Reproduction: The problems facing film art

Thinking Practices Module – 2AMP7H1 Title: Reproduction: The problems facing film art Prepared by: Alexa Raisbeck

University of Westminster Page 1 of 19 MA Art and Media Practice

School of Media Art and Design 2010-2011

Reproduction: The problems facing film art

Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 Case study 1: Reproduction: performance and the participatory ....................... 6 Case study 2: Reproduction within the structural/materialist movement........... 9 Case study 3: Reproduction and the work of Stanley Brakhage ...................... 12 Conclusion. ................................................................................................................ 15

Abstract:

The purpose of this essay is to look at Walter Benjamin’s theory on reproduction in art, as found in the text The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. It is also look at John Berger’s observations and theories on the reproduction of original art work in Ways of Seeing. Using these theories, and accepting the premise that all reproductions distort, I offer an expanded and updated view on the reproduction of original work. This is in regard to original lens-based pieces - with specific focus on film art. This essay focuses on the passivity with which reproductions of original film art created on celluloid are digitized and transferred onto other mediums. It examines these issues through the use of three case studies. The analysis of each case study examines how far the ontology of the original work is maintained after reproduction and relocation to other mediums. Due to advancing technologies, reproductions will continue to be produced on universally viable mediums. Since these mediums introduce new processes, with regard to the way visual and audio information is stored and presented, there becomes a problem with how this work is perceived. I examine how this affects the ontology of the artwork and whether the meaning has become lost or diluted. Acknowledging that there is a demand for a wider audience to see the work in a viable manner, I accept the reasons for these digitised transfers and look into whether the participatory nature of video sharing sites such as Youtube, ultimately could aid in the wider exposure of the work. This perhaps, leads to more demand for the original pieces to be shown in their original celluloid format. However the question is raised that with future technological progression, will the ontology of the original work become completely unrecognisable the further it moves from its original medium? There is also the issue of apathy in introducing reproductions of this work, as ultimately there is a responsibility on those who supervise in the transfer of these pieces (and put them in the public domain) to explain the limitations of the reproductions. Unfortunately this may not happen, which leaves this issue open for further study and debate.




The purpose of this essay is to look at Walter Benjamin’s theory on

reproduction in art, as found in the text The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical

Reproduction. It is also look at John Berger’s observations and theories on the

reproduction of original art work in Ways of Seeing. Using these texts and

additionally in Berger’s case, television broadcast, I intend to expand and update

these theories. This will enable me to critically examine and pass comment on the

conversion and subsequent reproduction of film art due to advancing

technologies and the resultant dematerialisation of celluloid as a viable

reproducible medium. To assist in my analysis and expansion of these theories I

intend to make use of three case studies that highlight three distinct, but not

unrelated areas of film art. The first study will focus on Zen for film, by fluxus artist

Nam June Paik. The second on Little Dog for Roger by the Structural/Materialist

filmmaker Malcolm Le Grice and the third study will focus on Mothlight by

experimental filmmaker Stanley Brakhage. The main line of enquiry in this essay

will look to examine the distance between the ontology of the original pieces and

current technological modes of reproduction. The conclusion will explore whether

this relationship has an effect on the original pieces in terms of the dilution of

concept and meaning from the original pieces of work. To explore this enquiry

further I will utilise various academic texts that present the theory of

dematerialisation. This, coupled with my own knowledge of reproductive film

methodologies and the illustration of points with the use of the Internet and

hyperlinks, will form the rest of this essay.

In principle, the work of art has always been reproducible. What man has made, man has always been able to make again. Such copying was also done by pupils as an artistic exercise, by masters in order to give works wider circulation, ultimately by anyone seeking to make money1

