Technology and recording the world

 

Musings on technology and recording the world.

Since our last conversation I’ve been pondering, and enjoying the sensation.  There are lots of interesting concepts bobbing around in a sea of confusion/misunderstanding, and I’m wading around (I think my feet can just about touch the bottom) and attempting to retrieve some and dry them off on my damp sleeve.

As I’m not strictly speaking a ‘digital native’ (perhaps non of us have a choice now) ‘The Digital’ is something I’ve wrestled with pretty much since its arrival.  When I was training to teach I.C.T. I tried to figure out the differences between digital and analogue computers, so it’s interesting to consider what ‘analogue’ means in the context of image production.

I have a lot of home made cassette recordings of music I made in the 80’s and 90’s.  I guess this was ‘artisanal’ music making.  It was hands on, messy (imprecise), and the results were hit and miss.  There was no going back and correcting, just re-doing.  This became denoted as ‘8 bit’ recording quality.  It was full of noise.  As soon as the desktop computer arrived, I got one and installed a £250 sound card so that I could make recordings that more closely resembled ‘professional’ recordings.  I was more than happy to switch from the medium of 3.17 mm tape to a digital medium that offered a signal to noise ratio only available at very expensive professional recording studios.  What counted was making clear recordings where you could hear all the elements (even if you were working in the genre me and my friends jokingly referred to as ‘noise-racket fusion’).

If I found and restored a wax cylinder recorder it would be interesting to experiment with.  The crackle and hiss is evocative.  A recording of a Trump rally on this medium would make an effective social comment.  Early recordings of jazz were poor facsimiles as they were unable to capture bass frequencies.  The bass drum reverberations would make the recording needle jump.  I suspect (though have no direct knowledge) that this affected the development of jazz.  Singing style certainly changed when amplification arrived.  Crooning began, for better or worse.

So to what extent are we to go along with technological determinism?  And how might this impact on our investigations in to imaging the world, and the mediums we have to do this with? 

Steam is a technology that people don’t want to loose.  They rely on it to give them a nice day out whilst holidaying in areas of ‘outstanding natural beauty’.  There is something about a steam engine.  I was chatting to my retired photography technician friend the other day and was a little surprised to hear this Apple-toting technophile express a similar sentiment about the medium of film stock when compared to the very best that digital imaging can offer.  He said ‘there is something about film’.  An undefinable quality.  And this can not be reduced to measurable factors like dynamic range, though this does seem to become an important consideration where projection is concerned. 

I followed some click-bait to an advert for a 24k (yes really!) professional (‘Black magic’) digital camera recently, which was selling itself as equal to the dynamic range of film stock.  It was billed as a ‘digital film’ camera (not ‘digital video’).  The term ‘digital video’ is confusing, since ‘video’ is actually an analogue medium, despite being an electronic one.  It uses (used) magnetic tape.  Anyway, the camera was being advertised to high-end professional filmmakers and cinematographers, who, according to some web sources, are still opting to use film stock to capture their images.  The blurb talked of ‘exceptional low light capabilities’.  This is an area where film stock can not compete.  ‘No more rushing around to capture the last few minutes of daylight’. 

There are many areas however, where the digital medium can not compete.  There are horses for courses.  Am I sitting on ‘Becher’s Brook’?

'Trying to get technology to be a solution...'

From article on asthma inhalers:

The important thing to concentrate on is, what is the problem?” he says. “Solutions are the easy bit. What I worry about is people falling in love with the technology and then trying to get it to be a solution. Good design is always about understanding the problem first, and coming up with the solution second.”

Digital vs Film

 Affordances and Constraints in analogue and digital moving image production.

What are the experimental limitations caused by the relative immateriality of digital image making?  What are the creative affordances of film stock?  Is there an ideal meeting point between these two technologies, that optimises innovation in production and presentation?

By looking at the history of artesanal filmmaking and the impact of the digital revolution on this non-commercial artistic activity, I intend to interrogate both mediums and produce a series of films that illustrate the affordances and constraints of each that manifest themselves in the filmmaking process.

Moving image artefacts will be made in both mediums, and a comparative commentary will be written that describes processes and critiques results.  Reference will be made to current theories of medium specificity and the cinema apparatus.  

