger, Jack Chambers and the like. There is no attitude of superiority at these fests. (I think it's worth mentioning that I also meet quite a few filmmakers who build their own projectors from scratch. Sometime even creating their own replacement parts. These people also tend to make/develop their own film in the bath tub. I've even met filmmakers who make their own cameras. Just because you can't buy it at a K-Mart doesn't mean it's completely gone.) Fight the fight? What fight? Where? I think the clear implication here (since this thread seems to love implications) is that "underground" filmmaking is not "real" filmmaking. It's not precise and doesn't have complex lighting setups:
Nothing wrote:Arguably, it is the avant-garde filmmakers who are shooting on rudimentary formats with rudimentary lighting / grip equipment and rudimentary photographic designs, in comparison to the precise and complex camera and lighting schemes of a John Alcott or a Carlo di Palma and, therefore, it is the latter for whom these concerns should be tantamount. I'm not necessarily making that argument, but it could be made.
Yes. You've been attempting to make the argument for the entirety of this conversation (look above) So what are you implying? That avant-garde filmmakers aren't (or cannot be) precise and complex? If you're not making the argument (which you are... or at least you've attempted to), why are saying that you COULD be making the argument? Let's test this (yet again): Make the argument.

I have a suspicion that Nothing doesn't actually believe anything he is stating in these threads:
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.
HOLY POOP! What format is this?!? Can you substantiate this math? How can I get my hands on some of these movies!?!? Wow! even if it were 80% or say, 70% (Heck, even 60%) I'd be stoked about this new magical format. But 99%? That's almost 100%!!! Wow! I can't wait to get my hands on all these movies! Wow! Great news. Seriously great news.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#428 Post by vogler » Tue May 26, 2009 1:25 pm

planetjake wrote:I have a suspicion that Nothing doesn't actually believe anything he is stating in these threads:
I have wondered if he could be saying these things simply to provoke a reaction. Either way it's not all bad - this thread has made me think about things I may not have done otherwise and clarify my thoughts by writing them down. This can never be a bad thing. I'm sure everyone involved with experimental cinema has heard much worse than this in any case. Hell, Brakhage heard much worse from no less than Andrei Tarkovsky!

For me experimental film has always been such a postive thing - the creation of it, the viewing, and the critical and philosophical thought that goes with it - so I find it strange to see it turned into such a negative.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#429 Post by Nothing » Tue May 26, 2009 2:10 pm

vogler wrote: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.
Okay. I can concede that films employing single-frame techniques pose a particular problem when compressing in the mpeg2 standard. Although I disagree that VHS yields better results and I believe that the Brakhage DVDs, whilst not perfect, do demonstrate that the two things are not mutually exclusive with enough trial and effort. You may recall, however, that the specific films I was talking about at the beginning of this - the films I'd like to see initially from Criterion and/or the BFI - are Wavelength and the El Valley Centro Trilogy, neither of which uses single-frame techniques and neither of which would be especially difficult to encode on DVD (even less so on Blu-Ray).
vogler wrote: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.
It's not a snipe, and it's extremely tangential to the point, but I'm afraid you're just plain incorrect: avant-garde cinema IS a sub-categorisation of cinema. You are shooting moving images with a camera and projecting them in a cinema, what else would you call it? To try and create such an artificial devision denies the free flow of ideas. eg. Wavelength contains elements of the narrative crime drama (man dies, lady calls emergency services, emergency services approach). James Benning's use of static takes with multiple points of visual interest owes something of a debt to Playtime, whilst the pastoral elements are reminiscent of Dovzhenko. Abbas Kiarostami moves calmly between narrative (Taste of Cherry) and avant-garde (Five) and something inbetween (Ten). Is Godard a narrative filmmaker or an avant-garde filmmaker? Are not the climaxes of Zabriskie Point, L'Eclisse & 2001 the most influential avant-garde sequences ever committed to film? Ultimately, then, what use are such categorizations at all, other than to box things in and deny possibility?
vogler wrote:it explores the possibilities of film as an art in it's own right, detatched from the disciplines of literature and theatre.
This was Bresson's intention precisely, I suggest you read Notes sur le cinématographe.
nothing via planetjake wrote:But the high-end 35mm cinematography of a Kubrick or Antonioni actually benefits far more from watching a real print.
And I still stand by this (rare issues of compression aside). A 70mm negative has approximately 3x as much information as a 35mm negative which has 4x as much information as a 16mm negative. Therefore, it makes logical sense that a Blu-Ray of Playtime is losing more information than a Blu-Ray of Il Desserto Rosso which is losing more information than a (hypothetical) Blu-Ray of Wavelength. Indeed, as MB has already pointed out, the Blu-Ray of Wavelength is the only one that would fully preserve the grain structure of the original.