1 Walter, Benjamin. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, London: Penguin Books, 2008. 3.




The reproduction of original artwork has been in practice for an extremely long

time.2 As Walter Benjamin states there are several reasons for the reproduction

of original work, with wider circulation and fiscal incentive remaining the most

relevant reasons of current times.3 Today, reproduction of original artwork is all

around us; not only as a copy in the form of the original medium, but also taking

the form of posters, T-shirts and any other oddity that our commodified culture

can think of. In Ways of seeing, John Berger discusses the notion of reproduction

with regard to traditional European paintings created between 14th and 19th

century. He acknowledges the impact that lens-based media has had in changing

the way in which paintings are viewed and consumed, effectively “making [them]

available in any size, anywhere, for any purpose”.4 He also notes that lens based

media has also allowed for highlights and aspects in the original work that were

not previously visible or notable to be focused upon.5 Berger makes the

distinction between the physical and non physical reproduction of paintings,

noting that whilst he is talking of a specific painting in the National Gallery, he is

able to see the original whereas the audience watching him talking, via broadcast,

are viewing a televised reproduction of the work, in their own familiar

surroundings, which changes the very meaning of the work itself.6

In the age of pictorial reproduction the meaning of paintings is not longer attached to them; their meaning becomes transmittable: that is to say it becomes information of a sort, and, like all information it is either put to use or ignored; information carries no special authority within itself.7

It is this change of meaning that is integral to Berger’s comment on reproductions

produced by lens-based medias. The principal question is: if the context and

surroundings of the work have changed through reproduction, what is left of the

original?

2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Berger, John. Ways of Seeing, BBC broadcast, 1972 available to view on YouTube accessed 18/03/11 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Berger, John. Ways of Seeing, London: British Broadcasting corporation & Penguin, 1972. 17.




It is important to note for the purpose of this essay that - as Benjamin and

Berger put forward - that I accept the theory that that all reproductions distort. An

original is just that – unique; however good the reproduction, it will never age in

the same way, have the same ownership or be created for the same purpose.8

With celluloid, there seems an automatic and unquestioned acceptance that

reproductions should be made for dissemination to a mass home audience. This

has probably been fuelled primarily by the fact that celluloid is already a lens-

based medium - a medium that facilitated the mass production of original works in

the first place.9 Another noteworthy point that could have facilitated this

acceptance was the introduction of the home viewing market, established by the

commercial film industry with the introduction of 8mm film spools that contained

the ‘best bits’ from feature films. It was something for the consumer to take home;

a memento of the full-length feature seen at the cinema.10 Since this time

technology has progressed, becoming cheaper and more readily available. These

films have subsequently been reproduced in different ways, transferred onto

different mediums such as VHS, DVD, Blu - Ray and the Internet, to keep up with

ongoing and changing demand.

Film art has, I would argue, followed in this tradition of reproduction for the

home market. Copies of the original pieces often can be found on DVD, for sale in

gallery gift shops. They can also be bought from online retailers and more

recently viewed on, or downloaded from the Internet, for free.11 Part of the

acceptance that accompanies the reproduction of these works seems to stem

from the notion that the moving image - something that has derived from lens-

based media - is explicitly made for the purpose of reproduction. Not only is it the 8 Walter, Benjamin. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, London: Penguin Books,

2008. 5. 9 Berger, John. Ways of Seeing, London: British Broadcasting corporation & Penguin, 1972. 12. 10 Enticknap, Leo. Moving Image Technology: From Zoetrope to digital, London: Wallflower Press, 2005. 23. 11The BFI Film Store is one such website offering art film on DVD: http://filmstore.bfi.org.uk/acatalog/BFI_Filmstore_Artists__Film___Video_38.html accessed 18/03/11




passivity in which these original lens-based works are being reproduced, it is the

way in which they are produced - more specifically the digitising and transfer of

the work from the original celluloid medium to other mediums such as DVD. This

is a process known as dematerialisation, which potentially poses a serious

problem for the physical and conceptual ontology of the original work. For these

reasons, I propose that a detailed examination of the distinctions between

technological modes of reproduction needs to be undertaken.

Reproduction: Performance and the Participatory

Zen for Film Nam June Paik, 16mm, 8 mins (1964/1965.)

