EXPERIMENTAL RESTORATION:
Issues of Patina and Lacunae in the
Restoration of Experimental Films
Nadja Šičarov
____________________________________
Master’s Thesis
Heritage Studies:
Preservation and Presentation of the Moving Image
Faculty of Humanities
Department of Media Studies University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: dr. Eef Masson
Second Reader: dr. Giovanna Fossati
2
3 Acknowledgements
I am extremely grateful to Assistant Professor Eef Masson for supervising my research, for her detailed comments and very helpful guidelines which led me through the writing process. I would also like to thank Mark Toscano, John Klacsmann, Simona Monizza, Mirco Santi and Claudio Santancini for sharing their restoration practices with me. I could have not finished this thesis without the support of Tata and Mama, Hansij, George and Manuel.
4
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ... 6
1.1 OBSERVATION 7
1.2 CONTEXT OF RESEARCH 11
1.3 APPROACH AND STRUCTURE 12
2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CONSERVATION ...17 2.1 FINE ART CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK: FROM TRADITIONAL TO
CONTEMPORARY ART 19
2.2 FILM: FROM FINE ART TO EXPERIMENTAL FILM 22
2.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR EXPERIMENTAL FILM CONSERVATION
24
2.3.1 CONSERVATION OBJECT AND ITS MEDIUM SPECIFICITY 25
2.3.2 AUTHORSHIP 28
2.3.3 AUTHENTICITY 29
3 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF DEGRADED MATERIALS IN FINE ART RESTORATION
...31
3.1 PATINA AND CLEANING 34
3.1.1 THE CONCEPT OF PATINA 34
3.1.2 CLEANING 36
3.2 LACUNAE AND REINTEGRATION 41
3.2.1 THE CONCEPT OF LACUNAE 41
5
4 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF DEGRADED MATERIALS IN EXPERIMENTAL FILM
RESTORATION ...45
4.1 PROBLEM OF CLASSIFICATION 48
4.2 PATINA AND TREATMENT 49
4.2.1 THE CONCEPT OF PATINA 49
4.2.2 TREATMENT 52
4.3 LACUNAE AND TREATMENT 57
4.3.1 THE CONCEPT OF LACUNAE 57
4.3.2 TREATMENT 60
5 CONCLUSION ...62
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...64
APPENDIX ...71
Interview with John Klacsmann, the Anthology Film Archives 71
Interview with Simona Monizza, the EYE Filmmuseum 84
Interview with Claudio Santancini, the Austrian Film Museum 90 Interview with Mirco Santi, the association Home Movies, l'Archivio Nazionale del Film di
Famiglia 94
6
1 INTRODUCTION
In 2005, Mark Toscano, film preservationist at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences, carried out preservation of the film He was born, he suffered, he died (1974). This
film was made by Stan Brakhage, one of the most prominent figures in the history of
experimental cinema. Like numerous filmmakers who have been making experimental films from the 1920s on, Brakhage was creating his works by exploring the potential of celluloid material and extending the creative practices of filmmaking beyond the protocols of
conventional cinema production. The use of different film elements, such as a black leader, and production practices like bleaching the film stock, are just two among the techniques he embraced in the creation of He was born, he suffered, he died.1
Toscano produced a new internegative from the original camera film, but only when he compared it to the internegative made in 1974 by Brakhage himself, he noticed that stains of bleached areas on black leader were present on the new element, while they were absent from the 1974 internegative. Closer inspection proved that the chemicals Brakhage was using for bleaching the original element remained on the film stock and continued to wash the emulsion away over time, gradually changing the appearance of the image. This ongoing process of image alteration left Toscano with a dilemma common in the restoration of
experimental cinema: how should various material modifications be reviewed and treated in film restoration processes?
Considering that alterations determine the condition of a work at a particular moment in time, the question which arises in such situations is: which is the preferred state of a work to which it is to be restored? On the one hand, as Toscano says, “[t]o preserve the film in this [altered] form would [allow] these new flare spots to now become part of the film.”2 On the other hand, restoration of the version from the 1974 internegative would be closer to “what Stan had originally created.”3 The fundamental dilemma which arose from this situation was whether the consequences of the use of chemicals were to be considered part of the film or not. In the end, answer prints were produced from the new internegative, which entailed keeping the signs of modification as part of the work. Although the final decision was not easy to make, Toscano explains that it was made according to “a sense that Stan would have been
interested and perhaps even excited at the idea that one of his films [...] had continued to live
1 Mark Toscano, “Archiving Brakhage,” Journal of Film Preservation 72, no. 11 (2006): 23 – 24. 2 Ibid., 24.
7
its own life long after he had released it into the world.”4 It is interesting to observe that while the author’s intentions were not explicitly known to the restorer, the problem was
nevertheless approached from the perspective of the style of the author and his own conception of experimenting with medium specificity.
1.1 OBSERVATION
The case-study described above illustrates three particular challenges in experimental film restoration. First there are difficulties in the diagnosis of material conditions. Secondly, there is an ambiguity concerning the assumptions about the preferred appearance of a film. Lastly there is the question of the way in which these assumptions relate to the significance of a work. These issues which derive from the multiple possibilities a restorer has in the process of restoration treatment, are, however, not unique to the field of experimental film restoration, but are rather also frequently present in the restoration of other types of film heritage.
Giovanna Fossati, head curator at the EYE Filmmuseum and film scholar, illustrates this dilemma in the larger field of film restoration with an example of the occurrence and
treatment of a scratch on an original camera negative. Fossati claims that in approaching the treatment of such an alteration, restorers are commonly divided into those who would prefer to preserve modifications and those who would remove them.5 As Fossati explains, the most common compromise between these two trends in film restoration thinking is “that of
preserving the artifact with the scratch and documenting its existence but removing it digitally from the restoration.”6 This observation reveals an interesting issue in the larger field of film preservation: while on the one hand, current restoration techniques allow for various
technical approaches to dealing with film, the decision about which approach to choose is also an ethical one. However, the ethics which review the specific conditions of degraded film material currently stem from different and oftentimes opposing perspectives.
