Minor Cinemas,
ArtistsÕ Film and Video: Books by David James and David Curtis
Lucy Reynolds
Approaching David James and David CurtisÕ ambitious
and thorough accounts of American and British histories of artistsÕ, or minor
cinema, I found my thoughts returning to a panel that I had attended at the
2007 Society of Cinema and Media Studies conference in Philadelphia, entitled Collection
and Canon: Affirmative Historiographies of International Experimental Film. The speakers
addressed the notion of the canon, questioning whether it had, in the past,
misrepresented the multiple and fragmented histories that contribute to the
story of experimental filmmaking, and asking whether a canonical methodology
was still useful. For example, Michael ZrydÕs paper opened the discussion with
what he saw as a central dilemma when writing about avant-garde film: Ôhow to construct an experimental film canon that represents
its provocative energies without killing it dead.Õ[1]
Along with his fellow panelists,[2] Zryd
raised a contradiction particular to histories of experimental film. In a
desire to remain outside of categorization, many artists reject the
canonization of their works, arguably favoring a marginalized or outsider
status. But at the same time, many seek some form of recognition.
Complicating this process is the fact that many of their chroniclers are wholly
embedded within the systems that uphold the experimental
film community. A community in which, as he observes, Ôthere are often
conflicts of interest as the same person might be an artist, programmer,
employee at a co-op, jurist for an arts council and/or grants officer.Õ[3] In
terms of access to funding, screenings and other practical support systems for
artists, it could be argued that this complicit position translates into a
system of preference that has often meant visibility for some at the expense of
others. It also suggests that the small scale operation of much artistsÕ film/minor
cinema, whether at the point of funding or reception, results in relatively few
voices of dissemination, or dissention, making the threat of canonic orthodoxy
a pressing one.
The necessarily selective nature of
creating canons – what Zryd terms a dangerously Ôsubjective and
arbitraryÕ process - has been further complicated in recent times by a new
interest in experimental and avant-garde film from the art world and art
market. This attention has had both negative and positive effects on the canonization
of artistsÕ film and video, as well as on the academic community that has
traditionally documented and researched it. In the art world, as in the
experimental film community, the cycles of exhibition and review
required for the canonization of individual artists and their works are
dependent on institutional validation, here through particular exhibitions,
screenings and the catalog essay. This process of validation has been
spearheaded in the US by the work of Chrissie Iles, beginning with her 2001/2
Whitney exhibition Into the Light: The Projected Image in American Art 1964
- 1977 and in Europe and the UK by curator Mark Webber,
through initiatives such as the LUX traveling exhibition Shoot Shoot Shoot:
The First Decade of the London FilmmakersÕ Co-operative and British Avant-garde
Film 1966-1976. This program reintroduced the Structural
experiments of the London Filmmakers Co-Operative to an international audience.
Still, while the success of curatorial projects such as Shoot Shoot Shoot and Into
the Light may have been instrumental in reawakening audiences to
the work of experimental filmmakers who have slipped outside the canon of art,
or the walls of the museum, it could be argued that this new interest from the
art institution, and latterly the art market, has introduced an additional
canon, one which could be accused of being reductionist, obfuscatory, badly
researched and unaware of the breadth of a history of artistsÕ film and video
that has spanned a century. Zryd has accused many curators of Ôa lack of
historical and aesthetic understanding of the medium,Õ which he believes leads
them to produce texts that ignore the tradition of experimental film and media,
in addition to denying artistsÕ filmÕs present. Zryd cites curator Marco
Mueller who looks back on artistsÕ film and video as Òa phase weÕve
already passed through.Ó [4]
Mueller, and those like him, stand accused of not consulting the canons already
laid down.
This judgment brings me back to the recent
publications of David Curtis and David James. Both books betray an urgency to
set the record, or rather the canon, straight. Indeed, in his introduction,
David Curtis passionately argues that Ôthe art worldÕs frequent assumption that
the only significant film and video artists are those who design their work for
the gallery and sell them in limited editions has distorted many national
collections and is indefensible in terms of what it leaves out.Õ[5]
CurtisÕ words suggest that the art worldÕs current myopia to the broad, and
long-established, history of artistsÕ film had helped provide the impetus for
his book. As more artists direct their gaze towards the gallery as the most
viable option for the visibility and funding of moving image work, providing a
context for their work has never been more important. This aesthetic and
historical contextualization is important not only to prevent the reductionist
views and omissions feared by academics but to present a history of ideas
that still has currency.