Last year, during a presentation to my class regarding artists who had

inspired my own practice, I threaded a blank piece of celluloid into a 16mm

projector and projected it whilst talking about Nam June Paik’s Zen for Film. I was

careful to choose a similar piece of blank celluloid, the same length and gauge as

Pic

ture

cre

dit:

cour

tesy

děd

icov

é N

am J

une

Pai

ka

http

://w

ww

.tran

zitd

ispl

ay.c

z/cs

/mul

tikin

o




Zen for Film to ensure that ‘reproduction’ of the work was as authentic as

possible. One might ask why I decided to do this when there was a perfectly

preserved reproduction of Nam June Paik’s’ original Zen for film a few clicks away

on the Internet? It would have been easier to show my peers the Youtube version

and perhaps if I had done this I would not have had to deal with the technical

hitch regarding a bent spool. My reasons were as thus: the essence of the work is

based on the notion of the novel. Nam June Paik plays on the fact that film

degrades on each run it makes through a projector. The dust, scratches and

general wear and tear would change the composition each time it is projected to

an audience.12 Because of this and the fact that every speck of dust that comes

to rest on the celluloid consists of skin cells shed from an audience, whether in

the room at the time or from a previous performance, means that the piece

contains large elements of performance and the participatory. This is not

something that can easily be recreated as discussed by P, Phelan in Unmarked,

The Politics of Performance:

Performance’s only life is in the present. Performance cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the circulation of representation of representations: once it does so, it becomes something other than performance. To the degree that performance attempts to enter the economy of reproduction it betrays and lessens the promise of its own ontology. 13

I had been fortunate enough to see the original Zen for Film projected at

Royal Holloway University of London during a screening in 2004. Some in the

audience were confused by the concept of an empty frame (a visual response to

John Cage’s “4’3”)14 but for me, the frame was far from void. It contained little

irregularities, those that in commercial cinema projection are forbidden lest the

dust break the cinematic illusion.15 The beauty of Paik’s Zen for film was the

freedom it was given to pick up the dust (or more accurately skin cells) and

12 Re:Voir < http://www.eai.org/title.htm?id=14206> accessed 23/03/10 13 Phelan, P. Unmarked, The Politics of Performance, London and New York: Routledge. 1993. 146. 14 Helfert, Heike http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/zen-for-film/ accessed 10/03/11 15 My own knowledge of cinema projectionist practices




present them as part of the work, as part of the performance. It is a blank piece

of celluloid so there was no pigment to copy when the work was digitised,

however due to the conversion process, the copy on YouTube is displaying a

pixilated representation of dust.

This was why I had chosen to present the celluloid ‘reproduction’ in my

presentation, as it was arguably closer to the conceptual and participatory nature

of the work than the digital reproduction that can be found on YouTube. The

digital reproduction, although a perfect copy and arguably more authentic than my

reproduction, was for this reason further from the original ontology of the piece. It

would not degrade, however many times it was run, the performance would not

change each time on viewing and the audience would be continually denied the

same type of participation that the original piece provided.

YouTube has a place within the long history and uncertain future of media change, the politics of cultural participation, and the growth of knowledge. Clearly, it is both a symptom of, and an actor in, economic and cultural transitions that are tied up somehow with digital technologies, the Internet, and the more direct participation of consumers.16

The reproduction on YouTube does however offer a different type of

participation and also a much wider circulation than the original piece could ever

achieve. Its placement on the Internet and in this instance YouTube, allows it to

be accessed by millions of people, from all across the globe. It can even be

viewed in multiple countries simultaneously, which is something the original piece

will never be able to do. It can be liked, shared, linked to, commented on, debated

and studied in an easily accessible manner.17 It is perhaps the accessibility of this

original copy, plus the exchange in the notion of the participatory that allows the

reproduction on youtube validity it would otherwise not receive.

16 Burgess, Jean & Green, Joshua, Youtube: Digital Media and Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009. 14. 17 Burgess, Jean & Green, Joshua, Youtube: Digital Media and Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009. 57.




Reproduction within the structural/materialist movement

Little dog for Roger Malcolm Le Grice 12mins B/W 16mm (1967)

The film Little dog for Roger was created in 1967 and is typical of the type of

experimentation within the structural/materialist movement. The film showcases

the medium (celluloid) exceptionally well with scratches, perforations, frames and

racking lines taking the same precedence in the piece as the actual images.

Structural/Materialist film attempts to be non-illusionist. The process of the film’s making deals with devices that result in demystification or attempted demystification of the film process.18

The Structural/Materialist movement crossed several media platforms but was

always fundamentally self-referential, highlighting whatever medium or processes

it was created on or with. This was, and still is, distinctly different to mainstream

18 Gidal, Peter. Theory and definition of Structural/ Materialist Film in Structural Film Anthology Wilson David (edt.). 01.