Re: Brakhage, no, perhaps I don't regard him quite as highly as some others around here. The greatest film of his that I've seen (a truly great film) is Window Water Baby Moving - but this is, of course, a narrative film, a film that deals with ideas in conjunction with aesthetics, and it is the subject of the film that lends it it's greatest power, not the special chemical he splattered onto the negative afterwards. Benning, on the other hand, I regard as a cinematic genius - and a true cinematographer - in the most elemental of terms. El Valley Centro works better than Sogobi, however, because it contains more ideas, more incident, because it has a more clearly defined (and rigorously explored) subject...
planetjake wrote:Fight the fight? What fight? Where?
The domination of corporate, anti-artistic modes of image making. This was a response to Gregory's comments on the topic earlier.

Adam
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: Los Angeles CA
Contact:

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#430 Post by Adam » Tue May 26, 2009 4:33 pm

Nothing wrote:
vogler wrote: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.
It's not a snipe, and it's extremely tangential to the point, but I'm afraid you're just plain incorrect: avant-garde cinema IS a sub-categorisation of cinema. You are shooting moving images with a camera and projecting them in a cinema, what else would you call it? To try and create such an artificial devision denies the free flow of ideas. eg. Wavelength contains elements of the narrative crime drama (man dies, lady calls emergency services, emergency services approach). James Benning's use of static takes with multiple points of visual interest owes something of a debt to Playtime, whilst the pastoral elements are reminiscent of Dovzhenko. Abbas Kiarostami moves calmly between narrative (Taste of Cherry) and avant-garde (Five) and something in between (Ten). Is Godard a narrative filmmaker or an avant-garde filmmaker? Are not the climaxes of Zabriskie Point, L'Eclisse & 2001 the most influential avant-garde sequences ever committed to film? Ultimately, then, what use are such categorizations at all, other than to box things in and deny possibility?
vogler wrote:it explores the possibilities of film as an art in it's own right, detatched from the disciplines of literature and theatre.
This was Bresson's intention precisely, I suggest you read Notes sur le cinématographe.
nothing via planetjake wrote:But the high-end 35mm cinematography of a Kubrick or Antonioni actually benefits far more from watching a real print.
I would argue that much avant-garde cinema IS actually NOT a sub-categorisation of cinema, but is actually in line with other arts (painting, photography) using moving pictures & cinematic apparatus. Its aesthetic concerns are closer to those more commonly explored in gallery spaces, museums, and the like.

Other avant-garde films work with narrative structures & more common commercial cinematic expression, often to attempt to subvert them or to try to bring out the underlying assumptions of commercial cinema.

But I would also like to see Wavelength on Blu-Ray and hear whether Snow might then change his mind. It's not inconceivable.

I also think you might be right in saying that the end of 2001 is "the most influential avant-garde film" sequence ever, but it is a sequence and not a whole film. Kubrick did originally approach avant-garde filmmaker Ed Emshwiller to help him realize the sequence (Emshwiller ultimately declined). But Zabriskie Point? I don't really think of that as avant-garde. Others might. Many narrative features have avant-garde influenced sequences (Fincher, Lynch, Antonioni, and more have used them), but I have chosen to not classify those films as avant-garde. But I am aware that I might well be needlessly classifying things in a way that might prove a disservice by pigeonholing, and I try to fight that habit.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#431 Post by vogler » Tue May 26, 2009 4:40 pm

Nothing wrote:Although I disagree that VHS yields better results
Although you certainly don't disagree with me over that point since I agree with you (you probably realise this though). I can't stand VHS. We’re also partly in agreement over the fact that we’d like to see more avant-garde films on DVD and we feel that the majority would probably hold up better in the digital realm than a lot of people think (although obviously they’d be far from perfect). However I think the crucial point is that Snow and other film-makers are not preventing certain films from being released on DVD out of some kind of elitist, superior mentality. Rather they are concerned that the films would lose many of their essential characteristics and therefore their impact. Whether you, or I, or anyone else agree or disagree with their decisions is another matter.
vogler wrote:You are shooting moving images with a camera and projecting them in a cinema, what else would you call it?
Well in the case of Brakhage, and many other film-makers who paint directly on film, they are not shooting images through a camera. Rather they are creating something akin to abstract expressionist painting, directly on the film stock. But you are correct that the boundaries are very much blurred between experimental and narrative in many cases, which is I why I was very careful to use words and phrases such as often and closer to rather than any absolutes. When I made this post I did have Jean Epstein and the French Impressionists in mind and was thinking of prior discussions about what constitutes avant-garde cinema. There are, however, many film-makers who have no interest in narrative whatsoever (in terms of their own film-making that is). Considering these works purely in relation to conventional notions of what constitutes cinema, simply because they happen to be created using the physical medium of film, is often nowhere near as useful as considering their relationship to, and perhaps basis in, other art forms such as painting, sculpture and music.

