Fred Camper response
The debates over categorizing and naming things like avant-garde film to me seems like largely a waste of time. Personally I believe that everything in life is fluid and similarities between two different objects will or won't be seen depending on who is looking for them, so attempting to rigidly categorize things and decide proper names is pointless.
For example, assuming humans live for at least another thousand years and manage to avoid reverting to Dark Age era technology, we will have another 900 years of film history that will unfold. To someone from the year 2756, the various sub categories of films within the 20th century will seem silly, as to them it will most likely all fall under the same broad brush of "ancient films." I'm not saying they will be unable to distinguish an experimental film from this century with a Hollywood blockbuster, but there are most likely similarities between every movie made up until now that we simply can't see. If film styles and genres continue to evolve over the 21st century at the pace that they did during the 20th, imagine what categories and genres will exist 400, 600, 1000 years from now? So to me, pigeonholing what is or isn't an avant-garde film just doesn't seem necessary at all. Then again, I'm not a particularly organized person, so maybe this is just a reflection of my personality (also, to be clear, I'm not against categorizing things - obviously practical physical objects like nails and tires need to be categorized for anything to be built or function. I was more specifically referring to art).
I do however really like point #6, that a central message is not required for experimental film. I personally am someone who always has rolled their eyes at people trying to deeply interpret film and literature, at least when they declare one of these interpretations as being final or fully accurate. I believe all art is completely subjective - even if the artist had multiple meanings behind every frame, someone else could interpret and resonate with his work on an entirely different level, and I believe each interpretation is equally valid. The encouragement of ambiguity within experimental film is something that draws me to it greatly.
To sum up everything I said: I think labeling different types of art is an exercise in futility, and I don't like forcing meanings or interpretations on other people, as I believe all art is completely subjective.
For example, assuming humans live for at least another thousand years and manage to avoid reverting to Dark Age era technology, we will have another 900 years of film history that will unfold. To someone from the year 2756, the various sub categories of films within the 20th century will seem silly, as to them it will most likely all fall under the same broad brush of "ancient films." I'm not saying they will be unable to distinguish an experimental film from this century with a Hollywood blockbuster, but there are most likely similarities between every movie made up until now that we simply can't see. If film styles and genres continue to evolve over the 21st century at the pace that they did during the 20th, imagine what categories and genres will exist 400, 600, 1000 years from now? So to me, pigeonholing what is or isn't an avant-garde film just doesn't seem necessary at all. Then again, I'm not a particularly organized person, so maybe this is just a reflection of my personality (also, to be clear, I'm not against categorizing things - obviously practical physical objects like nails and tires need to be categorized for anything to be built or function. I was more specifically referring to art).
I do however really like point #6, that a central message is not required for experimental film. I personally am someone who always has rolled their eyes at people trying to deeply interpret film and literature, at least when they declare one of these interpretations as being final or fully accurate. I believe all art is completely subjective - even if the artist had multiple meanings behind every frame, someone else could interpret and resonate with his work on an entirely different level, and I believe each interpretation is equally valid. The encouragement of ambiguity within experimental film is something that draws me to it greatly.
To sum up everything I said: I think labeling different types of art is an exercise in futility, and I don't like forcing meanings or interpretations on other people, as I believe all art is completely subjective.
I like this concept of "ancient films"
ReplyDelete