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.