The difference in approaching this issue is particularly visible when comparing the existing choices in the areas of conventional and experimental film restoration. In the context of traditional film restoration, signs of degradation are considered the result of aging and choices are made according to the decision whether the respect for the historical value is relevant for the significance of the work or not. Film restorers Paul Read and Mark-Paul Meyer, for instance, recognize two schools of thought in approaching the treatment of degraded film material. While some restorers regard “scratches as a part of the
4 Ibid.
5 Giovanna Fossati, From Grain to Pixel (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009), 224. 6 Ibid.
8
cinematographic inheritance” and see “the defects [...] as the authentic ‘patina’ of earlier times [...], others see the scratches as meaningless and annoying defects, that should be eliminated.”7 In the context of experimental film restoration, this dilemma appears to be even more complex. In this field, alterations might not necessarily be seen only as a problem, since material transformation over time can be considered as relevant to the conception of the work or even as a part of its integral meaning.
There seems to be a lack of discussions about these challenges within the larger field of film preservation. The reason for that might be connected to the fact that the same criteria for the recognition of degraded conditions are not relevant for any kind of film material, as different types of film heritage require their own conservation frameworks. While ethical guidelines concerning film restoration practices have been for the most part addressed in the context of work involving silent cinema, they receive little attention in relation to experimental film. In this thesis, I intend to confront the lack of ethical theorization by proposing my own conceptual framework for experimental film restoration. In thinking about the unique
problematic of experimental film restoration, I will combine perspectives from both the larger field of film preservation and the area of conservation of fine arts and related notions of
patina (signs of natural aging of material) and lacunae (areas with missing information).
Based on this theoretical consideration, I will outline the challenges of existing restoration practices which are particularly well known to archivists and preservationists of experimental cinema.
Motivated by the lack of discussion about the restoration of experimental films, I have decided to conduct interviews with five experts who have acquired a lot of practical
experience working in the field of experimental cinema restoration: Simona Monizza (curator of the experimental film collection at the EYE Filmmuseum), Claudio Santancini (film restorer at the Austrian Film Museum), John Klacsmann (archivist at the Anthology Film Archives), Mirco Santi (co-founder of the association Home Movies, l'Archivio Nazionale del Film di Famiglia) and Mark Toscano (film preservationist at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences). Conversations with them will provide a basis to explicate the most common types of alterations which occur on experimental film materials and the issues related to their treatment. Based on these interviews, this research will address two questions. What are the most common conditions of degraded film material typical for experimental cinema? And what are the key principles that determine the decisions about their treatment?
7 Paul Read and Mark-Paul Meyer, Restoration of Motion Picture Film (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000),
9
As a matter of fact, the lack of discussions concerning the restoration of experimental films comes as no surprise, considering that experimental film remains in a rather marginalized position within not only art museums,8 but also film archives.9 From the institutional context of film archiving, Haden Guest, the director of the Harvard Film Archive, attributes this
marginalization to “the dramatic flux of film technology in recent years and, more specifically, the seemingly inevitable extinction of small-gauge film stock and equipment in the relatively near future.”10 As a consequence of the obsolescence of both experimental film medium and technologies for its production and presentation, priorities in archival practices have been given to mainstream films. From the context of the art world, Margaret Parsons, head of the film department at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., points out that
experimental film has not been completely accepted by art museums, because it has historically existed on the margins of art and film cultures and in opposition to the art market.11 As the preservation of experimental films seems to be marginalized in both institutional contexts, these films mostly remain in the hands of filmmakers themselves.12 Even though in the last decades the number of institutions that welcome experimental film into their collections is growing, only a handful of institutions – namely, Anthology Film Archives, Austrian Film Museum, Pacific Film Archive and MoMA – include experimental film at the core of their preservation objectives.13 This position of experimental film in the archival context goes hand in hand with the fact that discussion about the ethical and methodological challenges of experimental film preservation has been noticeably absent from the larger field of film preservation.
As a consequence of this lack of institutional support and development, restorers dealing with experimental film only have conventional film preservation models to refer back to. This is not a sufficient source of knowledge because these practices do not offer guidelines for the numerous situations that are specific to experimental film preservation. When defining
conservation objectives, Salvador Muñoz Viñas writes that “the mere description of the activity or its aims is not enough: the object of that activity plays a crucial role in our
8 Scott MacDonald, "Marginalization: Historical/Terminological," The Moving Image: The Journal of the
Association of Moving Image Archivists 12, no. 1 (2012): 87-88.
9 Haden Guest, "Notes from a Cautious Optimist," The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving
Image Archivists 12, no. 1 (2012): 91-92.
10 Ibid., 91.
11 Margaret Parsons, “Still Separate…but Equal?" The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving
Image Archivists 12, no. 1 (2012): 89.
12 Bill Brand, "Artist as Archivist in the Digital Transition," The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of
Moving Image Archivists 12, no. 1 (2012): 92.
10
understanding of these notions. For an action to qualify as conservation, it must be
performed upon a certain kind of object.”14 In this way, restoration of experimental films which primarily circulate in independent, non-institutional and artistic environments, cannot simply adopt the existing objectives for the restoration of a blockbuster classic from the commercial realm.
Professional literature on film preservation does not provide enough information to work with when addressing the specific issues regarding degraded conditions of experimental film material. This thesis aims to take a step towards filling the gap in contemporary professional and academic debate concerning the preservation of experimental films. In doing so it will focus on specific subcategories of issues concerning the diagnosis and treatment of degraded film material. I will confront this objective by discussing the issues articulated above through the lenses of fine art restoration theory. More specifically, I will do so by reviewing the concepts of patina and lacunae and their treatment with regard to the nature of experimental films. For the purpose of this thesis, experimental or avant-garde film will be defined as a cinematic work which embodies the following elementary concepts: a distinct notion of authorship, an opposition to mass film production, escapism from classical linear narration and a degree of experimentation with celluloid itself.15
The notions of patina and lacunae have been historically widely discussed within the field of fine art restoration as specific conditions of degraded material. These debates contributed considerably to the development of conservation-restoration ethics and methodology. I believe that these notions provide a good starting point for future much needed discussions concerning the review and treatment of specific degraded material conditions within an experimental film restoration context. Experimental film “resemble[s] the work of fine artists”16 in that its restoration serves to reveal “the hand of the artist in its original creation.”17 With regard to the observation that experimental films might be considered unique artworks, it seems valuable to discuss the notions of patina and lacunae in line with them. The concepts of patina and lacunae, as well as methodologies for their treatment have found substantial theoretical and practical ground in relation to various types of materials, excluding film. I believe it will be productive to relate them to experimental film because such an elaboration may stimulate new topics of research and communication between professionals in the field of film restoration.