Perhaps the term 'cinema' can be a categorisation that denies possibility. Can creative work not reach entirely beyond these boundaries, that are defined purely on the basis of the technical medium, to the imagination that is behind it all? Can a film not be considered music as much as it can be considered cinema, if it features all the rhythmical and structural elements of a musical composition, only using light instead of sound? If its textures and colours are used as would be musical timbres, and its interactions of dense and varied visuals flow like the sounds of an intricate amalgam of jazz composition and improvisation? Even if you think not, would it still perhaps be best to attempt an understanding of the work based on musical concepts rather than cinematic ones? What if I were to take a reel of blank film and scratch directly on the optical soundtrack to create a rhythmic, pulsing musical track - if I then projected this film in a cinema would it be film, cinema or music? It would, by definition, be a film yet it would have no image. Can cinema be cinema with no visual component? I have many questions but not many answers, but I do know that my own creative output at least, is not entirely divided up into separate creative endeavours in the artforms of cinema, painting and music - rather it is a continuum of creativity that flows through all of these mediums with many of the same characteristics in each. The medium is of far lesser importance than the concepts that occur throughout the work.
Nothing wrote:
vogler wrote:it explores the possibilities of film as an art in it's own right, detatched from the disciplines of literature and theatre.
This was Bresson's intention precisely, I suggest you read Notes sur le cinématographe.
I know very little about Bresson's intentions and perhaps I may read the text you mention, but it would seem that his idea of the exclusion of literature and theatre (within the context of narrative cinema) must be very different to mine. I'm talking about the complete absence of all theatrical concepts of acting, narrative, scriptwriting, storytelling etc. - as far removed from theatre as a Jackson Pollock painting.

---Edited to fix errors that might inhibit understanding.---
Last edited by vogler on Tue May 26, 2009 10:04 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#432 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue May 26, 2009 4:48 pm

Saying Avant-Garde Cinema is not an individual artform because it's a subsection of a larger artform, Cinema, is the equivalent of saying poetry, or drama, or the novel, is not an artform because it is a subsection of a larger artform, literature. Both claims are equally illogical.

Perhaps avant-garde cinema doesn't classify as an individual artform, but if so, it definitely has nothing to do with being a subsection.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#433 Post by Nothing » Tue May 26, 2009 11:16 pm

Adam wrote:I would argue that much avant-garde cinema IS actually NOT a sub-categorisation of cinema, but is actually in line with other arts (painting, photography) using moving pictures & cinematic apparatus. Its aesthetic concerns are closer to those more commonly explored in gallery spaces, museums, and the like.
But you're making categorizations based on value judgements rather than the obvious technical realities. Film/cinema is simply a medium, just like painting or sculpture. what you chose to do with it is completely irrelevent. No-one would try to argue that abastract-expressionist painting is "more like sculpture that painting" just because it lacks a clear human subject.
vogler wrote:is often nowhere near as useful as considering their relationship to, and perhaps basis in, other art forms such as painting, sculpture and music.
I'm not forbiding comparison or consideration of the relationships between a film work and work in another medium. Such comparison, such similarity in some regards, perhaps, does not transform it anything different. Unless you're talking about something like Lynch's "Six People Getting Sick", which did actually, in it's original incarnation, combine cinema with sculpture (therefore a "multi-media work").
vogler wrote:Well in the case of Brakhage, and many other film-makers who paint directly on film, they are not shooting images through a camera. Rather they are creating something akin to abstract expressionist painting, directly on the film stock.
You can't run a piece of film actually caked in dead moths through a projector - the images have been re-photographed. This technique is called animation.
vogler wrote:Can creative work not reach entirely beyond these boundaries, that are defined purely on the basis of the technical medium, to the imagination that is behind it all?
No-one's stopping you from combining mediums (eg. projecting an image onto a sculpture, as in the Lynch work). At least, I'm not stopping you...
vogler wrote:Can cinema be cinema with no visual component?
No. The work you describe still has a conceived visual component (the look of the undeveloped print stock running through the project) no-matter how mundane and useless this may be. If, however, you only played back the optical soundtrack then it would be an audio work.
sausage wrote:Saying Avant-Garde Cinema is not an individual artform because it's a subsection of a larger artform, Cinema, is the equivalent of saying poetry, or drama, or the novel, is not an artform because it is a subsection of a larger artform, literature. Both claims are equally illogical.
Whereas saying that poetry isn't literature (the equivalent of the claims being made here) would, of course, be completely logical... Further, yours is a false analogy because poetry frequently contains narrative. The division between poetry and prose (itself perhaps a dubious one) is related, rather, to the structuring of phrases, the meter, the rhythm. No such division exists between narrative and non-narrative cinema, cinema being a visual medium in which all forms of cinematic language are both possible and acceptable.

