[Frameworks] Response to Gene Youngblood

Tue Mar 31 18:41:30 UTC 2015

Saying that a film makes students want to commit suicide isn't a critique,
its an offensive derogatory statement, which is directed not just towards
the filmmaker, but towards her students especially.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:27 PM Dave Tetzlaff <djtet53 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Chill out, people!
>
> This is a Listserv. People write short posts quickly, and hit 'Send'.
> "Rhetorical excess" comes with the territory as we dash off our thoughts
> w/o reflecting deeply about whether our wording will read to others with
> the meanings they had for us when they popped into our heads.
>
> I took Sasha's OP as meant to advocate for films that have a sort of
> perspective not-yet presented in the thread -- works one perhaps could call
> more 'post-modern' engagements with culture and identity. I took the crack
> about Wavelength as essentially tangential and polemic -- an observation
> that many contemporary students are not much engaged with the aesthetic
> concerns of that work. It's not clear whether Sasha's pique was directed at
> Wavelength specifically or 'mid-century High modernism' in general -- i.e.
> maybe all 'structural film' and/or Brakhage abstractions etc.?? Regardless,
> intentionally or not, her language was destined to stir the pot, make some
> folks feel poked with a stick, and fire off testy replies.
>
> No film is beyond criticism, including observations that whatever it's
> merits for other situations, it's a poor choice for a given programmer or
> teacher's goals in addressing the specific audiences they have at hand.
> Sasha's snark was phrased as too universal: seeming to suggest Wavelength
> is no longer any good to ANY group of "curious, excited young artists".
> But, indeed, I'm sure there ARE groups of "curious, excited young artists"
> without a background in cinema who would find Wavelength alienating, at
> least initially, and it's perfectly valid to pass on that film for an
> introduction to experimental film in favor of something more immediately
> engaging to the group at hand.
>
> As Gene so pungently observed, the problem starts with the absurdity of
> Donal's original query. First, the "3 films" concept makes no sense, since
> experimental films range in length from a few minutes to several hours. (My
> gag 3: Star Spangled to Death, Sleep, The Extravagent Shadows... no
> intermissions or bathroom breaks!) Second, "essential" is just silly and
> off-point. Unlike Hollywood films directed at mass audiences and respecting
> a common set of conventions, experimental works are often very personal,
> and incredibly varied in form and content. Thus, what works are and aren't
> "essential" is not remotely universal, but conditional and contingent on
> "for whom?" and "for what purpose?" Third, this variety and specificity
> means trying to crowd-source a list of '3 essentials' is utter folly, that
> can only lead to unproductive arguments if people play along.
>
> In the thread OP, Donal didn't tell us anything about his own approach to
> "the realm of the moving image" or what kinds of art practices and
> aesthetics the folks attending the workshops will be "coming from". For all
> we know, the attendees could all be middle-aged ceramicists or landscape
> painters. Ultimately, he needs to pick works that speak to him in some way
> he thinks will enable him to use them to engage 'noobs'. So it is with any
> instance of programming films. The work must 'fit' the programmer, the
> audience, and the purpose.
>
> Given the lack of info in the query, responses have (as one would expect)
> presumed teaching or exhibition situations with which the posters are
> familiar: Andy and Gene spoke of their students; Sasha referred to YOUNG
> ARTISTS. But I read the OP as posing an audience of experienced working
> artists who presumably already have some sort of aesthetic perspective,
> rather than the sort of student population that would sign up for a studies
> course in experimental film.
>
> Just as there is no universal "3 essential films", there is more than one
> valid pedagogical approach to introducing noobs to experimental cinema.
> Sometimes you want to ease folks in, showing work that has some familiar
> elements. Meshes is probably the most widely used introduction to
> experimental work, and over the decades so many of its elements have been
> incorporated into pop culture (advertising, music video, etc.), and it's
> subject matter (angst at gender roles and domesticity) is so enduring, that
> it offers a variety of access points. That works. But for some groups being
> introduced to experimental work, what I call 'deep end of the pool
> pedagogy' can work as well or better — tossing the initiates into the
> strangest water possible w/o a life-jacket, then tossing a safety line into
> the trashing if it's not getting anywhere...