14 Salvador Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation (Amsterdam [etc.]: Elsevier, 2005), 28. 15 Jon Gartenberg, "The Fragile Emulsion," The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image
Archivists 2, no. 2 (2002): 142.
16 Ibid., 143. 17 Ibid.
11
1.2 CONTEXT OF RESEARCH
Restoration became recognized as a scholarly discipline in the 19th century with the growth of the notion of cultural heritage, as “romanticism consecrated the idea of the artist as a special individual and exalted the beauty of local ruins [while] nationalism exalted the value of national monuments as symbols of identity.”18 It developed as a response to the emerging requirement for consistent methodologies and principles towards approaching specific problems related to changing material conditions.19 Throughout the century, conservation-restoration gained reputation as a discipline, yet it was lacking professional codification of its principles (see 3.1.2). It was only in the beginning of the 20th century that the formulation of consistent ethics of preservation-restoration took place.
One of the figures that considerably contributed to the development of conservation ethics was Cesare Brandi, an art historian and a co-founder of the Istituto Centrale del Restauro in Italy, where he was a director between 1939 and 1961. Following the experience in
conservation he had acquired during that period, Brandi published Teoria del Restauro (Theory of Restoration) (1963), which remains a guiding textbook for many restorers in the field. In this text he defined the purpose of restoration and addressed ethical issues
concerning the restoration of artworks, based on the respect for their aesthetic and historical significance. 20 For Brandi, both aesthetics and historicity can be recognized in relation to the material of the object. 21 Since the material can be scientifically analyzed, values pertaining to an object may be evaluated from an objective perspective.22 Brandi’s most important
contribution to conservation discourses were the basic ethical principles of reversibility, recognizability and documentation of restoration procedures. These became recognized as the main principles of the professional code of ethics for fine arts restorers as a response to the growing importance of both historical and aesthetic significance of each individual artwork. Based on this ethical foundation, Brandi developed the methodology for
approaching the problem of the loss of information within an artwork, which nowadays still remains the commonly accepted practice for the reintegration of lacunae.
18 Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 3.
19 Chris Caple, Conservation Skills: Judgement, Method, and Decision Making (London; New York: Routledge,
2000), 55.
20 Ibid.,126.
21 Cesare Brandi, Theory of Restoration (Rome: Istituto Centrale del Restauro, 2005), 51. 22 Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 68.
12
Less than half a century after Teoria del Restauro gained recognition, Salvador Muñoz Viñas, head of the paper and document group of the Heritage Conservation Institute of the Universitat Politècnica de València, published the book The Contemporary Theory of
Conservation (2005), in which he opposes classical theoretical conservation ideas and their
focus on the ideas of scientific truth and the objectivity of restoration decisions. Muñoz Viñas has been one of the conservators (beside Jonathan Ashley-Smith, Dinah Eastop and Miriam Clavir, among others)23 who have contributed to the emergence of contemporary
conservation thinking by questioning the traditional conservation doctrine and bringing
attention to different values that objects might embody according to the historical and cultural contexts of their existence. Instead of referring to objective criteria, Muñoz Viñas calls for different contemporary conservation thinking and emphasizes the importance of “the uses, values and meanings that an object has for people.”24 From this point of view, the complex issue of value arises when individuals involved in the process of conservation have
conflicting ideas, preferences and interests.
As a result of the subjectivity involved in restoration, it is essential to reconsider historically established terminology in order to justify the decisions and results of restoration processes and to provide an effective dialogue between all involved participants. In this thesis, the notions of patina and lacunae will be approached from this perspective of contemporary conservation thinking: as critical concepts that are to be reconsidered every time anew, depending on the object under treatment, the people involved and the people affected. Considering that objectives of every conservation treatment are formed upon the particular type of an object, it is a necessary requirement to address the following question: to what extent can theoretical and methodological principles of fine art restoration be interpreted and enacted within the field of experimental film restoration?
1.3 APPROACH AND STRUCTURE
This thesis aims to demonstrate that experimental film restoration is a field where ethical considerations and practices from both fine art and film restoration can come together. To support this claim, I will review existing practices using theoretical tools in order to propose a conceptual framework for experimental film conservation. This framework will be formulated in relation to the conservation objectives of the two respective fields.
23 Simon Cane, “Why Do We Conserve? Developing Understanding of Conservation as a Cultural Construct,” in
Conservation Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, eds. Alison Richmond and Alison Bracker
(London: Victoria and Albert Museum; Amsterdam [etc.]; Butterworth-Heinemann, 2009), 174.
13
First, I will examine fine art conservation, the field which has been a frequent inspiration for film restorers in approaching ethical issues in their field of work.25 As Andreas Busche emphasizes, restoration ethics are “integral elements of an overarching professional code; they enable the restorer to reflect critically on the quality of his conduct.”26 Ethical guidelines in fine art play a central role in the process of restoration and serve as a theoretical basis for discussions about methodological approaches towards specific practical issues in the field.27 As a result of the continuous co-development of the ethical and methodological aspects of fine art restoration, the notions of patina and lacunae have been most explicitly defined in relation to fine arts.
The distinction between ethics and methodology is relevant for my observation that current practices in experimental film restoration derive from two different fields. While the practical procedures of experimental film restoration are in line with the larger field of film restoration, the same cannot be said for its ethical approach. Busche observes that “[f]ilm restoration still lacks the necessary perspective to elaborate a self-referential restoration theory, particularly when it comes to ethical questions.”28 As a consequence of the absence of consistent ethical theorization, film restorers refer to the professional code of ethics of fine arts restoration in order to outline frameworks of their practices.
Second, I will look at the larger field of film restoration, as this is the field where the
technology and practices for restoration of experimental cinema come from. Considerations from the larger field of film restoration will unveil the practical challenges concerning the treatment of patina and lacunae in relation to the film medium. The issues discussed will be considered with reference to the operations with both analogue and digital technologies for restoration.
In the attempt to discuss both ethical and technical aspects of the current experimental film restoration practices I will compare the contributions from both fields of fine art conservation and the larger field of film preservation. The aim of developing my own framework is to form a theoretical ground which confronts the main question of my research: How might the
recognition and treatment of patina and lacunae be conceptualized in relation to experimental film restoration?
25 Andreas Busche, “Just Another Form of Ideology? Ethical and Methodological Principles in Film Restoration,”
The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 6, no. 2 (2006): 5.