Adam
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: Los Angeles CA
Contact:

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#434 Post by Adam » Wed May 27, 2009 12:06 am

Nothing wrote:
Adam wrote:I would argue that much avant-garde cinema IS actually NOT a sub-categorisation of cinema, but is actually in line with other arts (painting, photography) using moving pictures & cinematic apparatus. Its aesthetic concerns are closer to those more commonly explored in gallery spaces, museums, and the like.
But you're making categorizations based on value judgements rather than the obvious technical realities. Film/cinema is simply a medium, just like painting or sculpture. what you chose to do with it is completely irrelevent. No-one would try to argue that abastract-expressionist painting is "more like sculpture that painting" just because it lacks a clear human subject.
vogler wrote:Well in the case of Brakhage, and many other film-makers who paint directly on film, they are not shooting images through a camera. Rather they are creating something akin to abstract expressionist painting, directly on the film stock.
You can't run a piece of film actually caked in dead moths through a projector - the images have been re-photographed. This technique is called animation.
No, it's called optical printing or re-photography. I wouldn't call it animation. But that is a semantic debate which probably isn't productive.

But to the first reply, I would argue that you are doing the same. What you do with the medium is entirely relevant - that is the point. And of course this is based on my value judgments; so are your points. I understand that what you are saying is that your classification system is based on the "technical realities" - shall we say the "technology" being used? My counterpoint is that that is not the most interesting classification system, nor the most useful one when it comes to avant-garde film. And I think that positing avant-garde film in those terms is often what leads to the frustration that many viewers have when first encountering experimental film, because they first try to compare it to other film-going experiences due to the shared technology (particularly projection in a darkened room, as so many experimental films are made without cameras). However, I am specifically arguing that it would more appropriate for new viewers to be introduced to experimental films with an explanation that they would find it more useful to view it not in those terms.

It is more complicated than that, of course, as many experimental films are directly addressing the technology of filmmaking. Good ones tend to do so with wit, beauty, and a sense of humor.

[My apologies for my use of "avant-garde" and "experimental" in an interchangeable manner.]

ptmd
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:12 pm

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#435 Post by ptmd » Wed May 27, 2009 12:08 am

You can't run a piece of film actually caked in dead moths through a projector - the images have been re-photographed.
Actually, they haven't been. Mothlight consists of moth wings and bits of plants laid on a transparent, thin strip of 16mm celluloid with glue on one side that was then covered by two layers of perforated Mylar editing tape and printed for projection. The lack of recorded imagery resulted in an absence of frames, but by carefully placing the dead moths, leaves, and seeds in between the sprocket holes on the sides of the celluloid strip, Brakhage was able to simulate their effect. Brakhage wasn't the only one to work without a camera directly on the film strip (Len Lye and Norman McLaren both experimented with this in the 1930s), but he's certainly the one who took it furthest.

As for the larger questions raised here, I have to say that some of these distinctions seem rather forced to me. Avant-garde cinema (i.e., avant-garde films/videos that are run through some sort of projector when presented) is a type of cinema and, like all forms of cinema, it's informed by the various other arts. Obviously, there are strong affinities between avant-garde cinema and the visual arts, but there are often equally strong affinities with poetry and literature. Brakhage, for example, spoke much more often about Gertrude Stein than he did about Jackson Pollock and they both influenced his work. Frampton was close friends with Carl Andre, but he sometimes said his biggest influences were James Joyce and Ezra Pound. Meanwhile, there are people like Pasolini, who actually was a poet and a novelist, but who also studied art history with one of the pre-eminent scholars of his day (Roberto Longhi) and whose narrative feature films are informed by this in all sorts of ways. All great filmmakers of whatever kind integrate influences from different sources (and mediums) in their work; it's just a question of the degree to which different influences inflect a particular practice.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#436 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed May 27, 2009 1:22 am

Nothing wrote:Further, yours is a false analogy because poetry frequently contains narrative. The division between poetry and prose (itself perhaps a dubious one) is related, rather, to the structuring of phrases, the meter, the rhythm. No such division exists between narrative and non-narrative cinema, cinema being a visual medium in which all forms of cinematic language are both possible and acceptable.
Whether poetry contains narrative or not is neither here nor there, not to mention the above argument is incomprehensible given that poetry was one of three equivalent choices, two of which (novels and plays) contain narrative.