Returning to ZrydÕs dilemma of not
Ôkilling it dead,Õ revisions of the canon need to be relevant to an emerging
generation of filmmakers and scholars. Because as a history and an ongoing
practice, the strategies, concerns and engagements of past experimental
filmmakers have much to tell us about the current situation for artistsÕ film.
Just as Laura MulveyÕs book Death 24x per Second and
Rosalind KraussÕ A Voyage on the North Sea: Art in the Age of the
Post-Medium Condition would seem to be motivated by the slow
death of the film gauge and the analog age, so I am grateful to the
occasionally heavy-handed assessments of the wider art world for encouraging
experimental film academics to question, and claim ownership of the canon
again.
Of course, this is not the only reason
that scholars such as Curtis, James and most recently P. Adams Sitney, have
presented re-assessments of the experimental film canon. They are all
responsible for shaping its histories across the latter part of the twentieth
century, as chroniclers, teachers, curators, and in the case of Curtis, as a
sponsor for many years in his role at the Arts Council. And it should also be
noted that their new books are reassessments, and even rejoinders, to their own
influential canons. Curtis was one of the first British writers[6] to
attempt a history of experimental film with his 1971 book Experimental
Cinema, and JamesÕ Allegories of Cinema
(1989) is widely acknowledged as the accepted post-Visionary Film text
(book) on American experimental cinema. Thus it would seem inevitable that
personal history is intimately enfolded into these recent accounts, and it does
open the books to the question of complicity raised earlier. Curtis and James
are in a contradictory position: they perceived as among the best qualified to
approach a history of artistsÕ film/minor cinema through their proven
experience and authority in the area, but it is this very authority which may
also prevent them from bringing new insights and fresh perspective to
scholarship in the area.
Certainly CurtisÕ book could be seen as a
consolidation and continuation of what he began with Experimental Cinema, but
now focused on a British perspective. When writing that first book in 1971,
Curtis could not have known the extent to which a vigorous and distinctly
British experimental film culture would assert itself in the intervening years.
Indeed Experimental Cinema shows how deeply Britain was in thrall to
American underground cinema, with much of CurtisÕ focus being on that dominant
movement. With the hindsight of nearly four decades, A History of ArtistsÕ
Film and Video in Britain addresses a much broader sphere of
activity and, if anything, could be accused of trying to compress into one
volume the several books that need to be written on British artistsÕ film
culture. CurtisÕ book takes an ambitious approach, seeking to encompass the
many diverse developments and impulses of British artistsÕ cinema across a
century of production, emphasizing contexts, influences and structures, rather
than more in-depth accounts of specific periods.
Eschewing a purely chronological canon,
Curtis divides his book into two distinct parts, one of which provides a
welcome focus on the institutional structures underpinning the development of
artistsÕ cinema, and the other focusing on artist movements and practices. The
former section exemplifies how CurtisÕ status as privileged insider offers not
bias but insight, clearly mapping the complexities of funding patterns, the
figures and decisions that influence them, and their wider agency on film and
video practice. While previous research and books[7] may
have set this area out in more detail, A History of ArtistsÕ Film and Video
in Britain provides a useful and timely schema for the
uninitiated into the influence of funding and institutions on artistsÕ film,
guiding the reader through its labyrinthine twists and turns and introducing
key protagonists and determining factors. He charts the development and demise
of support systems from The Telecinema, which produced curiosities such as
Norman McLarenÕs 3D film Around is Around for
the Festival of Britain in 1951, to the BFI production board, the emergence of
the Arts Council as one of the most consistent supporters of film as art, as
well as discussing the short-lived support from television in the form of
Channel 4 commissions in the 1980s and early 1990s.