Pic

ture

Cre

dit:

http

://w

ww

.arte

fact

-fe

stiv

al.b

e/20

08/p

rogr

amm

e/de

tail/

4847

1




film where the medium and technological process behind the film are actively

hidden.19

Little Dog for Roger can be found on the DVD anthology Shoot, Shoot,

Shoot but at the time of writing was not available anywhere on the Internet. It is

easy to see why with such technological advances that works such as Little dog

for Roger are reproduced on DVD, Which currently, is a standardised and

technologically sound mode of viewing the moving image. It would be illogical to

disseminate reproductions of the piece on celluloid, as how many people own and

can operate a working 16mm projector? In addition, analogue reproductions or

those on celluloid can never be accurate, however carefully they are duplicated:

Copying an analogue recording of any description involves losing some of its accuracy or quality. Even if you duplicate a film by contact printing it, the individual grains of dye in the source element could never be placed in precise alignment with their counterparts on the unexposed duplicate stock. Therefore a small amount of distortion will be introduced into the copy.20

So in this case, the digital reproduction does hold one particular advantage over

analogue reproduction: it can reproduce an exact and perfect copy.21 In Moving

Image Technology, Leo Enticknap explains that computers encode visual and

audio material into data; the data in question is then decoded and reproduced as

an analogue signal, which can be displayed through a monitor or similar viewing

system.22 He notes that this method produces perfect and accurate copies, but

also adds an extra process to the transmission of the visual and audio material

between the storage medium and viewer.23

19 Ibid. 20 Enticknap, Leo. Moving Image Technology: From Zoetrope to digital, London: Wallflower Press, 2005.

203. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid.




So although the DVD reproduction of Little Dog for Roger is a perfect copy

of the original film print, in reality it is stored data, a mixture of ones and zeros.

This in turn means that a new process has been added to those viewing the film

on DVD rather than a film copy, a process that is not visible to the spectator, so

subsequently does not demystify itself. This is very problematic for the ontology of

structural/materialist film, because the artists and filmmakers working within the

movement felt it imperative to question, examine and reveal the processes behind

the illusion of the moving image and to place an emphasis on the medium itself.24

Little dog for Roger is more than a technological showcase for the medium; Le

Grice’s use of found film, shot by his parents when he was a child explores the

storage and archival properties of celluloid, as well as the notion that celluloid is a

historical medium (it can never be instantaneous due to the time involved in

processing the image).25 Le Grice himself said of celluloid and the film:

This vaguely nostalgic material has provided an opportunity for me to play with [the] medium of celluloid and various kinds of printing and processing devices. The qualities of film sprockets, the individual frames, the deterioration of records like memories, all play an important part in the meaning of this film.26

If the medium itself plays such an intrinsic part in the comprehension and

presentation of the film, surely it has lost something of its essence in its

subsequent dematerialisation into data? With this in mind it seems odd that the

professional transfer and deliberate reproductions of these pieces to other

mediums such as DVDs has seemingly gone unchallenged and unquestioned.

There is only a small and easily missed mention for this ‘oversight’ in the

extensive sleeve notes for Shoot, Shoot, Shoot, stating that Little Dog for Roger

and the other the films on the DVD are ‘not a substitute for the real thing’.27

24 Russell, Catherine. Experimental Ethnography, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1999, Preface. XII. 25 Russell, Catherine. Experimental Ethnography, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1999, Preface. XVIII. 26 Le Grice, Malcolm. LUX online < http://www.luxonline.org.uk/artists/malcolm_le_grice/little_dog_for_roger.html> accessed 20/03/11 27 Webber Mark, Shoot, Shoot, Shoot DVD Sleeve notes, LUX. 2009.




However, it does go on to state that the DVD release has served to raise the

profiles of the films in the anthology, as screenings of the originals are very rare.28

I myself have never seen the original piece, only the reproduction available in this

form on this anthology whilst studying the Structural/Materialist movement.

Although I am painfully aware of the problems regarding this particular

reproduction, I am glad that I was able to see the film in an accessible manner as

opposed to just reading about it.

Reproduction and the work of Stanley Brakhage

Mothlight

Stanley Brakhage,

28 Ibid.

Pic

ture

Cre

dit:

Sta

n B

rakh

age:

Film

strip

s fro

m M

othl

ight

(196

3.)