My analogy, anyway, cannot be false for the simple reason that your claim (that subsections of an artform cannot be themselves an individual artform) is abstract and a generalization, so it either works with all art or no art. You cannot make specific claims using as your base a general principle and then turn around and claim any unflattering analogies spurious when someone bothers to actually start applying your general principle.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#437 Post by Nothing » Wed May 27, 2009 5:02 am

Adam + sausage wrote:What you do with the medium is entirely relevant - that is the point... the above argument is incomprehensible
A Caravaggio is a painting and a Pollock is a painting. Poetry and prose are sub-categorizations within the medium of literature. Avant-garde cinema and arthouse cinema are sub-categorizations within the medium of film. How could this be any easier to understand?

The problem -
Adam wrote:My counterpoint is that that is not the most interesting classification system, nor the most useful one when it comes to avant-garde film
- even though you're so vociferously keen to deny it, is that you want to create this false categorization whereby avant-garde cinema is "art" and narrative cinema is "entertainment", no matter than many avant-garde works contain narrative elements and vice-versa, no matter that they are both fashioned in the same medium. Of course, you are just following the lead of Brakhage, Snow, etc, in trying to assert this self-serving fallacy. But no-one has answered my earlier questions - ie. is Godard an avant-garde filmmaker or a narrative filmmaker? Is Window Water Baby Moving a narrative film or an avant-garde film? - because the answer to these questions, of course, is "both" - these two things exist simultaneously within the cinematic work of Godard, within the Brakhage film in question - and, yet, these are single medium works, not multi-media works, therefore the boundary clearly does not exist.

Re: Mothlight, as ptmd implies (nothing in that post I could disagree with), I think ultimately what defines the work is that it is intended to be viewed as a moving image. Modern computer animations (Pixar, Waltz with Bashir, etc) do not involve photography either. If, however, Brakhage intended the film strips to be viewed physically, if they were not intended for projection, THEN it would cease to be cinema, then it would become collage.

p.s. Sausage - if you really believe that 'avant-garde cinema' is a different medium from 'cinema' then you better find another board in which to locate this thread!!

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#438 Post by vogler » Wed May 27, 2009 9:52 am

Oh no! My browser ate my post. I'll try again.
Nothing wrote:The problem -
Adam wrote:My counterpoint is that that is not the most interesting classification system, nor the most useful one when it comes to avant-garde film
- even though you're so vociferously keen to deny it, is that you want to create this false categorization whereby avant-garde cinema is "art" and narrative cinema is "entertainment", no matter than many avant-garde works contain narrative elements and vice-versa, no matter that they are both fashioned in the same medium.
I'm certain that there are many problems, but I don't believe the one you cite is one of them. Nobody (that I know of) is trying to “create this false categorization whereby avant-garde cinema is "art" and narrative cinema is "entertainment"“ - both forms can very much be art if that is their intention. In addition, if we forget the connotations of the word 'entertainment' as relating to popular commercial entertainment, which are so often perceived as negative, then all art is essentially entertainment and always has been, or at least I can't currently think of a work of art that doesn't entertain in some sense.

Of course I am considering experimental/avant-garde film/cinema a form of film/cinema hence my use of the terms. The argument is that experimental film is, in many cases, a very different art form, and that its artistic intentions in these cases bear no relation to narrative forms of cinema. This does of course depend on the film-maker in question. By extension it is far more useful to consider these works in line with the other arts that form their basis. For me the artistic intent is far more important than a categorisation based on the technical medium.

I agree with Adam that viewers comparing experimental films to their other film-going experiences is often the cause of much frustration and misunderstanding. If these viewers would let go of their notions of what constitutes ‘cinema’ and consider the works in terms of the other arts with which they may be closely connected, or as their own form of art, then the viewing experience would be a much richer one. But then in other cases it may be more useful to consider experimental films from a narrative standpoint, for example if we think of the early stages of the American avant-garde when it was largely rooted in the ‘psychodrama’ form.
Nothing wrote:
vogler wrote:Can cinema be cinema with no visual component?
No. The work you describe still has a conceived visual component (the look of the undeveloped print stock running through the project) no-matter how mundane and useless this may be. If, however, you only played back the optical soundtrack then it would be an audio work.
But does the artistic intent make a difference? What if the same work was created by a composer, with no interest in cinema, but a strong interest in the possibilities of the optical strip as a means toward sound generation? The intention of the work would be purely musical. Would the visual component of “the look of the undeveloped print stock” still make this a cinematic work even if it was not a conceived visual component, but merely a by-product of the medium?
ptmd wrote:Brakhage, for example, spoke much more often about Gertrude Stein than he did about Jackson Pollock and they both influenced his work.
I couldn't comment on the frequency with which Brakhage spoke about either artist but it is certainly true that he had many literary inspirations and these no doubt had an effect on his work. At other times, and I would say more importantly, he was also trying to explore the possibilities of the act of vision “before the 'beginning was the word.’” Ultimately I think his goal was to try to reach visuals rooted purely in “the unnameable”.