As public funding streams for film art in
Britain are reduced to a trickle, CurtisÕ survey of changing sponsors and
institutions also provides a useful context for the current situation, although
the implicit refrain is unchanging: that artists must remain reliant on their
own resources and initiative as funding support and interest from institutions
have proven to come and go. Particularly fascinating in this regard is CurtisÕ
account of the early part of the Twentieth Century, drawing together the
disparate strands of activity that constituted the beginnings of a British
experimental film culture, from the first screenings of Battleship Potemkin by
the London Film Society in the 1920s to John GriersonÕs GPO film unit, and the
commitment to writing on film by the poets and artists who contributed to Close
Up magazine. At a time when institutional support of any kind was
negligible, Curtis plots a history of an intellectual and artistic community
keen to explore and discuss the potentials of a new medium. What is revealed is
an unexpected internationalism, showing British film artists equally engaged in
the concerns of early modernism and politics as their European counterparts,
with much cross-fertilization and communication through festivals, such as La
Sarraz (1929), and the visits of luminaries like Sergei Eisenstein and L‡szl—
Moholy-Nagy.
Because there is a relative lack of
writing about this period outside of specialized research journals, the lost or
forgotten films that Curtis describes make fascinating reading, often
tantalizingly accompanied by stills and images; what of Oswell BlakestonÕs 1931
photogram patterns made with a nutmeg grater, for example?
Blakeston is discussed in a section
entitled ÔAbstraction,Õ one of the thematic sections making up the latter part
of CurtisÕ book, addressing the question of the canon by asserting a vertical
thematic approach rather than a more linear history. This thematic approach
relates to a previous curatorial project at Tate Britain for which Curtis
produced discreet film programs, mingling traditional art historical terms,
such as the portrait, landscape or still life, with more open-ended headings,
such as work or politics.[8]
Reprised as a written history, CurtisÕ thematic strategy allows him to
delineate a century of artist filmmaking in broad sweeps, drawing parallels
between pioneers and recent artists and giving shape and purpose to many
disparate practitioners and movements. However, while this theme-based structure
effectively draws together the diverse strands of British artist filmmaking, it
inevitably poses problems of interpretation and analysis. What of those artists
who might equally fulfill thematic criteria across several sections? Does this
approach misrepresent the nature of their work, and prevent other potentially
illuminating readings? Might it perhaps offer fruitful comparison to place the
later abstract films and expanded cinema of Malcolm Le Grice or Gill Eatherley
alongside Blakestone, rather than solely under a separate heading of ÔFilm as
FilmÕ?
David JamesÕ book The Most Typical
Avant-Garde: History and Geography of Minor Cinema in Los Angeles is a
most original addition to the canon due to his use of a spatial model; his
focus draws solely on the geography of Los Angeles to reveal an active and
diverse filmmaking community existing in the shadow of HollywoodÕs dominant
industry. Setting LAÕs minor cinema in relation to the behemoth of Hollywood
helps James define his history; Hollywood provides the counterpoint and
oppositional measure against which the Ôminor cinemasÕ he explores can be
examined. While this oppositional binary is in keeping with the avant-gardeÕs
somewhat romantic image of its own alternative, marginal status in relation to
Hollywood, it is also a compelling strategy with which to examine the
confluences and convergence of the two poles – yielding new insights into
both.
While Curtis navigates the questions of canon through
a vertical thematic approach, JamesÕ book can be seen as one of the first
canonic readings of alternative cinema to be explored through geography. JamesÕ LA focus allows him
to make meticulous interpretative analysis of a wide range of filmmakers and
movements, from fine artists such as Jack Goldstein or John Baldessari to the
short-lived black filmmaking initiative at UCLA, which produced filmmakers such
as Charles Burnett, and later Julie Dash. The Most Typical Avant-Garde navigates LAÕs rich, sedimented cinematic history through a
combination of chronology and thematic categories, the concerns particular to
periods of history are thus drawn out in chapters such as ÔAn Impossible
Avant-Garde: Working-Class Cinema in Los Angeles,Õ which focuses pre-war
working class films, and finally ÔDocumenting Southern California: Structural
Film and Landscape,Õ which addresses the excavation of LAÕs forgotten and
suppressed political histories through the textures of the landscape and cinema
itself in the work of Thom Andersen and James Benning. Like A History of
ArtistsÕ Film and Video in Britain, this
thematic approach does result in some compression, most prevalent in around the
subject of gender and race. Specific chapters in both books can give the
impression that discrimination and the fight against racism and sexism is
something only addressed during the Ôidentity politicsÕ of 1970s (James) and
Ôpolitics and identityÕ in the 1980/90s (Curtis). This lack of diversity is
tempered in The Most Typical Avant-Garde as
a result of its focus on such an ethnically mixed metropolis, which allows
James to examine in some detail films and filmmakers who might otherwise have
been passed over, and have in the past been omitted from the canons of
documentary or avant-garde cinema. Reading The Most Typical Avant-Garde encouraged me to attend a screening of The Exiles, Kent MacKenzieÕs fascinating 1961 portrait of the Native
American community of LAÕs Bunker Hill district. In this way, JamesÕ book has
the makings of a valuable rehabilitation project, bringing back into the light
forgotten films and figures for renewed consideration. It could be argued that
the interest in The Exiles, created by
JamesÕ book, resulted in a new print of the film, which had not been shown
since its inaugural screenings.
