Attention: While the writers and editors of this article presumably have fantastic intentions regarding it's final form, their edits, particularly placement of statements critical of other editor's contributions in the article itself is making the article much, much worse. It is a shame. Please, please, please, find some sort of consensus on the subject, or remove the headings in question. -anon
An entry lacking in worth
You can't dismiss Brakhage with the term 'abstraction' in one sentence and call it an entry on experimental film.
This article is completely worthless to anyone who would want to search for it, and provides little adequate information except the view held by most people ignorant of experimental cinema -- that it is merely a poor cousin to the products pumped out by the American military-industrial complex. For shame, wikipedia, for shame... let's get this written by someone who knows a thing or two.
>> go for it.
>>>> OK, but can I ask what the general 'etiquette' (for lack of a better word) is regarding modifications -- especially with regards to removing information? I would think if I have the ability to delete what someone else has added, then there is a chance someone else will do the same. I will add content, but after doing sufficient preparation to merit its inclusion in this database.
Your manifesto listed above does not equal factual recording for an online archive. It should be percieved as art history not a bar brawl between art camps.
>>>> A response: Yes, I am aware of that, and intend solely on providing the necessary information with regards to works considered by many as some of the most important art in human history. Rest assured, editorializing about the current American cultural hegemony remains reserved for the talk page. A proper (and therefore factually recorded) analysis, is the best solution, rather than throwing grease on the fire -- done here in order to get things stirred in order to properly settle. As an example, while not particularily enthralled by the work of Mulvey, I will expand on it if need be. The major problem is that this article treats "Experimental film" as some sort of bizarre mutant hybrid of the cinema, whereas in actuality it is the source and root of the cinema. (see Lumiere, Melies, and so forth.) The hybrids, if any, are the "movies" most people watch and consider "normal" which are invariably adaptations/translation from books, plays and so forth. "Experimental film" is an attempt towards the genesis of a film language from the medium itself, not shoe-horned onto it. If we're going to describe structuralist films only as "cold and inhuman", how about a comparison to mainstream works which through Dolby 5.0, Scope and giant multiplexes are designed to batter audiences into a cataconic state of physical numbness? The works of Frampton and Snow have so much humanity that most people miss it entirely. (due to requiring a slightly longer attention span) .... shit, another rant. Peace.
You are the man, therefore negative reviews of structuralists are the man is not an apprpriate are historical response.
large stretches of editorializing require cleanup/link to references
a large amount of added material from 68.127.207.231 (see this[contributions page] seems more like editorializing, and much of it requires reference to back up her/his claims. I've added the dispute flag for this purpose.
-- I agree. Seems to be a beef against the Structuralists. Piltdown
-- Disagree. Does not appear to editorialize, but to distill basic arguements about the factions of the avant-garde. The structuralists need not necessarily be percieved as "right". That would be editorializing. Many ugly facts are included as well: bad reviews, bad screenings, low revenue, no degrees. This is factual, and relevant.
birth of exprmntl.net
Just this post to announce the birth of Exprmntl.net (mediawiki website), general encyclopaedia of audio-visual art.
You will find a data base on practical the audio-visual alternatives: experimental cinema, do it yourself cinema, video art, web art, avant-gardes, activisms, super 8…
Exprmntl.net exists now in 4 languages: French, English, Spanish, German.
The French version is the most advanced (it takes again the sites cineastes.net)
The English version is now experimental version. It awaits nothing any more but you for agrandire. Write in English, one will translate into French, and reciprocally.
84.100.40.26 22:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Disagree - Structuralist filmmaking is a small mode within the larger context of experimental film. Abstraction in Europe does not discount the structuralists - not editorializing. Summaries of negative reviews were provided, location of negative reviews were provided, and are easily accessable.
non-US experimental festivals and exhibiton
This discussion of exhibition is very US-centered. Can more information about exhibition from outside the US be added.
NYU?
