Academia vs. Avant-Garde

What have been the major critiques of the "academization" of the American avant-garde film? Give your own response to these critiques in relation to the films and readings from our class.

These major critiques listed are the ownership of avant-garde's style(everyday artists or elitist intellectuals of academic institutions), the focus of canon-formation(the power of being highly favored by those filmmakers/professors already established), and avant-garde's move from theaters to classrooms.

First, concerning the ownership of the style of avant-garde, in the reading it states that the shifting of the avant-garde style of the 1960s to 1970s was hindered by the formalized thinking of the academic world. In the 1960s hey-day of avant-garde filmmaking, the film culture was rebellious, untamed, and free to try whatever. However, once put into a highly tamed, academic world, full of predetermined thoughts on what film should be, the movement was highly tamed and harmed. I agree with this because college's structure is very much with the Establishment, but avant-garde filmmaking is very much ruleless and unstructured. As we've seen in class, many films, especially Warhol's stuff, do not really have a narrative structure nor do they inherit the film characteristics(i.e. composition, lighting, editing) that we've all learned about in introductory film courses. When put into an academic environment, these films are practically a smack in the face to all the films/filmmakers we've learned about over the years, but its also introduces a brand new way of looking at filmmaking, a more liberating view.

Second, another critique is the canon-formation of avant-garde cinema, i.e. the organization of jury members to all decide collectively on what is essential and what is forgettable when it comes to the avant-garde. This goes very much along with institutionalization because college is built upon members of the elite and intellectual type whom all decided what should/shouldn't be taught. As UNCW film students, we all have learned that Hitchcock was a groundbreaking director, even if we don't believe it (personally, he's overrated). But the fact that many film scholars have all concurred with certain ideals means every student must learn about it. In this class, we've watched many films that are part of Anthology Film Archives and praised because of popular opinion. It is these archives and institutionalization of a free-spirited artform like avant-garde is one factor that led to its downfall.

Finally, the last critique is that the screenings of avant-garde films went from theaters open to the public to classrooms open to only the students registered. Not only were the films not open to the public, they were now being taught to students to be tested on. The physical viewings themselves have also changed as a result of academization. Once, they were solely shown in galleries at art shows, or socials where people could view the works, socialize, and enjoy some adult beverages. Now, it seems one of their main venues is solemn classrooms by students bound to desks. A good chunk of these films' viewers nowadays do not view them at their own leisure but rather are required to in order for grading. Of any of the films we've watched so far, I can't imagine one filmmaker actually imagining that his or her work would be shown in a college class. Kren would probably grin ear to ear if he knew his "art" was being shown in classrooms to unexpecting students.

Week 9 Filmskis

The films shown this week were definitely the most interesting we've seen as we begin to drift into the avant gardeness of the '70s. I can already tell the filmmakers of this time were starting to experiment more with film, thinking outside the box so to speak.

Line Describing a Cone- This was pretty incredible to finally see in person. I remember hearing about it last year and trying to think about how it would really look. My predictions were basically correct, but it was awesome to see especially in such a small venue. This "film" really exists outside the screen which is an amazing thing since most films rely on the screen to get the images across. I've tried to imagine this film without the fog/smoke and have come to the conclusion that there'd be no cone but a really boring circle being formed. I also thought the doubled class size helped as more people were able to alter the cone's light, which made it ultra interactive. What stood out to me that maybe was a mistake was the quick bursts of small light beams caused by tiny scratches on the filmstrip. As a result of this film experience, I almost want to fill a theater with fake fog and watch some Blockbuster movie thats out, just to see what happens. And I'm sure glad that it was a cone being described and not a shark! (insert cheesy laugh here)

7 Days- This film was pretty cool and had a mediative feel to it in parts. I really enjoyed the film having the preface in class that a "gizmo" had created the images and something was happening causing it to film certain things. About a couple minutes into it, I realized that the sun was being covered by clouds and when the grass was being filmed, the sun was out because you could see the camera's shadow. The ambient sounds of the sky mixed up with the sounds of water created a cool soundtrack that reminded me of those sleep sound devices(as mentioned in class).

The Girl Chewing Gum- It was also great to finally see this in its entirety because I really enjoyed what I saw the first time. On first viewing, I didn't realize that a street was simply being filmed and it was not a movie set like the narration implies. It wasn't until the clock was zoomed in on that I realized I had been fooled, but I was fine with that. It reminded me of a Monty Python type sketch because they always seem to do clever things that mess with the viewer's perceptions of what film should be. If you just look at this on paper, its simple, a "director" is directing people to do everyday things. But really it is everyday life being filmed, which would be boring to view without the clever fake directions. Then, when the director guy started making assumptions about certain people(i.e. the guy who just robbed the bank) that's when it was even funnier because you began to see people in a different light. I remember as a kid, I would get bored easily when in public and start looking around at people, coming up with theme music or how their voices might sound, all in my head. This film to me was a lot like this childhood concept.

Art and Objecthood

"The answer I want to propose is this: the literalist espousal of objecthood amounts to nothing more than a plea for a new genre of theatre; and theatre is now the negation of art. Literalist sensibility is theatrical because, to begin with, it is concerned with the actual circumstances in which the beholder encounters literalist work."

The question to which Fried is proposing an answer is "What/Why is it that the idea of objecthood is the antithesis to art?" He's saying that by adopting the idea of objecthood(i.e. art being an object open to interpretation of its beholder) has created an art form of its own by making art situational to everyone who experiences it. It takes away from the actual piece of art itself and instead makes a art contextual experience. Someone viewing a photo of a graveyard may admire the beauty of its time period, landscape, etc. and react positively to it; however, if the same someone had just lost a loved one, the art may make them react completely different.
Fried rejects objecthood because he feels that it degrades the work itself and that sculptures and paintings are much more than just objects. Like Greenberg's argument that "what is art?" is no longer the main question but rather "what is good art?" Objecthood takes away from the original expression of the artist and instead gives it a context in the present day and values/beliefs of the time and beholders. In the sense Fried rejects, no longer is art just a way of expression but now its all in the eye of the beholder to get what he or she wants out of the art, which is antithetical.

What I Thought!: Lives of Performers

After sitting through the viewing of Lives of Performers today, I had a hard time grasping what all was shown and what it all meant(if anything). Like many of the films we've seen in class, the length could've been cut down drastically and still have the same(if not more) effect. I wouldn't say that I hated the entire film, but most of it I just couldn't get into at all. First, what I didn't like was the weird off-screen narration over the still images, I just didn't see the humor/point in that. I understand the juxtaposition of the weird tales of Mt. Olympus with the still photographs of people doing odd things, but it just didn't translate well to film in the end.
What I did like was the part where the narration was describing the two girls and the guy who kept switching between the two. I thought it was pretty excellent because it was telling a story we've all seen countless times in films, but it was in almost the simplest form possible; Narration with very minimal performance. I also liked the idea of the end shots but I think it went on a little too long as well. Rainer could've cut down the number of the end shots and it would've been a little more humorous. I did like the idea of people posing in photographic poses for extended periods of time and how their faces became tired pretty easily.
As for the imdb comment, I don't completely agree with the guy (he does have a hell of a writing style though), but I do see where he's coming from. I did love the part:

And yes, I expressed the opinion to the film-maker herself, but she shrugged me off by saying, "Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but if you were familiar with the history of cinema, then ... (blah blah blah)." Lady, I don't need to know anything about the history of cinema to be able to call a spade a spade.

I would've loved to be there for that.

And that, folks, is... What I Thought!TM