Artist Television Acess

Artist Television Access is an organization that began in the 80’s in San Francisco. The goal of the organization is to provide the public the use of equipment, education and, most important to our class, a place for showing independent films. While not at all limited to avant-garde they seem to offer a wide array of film options. Every Sunday at midnight a film series airs on San Francisco television, hence the organizations name. One series of particular note is the CINEMAWHORE! a series in which films about prostitutes are shown. However, what concerns us is the avant-garde cinema they have to offer.

Here are some of the more intriguing ones.

Sileon Daley: an animator of the avant-garde set
"The Pink! The Pink!:" 1 min, 16mm film, painted animation
In the process of dying a jacket pink I accidentally turned my entire house pink!
"Iets op Filmen" (Something on Film): 6 min, 16mm film, in beginner Dutch with English subtitles
Live action and experimental animation. A vision from a bottle of spilt soy milk inspires Janneke to create something on film. Music by Ian McGettigan (Thrush Hermit).

Amy Lockhart: Also an animator, anyone notice my bias?
"The Devil Lives in Hollywood" by Amy Lockhart: 2 min, 16mm experimental animation
Floating images of ice cream and crippled supermen, narrated with a perfectly confident solitary voice

All of these films are a part of a series of vegan inspired films. I found them to be the most interesting.

I would have chosen a few more but most the films they show come without a description and since this organization shows some independent film that is truly independent it is hard to gather much information.

Capturing Personal Reality (FEB 16th)

So funny story; I wrote last week’s journal entry and turned it in. And I don’t see it and I can’t find it on my computer. So its looks like I will be writing that today or tomorrow too. Other funny story all the rest of my classes are in Spanish and while I wasn’t thinking about it I accidentally wrote this entire entry in Spanish so the following is all a translation, because I am apparently a crazy person.

Well the difference between a film dairy and written diary would seem to be fairly obvious. A film dairy is a dairy that is filmed and a written diary is a diary that is written. I understand that there is lot a more to it than that, but the things that Mekas describes all seem to be common sense. Common sense I suppose if film is an important part of your life. Mekas makes mention of the idea that a written diary is an objective observation of your personal reality from the day to day, while a film diary allows us to experience things as they occur. However, as we all know, the camera changes everything.

With the presence of the camera the thing being observed changes. There is something about film, moving or otherwise that makes us want to pose, smile in a particular way or talk in a particular way. At first Mekas believed that it was possible to film an objective reality, but of course his New York was different from other people’s versions of New York. When I went to London a few months ago I feel madly in love with the city. It seemed prefect. Old fashioned street corners side by side with all the best in modern convenience. Trafalgar Square side by side with a corner where five cinemas stand together and where it seemed every film in the world was playing. I saw Across the Universe there. Yet to my friend London was dirty. There where too many people and the food was nasty. That is how it was for Mekas I suppose, seeing his reality reflected helped him discover his own ideas about things. I think that it is better that we all see things in a different way. Forgive the clichés, but is sure is swell that we are all different, eh?

Mekas says the best manner for filming a film diary is by not allowing professional techniques to get in the way of the reality of what is being filmed. Even things as simple as cleaning the lenses should be avoided for the realness to be preserved.

One other thought. Does anyone else find it difficult to read Paul Arthur’s book? I don’t mean in that is difficult to understand, but that it is written in such a way that it is very hard to focus on it. I loved his introduction about his passion for film and how he came to know Avant-grade cinema. However when he talks about Mekas I just couldn’t focus. I hope that with further reading he returns to his less dull style. Mekas on the other hand was actually a good read I would say.

¡Hasta luego amigos!

Niether Fish Nor Foul

Re-visit Banes's discussion of “Scorpio Rising” and Greenberg's distinction between avant-garde and kitsch (p. 104-105). Why does she argue that the film is "neither fish nor fowl," meaning somewhere in-between avant-garde and kitsch?

First it is important to make note of what exactly Greenburg says the difference between avant-garde and kitsch actually is.
According to Greenburg Avant-garde is the elitist high art of the educated person. To Greenburg only the avant-garde can serve as a means for moving culture forward. It is the living testament to the expression "art for art's sake."
Kitsch, which literally means garbage, is the art of the people. The art that everyone can understand, but does nothing for society, except promote a "culture of consumption." To Greenburg kitsch is the dark hole sucking out the souls of the avant-grade artist, while posing, like Beelzebub himself, in disguise as high art.
However, Banes argues, citing Kenneth Anger's "Scorpio Rising” that kitsch and avant-garde can happily coexist. While "Scorpio Rising" is full of iconic images of pop culture, these images help to create a truly avant-grade statement about rebellion and many other issues. By saying that "Scorpio Rising" is neither "fish nor foul" Banes is saying that the film can not be as clearly defined as Greenburg would argue.
Banes further mentions that the film has no linear form, yet at same time utilizes many pop culture songs. And even though the images themselves represent the masses, the abstraction (specifically the difficulty in understanding) highly valued by the avant-garde artist, is still present

Four Aspects of Freedom

On p. 168, Banes outlines four aspects of freedom advocated by Jonas Mekas in his writings on underground film in the Village Voice. What were those four aspects of freedom, and what obstacles did filmmakers face when attempting to pursue them?

1. Alternate Sexuality- This aspect of freedom can be easily seen in "Flaming Creatures," a film with rape, homosexuality and full frontal nudity. Many people attempting show the film where meet with contempt and some people were even arrested.

2. Low Budgets- Without the worry of money or the appeasement of financers, artists could have freedom of expression. Clearly making film on a small budget is an obstacle in and off itself. Also finding an audience for films with little to no budget is also difficult.

3. Women Directors- With the advent of women directors as prominent players in the underground film movement the traditional idea of masculine gaze in cinema could be altered to show a unique perspective. Women in the underground film world, were, like many other businesses not the prominent players and so it was difficult, even in a very liberal art world for the voices of women film makers to be heard.

4. Liberation of Cinematic Techniques - Simply put, the freedom of the artist is more important than the uses of traditional cinematic dogma. This is hard to do when the ideas of cinematic techniques are so ingrained in the minds of film makers and spectators.

Personally I can't help but note the irony that comes from advocating freedom by helping someone define freedom.