A mid-Feb edit introduced a line that "Anger's Scorpio Rising is one of the few experimental films NYU owns." So what is NYU? And why is its portfolio of interest here (esp for those of us outside the USA)? I'm inclined to delete the sentence unless anyone can demonstrate its relevance. AllyD 10:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
NYU stands for New York University. The university is known in part for their acclaimed film program. Some important directors (Spike Lee, e.g.) are NYU alumns.
Agree - any input not regarding structuralists or American exsperimental post 1975 seems to garner hostillity. Far too much work for the structuralists to be upset anything. The bulk of the article is about them.
significant problems highlighted
Not impressed by this at the moment. No Le Grice, no Sitney, no Peterson. It reads like an A-Level project. It seems that this page is in need of an expert - and there are plenty around. It's worth mentioning that these debates about structuralism signal what for many is the end of the avant-garde movement, and are not unimportant in themselves (le Grice Vs. Brakhage).
May I recommend the following texts for anyone wishing to write a better entry. I will also add some material (once I have finished my current marking) - I have around 10,000 words of notes on the history of western avant-garde and experimental film, and will try and get round to editing them asap. IN the meantime maybe somebody look at the following:
A. L. Rees, A History of Experimental Film and Video (BFI, 1999).
Malcolm Le Grice, Abstract Film and Beyond (MIT, 1977).
Scott MacDonald, A Critical Cinema, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988, 1992 and 1998).
Scott MacDonald, Avant-Garde Film: Motion Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
James Peterson, Dreams of Chaos, Visions of Order: Understanding the American Avant-Garde Cinema (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1994).
P. Adams Sitney, Visionary Film: The American Avant-Garde, 1943-78 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974).
Michael O’Pray, Avant-Garde Film: Forms, Themes and Passions (London: Wallflower Press, 2003).
David Curtis (ed.), A Directory of British Film and Video Artists (Arts Council, 1999).
Hope this is of use. I will stick the bibs on the main page.
Two more for the bibliog.
Curtis, David. 'Experimental Cinema - A Fifty year evolution'. (London. Studio Vista. 1971)
Dixon, Winston Wheeler and Foster, Gwendolyn Audrey. 'Experimental Cinema - The Film Reader', (London. Routledge. 2002)
I'll put these on the main page. More to follow.
Let Brakhage Speak...
This has to be a key text. Brakhage on Jerome Hill, Marie Menken, Sidney Peterson, Maya Deren, Christopher Maclaine, Bruce Conner, Ken Jacobs...
Stan Brakhage. Film at Wit's End - Essays on American Independent Filmmakers. (Edinburgh, Polygon. 1989)
And Brakhage on Brakhage...
Stan Brakhage. Essential Brakhage - Selected Writings on Filmmaking. (New York, McPherson. 2001)
(This and above from Alan Clark, Postgraduate Film and Media, University of Hertfordshire, UK).
general suggestions and suggested additions
I agree with other talk page comments that this article is somewhat skewed towards American experimental film. There are a few European filmmakers I know of as influential in this area. Kurt Kren, from Austria, is quite famous. I believe he would also be described as structuralist and he is contemporary to Stan Brakhage etc. Also Peter Kubelka is well known.
I think the introductory paragraphs could be cogently rephrased to say what the term 'experimental film' has been used to refer to rather than what experimental film actually is, because the definition is predictably inadequate. Then the article can go on to describe various "traditions". Sometimes experimental films ARE narrative. For example most of Kenneth Anger's films are narrative films, albeit non-linear and typically lacking in plot, they still depict characters in diagetic environments. Meanwhile many of Brakhage's films are completely non-representational (immediately abstract). Therefor narrative or lack of narrative is probably not a consistant factor in classifying a film as experimental or not experimental. Perhaps the author(s) mean something specific when they say "..a film 'organized' neither as narrative fiction nor as non-fiction..." But this is unclear.
To begin the article with listing things experimental film (supposedly) is not, detracts from any affirmative definition. Perhaps "mode of filmmaking which rigorously re-evaluates filmmaking conventions" would be more productive. I think this would also be more accurate than the similar sentence in the second paragraph "...made to test an audience's reaction".
j.d. [email protected]