26 Ibid., 4. 27 Ibid., 5. 28 Ibid.
14
Before I look into the notions relevant for developing my own framework for experimental film preservation, I will outline how these concepts are associated to each other in relation to fine arts. Pip Laurenson, head of the time-based media conservation at Tate, identified three key notions that form the basis of a traditional art conservation framework: the conservation object, authorship, and authenticity.29 It will be of particular interest for my examination to analyze how the long-established framework for fine art conservation has shifted in the second half of the 20th century. The framework which was bound to traditional art changed in line with other shifts related to the notion of an artwork from the material of a unique artifact to the conceptual ideas behind it.30 The objectives of traditional art conservation that were rooted in the preservation of a unique artifact with values identified according to its material conditions, changed along with this shift. In contemporary art conservation, the notions of authorship and authenticity are no longer necessarily associated with the materiality of the conservation object. It is particularly in time-based media art31 and installations32 where artistic intentions might be found in the conceptual significance of an artwork instead. The comparison between experimental films and works of art will demonstrate that experimental films most likely resemble contemporary artworks, as opposed to traditional works of art, in that both mediums might be characterized by reproductive and motion-based features as well as their low sustainability as a material. These characteristics are fundamental for the decision on conservation aims concerning the acceptance of change and loss in relation to the conservation object.
Laurenson claims that “concepts [of the conservation object, authorship and authenticity] form the basis against which the purpose of conservation is defined,”33 by which she means that they might be discussed in relation to various types of objects. In line with this
argumentation, I will develop my own framework for experimental film conservation using the concepts of conservation object and its medium specificity, auteur and authenticity. These notions will be discussed in relation to frameworks for theorizing film archival practice in an institutional context, which Giovanna Fossati identified as “Film as Dispositif”, “Film as State of the Art”, “Film as Original” and “Film as Art” in her book From Grain to Pixel (2009). These
29 Pip Laurenson, “Authenticity, Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-Based Media Installations,” Tate
Papers, no. 6, Autumn (2006), accessed 17 June 2017,
http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/06/authenticity-change-and-loss-conservation-of-time-based-media-installations.
30 Kerstin Luber and Barbara Sommermeyer, “Remaking Artworks: Realized Concept versus Unique Artwork,” in
Inside Installations: Theory and Practice in the Care of Complex Artworks, eds. Tatja Scholte and Glenn Wharton
(Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012), 235-248.
31 Laurenson, “Authenticity, Change and Loss”.
32 Luber and Sommermeyer, “Remaking Artworks”, 245. 33 Laurenson,“Authenticity, Change and Loss”.
15
frameworks concern a wide range of preservation practices, mostly oriented toward mainstream, as opposed to experimental film. The last two of these frameworks, "Film as Original" and "Film as Art" are of particular relevance to my own discussion, because – as Fossati herself argues in relation to experimental film – “where the filmmaker/auteur is also partial to the medium used,” these two frameworks are often considered intertwined.34
In developing this framework I will bring attention to the differences between experimental and traditional film, because, as archivist and curator Jon Gartenberg emphasized, in experimental film preservation it is of pivotal importance to be aware of the “relationship [of experimental cinema] to the dominant mode of commercial narrative cinema.”35 As opposed to conventional cinema, experimental films are produced in a manner which deviates from settled normatives and standards, while artistic ideas are realized by playing with both the potential of the apparatus and the material characteristics of the medium itself.
Preservationist and filmmaker Bill Brand specifies this relationship when he says that “it is essential for the preservationist to understand the history, context, and materials of the original production to make critical decisions about [...] qualities [of experimental cinema] considered defects in conventional films.”36 His tenets indicate that experimental film conservation requires a case-to-case approach, where departures from conventional filmmaking practices might not be considered imperfections but instead intrinsic qualities of the artifact. Therefore, the approaches to the evaluation of conditions in conventional and experimental film conservation demand different attention given to the object’s intrinsic qualities. Based on this fundamental difference between experimental and conventional cinema within a conservation context, I will argue that ethical considerations in frameworks for experimental film conservation have a common ground with those emerging in the field of contemporary art conservation.
Curiously enough, even though fine art restoration theory serves as a reference in attempts to address ethical issues of film preservation, notions of patina and lacunae rarely occur within film restoration discussions. Busche discusses fine-art based ethical principles for the restoration of film in his text Just Another Form of Ideology (2008), where he also briefly discusses the problem of lacunae.37 Marco Pescetelli was the first who confronted the problem of both patina and lacunae by discussing their occurrence in the field of silent film restoration in his dissertation The Art of Not Forgetting: Towards a Practical Hermeneutics of
34 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 165. 35 Gartenberg, "The Fragile Emulsion", 143. 36 Brand, "Artist as Archivist", 94.
16
Film Restoration (2010).38 Since silent films resemble experimental films in that they can be considered “unique cultural objects, rather than simply copies made from a matrix,”39 I have chosen his text as a starting point on which I will elaborate.
However, two clear distinctions need to be made. Firstly, Pescetelli considers films which were produced by following conventional filmmaking practices of their time, while
experimental films have been created by contrasting them. Secondly, while Pescetelli refers to silent films which are often considered lost or ‘orphans’, my thesis touches upon film artifacts whose authors – or their successors – may be active partakers in the preservation of their works. By focusing on experimental film restoration particularly, I will demonstrate that decisions about the treatment of patina and lacunae are determined by the significance of medium specificity in relation to individual artists and their works.
It is important to note that within the scope of my research, patina and lacunae will be considered as the modification of image material solely, affecting the visual perception of a film artifact. Although the notions of patina and lacunae have been developed with reference to the visual arts, they might be relevant in the context of sound restoration as well. This discussion, however, requires a different methodological approach due to its specific sonic nature.
In addition, it is critical to point out the difficulties present in making a clear distinction between patina and lacunae, which will also justify my decision to elaborate both notions together. While in the field of fine art, the notions of patina and lacunae are conceptually different and thus require distinct methodological treatment, in restoration of film various changes in material conditions may be approached with the same restoration technique. The most obvious example of this issue can be illustrated through the occurrence of scratches. While on a painting a scratch can only be recognized as loss of information and treated with reintegration, on a film it could also be perceived as patina. Scratches for the most part derive from handling and movability, which are inscribed into the nature of the medium itself.40
With reference to the conducted interviews, I will outline the most common alterations that can be recognized as patina and lacunae in relation to experimental film, and review the
38 Marco Pescetelli, “The Art of Not Forgetting: Towards a Practical Hermeneutics of Film Restoration” (PhD diss.,
University College London, 2010).
