Video Artists

[Carl Looper]

I actually much prefer movies because there is something of an honesty about them in the sense that they are up front that they are going to lie to you for a couple of hours or something. This is nicer than documentaries and so called "reality" programmes that have the pretence that they are showing you the way things really are or something.

 

Narrative film is obviously representational I would say. This is kind of the point of it. The only obvious way to escape from this representational aspect would be to make films that are abstract. Once you have representational film then the temptation is there to tell stories with it. Once you have established a narrative then it will carry the ideology of those people making it.

I don't see a way to escape this, and in the past people have gone to great lengths to try and minimise this aspect without too much success. It's fundamental to the way it is. It's far better to be more honest and to say up front that you are going to lie to people in the way that narrative cinema and television does.

 

 

First of all, lets dispense with this idea that documentaries and so called "reality" shows have anything whatsoever to do with "reality".

 

Indeed lets dispense with the idea that any film has anything to do with "reality".

 

But by "reality" here is only meant the prevalent idea of something independant of the image otherwise created. In other words, "reality" as used here (and to be opposed here) is the idea of an "out there" which would be there regardless of whether one aimed a camera at it, (or not). Certainly it is a figure of speech to speak of the "reality" in front of the lens, or the "profilmic", as some writers might prefer.

 

But there is no such thing as this "reality" independant of the image created. What is real, however, is the image created. Not just at the level of grain or pixels but at the level of the entire composition in space, and time.

 

The image is real (in space and time) but what is not real (or less real) is that which we might entertain as having created this image, be it "reality" or an ideological structure. We assign "reality" (or ideology) to that which an image depicts, and in this way believe that the image represents (or reproduces) this "reality" or ideology. And indeed images are more than capable of reproducing ideological structures or "reality".

 

But this does not mean the image itself is ideological or "real" in the same way. The image itself is real in an entirely different way. And it is not inherently ideological. It is an apparition, or a ghost, as much as the grains or pixels into which it can be divided are equally an apparition or ghost. An "illusion" as some might call it. But calling it an illusion is to suggest that something else would not be an illusion.

 

But what exactly would that be? That's the problem.

 

 

Is it grain of the film? Or the pixels? No. The pixels are a function of the image. It is not the image which is a function of the pixels. Even in computer generated images, the pixel values are generated from an image, be it one created by means of a camera, an algorithm, or a brush in some paint program. When we select "File>New" in Photoshop we have to provide Photoshop with a kind of minimal image - or allow it to use a default image. When we close the dialogue we are presented with a minimal image, in which all the pixels are rendered with the same value. While a minimal image it is an image nevertheless.

 

How can one escape an image?

 

The simple answer is that one doesn't. But the more interesting answer is that there's no need to escape it. For the only problem with images is the idea that images are ideological, or represent some ideological structure, or worse: they represent some "reality" independant of the image.

 

While they can do this, they don't have to do this. As artists we don't have to create images that represent an ideological structure, or a "reality" independant of the image. It is simply a complete myth that images (and in particular photographic images) are inherently a representation or reproduction of something. Of what would it be a reproduction? In what way would it be any different from the image? The best answer is that the image is just part of a bigger image. The "bigger picture" as the saying goes. But a picture nevertheless.

 

Magritte will argue in one of his paintings that the pipe depicted there is not a pipe. But of all things we might want to call this pipe, the word "pipe" would hardly be the last word on such a list. More simply put: it is a pipe.

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Robin R Probyn]

Maybe he was playing with the slang needing for "pipe" in French !

[Carl Looper]

The conventional interpretation is that Magritte is suggesting the pipe is not a pipe, because it is a picture of a pipe, ie. rather than a so called "real" pipe. As if Magritte is saying something about the illusory nature of images. The problem is that a so called "real" pipe is no less an image of a pipe than Magritte's image of a pipe. To put it another way they would both be images (of a pipe).

