Brakhage Redux

Apparently Culture Vulture's still having problems linking things up in my post there, so I reposted the piece, with links, on Cosmo.

Stan Brakhage

My review of the DVD, By Brakhage is now online at Culture Vulture.

Currently there are missing links to some of the films of his I discuss. Basically, I systematically destroy the argument that his films' incoherence is a boon to the viewer.

Here's his most famed film, Mothlight:



Ok, not exactly La Dolce Vita, nor even 2001: A Space Odyssey, but is it really art? Probably, but bad art.

In short, as I pointed out in my review of My Kid Could Paint That :

1) Claimed abstraction in art is rarely, if ever, abstract. Why? Because there simply and rationally can be no such thing as non-narrative nor non-representational art. Yes, you read that correctly. A smear of orange color is a smear of orange color, and can represent a smear of orange color. That smear, or dot on a piece of paper, also has a narrative, and that narrative is, ‘smear/dot on a canvas.’ Yes, that is a narrative, but its utter banality and bereftness points out just how creatively barren a work with such a paltry narrative is. Imagine the mind that could create, or be fascinated by, such an inane display of so-called skill and talent, and such a ridiculous narrative thread. It might take a few seconds to craft, but only a few thousandths of a second to grasp. Art is a form of communication, but a higher form of communication than mere language, therefore the skill in which the communication is laid out is essential to its determination of excellence. Art is a verb, the how an idea is communicated; not the idea (the noun) itself.

2) One can, as do many of Marla’s buyers, imbue anything one wants into the painting/artwork, but while great art constructs no, or few, boundaries, what it can do is give linkage to imbue, a bit, of non-obvious things into itself; but NOT the whole thing. If the whole thing can be imbued there is no reason to work at art- the whole rationale behind found art. This displaces the creative impulse from mostly on the artist, and slightly on the percipient, to being 100% on the percipient. So, if the percipient of the claimed artwork is doing all the creative heavy lifting with imbuement, what exactly is left for the so-called artist to do? This folly, naturally, sunders art from the realms of skill and craft. Art that works on multiple levels of interpretation is usually a deeper and more profound thing. Claimed art that has infinite levels of interpretation is a scam, because, logically, if something means everything it means nothing.

3) Intent in art means nothing. One can claim they intended something, but so what, if it fails that claimed intent? Since there is no true way to know what an artist intended, it has no bearing on the art. What is left of the art is all that is required; that someone was going through a divorce at the time, had gall stones, was pro or con a certain political position, or was squabbling over a real estate transaction, might be interesting, but those facts are just as likely non-factors as factors. This false idea, of intent having stature in art, also allows for absurdities being propounded about certain art and artists- like Pollock’s drip paintings somehow representing the nuclear age because they somehow represented the whirl of the atomic shell.

4) If seen as a subset of intent, the art then becomes less about itself and more about the backstory; a further reduction of modern life into the disease of the celebritization of everything. As example, Jackson Pollock’s pre-drip paintings showed him to be a meager, callow, and highly imitative artist; but it was his heavily promoted tale of woe (alcoholism and failed love life) and ‘rebirth’ that made him a ‘star’ in the art world, not any real skill.

5) Finally, there is the plain old common sense notion that if something is claimed as art, that any layman can do with no effort or in little time (draw a dot in the center of a piece of paper, use a roller to paint a canvas one color, toss paint at a canvas and let the drips fall where they may), then it is simply not art. Now, this does not negate great photography nor cinematography, but I only mention these two art forms because folks often mistakenly claim both can be done with little effort and time; without realizing that most photographs, even by claimed Masters, simply do not rise to the level of art. It takes years of practice, and understanding the ‘impending moment,’ to make a truly great photo, or scene in a film, work. As mentioned earlier, simply contrast Marla’s painting sludgefests to the young violinist in the documentary stock footage- he shows skill, she does not; it’s really that simple. In fact, in the best moment of the film (and one he should have used as a template for the whole film) Bar-Lev torpedoes the hilarious claim that the DVD painting Marla did, to prove her abilities, is substantively no different from any of her other work, by showing side-by-side stills of the DVD painting and others; even as gullible patrons ooh and ah over it. One sees, also, that there is no logical coherence (and not even a Keatsian Negatively Capable coherence) between the titles of Marla’s paintings, and what is on the canvas. The names are immanently random and the paintings utterly generic messes.

Ok, now go watch the Fellini film!

Stan Brakhage vs. Chris Marker

Watched The Criterion Collection DVD, By Brakhage, which featured some of the more well known films of this avant-garde filmmaker. While some interesting shots, it once again shows how limited most avant-garde films are. Recently, with the death of painter Andrew Wyeth, I was reminded how so many portions of his paintings, taken by themselves, are as abstract as anything the Ab Exers painted; except that these were portions of his work, which were subsumed into a greater work of art, one not dependent upon the total imbuement of the viewer.

Similarly, Brakhage's films are often interesting ideas, mostly silent, that could work as portions of a larger film- interludes, or credit sequences, or even old fashioned internissions. Compared to someone like Chris Marker, who played not only with visuals, but narrative, and actually engaged his audience, Brakhage comes up short, well short. His influence can be seen, though, in many films. The most famous is the end of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was clearly modeled on portions of Brakhage's Dog Star Man. But, Kubrick does the very same thing that Wyeth did on canvas- he takes the experimental imagery and motion, and puts them to a higher purpose in his art.

That so few of Brakhage's films have sound shows his dedication to the image, but also his lack of true artistic push- to actually communicate something. His films are, in a sense, tools for hire, not the things those tools could make. Having seen many Warhol Factory films, and the like- going back from the silent era to modern Internet videos, much of Brakhage's work does not hold up. There's a juvenile quality about them, in the worst sense. I'll write a longer piece on this soon, but, for comparison, here is a film that shows just how short Brakhage's films fall. It is a film by a director who's name is unknown, but that I saw as a child on Sesame Street. Note how much more evocative it is than the several Brakhage shorts that follow. And it's not because there is a discernible narrative, but how the film's images build and open up the imagery to several interpretations. Brakhage's films- like the worst Modernist poetry, is open to almost limitless interpretation, therefore, it has no real meaning, and is not trying to communicate anything of intellectual heft. He wants you, the viewer, to declaim the film's 'genius,' rather than provide anything to actually erect that claim.

Here is the Sesame Street film:



Now, here are some Brakhage clips.



Now, is this film closer to the phosphenes you see when you rub your eyes, or is there anything that engages you, like the weeping flower?

Now, here's a clip from Dog Star Man:



And, just as a comparison, here is La Jetee, by Chris Marker:



Marker's film simply is FAR more inventive and daring, on multiple levels, than any of the films in the Brakhage DVD. Watch all of the above, and see for yourself.