A compromise will be sought between the extremes of structural materialist forms and experimental narrative.  Alternative forms of presentation will be embraced to highlight the importance of scale and location on audience reception.

To what extent does a particular technology dictate how it is used, and what is produced by it?  What can be learnt by examining the historic uses of an obsolete technology?  Can this inform the uses of a current technology?  

What are the parallels to be found outside of the cinematic realm?  Look at the history of cars/typewriters/paper and writing/weapons?  What are the arguments about technological determinism?

Enough threads to weave a face mask?

Pulling together ideas into some kind of coherence is time-consuming.  Writing is part of that process, so as part of the discipline of research I think it is time to make a short note of the reading and ideas I am formulating.

Some important texts have come to light that have helped point the way in a bracken-laiden corner of the field of avant garde film.  Definitions are vitally important if the writer wants to ensure that the reader is on the same conceptual page and not just the word/pdf one.  What are we actually talking about?

'Film' is a metonym for all the associated practices involved in making, producing, distributing, showing and receiving a work of moving images with sound.  It is an outdated and confusing term, as 'film' in the original sense of the word, is rarely used as a medium for audio-visual works.  What is actually used is digital video.  Video uses electronics, not chemicals, to create audio-visuals.  The distinction is an important one, because there seems to be a confusion that has promulgated a lot of discussion, debate and academic writing.  

As a maker, I have no time for arguments over the authenticity of the medium used in making.  What counts is what you can do with it.  Film and video are just different.  No one is better or worse in terms of indexicality.  In fact, as an artist, indexicality is not of particular interest to me.  Film provides a material substrate that you can work on in the manner of for example distressing the canvas or sticking things to it.  Remarkable results have been achieved (see the usual suspects - Brackage et al).  

In 2020, using film is not widely available as an option to the average journeyman filmmaker.  It may continue in certain backwaters like mid-Wales or Cornwall (see 'Bait'), making the most of the bourgeois trend for artisanal making, but it is like fitting the metal rim to a wooden cart wheel compared to the Quick-Fit of digital video.  If you want to get 'From A to B (and back again)' forget the cartwheel.  That belongs in the craft park as a Sunday afternoon family outing curiosity.

The previous metaphor is apt, as the artisanal movement is associated with slowing down.  I am certainly for less haste, but I think speed is of the essence as 2020 comes to a close.  The Eco-catastrophe is upon us.  DV is misused everywhere, but is the go-to medium for the Eco-Artist.  It requires electricity to make works, but avoids plastic and chemicals, and is available to most people in the developed world.

Is this a face mask which I see before me?

In defence of the backwater.

 Radical filmmaking is important.  Radical films force the audience to confront their prejudices, question their perceptions, and form opinions that challenge accepted norms.

Film for film's sake.  Film made for deeper reasons than entertainment.

However, this form of filmmaking can alienate and confuse.  For some fundamentalists, this might be a test for the seriousness of a text.

Is entertainment bad?  Why? If an artwork entertains, is this a weakness?

Radical politics and radical filmmaking are bedfellows.

How does art change society?  By embodying ideas (making people think).

Does the revolutionary aid or hinder the evolutionary?

What does an analysis of history suggest?

How has radical film influenced visual mediums - modes and ways of seeing and interpreting.

Visual literacy has lots of parallels with literacy per se: it is intrinsically valuable, it enriches society, defines diverse cultures.

Poetry develops language and ways of communicating ideas.  It is a forum for radical experimentation with language.  It expands perceptions of the world.  This is true of radical film.

Paddling up a backwater is exciting.  There are difficult passages, past fallen trees, and up shallow rapids, but the effort is always worth it because it takes your head to a different place.  Radical film amounts to many backwaters that feed the mainstream, but only if they are regularly visited.  And there is always a way to get further upstream if you try.

Narrative shapes people's lives.  Narrative film reinforces common narratives (myths) that are often reactionary.  Radical film works with concepts.  Can narrative be a part of radical film?

A recuperation of narrative?

Is metafiction really the enemy?  Does radical film really need to define itself in terms that dismiss narrative and its apologists?  Is being 'anti-illusionist' its only justification?