>
> Andy and Gene speak of student appreciation of Wavelength, but under what
> conditions? What courses have they taken before? Is Wavelength the FIRST
> screening on the syllabus? Sasha's put-down seemed to me to posit
> Wavelength as a poor choice for point-of-entry, not something not worth
> screening at all, and I totally understand that. When I first taught
> 'experimental' I screened it about half-way through the term, but found the
> 'bang' too minimal for the screening time, and concluded any pedagogical
> purpose I had for showing it was better served by something else. (E.g. I
> kept <-->. A practical issue with Wavelength: depending on the sound system
> and the volume settings, that audio wave CAN be a form of physical torture,
> and we don't all have the kind of control of screening situations we'd
> like.)
>
> Gene overstates, or perhaps just lacks clarity, in his response to Sasha.
> I'd agree that anyone teaching experimental film at the college level
> should be able to present Wavelength in a way that activates student
> "excitement and curiosity." But that's a far cry from saying that film will
> engage those qualities in and of itself for any and all initiates w/o
> proper introduction and framing, and farther still from making a case
> Wavelength is among the best choices for an introduction in any given
> setting. I know Sasha just a little bit from various conferences
> back-in-the-day, and I'm quite confident she could teach Wavelength well if
> someone tssked her to do so. I do understand how Gene would read Sasha's
> off-hand jibe as 'Wavelength is so anachronistic, no one can make any good
> use of it now with young people.' And if that's what she meant to say, and
> seriously so... well, yeah, that would be pretty darn lame. But if we read
> Listserv posts with charity, we might just take her point as '_I_ find a
> lot of newer work more compelling than Wavelength, and so do the students
> who wind up in my classes, so it doesn't work well as an introduction FOR
> US, and i have a lot of choices that works a lot better for our situation.'
> That's not laziness, cowardice, or betrayal. We have no idea how
> challenging Sashs's students find It Wasn't Love, November, or A Little
> Death to be, or in what ways, or how that sets up the rest of her course. I
> don't know any of those pieces myself, and they're certainly not canon, so
> Sasha may have come to them via diligent searching, loyalty to the ongoing
> energy of avant-garde works, and courage in programming beyond the usual
> suspects.
>
> None of us are in a position to judge her harshly for her choices, or for
> her opinion of Wavelength. But she's not in a position to assert Wavelength
> is useless to other teaching situations. And I think both Sasha and Gene
> know that perfectly well (they're both smart and know their stuff), and
> this little kerfuffle would never occur in actual conversation, because
> neither party really meant their words in the way they've been read.
>
> So how about EVERYBODY apologize for anything that may have been taken as
> a personal attack, or an over-reaching universal claim, and we try to make
> something actually USEFUL out of this sorry-ass thread? Sashs's post had
> some vague abbreviated points about why she finds the films she listed to
> be useful introductions, and the posts on Wavelength make moves in a
> similar direction. How 'bout we expand on that?
>
> Thus, suggested discussion topic:
> • Define an at least modestly specific audience of experimental film
> beginners: background (age, experience, culture), interest in the subject,
> ('makers'? 'scholars'? both?) and an at least modestly specific setting
> (semester course? 3-day workshop? single presentation?
> • Tell us what you would show this group as their FIRST experimental film
> viewing experience. TRT not to exceed 60 minutes. (A single major work, a
> program of related shorts - e.g. 'The films of Maya Deren', or a diverse
> program of shorts.)
> • Explain how the choice fits your passions, the group's interests and
> tendencies, and the situation. What pedagogical values you find in the
> work(s) you've chosen.
>
> (I'd start, but i'm already late to an appt.!!)
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20150331/b29da4f0/attachment.html>