From: marilyn brakhage (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jul 19 2010 - 00:58:57 PDT
I think you missed the point of my post. (Though "names" do mean
things.) . . . I was responding specifically to the thread that
started with a recommendation of Pennebaker's "Don't Look Back" for a
class on "experimental documentary." Someone commented that it looked
somewhat conventional now, because of many that followed; someone else
(Matt) countered with "how many films did Brakhage make? Was he
considered conventional in 2000?" Thus this raises the question of
the usefulness of the word 'experimental' (though I'm not sure that
was the question Matt was intending to raise). . . . Yes, a great
film is a great film regardless of what you call it. But the thread
was questioning when the "experimental" is no longer "experimental"
and has become "conventional." And in my opinion, the question was
not very relevant to Brakhage films. Nor is it probably relevant to
Pennebaker, really. If a film is original and brave and personal it
may or may not serve as the catalyst for many films to follow; if it's
a great film in itself, it always will be.
Perhaps the confusion is that suggesting that something "experimental"
can become "conventional" is to define "experimental" as "new" and
"different," but only in a slight way. Because if it's deeply
personal, and a complexly and fully resolved work, won't it in some
sense ALWAYS be "new" and "different"? How could it ever, that is,
BECOME conventional (unless its newness and difference was something
very superficial, and it failed to stand out in any way from the many
imitations to follow).
Perhaps Christopher needs to tell us more about the intended purpose
of his class: a history of formal inventiveness in non-narrative
filmmaking? Unusual personal approaches to the the presentation of
some perceived aspects of "reality"? Self-reflexive documentaries
that are honest, also, about their subjectivity? Or simply any
strong individual works of a non-fiction sort. . . . But presumably
he is using the words, or "names," "experimental" and "documentary" to
define SOMETHING that he is trying to construct a course around.
Marilyn Brakhage
On 18-Jul-10, at 8:59 PM, Jennifer Saparzadeh wrote:
> It seems to me that the names placed on things have very little to
> do with the
> things themselves. I mean, whether you call something a document, a
> documentary, a fiction, a piece of art, or a experimental is kind of
> insignificant; I think it's the reaction you have from watching it
> that defines
> it.. and that is nameless. oh gee, that kind of sounds like a Honda
> commercial
> too! Well see that's just it. There is no good in letting
> advertising's
> exploitation of earnest and genuine sentiments ruin the perception
> we have of
> them.
>
> I realize that a ton of other things come into play and I hear my
> own devil's
> advocate.. I don't know. I guess it's just seems kind of silly to
> get so caught
> up in names. I mean whether Stan Brakhage made pieces of art or
> experimental
> films means so little. I would never have thought to call what I make
> experimental but if that's what others call it it's still the same
> film.
>
> Quoting marilyn brakhage <email suppressed>:
>
>> The problem with using the example of Brakhage for this argument is
>> that he never considered his work "experimental" in the first place.
>> (There's an interview segment included on the new Brakhage DVD set in
>> which he discusses the problems with this terminology.) He believed
>> he was making "art," but that to be considered art by his definition
>> (and by that of many others) it would ultimately have to pass "the
>> test of time." It would not become an outdated "experiment," thus.
>>
>> Marilyn Brakhage
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18-Jul-10, at 5:24 PM, Jeff Kreines wrote:
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Alex McCarron
>>> So the conventions of experimental film never become conventional?
>>>
>>> Exactly what I was trying to say.
>>>
>>> I guess the question becomes, for some, when in history does
>>> something swing from experimental to merely outre to conventional to
>>> cliche to Honda commercial?
>>>
>>> How does that apply to an artist's ouvre over time? If their works
>>> don't radically change, are they suddenly relegated to the category
>>> of cliche-makers just because time has blunted the boldness of their
>>> pioneering works? Or are they grandfathered/grandmothered --
>>> granted permanent outsider status?
>>>
>>> Obviously one size does not fit all.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Alex McCarron
>>> So the conventions of experimental film never become conventional?
>>>
>>> I love Jonas Mekas but if you tried to do what he did today it
>>> wouldn't be called experimental film, it'd be called a Honda
>>> commercial.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Matt Helme <email suppressed>
>>> wrote:
>>> How many film's did Brakhage make? Was he considered conventional in
>>> 2000?
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>> email suppressed
>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>> email suppressed
>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>> email suppressed
>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks