Artforum: "Special Film Issue"

I SEPTEMBER, 1971 $2.00 72 N 72 78R 26 ~~ f This issue, devoted to film, has been organized and edited by Annette Michelson. COVER: Ken Jacobs, .Still from Tom, Tom, the Foreword in Three Letters . ... 8 Piper's Son, 1969. Publisher ............. Charles Cowles For a Metahistory of Film: Commonplace Notes and Hypotheses by Hollis Frampton ..................... 32 Editor .................. Philip Leider Executive Editor ........ John Coplans Associate Editor . Robert Pincus-Witten "True Patriot Love": The Films of joyce Wieland by Regina Cornwell ................................. 36 Managing Editor .... Sarah Ryan Black Contributing Editors .... Jack Burnham Michael Fried "Zorns Lemma" by Wanda Bershen ..................... 41 Rosalind E. Krauss .; Max Kozloff Jerrold lanes Annette Michelson "Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son" by Lois Mendelson and Bill Simon ..................................... 46 Peter Plagens Barbara Rose Production ........... Tanya Neufeld A Cinematic Atopia by Robert Smithson . 53 Office Manager ........ Janye Theroux ARTFORUM, Vol. X, Number 1, Septem ber 1971. Published monthly except July Paul Sharits: 1/lusion and Object by Regina Cornwell . 56 and August at 667 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. Subscriptions $1S per year, $17 foreign. Newsstand distribution Passage by Michael Snow . 63 by Eastern News Distributors, 155 W. 15th Street, New York, N. Y. ADVERTISING Statements by Richard Serra . 64 Paul Shanley, 29 East 61 New York, N.Y. 10021 421-2659 "Paul Revere" by joan Jonas and Richard Serra . 65 EDITORIAL & BUSINESS OFFICES 667 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10021 838-6820 The Films of Man Ray and Moholy-Nagy by Barbara Rose . 68 SUBSCRIPTIONS & ADDRESS CHANGES Artforum, P.O. Box 664 The Calisthenics of Vision: Open Instructions on the Films of George Landow by Paul Arthur .......... 74 Des Moines, Iowa 50303 Volume X, No. 1, September, 1971. Published Monthly except July and August. Second-class On Negative Space by Max Kozloff . 80 postal rates at New York, N.Y. ©Copyright, Con tents may not be reproduced without the Pub lisher's written permission. "The Chelsea Girls" by Stephen Koch . 84 The complete contents of ARTFORUM are indexed in The Art Index, published quarterly 7 and available in public libraries. FOREWORD IN THREE LETTERS of that passionate dissent common Sirs: Dear Mr. Gidal: In a remarkably wrongheaded . You could not, of course, suspect in the context of shared tastes. But piece, Annette Michelson, in the -· that your letter addressed to the it becomes obvious that I've been june Artforum asserts, with refer i Editor would reach, in fact, that hy drastically misread. The "narrative ence to Michael Snow's film, Wave brid of Contributor and Guest Edi integrity of those comedies and length, "Snow has redefined filmic (Courtesy of Hollis Frampton.) tor for this special film issue of Art westerns" is a descriptive phrase, in . -· no way normatively intended; it re space as that of action." Now even forum, myself. But then, I could not the most simpleminded film goer know that the very same mail would fers to the quality of being whole or such as myself knows and feels, in bring me your brief article on Snow, entire, and thus to that spatia-tem tuitively (and rationally, if ratio is published in Cinema, no. 8. Since poral continuity which is the formal needed) that space has always been chance has focused your views in postulate of those genre films, and defined in terms of action (inner and this unexpected emphasis of super its use should hardly have elicited outer). What else is a western, gang imposition, I'm allowing us the lux from an attentive reader the judg ster film, situation comedy, etc? ury of direct communication, set ment of my own position as "back "The object of Farber's delight, the ting aside the convention which has ward." The notion is familiar, I narrative integrity of those comedies Correspondent and Writer talking to should imagine, to yourself as to any film critic, as one element in that and westerns," is nothing but a one another through the fictive reactionary, model-oriented mode mediation of the Editor. I do this conservative Bazinian esthetic spon of film-making indulged. in by just not because I want to parry or re taneously anticipated in the critical work of Farber, the most original about everyone in the commercial turn your thrusts at my own essay, cinema, and certainly not indulged but because your letter does raise, and distinguished American expo in by Mike Snow. The basis of Miss ultimately and implicitly if not di nent of the tradition of cinematic Michelson's hypothesis is blatently rectly, a question which deserves "realism." You will, by the way, and patently