 

Or to put it yet another way, has anyone ever seen a pipe that is not also an image of a pipe? Or felt a pipe that is not also also a tactile sensation of a pipe? Or smelt a pipe that is not also an olfactory sensation of a pipe?

 

But we can also interpret Magritte's image of a pipe as that which is not the same thing as the word "pipe". And in that sense the image is not a pipe, because it's not a word, and in particular it is not the word "pipe".

 

This may not be that which Magritte intended but it is nevertheless one way of interpreting the work against how it might be otherwise interpreted. That the distinction being made in this work (regardless of intent) is not between an image and "reality", but between an image and text.

 

Or we could elaborate this further and suggest it is the phrase "this is" which is not a pipe. It is instead the phase "this is". In other words the pipe is not to be found in the words "this is" but in the picture.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

I don't speak french but it's interesting to try google translator on a developing composition ...

 

this ce

is est

this is c'est

not ne pas

this is not ce n'est pas

a une

this is not a Ceci n'est pas un

pipe tuyau

this is not a pipe Ceci n'est pas une pipe

 

C

[Robin R Probyn]

Horrible memories of 1st year French from school..! .. pipe in French slang is a B J.. most likely not what Magritte had in mind..

 

Worst thing about French.. the male Un and the female Une.. the pipe you smoke is feminine ? and the most intimate women's part is masculine . .. very odd..

[Freya Black]

Yeah - Derek Jarman's work is a great example of narrative work that doesn't automatically mean reproduction of given socio-political norms. Love his work.

 

I love Derek Jarmans work too but I think it's rather crazy to suggest it isn't in the grip of ideology because that is the whole point of it. I've also met queer people who are not keen on Derek Jarman's stuff because it does reproduce socio-political norms. (Personally I think that's a bit unfair, I think it's fine for what it is).

Edited April 7, 2016 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

Carl, my questions weren't rhetorical like yours. I really was asking if you can name a single non-abstract narrative film that is free from ideology.

 

The example of Magritte and his pipe not being a representation of a pipe doesn't work as he is clearly keying into the idea of a pipe and writing text in contrast to that. Thus he is using a representation of a pipe.

 

I'm not arguing with the idea that the images are illusions. In fact that is the problem with it. These illusions also carry the ideology. People like Peter Gidal were trying to get away from that. I can't really see how you can in the context of non abstact narrative cinema and that you have to accept that as a given. So far you havn't explained how you can have non abstract narrative cinema without ideology, just that it is a false idea.

 

Thought without ideas. Well yes that might be possible. I have a feeling you will have a very hard time pulling it off. Perhaps through the use of meditation. I don't see how you can then translate these non-idea thoughts into a narrative film without bringing ideas into the process.

 

Tell me how it can be done?

 

The more we discuss this the more you seem to be taking Peter Gidal's position on it all!

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

One of my favorite experimental filmmakers was Derek Jarman. He did maybe 5 films that fall under "narrative feature". Dozens of shorts. His work

 

 

I would have said 10-12 but I guess it depends how you define a narrative feature!

He has done some diverse work.

 

Freya

[Carl Looper]

 

I love Derek Jarmans work too but I think it's rather crazy to suggest it isn't in the grip of ideology because that is the whole point of it. I've also met queer people who are not keen on Derek Jarman's stuff because it does reproduce socio-political norms. (Personally I think that's a bit unfair, I think it's fine for what it is).

 

His work is not automatically in the grip of ideology simply by virtue of being a narrative. The narrative can be understood as working against the ideology that is otherwise represented in the work. Of course, it may not be that successful. An audience may very well be convinced that the narrative is to be found in what a film represents.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

Carl, my questions weren't rhetorical like yours. I really was asking if you can name a single non-abstract narrative film that is free from ideology.

 

The example of Magritte and his pipe not being a representation of a pipe doesn't work as he is clearly keying into the idea of a pipe and writing text in contrast to that. Thus he is using a representation of a pipe.

