What have been the major critiques of the "academicization" of the American avant-garde film? Give your own response to these critiques in relation to the films and readings from our class.
There seem to be many specific criticisms on the “academicization” of American avant-garde. However the prevailing sentiment seems to more a subject of nostalgia. After all, avant-garde cinema is about stepping outside the normal means, about leaving narrative structures behind and in many cases, the democratization of art. If these types of cinema exist within the world of the academic then the films give up a piece of their very essence. However, as the writer of this article notes more than once, it is the academy that has held the community of the avant-garde together and academy for which the future of avant-garde will rest. Let’s take a look the some the more specific criticism made mention of in the article.
Cannon Formation: This problem is one I understand and can relate to. The writer writes than only certain filmmakers, like Andy Warhol, get mentioned while others are left out. He mentions how in the process of canonization many important things are left out, such as the contribution of women. In my personal opinion, even in the study of the main stream cinema many important figures of cinema are set aside so that we may closer study something else. For example, if I watch Citizen Kane or anything else in the oeuvre of Orson Wells again I may spontaneously combust.
Freedom of Expression: Does a university setting limit the artistic freedom of those who would wish to study, to teach or create controversial anti-establishment art? Those who criticize this method of academicization would say so. I, a student who recently watched defecation on screen, would have to disagree.
Political Irrelevance: This is bit confusing to me. Basically the criticism is that the academy will over politicize a film and thus render it outside of its original aesthetic intentions. In other words by making the films into something they are not it makes them unapproachable and maybe artless. But as the writer points out many of the films simply aren’t approachable and make little to no sense to even the trained viewer, without a bit of academic and critical help in the explanation of their very existence.
In relation to this class I can not help but note that the very existence of this class is contradictory to many of the artists and critics in the avant-grade movement. However, at the same time I would never have considered or bothered to learn about much of the film we have watched in this class without the class. I might even brush them off as flawed attempts for shock value or narrative homicide, but with scholarly observation the true meaning of many of the films can be found.
To sum the articles up and my agreement with them is one simple phrase my grandfather uses every day; “Don’t bite that hand that feeds you.” Without the academy I am not sure avant-garde could sustain itself. Yes, sometimes the real world forces avant-garde film makers to bend their moral limits and accept some kinds of government funds, or worse, the impute of the evil corporation, but this is sadly enough, just the nature of the beast.
No comments:
Post a Comment