I can't really believe anything I'm seeing on any screen, but I am seduced by moving images combined with sound, and let myself be entranced.  I know a painting is just paint on canvas, but I let myself drift off into the world of the painting.  I acquiesce, but know that I can move on from screen or painting at any time it suits me.

Re:structural/materialists like Peter Gidel - 

I suspect that there was an anti-acrylic paint group when this particular technology arose, populated by those who swore by the political, moral, and technical superiority of oil paints.  The material used to communicate ideas in artworks might not be not irrelevant, but is not very important either.  Acrylic and oil can happily be combined.  What counts is actually the content.

That was the climax of this particular blog post, narratively speaking.  There is no escape from narrative.  This next bit is the denouement - even the most apparently narrativeless films have a narrative.  It is the story of their creation, the context of their making, the history of their viewing audience, their influence on filmmaking, but also their content - if a blank screen has duration, it has narrative.  If a blank screen doesn't have duration, it still has narrative.  This is because narrative is the way everyone attempts to understand the world and navigate life.

There are backwater narratives that don't appear to have any story, but they still have meaning.

Project Nantlle Coed

 

Some films are made just for the maker, who is the only audience.  A private diary.  But film is a powerful medium, and impacts on society: governments across the world have a history of funding national film making. 

Question the whole cinematic apparatus: writing, making, marketing, showing, the audience.  Create ‘Nantllewood’?  Create a market by selecting your audience personally.

Fashion a structure for a cultural action group.

A kickstarter – 100 Audience members – An exclusive film for only those who sign up.  Each member is a director = ‘distributed direction’.

Options are offered to the closed group for the presentation of the film.

So – recruit a group of people who are to be the audience for the film that they will decide the structure/context for, based on the options provided / shared with them by the director (me).

Each member/fan pays a fee and has votes on what happens in the film and when.

Clips are provided for each one minute section to make 17 minute film.

17 sections of music are shared and voted on where they are played.  The ‘premier’ is by private internet share.

To question what the relationship of the audience is to a film – a reverse marketting of the medium?

To apply structural principles ( a set of rules that are predetermined) to a whole film production. (as opposed to narrative principles).

To document the whole process/project in a documentary film.

A cinematic cult who are chosen to be members, and who vote on various options for the film as provided by me.

To subvert the current industry model for filmmaking (or to usurp the current model and apply it to a radical context).

Mainstream film starts with the selection of a script that is judged to be a financial success.  (Or does it?)  This judgement is based on what has been a money-earner before, and on focus groups and market research.  Standard practice dictates that a film maker/director decides on, or has a clear concept of, the audience for the film.  For mainstream film, this is the biggest audience possible.  Thus, a children’s film that has reference to adult issues is a winner as both children and adults will enjoy it.

So maybe a mainstream film starts by analysing the market (audience) for a potential film, and then looking for a story/script that could meet the needs of the audience/production? Thus genre - ‘What kind of films do you like?

Statistics concerning who, demographically speaking, attends the cinema is also important.  So the idea of selecting an audience and letting them have a hand in making the film which is aimed at them is in one respect a radical framing of what happens in all funded, mainstream cinema, but also could be seen as a radical recuperation of the methods of capitalist cultural making.

The spectator vs the audience.

The private film whose only publicity/proof of existence is the PhD.

A three year project to make a film comparison about the film industry versus artist made films.  To apply radical ideas of structural film: that narrative forces identification and thus perpetuates the lie that everything is fine.

Filmmaking as a process.

Makers have developed various technical processes to produce interesting effects in the actual body of the film.  Options for experimentation in the other elements of process involved in filmmaking are available.  

The process of marketing and promoting: 

the process of writing/scripting:

Knowledge and the nettle situation.

Taking a walking route along ill-defined paths, and with a small scale map, in an area that is attractive but unfamiliar, is the kind of exploration achievable by everyone of reasonable fitness.  When navigation is easy, the journey does not engage the mind, and so is less satisfying.  If the way forward is obscured, judgement is required if backtracking, and it's associated waste of energy, is to be avoided.

It is in the nature of judgement that sometimes our decisions are incorrect.  We are forced to take responsibility for this fact, and allow for this when deciding to use judgement as opposed to more reliable forms of decision-making. 