I was also struck by JamesÕ descriptions
of the lively and inventive filmmaking of Haile Gerima, for example, the Asco
groupÕs subversive No-Movies performances,[9] or
the committed political filmmaking of Salt of the Earth
(1949).[10]
Indeed, the last film provides one of several shocking examples of Hollywood
censorship and sabotage, as it was effectively black-listed and suppressed for
its socialist politics and sympathetic portrayal of Mexican workers. The
revelations of HollywoodÕs deplorable behavior in the case of Salt of the
Earth raises profound questions about the dominance of
commercial cinema and its control over the marginal status of other filmmaking
ventures. How should one acknowledge and appreciate the innovations and creativity
within Hollywood, when its attempts to thwart any other cinematic form, for
both commercial and political reasons, were so deplorable?
One of the recurring themes that echo
throughout The Most Typical Avant-Garde is the impossibility of
minor cinemas to escape from the influence and control of Hollywood. This power
of influence appears to also be true for David James, himself, as he struggles
to assimilate and understand his position as a scholar of minor cinema in
relation to cinemaÕs industrial contexts. Throughout the book, JamesÕ position
remains conflicted, sometimes displaying an admiration for aspects of Hollywood
cinema, while at the same time rightly denigrating some of its practices. On
one level, this ambivalence prevents JamesÕ book from descending into
reductionist polemics at the expense of considered and objective scholarship.
Yet more intriguingly, the complex and symbiotic nature of the relationship
between LA artistsÕ film culture and Hollywood that JamesÕ research
increasingly unfolds, introduces a further, more personal, narrative that runs
alongside the histories that he examines.
Thus, DerenÕs Meshes of the Afternoon (1943)
is explored in relation to the genre of Zombie films, which emerged around the
same period. James argues that DerenÕs cinema could not be so Ôprofoundly and
comprehensively important had it not been deeply rooted in popular experience
and mass culture, that is, in Hollywood,Õ[11]
going on to talk of how her primacy for the avant-garde confirms rather than
negates her relation to the film industry and the Ôconsanguinity of major and
minor cinemas.Õ[12]
Despite my reservations about JamesÕ interpretation, it could be argued that it
offers new contexts for reading a seemingly unimpeachable example of the canon.
However, are they useful ones? James puts a different emphasis on the
Ôpsycho-tranceÕ thesis that P. Adams Sitney has for so long cast over Meshes, but
he by no means discredits or dismantles it to allow DerenÕs body of work to be
viewed in other contexts, such as her connection to modernism in poetry or
dance. Examples such as this return us to the authorÕs conflicted position and
reveal the double bind of his project.
In fact, the case for the ÔconsanguinityÕ
of major and minor is at its best when expressed through the biographical case
studies that James gives of filmmakers, such as Curtis Harrington,[13] for
example, whose cross over into Hollywood from more avant-garde practices speaks
eloquently for itself. Here, HarringtonÕs experiences, both in his admiration
of Hollywood auteurs, such as Von Sternberg, and in his attempts to introduce
experimental tropes into Hollywood cinema, show some fascinating, if not always
successful, strategies for synthesis.
In a country where experimental cinema
often feels more cohesive than its industrial counterpart, David Curtis is
spared the specter of Hollywood. Indeed, as I suggested at the beginning of
this essay, the current power of the art world may be said to exert more
control than the British film industry, and exists in a similarly ambivalent
relationship to artistsÕ film as Hollywood has to experimental practices in LA.