incorrect. Other, small reply. find this postulate examined in some er assumptions seem to get carried First things first, however. Your critical detail in an essay of mine along in the tide of shallow insight own text on Snow begins with the on Bazin, published in the June, 1967 issue of Artforum, a copy of and intellectualization: "Snow, in remark that Wavelength "is con which is on its way to you, for it re-introducing expectation as the sidered by many film makers, a core of film form," is distinguished seminal, perhaps great film and is alludes to the special implications of Warhol's work when seen in that from "the stare of Warhol." Expec also somehow the test of an audi particular theoretical context. tation is inextricably bound to ac ence; if you can let yourself get into As to Snow's redefinition of "filmic tion within a defined space, whether Wavelength you're at least not on space as that of action," surely you in commercial, experimental, or any the opposite end of the dialectic." might have perceived that the object other sort of film. And nothing in And yet, to judge from the tenor of discussion was precisely that: the creases expectation more than War and tone of your letter, despite our manner and importance of that re hol's stare, which, in structuralist mutual enthusiasm for the film (you definition of action as the movement film terms, was to some extent an are, I observe, somewhat more cau of the camera itself. This kind of re important basis for Snow's explora tious in your judgment, advancing definition, neither so drearily obvious tion and esthetic. It is sad that the the opinions of "many film makers" nor so byzantine in its perversity as most important film maker currently A.{ -t rather than your own as to its being you suggest, is made by major art working (Warhol has long given up rJ'l "perhaps" a great film), despite our to his untalented assistants) receives agreement upon its importance, you ists in almost any medium one could name. Drawing, however, upon art much-needed and honestly-held cri ~\ (tllf seem to feel, at the very least, that historical precedents, one might see tical attention through the dubious you and I do indeed inhabit "op IV 1~ :J. Michael Snow's work with regard to intelligence and esthetically back ) posite ends" of that "dialectic" the dynamics of expectation, con ward critical approach of Annette whose terms remain undefined in ,~r '7 i-:J:J },:1)- Michelson in Artforum. But the cov your article as in your letter, but tingent upon the playing out of spa I r, tia-temporal donnees as analogous er was beautiful. And at least she r' whose character and range one can to jasper Johns' redefinition of pic tried. Which is more than one can say \rL begin to deduce. ' ") . VV1 torial space as compounded of ac for most ART critics. Trying to account for this contra -Peter Gidal diction and for the tone of your tualization and representation. London letter, I do entertain the possibility While I do agree with you as to 8 the seminal importance of Warhol's belated discovery of Ia politique des porary philosophy. And, since one iw, and 'body' art, the esthetic syn work (discussed, as I'm sure you will auteurs. in situations of this sort, grateful for drome of that ancient obstinate ma be pleased to find, with clarity and No, I suspect instead an allusion to small mercies, I'm not inclined to lady, philosophical dualism. rare sophistication by Stephen Koch the seminal article on structural film reject the concession that "at least The existence of Anthology is a elsewhere in this issue), I imagine (another matter entirely), published she tried. Which is more than one radical critical gesture, the nature of that upon reflection you might agree in the Summer, 1969 issue of Film can say for most ART critics." (Given its critical function described below that the initial installment of an ex Culture and now reprinted in The the claim to 'simplemindedness' that in Mekas' letter which I recommend tensive presentation of a major art Film Culture Reader, published by concession is understandably reluc for its firmness and openness. It has ist could not examine its context Praeger in 1970, in which both Snow tant.) I'm even less tempted to claim made accessible a corpus of ad in entirety. (Did you really not no and Warhol are discussed. I am thus the dubious prestige of the 'real' vanced filmic art set in a rich, if in tice that the published text was mark led to suspect as well that your haste FILM critic, though instances of film complete, context, and in projection ed "Part One," thereby informing in reading is equaled only by your critical activity are scattered through conditions - those of an "Invisible the reader of more to come?) It haste in writing, and that these, out a few other periodicals.

Load more