So, when I find myself in a forest of nettles, with barbed wire in front of me and a steep and recently descended incline behind me, I revel in my self-created problematic situation.  I have created a situation - a problem - that I must solve, through further acts of will, by making judgements.

Experiential knowledge is used in times of navigational challenge.  This particular kind of knowledge is most emphatically learnt by getting lost, and lost in extremis.  In some ways, this is like taking responsibility for one's own learning.

I test my abilities to navigate, and these abilities in part rely on knowledge of how to get unlost.  A theory of navigation may be applied.  This might amount to principles, like following a watercourse, or looking for hard-to-see evidence that walkers have passed your way before.

Theories are utilitarian.  A good theory is useful.  It enables you to do something.  It enables you to know something.  It enables you to understand something.

Doing and thinking: Practice and theory

       Theory and doing: Thinking and practice

Is this the start of a PhD proposal?

The Enigma of Hollis Frampton.

By using a research-led practice methodology, and with special reference to the work of filmmaker Hollis Frampton, my thesis will attempt to answer the following question:

• How does the study of a filmmaker's theories about their practice assist in understanding and appreciating their films?

I intend to produce a feature length documentary fiction film about Hollis Frampton and his theories, including remakes of parts of his films, re-enactments of interviews and lectures using existing audio, and a commentary on the journey undertaken to arrive at an understanding of this enigmatic artist.

The film will be marketed to film festivals using a website and a vlog of production progress.

Key literature will be Hollis Frampton's own written works and films.

Proposal draft: Hollis Frampton's contribution.

A reappraisal using research led practice.

In America in the 1960's, a film movement began that focussed on form and style as opposed to content.  One of the leaders in this structural approach was Hollis Frampton. 

What can be learnt from his practice and applied to filmmaking in today's short film festival scene?
Where did this structural approach originate?
What are its key works?
Where does Hollis Frampton's work fit in this radical movement?
What is unique about his contribution?

By investigating Frampton's seminal works and remaking them digitally, it is intended that new insight into this filmmakers unique contribution will be achieved.

I am an individual film artist.

I am an individual film artist, which means that I am not engaged with 'professional filmmaking' in the generally understood sense, by which I mean a highly demarcated collaborative large scale exercise.

Higher education in filmmaking is tied to this sense, and is largely aimed at producing graduates able to become cogs in the wheels of industrial filmmaking.

This includes at PhD level, where models are presented as solutions to the problem of specialists in film (writers, directors, cinematographers et al) being able to do practice-based PhDs.  The recommended methodology is the research centre.

As a filmmaker who is self-contained, and who takes on all the associated roles (for better or worse), this model is unnecessary.  Furthermore, the social sciences framework for practice-based Phds has issues with regarding the artefact as research itself.  A more encompassing model is required by the artist practitioner.

What I am trying to negotiate here is a path for non-industrial filmmaking research at PhD level, where the creative output is integral to the research.  By carrying on my practice beyond M.A. level, but adopting the same methodology as the creative practice element (thesis film and associated portfolio and blog), this is eminently possible.

However, the social sciences emphasis on positivist models of a research question followed by data collection, analysis, and drawn conclusions, is a false fit, born of historical reasons - pressures from the 'hard' sciences for the social sciences to justify research.

The consequences of this (government imposed) administrative and auditing exercise is PhDs in filmmaking that are boring and uninspiring, but manage to tie their initial question with their conclusion.  The closer the research carried out fits the academic model, the poorer the creative artefact/outcome.  And since the artefact is essentially the embodiment of new and original knowledge in a practice-based PhD, it will lack significance.

How can my individual art film practice research inform the film industry (and academia), so that filmmaking can become more creative, sustainable and achievable by more people, and the delivery of Filmmaking PhDs facilitate higher quality outcomes?

How does an artist use film to maximise their impact on society?

By employing the resources provided by digitisation of the medium (cheap equipment, free research material, free global distribution) how can the individual filmmaker challenge the hegemonic forces of industrial filmmaking?

Can an individual make a film as good as a film made by the collaboration of hundreds of individuals?

There are many different types of film.  They all feed off each other.  What is the food of the highly authored personal film?  Can recipes be shared?

To satisfy the mindset of those who must see data before they accept that research is being carried out, the data I collect could be interviews with filmmakers and specialists (editors, cinematographers, writers, directors) of both personal films and industry films.