Pho

togr

aphs

by

Fred

Cam

per.

<http

://ob

serv

ator

y.de

sign

obse

rver

.com

/ent

ry.h

tml?

entry

=602

7>




16mm, 3 minutes (1963)

Mothlight is one of Brakhage’s finest films and is made without the use of a

camera. Leaves, grass, flowers and moth wings have been stuck to the celluloid

and then optically printed. Due to the subversion of the 24 frames per second

rule, perception of the film is altered, with the images on screen appearing as if

too fast for the eye to capture. Mothlight has been distributed on DVD as part of

the Brakhage anthology, but can also be found on Youtube and other online sites

that host digital video. The apathy regarding the reproduction of filmic works to

other mediums was not present in the place of Brakhage’s films and it is well

known that Brakhage himself was reluctant to have any of his works transferred,

only agreeing to DVD transfers just before his death in 2003.29 The transfer of the

works to digital format is extensively documented by artist and lecturer Fred

Camper on his website, reflecting just how much care was taken in ensuring the

quality of the reproductions.

Brakhage was obsessed with hypnagogics and how the brain and eyes

process information. 30The intention of many of his films including Mothlight was

to play with these processes, to pose a quandary for the eye. What is often a

noteworthy point regarding the transfer of this work and others like it from

celluloid to DVD is the difference between frame and flicker rates. Brakhage and

other Avant-garde/ experimental filmmakers often played with the frame rate and/

or flicker rate, wanting to subvert or bring attention to it as part of the mechanical

and visual process that forms the illusion of the moving image. Most film is

projected at 24 frames each second with a flicker rate at around 48hz.31 In

mechanical film projectors the flicker rate is determined by the shutter blade,

which blocks the frames as they move into the gate of the projector, and again

29 Camper, Fred < http://www.fredcamper.com/Brakhage/CriterionDVD.html > accessed 15/03/11 30 Ganguly, Suranjan The 60th Birthday Interview in Experimental Cinema, The film reader Dixon, Wheeler

Winston & Foster, Gwendolyn Audrey (ed.). London: Routledge, 2002. 149. 31 Enticknap, Leo. Moving Image Technology: From Zoetrope to digital, London: Wallflower Press, 2005.

174.




during the projection of one frame to ensure each frame does not last too long on

the retina.32 This process becomes altered during the transfer and subsequent

relocation of the work onto a digital medium. With a monitor there is no shutter

blade. Instead, there is scanning and interlacing, where lines in each frame are

displayed sequentially to create the image.33 The resulting flicker (50 – 60 Hz)

and frame rate (25fps) have changed as the picture is reproduced in an entirely

different manner.34

For one thing a projected film has a more chiselled, absolute quality, despite its flicker, because the flicker is caused by the projector shutter opening and closing many times a second, so that one sees is actually a succession of still images. Video light by contrast, is constantly moving.35

With this in mind, is Mothlight really being perceived in the same way? There are

other considerations such as picture bounce created by the mechanical nature of

the projector, celluloid resolution and colour space that would have been altered

or even excluded during transfer. It is clear that there has been a lot of trouble

taken to reproduce Mothlight and the other films on the DVD; there are even

colour bars on the disk to ensure that the monitor settings on the platform you are

using are set for optimum viewing of the films available on the disk. The menus

are carefully put together, and other options include an interview by Brakhage

talking about his work - a further chance for an education, which would no longer

be possible in a live screening, due to his death in 2003. The other advantage to

this transfer of the works is similar to what lens-based reproduction has offered to

the traditional works of art - the ability to zoom in and highlight other aspects of

the work.36 DVD offers the same type of ability, with the option to pause; fast

forward and even view the films frame by frame. This allows for closer

examination and even interpretation of the work being viewed. A projector cannot

32 My own technical knowledge of cinema projection practices 33 Enticknap, Leo. Moving Image Technology: From Zoetrope to digital, London: Wallflower Press, 2005.