 

I'm not arguing with the idea that the images are illusions. In fact that is the problem with it. These illusions also carry the ideology. People like Peter Gidal were trying to get away from that. I can't really see how you can in the context of non abstact narrative cinema and that you have to accept that as a given. So far you havn't explained how you can have non abstract narrative cinema without ideology, just that it is a false idea.

 

Thought without ideas. Well yes that might be possible. I have a feeling you will have a very hard time pulling it off. Perhaps through the use of meditation. I don't see how you can then translate these non-idea thoughts into a narrative film without bringing ideas into the process.

 

Tell me how it can be done?

 

The more we discuss this the more you seem to be taking Peter Gidal's position on it all!

 

Freya

 

Hi Freya,

 

if you follow my thread you'll see that, although you might not be arguing with the idea that images are illusions, I am. I'm literally arguing that images are not illusions.

 

Illusions operate at the level of representation. Or in the case of illusions: at the level of misrepresentation. By way of explanation, a shimmer on the horizon (an image) can be understood in terms of ideas such as reflection of light due to water, or refraction of light due to heat. But if we understand the image in terms of water, and there is no water to be found, the image itself is not in any way responsible for this. The illusion is in the idea that the image (a shimmer on the horizon) represents water.

 

But images don't operate at the level of representation. They don't inherently represent or misrepresent anything. Although they can certainly be understood and used in that way. Ideas, on the other hand, do operate at the level of representation (which includes misrepresentation).

 

Meditation is one way to defeat ideas, but why just meditation? Why not also action? For example it is action in the form of experimentation that can allow us to determine that water is not a good explanation (or good idea) for a shimmer on the horizon - or equally, that water is the explanation.

 

C

Edited April 7, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

The idea that images are illusions is an ancient idea.

 

But being an ancient idea does not invalidate the idea. It is simply to put this idea in a larger context. It is to get away from any misunderstanding that it's just some novel idea advanced by experimental film theorists.

 

There are equally ancient ideas (and equally not invalidated by their age) in which the opposite proposition is advanced: that images are not illusions. It is to this counter-history (or counter-narrative) with which I'm aligned.

 

Now certainly we can read this counter-narrative as no less ideological than the one it counters. But an aspect of this history (or this narrative) is not just a history against the ideology of images as illusions, but also against ideology. Now, it's not an attack on ideas per se, but on the centrality otherwise accorded ideas. Ideas will instead be regarded as secondary in relation to images. They will arise (so to speak) from images, and such ideas will refer us back to images, or otherwise fail to do so. In their failure we might say they become "figments of the imagination", and perhaps ideology proper. If only temporarily. In their success ideas will approach identity with an image. They will give themselves over to the image. They will kneel before it, so to speak.

 

But how to unpack the ideology of images as illusions? Its not that easy, especially when images are understood as so obviously illusory.

 

C

Edited April 7, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

Hi Freya,

 

I'm going to move away from my usual approach of avoiding personal pronouns. To give the illusion that what I'm saying has something to do with me, and the illusion that this has something to do with you.

 

I work (but by no means full time) in the "experimental film" scene, or what might be today called the "art film" scene. I'm not completely familiar with this scene as I should be but I am familiar with the art scene in which art film otherwise inter-operates. And I'm familiar with the theoretical debates around art, and particularly theory that goes under the heading of film theory, and with a particular interest in 70s film theory. I can't say I'm familiar with all the films otherwise referenced in such theory but I'm familiar with films that could be referenced by such theory. Now the thing is that I have no inclination towards working outside of the experimental film scene (in terms of film making). I have done so in the past (decades ago) but it's long since fallen away as of any interest to me. It is from within experimental film making (or art film making) that I work - at least in terms of film making.

 

But this does not mean I'm necessarily in agreement with the theory associated with experimental/art film. There will be parts of such with which I agree and other parts I don't. And I think this is as it should be.