And like The Most Typical Avant-Garde, CurtisÕ book is as
much a personal navigation, in this case of the competing and conflicting tides
of influence from art and cinema which have washed over British artistsÕ film
and video. This is no easy task and CurtisÕ conscientious attempt to be
inclusive means that at times his book includes more artists and works than it
is possible to meaningfully accommodate. The personal framing is also hard to
avoid for someone who remains such an active part of post-war experimental film
culture, and there is the sense that this book is addressed to its
participants, from a generation of London FilmmakersÕ Co-operative members to
more recent exponents, such as Cerith Wyn Evans or Tacita Dean.
The Most Typical Avant-Garde and A
History of ArtistsÕ Film and Video are both admirable attempts at
establishing alternative forms of the canon, using spatial and vertical models,
which open up new readings of familiar films and introduce the reader to
unknown or forgotten communities of filmmakers and their works. In the face of
changing funding patterns, shifting media and cultural contexts, politics and
art world omissions, both provide illuminating historical contexts for the
current conditions of minor cinema and artistsÕ moving image. However, I found
myself continually drawn back to the personal narrative glimpsed beneath the
histories both books delineate. This narrative concerns the authorÕs presence,
both in the spaces and scenarios of late twentieth century experimental
filmmaking and as a questioning implicated chronicler of its events.
Of course, it could be argued that
academic texts are always palimpsests, as the unfolding story of the writing
and the writer become overwritten, yet remain discernible, beneath the subject
material. In the canons of experimental cinema, it may be that these two texts
are more closely written and harder to untangle because the chronicle often
occupies the same temporal space as the chronicler; as friends become subject
matter and events experienced become historical evidence. Caught inevitably
between the desire for objective hindsight and their subjective experience,
both books betray this struggle and the anxiety not to descend into personal
anecdote or bias. Perhaps aware of the impossibility of this task, CurtisÕ
writing often finds more freedom in the earlier periods of emergent British
cinema before his own involvement in the events of British post-war cinema.
Whereas, despite its impressively detailed and fascinating delineation of LA
minor cinemas, The Most Typical Avant-Garde is
finally a portrait of Hollywood, and the authorÕs struggle to assimilate and
understand its complex and undeniable role in experimental film scholarship.
[1] Michael Zryd, ÒCanon Formation and Cultural Capital in North American Experimental Film,Ó SCMS conference, March 2008, p. 1.
[2] John Sundholm and Miquel Renandez Labayen presented the paper ÔQuoting and Creating History, or, Institution and Organization: Film Collections at Major European Art Museums.Õ Peter Thomas presented ÔConsecration and Categorisation: The Impact of Perspectives on UK Avant-Garde FilmÕ and Lars Andersson presented ÔAustralian Avant-garde film, the Art World and Film PerformanceÕ on behalf of Danielle Zuvela.
[3] Michael Zryd, ÒCanon Formation and Cultural Capital in North American Experimental Film,Ó SCMS conference, March 2008, p. 6.
[4] Marco Mueller quoted in Zryd, Canon Formation and Cultural Capital in North American Experimental Film, SCMS conference, March 2008, p. 2, from Collateral: When Art Looks at Cinema catalogue, ed. Adelina con Furstenberg (Milano: Charta, 2007).
[5] David Curtis, A History of Artists Film and Video in Britain (London: BFI Publishing, 2007) p. 2.
[6] The other was Steven Dwoskin, who wrote Film IsÉThe International Free Cinema, (London: Peter Owen, 1975).
[7] British Cinema: Traditions of Independence, ed. Don Macpherson is one such example, which focused on British alternative filmmaking in the 1930s.
[8] A Century of ArtistsÕ Film in Britain screened at Tate Britain between 2003/2004. See www.tate.org.uk/britain/artistsfilm/default.htm.
[9] David James, The Most Typical Avant-Garde: History and Geography of Minor Cinema in Los Angeles (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), p. 65.
[10] Ibid, p. 122.
[11] Ibid, p. 176.
[12] Ibid, p. 176.
[13] Ibid, pp. 187-193.