169. 34 Ibid. 175. 35 Camper, Fred. By Brakhage DVD Sleeve notes, 2003. 36 Berger, John. Ways of Seeing, BBC broadcast, 1972 available to view on YouTube accessed 18/03/11




offer this; if the film is stopped in the gate, it will burn due to the heat of the

projection lamp. 37

Many of those who were behind the transfer of the films to DVD thought

the quality was of a high standard in comparison to the film prints, Fred Camper

himself acknowledged that he was ‘pleasantly surprised to see how fine [he]

thought the DVD looked on [his] home TV.’38 Brakhage did not have a problem

with reproduction; in fact he welcomed it and often paid for further prints of his

original works to be made for people to purchase and watch at home.39 It was the

transfer and subsequent reproduction of his work on to new mediums that he was

reluctant to facilitate. 40 Fred Camper recollects that:

Brakhage also said that at least in his limited experience of it, he didn't much like the light of DVD. Unfortunately, he died before he could see these transfers; I think his mind would have been changed if he had seen them.41

Perhaps as Fred Camper suggests he would have been pleased with the final

result, especially since the ease in replicating DVDs for the mass market would

have allowed for more people to own and see works such as Mothlight. However,

with so much painstaking effort taken to transfer Mothlight and the other films

onto this anthology, the consideration that transfers of this work to more

accessible mediums would lead to secondary transfers and uploads to the

Internet, seems to have been overlooked. Even if Brakhage had approved of the

DVD reproductions, what would he have made of the low quality versions of

Mothlight that can be found on YouTube?

37 My own technical knowledge from working in the projection industry 38 Camper, Fred. < http://www.fredcamper.com/Brakhage/CriterionDVD.html > accessed 15/03/11 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid.




It appears that with the continued advance in technology, the further

reproduction and transfer of film works is going to be unavoidable. These three

case studies have illustrated how certain modes of reproduction can and have

proven problematic. Nam June Paik’s Zen for Film will most likely continue

touring galleries but will be preserved, unchanging on YouTube for those who

want to study the work and perhaps partake in a different way, for instance

through online discussion. Reproduced transfers of Structural/Materialist works

such as Little Dog For Roger will continue to pose a problem for ontology of the

movement. In this instance, it seems that this will be the price paid for the works

to remain in circulation. Though perhaps further distribution of the work on DVD

and the Internet will generate enough interest for these films to be shown again

on celluloid within the public domain, providing there are projectors available.

Mothlight and the rest of Stanley Brakhage’s works have proved popular on

DVD.42 Due to this success a second anthology has been released by Criterion,

on DVD and Blue - ray with the same care and attention as the first anthology

received.43 This however has still not prevented low quality uploads finding their

way on to Youtube and other video sharing sites. Perhaps Brakhage would have

approved this way of discussing and sharing his work? It is something we will

never know.

As stated in the start of this essay, Benjamin highlighted the two main

reasons for the creation of reproductions: wider circulation and fiscal incentive.44

Although there is a fiscal incentive in producing these works, this work is not part

of the mainstream and thus does not have a mass consumer base.45 Many of

these works have been reproduced for the ease of circulation and preservation

amongst those who want to study and enjoy the work, as illustrated by the fact 42 Illustrated by Gandert, Sean in http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1484-press-notes-by-brakhage-an-anthology-volumes-one-and-two accessed 24/03/11 43 As reported by Galloway, Chris in < http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-review/by-brakhage-an-anthology-volumes-one-and-two-blu-ray/the-criterion-collection/693> accessed 25/03/11 44 Walter, Benjamin. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, London: Penguin Books, 2008. 3. 45 Russell, Catherine. Experimental Ethnography, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1999,

Preface. XI.




that those who have uploaded the work to YouTube will be unlikely to profit from it

in any way.46 However, if the current relocation of these works has happened with

such minimal opposition or thought undertaken into what it would transfer would

mean for the true essence of the original work. What will happen when further

new technologies take the place of DVD’s, Blue - ray’s and the Internet? Will

these art films become completely unrecognisable? Will they become too far

removed from the context of their original ontology’s to be understood at all?

Ultimately it seems that there is a great responsibility, which perhaps rests with

the people that reproduce and introduce these works. Whether it is someone

supervising the DVD transfers or an individual who has ripped it and uploaded it

to YouTube – there should be an onus to communicate to the viewer the

subsequent limitations of these reproductions. In the mean time, it is certainly an

area that invites further exploration and debate.

Work Cited

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing, London: British Broadcasting corporation & Penguin, 1972.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing, BBC broadcast, 1972. Available to view on Youtube: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnfB-pUm3eI> accessed 18/03/11

Brakhage, Stan. Telling Time: essays of a visionary filmmaker, New York: McPherson & company, 2003.

