@
Puffy
I read a bit about and watched the film after reading your post and have an interesting analysis that I'm still mentally sorting and organizing.
I'd be very interested in reading your own analysis if you feel so inclined.
As far as your feelings regarding the topic, I both agree and disagree. I myself am fanatical about narrative structure and interpretation, both literature and film, but I cannot be expected to have seen every influential piece of work. I had not come across or heard of this piece until now.
I took a film appreciation class also which covered historical and artistic works such as
Un Chien Andalou (my memory is a bit hazy; I think we saw parts of but not the entire piece), but it's not realistic to cover everything throughout the history of film, so I wouldn't be so surprised that others were not aware of the film.
As far as art goes, I consider anything constructed to be art in a literal interpretation of the word and its derivatives of artifice, artifact, and artificial. I interpret distinctions of 'not art' to be referring to either particular subsets of art, i.e. crafts and designs, or subjective tastes of 'bad' art rather than 'good' art. So, even if I acknowledge something as being artistic doesn't mean I think it's good.
E.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_christ
It makes a statement, but it's a superficial statement. It is bad art.
We can reference the work of Marcel Duchamp when he challenged the definition of 'art' by introducing a urinal fountain and turning urine into a symbol for our interpretations. So too does this artist challenge the audience into reflecting on his artwork, but Marchel Duchamp's work had historical context. This other work is derivative and has nothing new to reflect upon except the appropriation of Christ (a powerful symbol). It appropriates Christ and Duchamp and adds nothing of its own except shock value. It is lazy and has little merit. It is merely a reflection of itself.
With the film you mentioned,
Meshes of the Afternoon, the context of suicide also imparts this self-destructive motif onto its interpretation. Meaning is difficult to establish (strongly), because it is purposefully deconstructive as part of its suicidal theme. I can understand why few people would be unable or find it very difficult to make much meaning in its surrealistic presentation. It's difficult because understanding suicide is difficult (if not impossible).
I'd like to discuss it further with you though, if you would be interested.
@
Matt3737
I'm glad you enjoyed the film. I sort of selected the avatar for personal reasons, rather than for having a strong grasp of the film though. When I was a small child - I don't know how as none of my family remember watching them - I was exposed to the surrealist films
Meshes of the Afternoon and
Fantastic Planet, even though I don't remember the experience of watching them. Images from them stuck with me (which I assumed were from my dreams and so had interpreted personally) which when I rediscovered them as an adult had an uncanny, moving effect on me.
I could PM you about Deren's film, interpretation wise, if you like; will need to re-watch it first with your interpretation in mind, which sounds pretty interesting.
I agree art-wise, which is why I said in the op that I wouldn't want to demarcate what is art and what is not art. Though I understand the op has elitist presumptions to it, which is something I get frustrated with myself over and at the same time am not sure I can entirely help. On the one hand aesthetic's relative and who am I (or anyone) to impose tastes on other people? I use the term 'critical engagement' as I feel art's in attitude as well as the thing itself. I frequently walk recreationally and I consider that a creative exercise, even though it's typically seen as banal. I feel in art there's an emphasis on the reader as much as the artist. If you watch
Taken 2 with a critical eye, whose to say it's not an artful experience?
On the other, I think it's important if you're a student of an artistic medium, to at least be given the opportunity to experience its formal and most innovative masters. If film departments aren't doing that, then there are very few places someone might encounter them (as Cavallier implied too). You're right, if it was just that one film they hadn't seen it would be a harsh judgement of me, as that film might just not be in fashion, etc. It's more that it seemed to affirm what the lecturer said, that avant-garde cinema itself is out of fashion, and it seemed a shame.
In a sense these two paragraphs represent a conflict in my head, as I'm not sure they're reconcilable.
But for the purposes of this thread, I think experimental films are more likely to utilise self-reflexive strategies that demand the viewer to critically interpret what they're seeing. I just wondered how many viewers do this naturally. As Cavallier implied as well, my experience is not very many.
@
snafupants Are you being deliberately ironic? Most of the texts I've seen you cite are a part of the canon's.
@
Cavallier Yeah, that's something I guess I've always taken for granted. Most of my film viewing is online, so, except for the
really rare films, accessibility has never been a problem for me (all the films I've cited are on youtube, for example). Maybe the increase in blogs dedicated to certain films, or reviewing online, would be a cool way of bringing attention to them, as you can basically leave a youtube link to a film in the message.
My impression is that the question of film's cultural value was once more active, and that it has been largely abandoned to focus more on the culture industry (which makes sense, it's only a minority of people who view films outside it and so they have less cultural impact). Like any new medium, a canon is established (rightly or wrongly) to point to its artistic value, so I think in the early days (film studies began in the 1970s?) they were more predominantly engaged with. I'm sure accessibility plays into it, popular film is more accessible to viewers, more viewers see them, they become more significant. The focus on popular film seems reasonable, I just don't think Art Film should be abandoned because of it. My experience is similar to yours, with few people engaging with film critically, and I think (given the omnipresence of images, moving or still, in our culture) this is something important to teach, and something that Art Films generally attempt to facilitate.
I hope, as you say, accessibility will increase interest. My gut feeling is that this is more a part of a zeitgeist shift though.