 

This agreement/disagreement is not out of any opposition from within theory, but from within practice - from making films (rather than watching and theorising films). I just can't make a film without a narrative. I've tried but I can't. Or rather, every time I put film in a projector and screen it - no matter what it is, I see a story there. I see stories in all the so called "abstract" films made. Perhaps "story" is not the right word but it's the word I use. It refers to the temporal relations in a film - and goes to the fact that we can see such relations. They are not invisible.

 

The simplest story (so called) is one which emerges through movement.

 

Movement in the cinema, it is said, is an illusion. But I can nevertheless see that movement, whether it's called an "illusion" or otherwise. And I don't think I'm any different from anyone else in this regard. We can see movement. When I try to understand what is meant by this movement being an illusion, all I see is just an idea which treats film held over a light table (for example), as being somehow more real than film in a film projector. And I can't see how film in a film projector is any less real than one over a light table.

 

But what I can see is that they are two very different experiences, and therefore, in my books, one is looking at two different films. One has movement and the other does not. Or if we argue one is the illusion of movement we could counter-argue that the other is the illusion of stasis.

 

Now movement is what I'd call a kind of minimalist narrative. The movements in the film "Wavelength" constitute a minimalist narrative. But a theorist such as Stephen Heath will condemn the film on this basis. He will see what I see - the barest of narratives - but unlike me, he will treat the film as therefore ideologically loaded, or infected, or infiltrated. But in what way? What particular ideology is Wavelength perpetrating? What is it communicating or propagating? And if it does, is it the narrative that communicates this ideology? And if so, what is the particular ideology that the narrative communicates?

 

So in answer to your question about what non-abstract narrative films I might suggest, I'd suggest Wavelength wouldn't be a bad start.

 

Now not only can we see simple movement in a film we can see more complex movements in a film. We can see (or experience) what I'd call narrative. And therefore, like movement, it would not be illusory (not a figment of our imagination). But to the extent that the film might also elaborate an ideological line through narrative, it might also be illusory. It is capable of this. But for me it's not automatically a fait accompli that narrative reproduces ideology.

 

As to how one innoculates a work against ideology, its really up to the creativity of particular filmmakers (if they are so inclined) and how audiences (and theorists) might otherwise understand the results.

 

C

[Freya Black]

Wavelength is maybe a good example but I'm not sure I would call it a narrative film.

I don't agree that the movements constitute a narrative really although I can see where you are coming from.

 

Nor for that matter the work of Phil Solomon.

Peter Gidal has some similar films himself like this I think. One with a window springs to mind.

I have only seen a few of his films however so can't comment too much in that direction.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

 

His work is not automatically in the grip of ideology simply by virtue of being a narrative. The narrative can be understood as working against the ideology that is otherwise represented in the work. Of course, it may not be that successful. An audience may very well be convinced that the narrative is to be found in what a film represents.

 

C

 

 

I didn't say his work was automatically in the grip of ideology by virtue of being a narrative.

I'm not sure I understood the rest of what you wrote probably because it is in the context of something I didn't say?

 

I suggested that the whole point of Derek Jarmans films was to put across a certain ideology which they do a good job of.

 

I really like Derek Jarmans movies and don't have issue with what they express.

As I said before, others may feel differently.

 

Freya

Edited April 8, 2016 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

Okay, I can see where you are coming from in the sense that images are the medium through which illusions are expressed rather than the illusions themselves or something. I don't have issue with this and I also believe it's possible to have images that are seemingly devoid of ideas, narrative and ideology. It's in the context of narrative film etc that I feel that you can't really avoid expressing ideology.

 

I would also argue that you might not want to avoid expressing ideology. Derek Jarman does a good enough job with it and I personally felt he was on the right path.

 

I actually feel that the ideas that Peter Gidal expoused are kinda sticking your head in the sand.