39 Ibid., 16.
17
current practices of their restoration. Based on that, I will introduce four categories of patina (chromatic, manipulation, handling patina and patina as a concept). In addition, I will discuss
figurative lacunae as suggested by Pescetelli41 and propose two new categories of lacunae (flow lacunae and lacunae of image detail). I will introduce these categories in order to systematically highlight existing practices for the treatment of particular alterations that are unique to experimental films. This will show that the fundamental guidance in
decision-making is the assessment of how the alteration of material conforms to the significance of the work in line with artistic intentions. Results derived from this enquiry will hopefully provide a reader with the comprehensive picture of the complex methodology for the recognition of changing conditions of experimental film artifacts, and their treatment in line with the state of art restoration practices.
2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS FOR CONSERVATION
As explained above, I intend to approach ethical and methodological issues pertaining to experimental film conservation from the context of fine art restoration theory. Although the objectives of fine art conservation might prove to be meaningful and relevant for different types of objects under treatment, each category of heritage object demands specific consideration according to its meaning within an equally specific cultural context.42 Cesare Brandi articulated the definition of fine art restoration as “the methodological moment in which the work of art is recognised, in its physical being, and in its dual aesthetic and
historical nature, in view of its transmission to the future.”43 For Brandi, in order to be treated as a work of art, an object needs to be recognized as such in relation to other conservation objects from the larger field of cultural heritage.44 This consideration is also relevant outside the area of fine art conservation in the issues related to experimental film restoration. Like objects of fine art, experimental film requires recognition of its substantial features which will further distinguish it from other forms of cultural heritage and justify critical judgement of ethical and methodological decisions about its treatment. Before I look into the issues related to the recognition and treatment of specific conditions pertaining to experimental film
artifacts, it is thus necessary to outline the scope of my discussion and to introduce a framework that corresponds to the specific features of experimental films.
41 Pescetelli, “The Art of Not Forgetting”, 232-233.
42 Jukka Jokilehto, "Preservation Theory Unfolding,” Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History,
Theory, and Criticism 3, No. 1 (2006): 4.
43 Brandi, Theory of Restoration, 48.
18
This chapter aims to sketch the position of experimental film within a larger conservation context. First of all, it intends to draw parallels between two conceptual frameworks for conservation: that of fine art and experimental film. The analogy between the two frameworks which I will propose in this chapter will be based on the concepts of the conservation object, authorship, and authenticity.45 I aim to demonstrate that all three notions can be applied to experimental film, and by extension can also provide the basis for a valuable framework of its conservation.
Secondly, the relation between experimental film restoration and the larger field of film restoration will be evaluated by putting forward an overview of their major trends. I will show that the objectives of current experimental film conservation practices are determined by nonstandard techniques and the significance of medium specificity for the filmmaker. I will demonstrate that it is evident that both filmmaking methods and intentions are dissimilar to the practices of conventional film production. Consequently, the required workflow for experimental film conservation is significantly different from the one embraced in the larger field of film restoration.
In the first section of this chapter (2.1), I will begin by outlining a conceptual framework for fine art conservation. I will demonstrate how a shift in art production in the second half of the 20th century led to changes in the relationships between notions of the conservation object, authorship and authenticity. In the second section (2.2), I will illustrate that the nature of the film medium – in particular its reproductive and motion-based characteristics as well as its low sustainability as a material – makes it challenging to translate conservation objectives and protocols used in the treatment of traditional artworks to experimental film. However, as these are some of the features of contemporary artworks as well, I will argue that an analogy can be drawn between a conceptual approach towards the treatment of experimental films and contemporary artworks. In the last section (2.3), I will propose my own framework for experimental film conservation in which experimental films will be considered along with the notions of the conservation object, authorship and authenticity. In the first subsection (2.3.1), I will summarize the unconventional practices of experimental filmmaking. Acknowledging that experimental film is often called experimental due to its approach to pushing the boundaries of both celluloid film material and its apparatuses, I will explore the
consequences that such experimentation has upon these films as conservation objects. Thereafter, the notion of authorship will be discussed (2.3.2), in the sense that an auteur is usually considered a singular creator who might also participate in the conservation of their
19
work. In the last subsection (2.3.3), I will argue that the notion of authenticity in the context of experimental film conservation can be interpreted in terms of how the restorer evaluates the importance of medium specificity for an artist.
2.1 FINE ART CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK: FROM TRADITIONAL TO
CONTEMPORARY ART
Traditional art restoration has been defined as a “'truth-enforcement' operation,”46 through which an object is preserved according to its cultural significance, with the preservation frameworks being determined by the artist's intention.47 Within this framework, works of art have been historically regarded as unique objects, created by the hand of an artist, an individual who translated their intentions into the material artifact. The traces of the artist’s creation are embodied within the physical constitution of an artwork, which separates the particular artwork from other objects. Thus, the authenticity of each artwork can be recognized within the material structure of an object. Based on the idea that the physical composition of an artwork displays the evidence of an artist’s intervention, materiality came to function - for conservators - as a direct link between the author’s intention and the
authentic appearance on the artwork.48 As a result, the long term preservation of the material form of an artwork has been long acknowledged as the primary goal of fine art restoration.49 It might be concluded from this that within traditional approaches to art conservation, there exists a correlation between notions of the conservation object, authorship and authenticity which is obviously associated with an object's materiality. Every work of art deserves specific restoration treatment because it can be perceived as an individual object with significance related to the concrete physical composition of its material, which in turn gives impression of the author’s intentions.
This long-established framework for conservation that was bound to traditional art has, however, shifted during the second half of the 20th century. This shift was partially brought about in relation to the expanded use of less durable materials in contemporary art
production,50 but mostly as a consequence of the expansion of various forms of artistic expressions based on the ephemerality, such as time-based media art, installations,
46 Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 91.
47 Glenn Wharton, "The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art," in Collecting the New:
Museums and Contemporary Art, ed. Bruce Altshuler (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005), 163.