A quote from Brakhage:
My work now primarily has to do with being able to exteriorize moving visual thought processes - that is, thinking that isn't locked into language, to words or symbols or other categorical imperatives of the left brain. There is a visual, unnameable, non-referential form of thinking, which, if it refers to anything - and I believe it does - has internal reference and is a reference to one's being. To achieve well-being, you have to have a way to converse with you own nervous system.· for the two hemispheres of the brain to converse with each other.
Nothing wrote:But no-one has answered my earlier questions - ie. is Godard an avant-garde filmmaker or a narrative filmmaker?
I suppose he's an avant-garde narrative film-maker - unless he's working in a non-narrative format.
Nothing wrote:these are single medium works, not multi-media works, therefore the boundary clearly does not exist.
I think the boundary is between narrative and non-narrative film, but I'm specifically talking about experimental non-narrative film. This could perhaps be termed 'abstract film', but that opens the discussion of what exactly qualifies as 'abstract'.
Last edited by vogler on Wed May 27, 2009 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ptmd
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:12 pm

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#439 Post by ptmd » Wed May 27, 2009 12:40 pm

Ultimately I think his goal was to try to reach visuals rooted purely in “the unnameable”.
That's certainly true, it's just a question of how he got there. To cite one of the best examples, Brakhage said that his Visions in Meditation (1989-1990), probably his most powerfully realized example of "moving visual thinking", was partially an homage to Stein, whose "Stanzas in Meditation" were a huge influence on him and it includes another chapter titled after D.H. Lawrence. Brakhage was also deeply informed by painting from Church and Turner to Sam Francis and Rauschenberg and his study of music from Bach to Messiaen, but my point is simply that he pulled things from all the arts and continued to do so until the end of his life.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#440 Post by vogler » Wed May 27, 2009 1:41 pm

ptmd wrote:but my point is simply that he pulled things from all the arts and continued to do so until the end of his life.
Also certainly true. Have you listened to Brakhage's 20 radio shows called The Test of Time that are available on ubuweb? Through the course of these 20 broadcasts he shows an incredible depth of knowledge across all the arts. I particularly enjoyed his coverage of a huge and diverse range of musical forms. It really is an amazing listen.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#441 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed May 27, 2009 1:50 pm

Nothing wrote:p.s. Sausage - if you really believe that 'avant-garde cinema' is a different medium from 'cinema' then you better find another board in which to locate this thread!!
No, I don't "really" believe other people's straw-man arguments. (Mediums were not the subject of my posts, and are not interesting anyway since what gets branded as such is arbitrary since the word simply denotes a "means or channel of communication or expression")

I'll take your evasion to mean you cannot answer my challenge.

ptmd
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:12 pm

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#442 Post by ptmd » Wed May 27, 2009 3:36 pm

I haven't heard the radio broadcasts, but they sound quite interesting. There's a wonderful anthology of Brakhage's late writings called Telling Time that includes a number of essays on music, literature, and the other arts that he originally wrote for a magazine in Canada. It's in print and well worth tracking down.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#443 Post by vogler » Wed May 27, 2009 6:40 pm

I'll definitely look into getting a copy of Telling Time. It sounds like an essential read for me.

I have a slightly strange question for Mr_sausage - "artform" or "art form"? I prefer "artform" and that's what I've been writing in this thread, but every dictionary I consult doesn't seem to agree. Perhaps this is a case where I should just say screw the dictionary? The prospect that I may potentially have written dozens of errors in this thread horrifies me - I will have nightmares about this for weeks. (I do have the small consolation that if I have made an error, it is an error that has been shared by yourself - the member of most impeccable grammar and spelling on this forum.)

I must admit the whole one word/two words, hyphen or no hyphen issue is an area that often gives me trouble.