The written element of the Phd could be structured around the specialisms, with my own skills in these areas shared, and commented on, in the context of my own production(s).

Ultimately, a book could be produced.  I am thinking along the lines of my own version of Kathryn Millard's 'Screenwriting in a digital era'. https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780230343283  but 'Solo Filmmaking in a digital era'.

The form of the Phd could be a DVD, to facilitate media examples of moving image with sound.  Alternatively, it could also be a website.

Some of the ideas in this particular blog arise from Anderson and Tobin's 'How do you do a practice-based Phd in Filmmaking?' Leeds metropolitan University.
http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/623/

The Rose Bowl.

'As:Yet'

'As:Yet' is a new film idea.

Email to Hae Yuen and Marcel in Seoul, 14th May 2020:

I see a Korean woman dressed in white, standing in a variety of locations, and often viewed from above and both close up and in the distance.  

She stares out, as if seeing/watching something from afar.  She sometimes raises her hand.  Sometimes this gesture becomes a wave.  She walks slowly from location to location.  

The camera cuts to the action taking place around her in all the places she visits.  There are abstract details formed from extreme close up - surfaces, textures, lettering.  

The colour palette is consistent in each location.

I see all of the above, but a western man in black.

Waving could be replaced with abstract hand signals.  Maybe deaf-signing the title (As:Yet) to each other.

Send me your phone models and I can decide what settings to use.  Takes should be about 15 seconds.  Use surrounding surfaces to lean on for stability.

The dialogue can be semi-improvised and recorded over Zoom/teams, using my prompts/interview.

The footage will be edited together to create a fractured, illogical narrative, and repetition/slow motion might be added.  The soundtrack will be taken from the phone footage, but will not match the visuals.  Some additional audio will provide continuity.

I anticipate a 3 to 5 minute piece will surface, but if you have good phone batteries and lots of storage space, and really get into it, a longer film might work.  If you do want to produce a longer film I might have to get you to film the two of you together in some way, which could involve you getting hold of a tripod for your phone.

What is 'weight' and what is to be done?

Why do we value knowledge?  Because we like to learn from it, and learning enables us to do things - one of which is to understand a bit more about life, the universe and everything.

What is my practice?  What do I actually do as a filmmaker?  This is an important question for me to answer because it may help to justify the funding of a PhD, which must be a 'significant and original contribution to knowledge'.

So, there is knowledge produced through creative experimentation in the processes employed in filmmaking.

Where does this knowledge show itself?  In documentation of the processes - which can be read and followed by other filmmakers.  And in the artefact produced -

How do you learn to do art?  You look at lots of it.  You think about what you have seen.  You compare it to what you do.  You analyse the differences.  You practice.  You read about how artists do it.  You copy emulate them.  You do it.

A 'significant and original contribution' must be a useful guide to others in your field.  Two questions can be answered:

How do you make films?(practice)  Thesis       'This is what I do'.
What is filmmaking?      (theory)     Antithesis  'How does it compare with others'
Look here!                      (my film)  Synthesis  'Learn from this'.

My film is the embodiment of my practice as informed by my thinking about the theories of film making.  If you can learn from something, it must contain knowledge.  My film shows what a film can be, and how a film can be/look/sound.  Knowledge what and knowledge how.

HOWEVER -
Your practice might be ill-informed, lack technique, be unreflective.
Your ability to theorise and show your understanding of theory may be poor.
Your finished work might be boring, derivative, uninspiring.

In other words, there may be nothing (new) to learn from it, so although it could be claimed to embody some knowledge, it lacks usefulness, so is insignificant.

The Nantlle manifesto...

...of the moving image.

Ten Rules for a Refreshed Cinema.

1. No crew.
2. No trained actors.
3. No standard linear narratives.
4. No special effects.
5. No dialogue.
6. No budget.
7. No script/screenplay.
8. No genres.
9. No pandering to social norms.
10. No films over 45 minutes.
11. No musical interludes.

NO!

Self-satisfaction!

Understanding:Knowledge

A hard nut.

This is a struggle.  If I share my understanding, gleaned from researching an activity or process (or performance), is this classed as knowledge?  If no one else has this understanding, and I transform it (by externalising it) from subjective to objective existence (by writing about it) does it become knowledge?