48 Ibid., 164.
49 Brandi, Theory of Restoration, 51. 50 Wharton, 166-170.
20
performative art. These expressions gave birth to the so-called ‘dematerialized’ status of art in the 1960s.51 In contrast to traditional artworks the meaning of which is closely bound to their materiality, contemporary art has instead focused primarily on the concept52 and the medium53 itself. Attention moved away from the physical object and towards the concept in a way that the actual form could be seen as only a record of the artistic vision,54 whereas the concept can be recognized as an 'independent artwork' itself.55
This shift in the notion of an artwork led to the development of critical thinking about the applicability of traditional art conservation objectives to modern and contemporary artworks. The objectives of traditional art conservation that were rooted in long-term preservation of the material condition moved into a new direction. By contrast to traditional art conservation practices, where change and loss are generally considered undesirable, restorers of
ephemeral contemporary art advocate the conceptual significance of an artwork, consider its transitional nature and develop conservation decisions according to the relation between an artwork and its performative duration in time.56
Following this shift in the conservation object and its authenticity, the notion of the artist’s intention, which earlier was predominantly bound to the physical condition of the object, became liberated from its inevitable association with materiality. As the significance of a contemporary artwork is more likely to be centered around its conceptual meaning instead of its physical form, the artist’s intention is also to be found in nonmaterial aspects of the work. This introduces difficulties in the selection of the source of information for a conservator. Often, authors of contemporary artworks are still present and may take an active part in the conservation process, which has become a generally accepted practice.57 However, even when the artist is involved in the conservation of the work, the identification of her artistic intent and its further interpretation are usually full of challenges related to various aspects of
51 Lucy R. Lippard and John Chandler, “The Dematerialization of Art," in Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology, eds.
Alberro & Stimson (London: MIT Press, 1999), 46-50.
52 Luber and Sommermeyer, “Remaking Artworks”, 235.
53 Hiltrud Schinzel, “Mixed Media, Mixed Functions, Mixed Positions," in Modern Art: Who Cares?, eds. Ijsbrand
Hummelen and Dionne Sillé (Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999), 316.
54 Tineke Reijnders, “A Shining Document of Our Time,” in Modern Art: Who Cares?, eds. Ijsbrand Hummelen
and Dionne Sillé (Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999), 149.
55 Luber and Sommermeyer, “Remaking Artworks”, 237.
56 Hanna Hölling, “The Aesthetics of Change: on the Relative Durations of the Impermanent and Critical Thinking
in Conservation,” in Authenticity in Transition: Changing Practices in Contemporary Art Making and Conservation, eds. Erma Hermens and Frances Robertson (London: Archetype Publications, 2016), 13-24.
57 Carol Mancusi-Ungaro, “Original Intent: The Artist's Voice,” in Modern Art: Who Cares?, eds. Ijsbrand
Hummelen and Dionne Sillé (Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999), 392.
21
the work’s interpretive value. Shifts in the significance of intentions can derive from an artist herself, as she might have changed her reflection on the work that she created long ago and find it difficult to distance herself from it in the present.58
In general, the artist’s participation is desirable and might lead the conservator to a richer and more informed interpretation of the artwork’s significance. However, the practice has shown that the involvement of artists in the conservation process has both positive and negative influences on the recognition of the work’s intentions. It might occur that the artist’s desire to intervene contradicts the principles of the conservator involved.59 Artists may view the conservation process as an opportunity to reinterpret their works according to their current intentions; which might be different to the ideas they had when the work was initially created. Thus, the approach of an artist might not be accepted by a conservation team in the cases when it can no longer be recognized as being geared towards conservation, but rather towards the recreation of the work.60 This debate is common in everyday practices of
contemporary art conservation. It is clear that a conservator is responsible for the preservation of an artwork, yet it is the artist who determines her own intentions for its creation. Who then has the right to decide about the final appearance of a restored work? Since an agreement might not be achieved easily, communication between an artist, an art historian, a conservator and a conservation scientist61 plays an important role in making the right decisions.
In light of such developments regarding the recognition of an artist’s intent, it has become evident that debates could be reduced if the documentation concerning intentions and the conceptual significance of an artwork became an integral part of the conservation procedure. As a consequence, various museums that preserve contemporary art in different forms began integrating this conservation strategy and incorporating interviews with artists into their documentation.62 These records can present a valuable source of information for the future
58 Barbara Sommermeyer, “Who’s Right – the Artist or the Conservator?,” in Inside Installations: Theory and
Practice in the Care of Complex Artworks, eds. Tatja Scholte and Glenn Wharton (Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 2012), 146.
59 Erma Hermens, “Working with artists in order to preserve original intent: Proceedings Group II,” in Modern Art:
Who Cares?, eds. Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé (Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of
Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999), 398.
60 Objectives in the conservation of contemporary art become even more complex due to the fact that recreation
is in some cases considered a legitimate and the only possible solution for the preservation of intrinsic qualities of concept-based artworks. See, for example, Luber and Sommermeyer, referenced above.
61 Hermens, “Working with artists”, 398.
62 A few institutions started initiatives of documentation strategies for contemporary art, which exist as guidelines
and best practices for other museums. For example, the Tate Gallery in London created database model for documenting information on artworks in their collections. See Marja Peek and Agnes W. Brokerhof,
22
when the artist is no longer present. They can considerably reduce the ambiguity
accompanying the conservation treatment. However, in spite of the progress that can be achieved by a successful communication between participants, it is, as Sommermeyer put it, “the work of art which speaks for itself in cases of doubt, but it does need a good interpreter.” 63 In other words, it is important to keep in mind that an artwork itself is central to its
conservation treatment.
In conclusion, it could be argued that the traditional correlation between notions of the conservation object, authorship and authenticity shifted in line with the contemporary art production in which attention moved from the physical object to the concept attached to it. While the authenticity of the conservation object is still recognized in accordance with artistic intentions, these are no longer necessarily bound to the unique material object created at a particular moment, but rather to the conceptual ideas by which the creation of an artwork was driven.
2.2 FILM: FROM FINE ART TO EXPERIMENTAL FILM
Objectives of fine art conservation are of twofold relevance for the analysis put forward in this thesis. On the one hand, the field of fine arts already serves as a common reference point which film restorers frequently resort to in discussing and theorizing about methodological issues of their practices. On the other hand, the conservation of fine art represents the area in which the issues regarding the conditions of degraded material and its treatment have been most thoroughly addressed. However, applying traditional art restoration objectives to the field of experimental film is accompanied by various difficulties. The main challenge lies in the nature of moving images, specifically in three properties of film medium which relate to both its preservation and presentation: the low sustainability of its material, the fact that it is motion-based, and the fact that the process of reproduction is an inherent feature of the medium.
eds. Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé (Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999), 388-390. Another initiative was developed by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York, which established a questionnaire as an inter-institutional model for documenting time-based media art. See Jon Ippolito, “Accommodating the Unpredictable: The Variable Media Questionnaire,” in Permanence Through Change: The Variable Media Approach, eds. Alain Depocas, Jon Ippolito, and Caitlin Jones (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications and The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, 2003), 47-54.