Bremen, Kunsthalle. Nam June Paik Fluxus/ video, Germany: Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther Konig, 1999.

Burgess, Jean & Green, Joshua, Youtube: Digital Media and Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009.

Cage, John. "4'33" 1952 found on <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E> accessed 18/03/11

Camper, Fred. <http://www.fredcamper.com/Brakhage/CriterionDVD.html> accessed 16/03/11

46 Brakhage’s Mothlight has been uploaded by individual users of the site, who have used the content for networking purposes, unlike corporate accounts which show and advertise content –as illustrated in Burgess, Jean and Green, Joshua. Youtube: Digital Media and Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009. 04 – 06.




Camper Fred By Brakhage Anthology DVD volume one sleeve notes, Criterion, 2001.

Creeber, Glen & Martin, Royston. Digital Cultures: Understanding New Media, Berkshire: Mc Graw Hill, 2009

Dixon, Wheeler Winston & Foster, Gwendolyn Audrey (ed.). Experimental Cinema, The film reader, London: Routledge, 2002.

Eamon, Christopher & Douglas, Stan (ed.). Art of Projection, Ostfildern: Hatje Cantze Verlag, 2009.

Enticknap, Leo. Moving Image Technology: From Zoetrope to digital, London: Wallflower Press, 2005.

Galloway, Chris < http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-review/by-brakhage-an-anthology-volumes-one-and-two-blu-ray/the-criterion-collection/693> accessed 25/03/11

Gandert, Sean. <http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1484-press-notes-by-brakhage-an-anthology-volumes-one-and-two> accessed 24/03/11

Ganguly, Suranjan The 60th Birthday Interview in Experimental Cinema, The film reader Dixon, Wheeler Winston & Foster, Gwendolyn Audrey (ed.).London: Routledge, 2002. 149.

Gidal, Peter. Theory and definition of Structural/ Materialist Film in Structural Film Anthology Wilson David (edt.). London: British Film Institute, 1978.

Helfert, Heike <http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/zen-for-film/> accessed 10/03/11

Le Grice, Malcolm Experimental Cinema in the Digital Age, London: British Film Institute, 2006.

Le Grice, Malcolm .<http://www.luxonline.org.uk/artists/malcolm_le_grice/little_dog_for_roger.html> accessed 20/03/11

Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2001. Paik, Nam June. Zen for Film, 1962- 1964, available at

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1sOsIrshU> accessed 18/03/11 Phelan, P. Unmarked, The Politics of Performance, London and New York:

Routledge. 1993. Rees, A.L. A History of Experimental Film and Video, London: British Film

Institute, 1999. Russell, Catherine. Experimental Ethnography, Durham and London: Duke

University Press, 1999. Webber Mark, Shoot, Shoot, Shoot, DVD Sleeve notes, LUX. 2009. Wilson, David. (edt.). Structural Film Anthology, London: British Film Institute,

1978.

Additional Hyperlinks




BFI Film store: <http://filmstore.bfi.org.uk/acatalog/BFI_Filmstore_Artists__Film___Video_38.html> accessed 18/03/11

(Shoot, shoot, shoot) <http://filmstore.bfi.org.uk/acatalog/info_4151.html> accessed 17/03/11

Criterion Films: (second) <http://www.criterion.com/films/23953-by-brakhage-an-anthology-volume-two?q=autocomplete> accessed 18/03/11

(Anthology) <http://www.criterion.com/films/731-by-brakhage-an-anthology-volume-one> accessed 18/03/11

Re:Voir <http://www.eai.org/title.htm?id=14206> accessed 23/03/10

YouTube: (Youtube) <www.youtube.com> accessed 18/03/11

("4'33") <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E> accessed 18/03/11

Zazzle: <www.zazzle.co.uk> accessed 16/03/11

(Posters) <http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mona_lisa_a_masterpeace_poster-228066462985654482> accessed 16/03/11

(T-shirts) <http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mona_lisa_tshirt-235069970666475395> accessed 16/03/11

(Oddity)<http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mona_lisa_shoes-167732401127400542> accessed 16/03/11




Documents

Reproduction: The problems facing film art