How is knowledge created? 

1. Observe....read/do/experience.
2. Record.....note/remember/write.
3. Analyse....think.
4. Report....write.

What we observe is affected by our beliefs.  

Three domains: Subjective - beliefs

                          Objective - knowledge

                          The bit between - ?

Thesis --- Antithesis ---- Synthesis

A question(s).

What factors (creative opportunities) in filmmaking are independent of large budgets?
What creative opportunities gets lost in the leviathan of a big budget?
How do limitations in creative processes feed new discovery?
What gets lost when a production is small?  What gets found?

Changes in technology mean that one person can write, make and distribute a watchable film.  A singular vision can be expressed.  This person is an ultra-auteur.

A lot is gained through collaboration.  A single, unique overarching [poetic] vision is lost.

Researching is finding things out - gaining knowledge that already exists.  New knowledge can emerge when reflection/analysis [practice?] is applied, and a discussion [artefact?] results in conclusions that modify / change the perspective on, that existing knowledge.

• Films made by individuals exist.
• These can be examined and appraised, together with the histories and contexts of their production and reception.
• A solo practitioner can make a film [or films].
• This can be examined and appraised, together with documentation of process.

The three stage model of filmmaking can be applied to a doctorate:

1. Pre-production
2. Production
3. Post-production

The PhD is a solo creative enterprise.  It has commonalities with solo filmmaking.

What is the difference between an artefact [film] produced in an academic context, and one produced outside academia?  Intention?  Audience?  Relevance?  Freedom of expression?

What is the difference between research carried out in an academic context, and research carried out in other contexts?  The degree of objectivity [checking]?

How can you combine making art with research?  What is the recipe?  How do you make it taste good?  What ratios to you apply?

How does an artefact embody knowledge?  It embodies understanding (how to make it).  Is understanding knowing how?

I know how society/the economy works because I understand how all of its parts fit together and influence each other.  Claims to knowledge entail understanding.

'A significant original contribution to knowledge' - 'sock' - science PhD

'A significant original contribution to understanding' - 'socu' - humanities PhD.

There is an interesting difference between data and information.  Data becomes information (becomes useful) when it is given a context, through processing and organisation.  When does information become knowledge?

Researching filmmaking is not about collecting data, except in the realm of film marketing.  

Research Based Practice.

This is another approach.

Perhaps terms can be misleading when they are created as a shorthand way of referring to complex ideas.  All artistic activity involves research.  Research precedes making art.

Is there an art of research?  Research is a creative activity.  It should create knowledge.  It can create art objects.  Art objects are learning materials.  They contain knowledge.

Research and art practice.

Exploration is required if new knowledge is to be discovered.  Connecting ideas can result in new perspectives.

Science is empirical.  Its object is knowledge.

The humanities are more concerned with understanding.

Desmond's obscure object, and Tara's desire.

A Phd has to have a 'sock' - a significant and original contribution to knowledge.  What kind of knowledge is this?  The research that is carried out needs an outcome, but when it comes to PhDs in the humanities, this outcome is going to be of a different kind to a PhD in the domain of science.

A PhD that concerns research that is based on or led by practice will have a different coloured sock to a PhD where the 'practice' is sitting in a dusty archive in a library or a laboratory of bubbling test tubes (or possibly blinking lazers).   A practice-based PhD in film will contain research that colours the sock in hues derived from the processes carried out whilst film making. These hues may be more concerned with understanding than with knowledge.  But it's more complicated than that.   It's about methodology.

Desmond Bell's article (cited below) is a useful discussion about this.  Also below, Tara Brabazon discusses the difference between empirical (science) methodologies and the more holistic, interpretive method involving meaning making strategies, typical of a humanities PhD.

Knowledge can be subjective*.

*This has been a topic of dispute throughout the history of philosophy.

'The researcher's experiences link to the research undertaken'.