23
The intrinsic characteristic of film as a medium that becomes manifests only when the film is being screened is its motion-based mode of presentation. In order to be seen and heard, the sequential frames are projected onto a screen, requiring the film strip to travel through the mechanism of a film projector. Just as every other object that is operated and cannot be presented in static mode, the film strip becomes more prone to damage the more frequently it is operated. This introduces the first, obvious discrepancy between traditional artworks and experimental films: while traditional artworks are generally considered to be static entities which are displayed with a high level of protection, moving images cannot be treated as such. The precondition for their mode of presentation requires film to be continuously exposed to the threat of damage.
The second feature that characterizes the film medium, is related to its short life-span. Referring to one of the fundamental conditions for the existence of moving images, Paolo Cherchi Usai vividly describes cinema as “the art of moving image destruction.”64 This claim primarily refers to the fact that film is condemned to degradation due to the damage acquired during each projection. This manipulation with film presents one common cause for
scratches, dust and tears on its material. However, the main cause for decay of film lies elsewhere – namely, in the low resistance of filmic carriers which is the consequence of the particular physical and chemical structure of the medium. In addition, deterioration might be accelerated rapidly due to the inadequate climate conditions under which films are stored. Inappropriate temperature and relative humidity might cause irreversible damage to the material, such as shrinkage, brittleness, warping, vinegar syndrome,65 and the growth of fungus and bacteria.66 All of the mentioned factors contribute to the fact that the short life-span is an inherent characteristic of the filmic carrier.
The third distinctive characteristic of the film medium refers to its originality and authenticity. Regardless of varying technologies for film production since the emergence of the cinema, filmic images have always been written on a carrier – be it a photochemical film strip or a digital storage device – and projected as such. In order for a film to be screened at various locations at the same time, several prints had to be produced. This demand, together with the fact that the filmic medium is very unstable, makes the permanence of film screenings inherently dependent on the reproduction of new film copies. By consequence, duplication
64 Paolo Cherchi Usai, The Death of Cinema History, Cultural Memory and the Digital Dark Age (London: BFI
Publishing, 2001), 6.
65 Read and Meyer, Restoration of Motion Picture Film, 249. 66 Ibid., 96.
24
remains the fundamental condition for the existence of film history. However, it also bring forth various challenges when conceiving of film artifacts as unique conservation objects.
The challenges of the conservation approach towards replicated objects have been originally identified in relation to traditional art restoration. Brandi builds his definition of restoration upon the distinction between the restoration of 'manufactured artifacts' and that of 'works of art'.67 His distinction is based on the intended purpose of the object’s existence: while restoration of the works of art is considered to be the recovery of their “potential oneness,”68 the restoration of manufactured artifacts aims to “re-establish the product’s use”.69 In other words, the restoration of various types of works thus serves different purposes. Whereas reproducible objects that tend towards function require a restoration approach that retrieves their functionality, works of art deserve special treatment owing to the recognition of their particular artistic value.
From what I have argued above, it may be concluded that the the particular characteristics of film present a unique difficulty for an attempt of establishing a foundation for its conservation based on traditional art. While traditional works of art are considered as such in virtue of their stability and uniqueness, film is an object of ephemerality and temporality,70 movability and reproduction. Despite their fundamental differences described in this section, these basic features of the film medium may – as I have illustrated in 2.1 – nevertheless be associated to some contemporary artworks. Therefore, while objectives for traditional art conservation might not be easily applied to film preservation, an analogy can be drawn between an approach to the treatment of experimental films and contemporary artworks. As I will demonstrate in the following section as well as in the fourth chapter, the conceptual framework for experimental film conservation can be established in line with the objectives for the conservation of contemporary art.
2.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR EXPERIMENTAL FILM CONSERVATION
Based on the observations from the previous two sections, I will argue that notions which are significant within the fine art conservation field and which may not seem to correspond to the context of film preservation, are relevant to the restoration of experimental films. As I will
67 Brandi, Theory of Restoration, 47. 68 Ibid., 55.
69 Ibid., 47.
25
demonstrate, the fine-art-based correlation between the notions of the conservation object, authorship and authenticity can be suitable for theorizing the current practice of experimental film conservation in its own right. More specifically, I will show that the experimental film conservation practice which I have examined by conducting interviews is similar to established practices of contemporary art conservation in that ethical decisions in both subfields are tailored more towards the concept attached to the work, instead of its physical constitution exclusively. Consequently the recognition of artistic intentions is approached from the perspective of an artist herself. To conceptualize these approaches in current experimental film conservation practices, I will discuss notions of the conservation object and its medium specificity, authenticity and authorship within Fossati's frameworks for theorizing film archival practice in an institutional context (see 1.3).
2.3.1 CONSERVATION OBJECT AND ITS MEDIUM SPECIFICITY
Fossati asserts that the practice of the archives which follow the “Film as Art” framework can be characterised with the help of the concepts of medium specificity and the notion of the
auteur. For her, the framework “Film as Art” can in the widest sense be recognized within an
institution that aims to preserve “film material artifacts as the medium specific manifestations of different phases of an art form in transition.”71 As she argues, “[i]n most cases, [...] “film as art” based on the auteur argument is more concerned with the filmmaker’s visual style (e.g. the mise-en-scene) rather than with medium specific arguments.”72 Yet, she also remarks that in the case of the avant-garde cinema, “the filmmaker may use the film as a canvas [...], or where film itself is central to the work,”73 and here ‘medium specific arguments’ are one of the main foundations of the archival practice.74 Based on that, I will argue that medium specificity in relation to experimental cinema is associated with two aspects of the creation process: the celluloid film material itself and its use through the interplay with an apparatus. Both aspects are inherently important for the argument of medium specificity in that their mutual dependence characterizes the main feature of an experimental film as a conservation object.
In mainstream cinema production which uses analogue filmmaking workflows, standardized procedures comprise recording on 35-mm negative, from which intermediates and projection prints are made. In contrast, experimental filmmakers mostly work with reversal film stock
71 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 125. 72 Ibid.