Adam
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: Los Angeles CA
Contact:

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#444 Post by Adam » Wed May 27, 2009 6:41 pm

ptmd wrote:
You can't run a piece of film actually caked in dead moths through a projector - the images have been re-photographed.
Actually, they haven't been. Mothlight consists of moth wings and bits of plants laid on a transparent, thin strip of 16mm celluloid with glue on one side that was then covered by two layers of perforated Mylar editing tape and printed for projection. The lack of recorded imagery resulted in an absence of frames, but by carefully placing the dead moths, leaves, and seeds in between the sprocket holes on the sides of the celluloid strip, Brakhage was able to simulate their effect. Brakhage wasn't the only one to work without a camera directly on the film strip (Len Lye and Norman McLaren both experimented with this in the 1930s), but he's certainly the one who took it furthest.
Actually, after he created that strip that you describe, he ran the whole thing through an optical printer to photograph it onto a new strip, which became the negative for screenings. I've held it in my own hands. Hmm, so I guess you are correct in saying that it isn't "re-photography"; it is "photography" of a prepared object.
Lots of others do the same now. Peter Tscherkassky in Outer Space, for example.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#445 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed May 27, 2009 6:58 pm

vogler wrote:I'll definitely look into getting a copy of Telling Time. It sounds like an essential read for me.

I have a slightly strange question for Mr_sausage - "artform" or "art form"? I prefer "artform" and that's what I've been writing in this thread, but every dictionary I consult doesn't seem to agree. Perhaps this is a case where I should just say screw the dictionary? The prospect that I may potentially have written dozens of errors in this thread horrifies me - I will have nightmares about this for weeks. (I do have the small consolation that if I have made an error, it is an error that has been shared by yourself - the member of most impeccable grammar and spelling on this forum.)

I must admit the whole one word/two words, hyphen or no hyphen issue is an area that often gives me trouble.
Ok, so when you enter artform into the OED it directs you to the entry for "art form" (apparently the term is only 150 years old). 90% of the usage examples use the hyphenated form. The OED is descriptive rather than prescriptive, tho'.

This is one of those cases where, tho' I'm sure there is an arcane rule written for it somewhere in a musty old grammarian's book no one reads any more, all of the permutations have become acceptable. The OED doesn't list "artform," but the word is simply a portmanteau in the Joycean tradition (Joyce rather famously did away with hyphenated terms in favour of single words, ie. winedark, heaventree, ect.); and the mere fact that the dictionary ascribes an individual meaning to the collocation of two separate words (art and form) means there is no grammatical reason not to make a single word of them. Eliding or omitting hyphens is so common now that it has likely ceased to be an error (solecisms are by consensus). Wouldn't be surprised if the hyphenated form was incorporated because grammarians wanted to suppress the Germanic (read: barbaric) elements of English. Combinations like artform reflect the Germanic core of the language (Germanic languages are fond of such word accretions), so unless you aspire to be a Renaissance Humanist, there's no reason to care what tradition it reflects, so use it all you like.

User avatar
vogler
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:42 am
Location: England

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#446 Post by vogler » Wed May 27, 2009 7:05 pm

Excellent - that's exactly what I wanted to hear. Artform makes far more sense to me, so that's what I'm sticking with. Now I can go to sleep.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#447 Post by Nothing » Fri May 29, 2009 12:06 am

Sausage, surely 'artform' is even more encompassing than 'medium'. Oil, acrylic and watercolour being 'mediums' within the artform of 'painting', no? So if 'avant-garde cinema' is an entirely different artform from 'cinema' then what is this thread doing on this forum? This is not a straw man argument, it is a perfectly reasonable question. It should be on the Non-Cinema Arts board, surely (if you accept the proposed definition)?

For the record, btw, I apply the principal across the board and do not consider poetry a unique artform but, rather, a sub-categorization within the artform of literature. Drama / theatre, on the other hand, is a separate artform - the written work being only the first part of the process, the work not being complete until it has been performed on a stage.

Ultimately, returning to first base here, it is surely those proposing the new categorization who should have to justify themselves first and foremost. Why is the presence of narrative THE defining factor that distinguishes one artform from another? All I've heard so far are arguments that, intentionally or not, demean so-called "narrative filmmakers":

- the assertion that "Kubrick and Antonioni have a rudimentary grasp of rhythm, movement and light" (odd that you didn't see fit to challenge this too, sausage...);

- the suggestion that avant-garde filmmaking is closer to music than narrative cinema, that "its artistic intentions... bear no relation to narrative forms of cinema" (as if any serious filmmaker does not pay attention to editing rhythm, visual form and structure);

- the assertion that the presence of narrative means subscribing to a form of "common commercial cinematic expression" with "underlying assumptions";

- the assertion that avant-garde filmmakers are "investigating the very medium of celluloid" (as if any serious cinematographer is not doing this in their choice of filmstock, awareness of and deployment of film grain, etc);

- the suggestion of similarities between avant-garde cinema and other visual mediums (as if Barry Lyndon wasn't inspired by the paintings of Constable & Turner, as if Lynch wasn't inspired by Rothko, etc);

- the attempt to allign 'narrative cinema' with 'theatre', as a way of painting cinema with narrative elements as somehow backwards, as if the innovations of Bresson never took place (ignoring also Stanislavsky, whose 20th century methods proved more transformative and relevant to the 20th century artform of cinema than to theatre), as if the presence of actors or models precludes aesthetic considerations;

- the suggestion that a re-categorization is necessary to manage expectation and avoid 'frustration' in ignorant members of the audience (these being the kind of audience members who would fail to engage with any serious work of cinema, the people who would boo at the end of L'Avventura - who cares if they are frustrated or not?).