Desmond Bell (2006) Creative film and media practice as research: In pursuit
of that obscure object of knowledge, Journal of Media Practice, 7:2, 85-100, DOI: 10.1386/
jmpr.7.2.85_1
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.7.2.85_1

Tara Brabazon, dean of postgraduate studies at Flinders University, Australia:

https://youtu.be/SWtPhvIXaOg

Lost in Space

It is important to keep writing, otherwise you tend to forget how to do it.  Even finding the letters on the keyboard can become a task.  Typing is actually a physical chore, as it is not done on all fingers in the Catullus Films office, just on the two index fingers.  This, coupled with a blindness for correct spelling that requires regular googling, makes generating 'product' rather slow and...onerous.

However, once a flow has begun, and the ball is rolling down a slight incline over wet grass and small pebbles left by the last glaciation, things become a little easier - the fingers begin to remember the location of the required letters for expression, and the brain can register how words are formed more easily.

So, to work - what are we writing about today?  This will be a 'meta-writing' session, (perhaps 'session' is too glorious a word), intended as a note-to-self about why I am struggling to bother writing anything at all in the present chapter of my life. 

I don't really need to write, so what's the problem?  I don't really need to live actually.  Nothing has any necessity, except maintaining satori - keeping panic at bay, dealing with the fear of depression, warding off the big black cloud that occasionally looms over the distant mountains.

There - motivation.

'Onsight' ascent at the cinema

It's interesting to reflect on the role of the review, as a bridge between the audience and the work.  There are different ways of 'seeing' a film - with no prior knowledge, or after reading and hearing about it.

It makes me think of two different modes of rock climbing (something I do from time to time).  You can climb a route with no prior knowledge ('beta') which is called an 'onsight', or you can 'redpoint' a climb, having gained lots of information beforehand (much easier of course).

'Onsight' is especially respected because it requires a higher level of mental agility (and it's more dangerous!).  Of course routes can be repeated (and films watched again) and the experience changes over time.  You can tackle (and enjoy safely) harder routes if you 'redpoint' them.  And you can avoid wasting time and money by reading reviews before you attend showings.

I used to buy long playing records (albums) based on the cover.  Sometimes I was lucky and discovered something new that had merit.  As I drove across the south island of new Zealand in 2000, I would stop at little shops and discover very obscure cassette tapes, often with a religious theme.  Playing these as I glided along deserted roads with distant views made for surreal solitude and lots of laughing.

Climbing 'Valkyrie' at The Roaches, 2010.

I've always been a 'browser', and there's nowhere better to browse than a library, once you've found the shelf with the topic you're wrestling with.  It is research 'embodied', and much more of an intellectual adventure than searching the catalogues online (though this might be the starting point to finding the right shelf).  There is always the likelihood that your eyes will stray to the shelf above or below, and a new train of thought will ensue.

FOR THE DURATION - Festival entries

The film has been entered into two film festivals:

Berwick Film and Media Arts Festival - Berwick  running from Thursday 10th September to Sunday 10th September 2020

Aesthetica Short Film Festival - Aesthetica (in York) running from Wednesday 4th November to Sunday 8th November 2020

Notification of whether the film has been accepted will be 1st August for Aesthetica and 25th August for Berwick.

The other festival under consideration is Rotterdam, which runs every January.

FOR THE DURATION - Aesthetica Film Festival

As part of the marketing plan for the film, I decided that some market research was a good idea.  I had identified the Aesthetica Film Festival in York as a suitable festival to submit my film to - it had a substantial 'experimental' film section.

After manufacturing some business cards to give out, I packed my sleeping bag and a large number of jam sandwiches, and set off for York.  After about 4 hours I arrived, and quickly located the spot just outside town where I would car-camp.  I then plodded off down the river bank to find the registration building.

Once registered, I picked up a copy of the programme to study, and began to get my bearings.  All the venues I needed to visit  were quite close together, except for the one at the university, which was about 25 minutes walk out of town.

I had already planned my visits, which would take in all six of the experimental film showings.  I had even fashioned an edited map of the town centre that would fold easily into an inside pocket, and which could be consulted without looking like I was lost.

All in all, I saw 24 films (in one day), ranging from three to 30 minutes.  Most were technically proficient, some had unconvincing acting, some relied on cliched effects, and many seemed to attach a higher value to technical quality than content.

I saw only one or two that I judged as superior to my own film.  I don't think this is because I am biased, as I am usually too critical of my own work.  I genuinely think that my film has a chance of being recognised as worthy of being shown.