73 Ibid., 126. 74 Ibid.
26
and substandard film gauges, such as 8-mm, super 8-mm and 16-mm, while the original camera reversal film can be used as a projection print.75 For film duplication, optical printing was sometimes used as a technique for reproduction, although it has been used less often, either due to financial or artistic reasons.
The chemical structure of celluloid is of major interest for many experimental filmmakers. As Gartenberg states, the emulsion (consisting of silver halide crystals dissolved in organic gelatine) which covers one side of the transparent celluloid base, is within the experimental cinema treated “as a living organism.”76 This indicates that within the creation process, emulsion exists as the main substance which is physically shaped and modified in line with artistic intentions. Throughout its history, various methods and techniques have been practiced in realm of artistic experimentation with emulsion. They include applying dyes, adding appliqués, using filters, using outdated film stock, scratching, heating, bleaching, combining different elements used within one work (black-and-white with color film stock, positive, negative, reversal, intermediate, black or red leader or a transparent film stock with no emulsion on it), using excerpted footage from other films and incorporating it into the new work, playing with the light exposure of film within the printing process, making use of the traces of natural degradation as aesthetic components, and so forth.77
However, certain effects of experimentation with celluloid do not appear exclusively as a result of an interaction between the artist’s hand and the medium itself, but derive from its interplay with an apparatus as well. It has been a common practice that avant-garde filmmakers undertake aesthetic experimentation by exploring both the capabilities and limitations of technologies available within the medium. Several elements of technical equipment can be embraced at different stages of the creation process, including recording, processing, printing and projecting. Filmmakers might deliberately explore the operations of equipment in multiple nonstandard ways in the light of developing their own aesthetic.78 Artistic experimentation can cause certain visual effects, such as variable speed of motion, serrated splices, flickering effect, rephotography and so forth.79 These image imperfections can be understood in light of aesthetic experimentation with technological margins and standards of conventional cinema production.
75 Gartenberg, "The Fragile Emulsion", 143. 76 Ibid., 142.
77 Simone Venturini and Mirco Santi, “The History and Technological Characteristics of Cinematographic
Production and Reception Devices,” in Preserving and Exhibiting Media Art: Challenges and Perspectives, eds. Julia Noordegraaf, Cosetta Saba, Barbara Le Maître, and Vinzenz Hediger (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013), 208-210, and Toscano, “Archiving Brakhage”, 13-25.
78 Gartenberg, "The Fragile Emulsion", 144.
27
The nature of experimental filmmaking presents various challenges for the conservation of these works. Artists often shoot films directly on reversal film stock and further worked on those single elements. The artistic practices employed in the creation of experimental films, such as the substantial modifications of film stock and the inclusion of appliqués make the creation of intermediates complicated.80 However, even when the intermediates have been made, artists might have edited and worked directly on reversal positives while leaving intermediates to remain only as a basis for further treatment, in order to get a straightforward insight into the final result of their work.81 For preservation this means that for the same title, various elements might be found, each of them being different than the others.
The other aspect which contributes to these particular conservation challenges is related to the small-scale financial production of experimental filmmaking. As filmmakers are often lacking financial resources, they are restricted in the possibilities to produce preservation masters.82 They can only afford to make a limited number of prints, which might then suffer a great degree of wear and tear.This specially becomes problematic in the cases where reversal originals are used as projection prints,83 because it means that the only preserved elements of the film might be severely damaged.
Because of the specific practices of experimental filmmaking, these films also degrade at much higher rate than films produced in line with commercial standards. It is commonplace that signs of inconsistent degradation, such as uneven shrinkage or dye fading throughout the film roll can appear as a result of different film stocks incorporated into the singular film.84 Another example are cases where the film includes rapid editing which has been used as a technique to create a flickering effect, including an increased number of splices. As a result of ageing, the splice adhesive might lose its strength and such a film is subjected to extreme fragility.85 These types of specific material modifications illustrate the necessity to consider experimental films as conservation objects with special regard to their medium specificity.
80 Toscano, “Archiving Brakhage”, 14. 81 Ibid., 15.
82 Gartenberg, "The Fragile Emulsion", 142. 83 Monizza in discussion with the author. 84 Toscano, “Archiving Brakhage”, 15. 85 Ibid.
28
2.3.2 AUTHORSHIP
The second concept related to the framework “Film as Art” implies the notion of an auteur, the individual creator of the film.86 The concept of authorship is significant in relation to experimental cinema because, as Gartenberg expressed, “[e]xperimental filmmakers work in relative isolation, creating their films with the hand of an artist.”87 As opposed to the large-scale conventional cinema production where the film is a result of a larger number of
participants involved, experimental films are likely to exist as the creation of a singular auteur who develop and finalize the work by realizing his or her own artistic ideas.
However, due to the technically complex workflow of filmmaking, artists rarely work in complete isolation. Even though most of the creative process is carried out individually by filmmakers themselves, they often need to collaborate with laboratory in order to finalize and develop the film. Traditionally, laboratory technicians have been considered important and respected participants in the filmmaking workflow, as for artists it is important to have a high level of trust in laboratory where the final decisions about the completion of their work are made.88 In light of the technically variable nature of experimental filmmaking based on its DIY approach, the collaboration between artists and the laboratory have been an essential
element of the experimental workflow. In the case of Stan Brakhage, his longstanding collaboration with Western Cinema Labs in Colorado was so rewarding that even when the laboratory was encountering technical problems, resulting in the production of films with considerably reduced visual characteristics, Brakhage continued to develop his films with them. As a result, for several of his color films, it is impossible to find prints which can serve as a perfect reference.89
Because of the laboratory’s role in the process of film creation, it is important to keep the very specific collaborative workflow in mind throughout the preservation process as well. Gartenberg observes that in the preservation of experimental cinema, “it is of utmost importance to develop a working dialogue between the filmmaker, archivist, and laboratory personnel,”90 when the workflow is, at least partially, analogue. A consciousness about “the particular needs of an artist working on the margins of culture”91 plays a substantial role in the selection of a laboratory. This means that the precondition for the conservation of each
86 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 125. 87 Gartenberg, "The Fragile Emulsion", 142.
88 Federico Windhausen, “Discussing the Films of Paul Sharits with Bill Brand, Chris Hughes, John Klacsmann,
and Andrew Lampert,” The Moving Image 15, no. 1 (2015): 111.
89 Toscano, “Archiving Brakhage”, 15-16. 90 Gartenberg, "The Fragile Emulsion", 144. 91 Ibid.