Especially in the context of the so called "Avant Garde" experimental film scene which now has a long tradition of being backward and exclusionary. At the same time I understand and respect where he was coming from.

 

Freya

[Carl Looper]

Okay, I can see where you are coming from in the sense that images are the medium through which illusions are expressed rather than the illusions themselves or something. I don't have issue with this and I also believe it's possible to have images that are seemingly devoid of ideas, narrative and ideology. It's in the context of narrative film etc that I feel that you can't really avoid expressing ideology.

 

I would also argue that you might not want to avoid expressing ideology. Derek Jarman does a good enough job with it and I personally felt he was on the right path.

 

I actually feel that the ideas that Peter Gidal expoused are kinda sticking your head in the sand.

Especially in the context of the so called "Avant Garde" experimental film scene which now has a long tradition of being backward and exclusionary. At the same time I understand and respect where he was coming from.

 

Freya

 

Before I start I should just say here that the following is not intended as a rebuff to what yourself (or necessarily anyone else) might be saying. Indeed it could very well be in agreement. I wouldn't necessarily know. I'm just elaborating a position

 

So an image is not to be confused with what it represents.

 

But an image is certainly quite capable of participating in the representation or reproduction of an illusion (or of an ideology) or indeed of truths (so called) but it is not, in itself, the same thing. Or not inherently so.

 

To elaborate this further, the category of images is not a category limited to a collection of still frames (so called). A still frame (so to speak) such as a photograph or painting, while it is quite capable of representing movement, or expressing movement, it is not inherently such a movement. We might say it is of movement. And a matrix of such images, constituted in space, will be no different. A Muybridge album will represent movement (an image of movement) but it is not in itself a movement-image.

 

The movement-image proper is a different kind of image. The motion picture. It is not one that is derived from a matrix of Muybridge images. Rather it is a matrix of Muybridge images, (or even a single photograph), that is derived from a movement image. It is no less of movement but it is now identical to the movement that could only be represented in a still frame. If we are able to reconstruct a movement-image from a matrix of Muybridge images it is only because that matrix of images will have been decomposed from a movement-image in the first place. Even in animation this is the case.

 

The next kind of image we'll consider is a time image. Movement is a relationship between space and a time. Without time there is no movement. Time is not created from movement. Time is a condition or a pre-requisite for movement. We can suggest it becomes a condition for space. This can be understood in the non-zero shutter time required to obtain an exposure in a photograph. There is not a still frame without at least a modicum of time. If a still frame can only represent movement, in a related way, movement can only represent time. Movement is not in itself time. We can therefore propose a time-image that would be that which a movement-image can only represent.

 

Now it is within time that narrative takes place. It need not do so. One can have time without any apparent narrative. But in an Ozu 'still' life, or Warhol's skyscraper, if the time here is a kind of 'empty' time, it is not completely empty. For what is made visible here is the time in which such is taking place. But an Ozu vase, sitting on the window sill, illuminated by light from a window, or Warhol's skyscaper, are not photographs. They do not represent time, as a photograph of a clock might do (but need not do so). They occupy time and in doing so reveal something of time.

 

Narrative is simply that which reveals another aspect of time. It need not be a linear narrative.

 

A good example of this might be Last Year at Marienbad. Or a good example of a linear narrative (that such need not be ignored) might be Stranger Than Paradise, and Down By Law.

 

A narrative-image operates at the level of time (and time includes movement as much as vegetative states, insofar as time is their otherwise hidden precondition). But a narrative need not represent anything. A narrative will be no less a narrative in the absence of anything it might otherwise represent.

 

If we agree that a work is not inherently ideological, we will also agree that a work does not require excluding ideology. But what makes it possible to do this, without the work itself becoming ideological, will be narratives that critique ideology (to the extent they can). Indeed narrativity provides the means by which a representation of ideology is also a refusal to be ideology.

 

 

C

Edited April 8, 2016 by Carl Looper