And all of this is surely undermined when you consider that even Brakhage and Snow deploy narrative elements in many of their films, that Godard is just as (if not more) avant-garde and experimental than any other filmmaker alive - and, yet, his films always contain narrative elements. All of which suggests that you surely need to get back to the drawing board.

planetjake

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#448 Post by planetjake » Fri May 29, 2009 12:33 am

This was my quote exactly:
planetjake wrote:Also, how do the films Kubrick and Antonioni, two filmmakers who have rudimentary approaches to rhythm, movement and light benefit more from projection?
I never claimed that Kubrick and Antonioni had rudimentary GRASPS of anything. My claim (though not well articulated at the time) was that Kubrick and Antonioni had comparatively rudimentary approaches (APPROACHES was the word I very carefully chose) to cinema.

DO NOT INCORRECTLY QUOTE ME AGAIN.

In the past, I have the taken the time to correctly quote you. Your unwillingness to do the same for me (and presumably others on this board) speaks volumes not only about your lack of respect towards me and the other members of this forum, but also of your complete lack of resolve.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#449 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri May 29, 2009 1:19 am

Nothing wrote:So if 'avant-garde cinema' is an entirely different artform from 'cinema' then what is this thread doing on this forum?
Nowhere will you find me saying anything like "'avant-garde cinema' is an entirely different artform from 'cinema'." Trying to win arguments by torturing other people's words and ideas out of shape is irritating. The point is whether or not avant-garde cinema counts as an individual artform, not whether it is an entirely different artform, which no one here is claiming or would claim.

The OED defines art form as: " An established form taken by a work of art, as a novel, concerto, portrait, film, etc.; an artistic genre." If a concerto can be an individual artform within music, if a portrait can be an individual artform within painting, and if the novel can be an individual artform within literature, then guess what...

Some illustrative uses just to hammer the point home: "1928 H. READ Phases of Eng. Poetry i. 11 Anglo-Saxon poetry is already a highly developed art-form." "1919 R. LYND Old & New Masters vii. 88 The dramatic lyric and monologue in which Browning set forth the varieties of passionate experience was an art-form of immense possibilities." Again, all "sub-catagories" that are still allowed to be their own artforms.
Nothing wrote:Poetry and prose are sub-categorizations within the medium of literature. Avant-garde cinema and arthouse cinema are sub-categorizations within the medium of film. How could this be any easier to understand?
What you haven't yet understood is that being a "sub-catagory" is not mutually exclusive with being an individual artform. You've taken that for granted and then repeated it incessantly without variation or argument.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

#450 Post by Nothing » Fri May 29, 2009 4:06 am

planetjake wrote:how do the films Kubrick and Antonioni, two filmmakers who have rudimentary approaches to rhythm, movement and light benefit more from projection [as opposed to DVD]?
I'm carrying this over from a discussion in the avant-garde cinema thread as I'd love to hear more from planetjake about how Kubrick has a rudimentary approach to rhythm, movement and light. To narrow it down, let's say Kubrick's rudimentary approach to light in Eyes Wide Shut - I think that would be a good place to start.
planetjake wrote:I never claimed that Kubrick and Antonioni had rudimentary GRASPS of anything. My claim (though not well articulated at the time) was that Kubrick and Antonioni had comparatively rudimentary approaches (APPROACHES was the word I very carefully chose) to cinema.
Either claim is equally ludicrous (and barely separable). I'd really like to hear more, however - and I don't think this is the right place for it. Accordingly, I have transposed your comment to the Stanley Kubrick thread.
planetjake wrote:DO NOT INCORRECTLY JOKE ME AGAIN.
lol.

Take it away, planetjake.
sausage wrote:Nowhere will you find me saying anything like "'avant-garde cinema' is an entirely different artform from 'cinema'."...
I guess this does come down to definitions on some level. If "artform" = "genre", as the OED seems to suggest, then I guess there's less of an argument. I've never understood it to quite mean that. That still wouldn't allow the claim that avant-garde cinema is not a part of cinema (an argument that perhaps you yourself have not been making, but others certainly have).

Post Reply