Issues of Patina and Lacunae in the Restoration of Experimental Films

Home , Film preservation

EXPERIMENTAL RESTORATION:

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

June, 2017

to tata sine

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.

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

3.2.2 REINTEGRATION 42

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

Interview with Mark Toscano, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 100

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. 3 Ibid.

6 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.

7 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), 87.

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. 13 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 165.

9 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.

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.

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. 24 Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 212.

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.

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”.

14 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. 37 Busche, “Just Another Form of Ideology? ", 1-29.

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. 40 Busche, “Just Another Form of Ideology? ", 23.

16 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. 44 Jokilehto, "Preservation Theory Unfolding”, 4.

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

45 Laurenson,“Authenticity, Change and Loss”.

18 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.

19 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.

20 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, “Documentation and registration of artists' materials and techniques: Proceedings,” in Modern Art: Who Cares?,

21 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. 63 Sommermeyer, 150.

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.

23 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. 70 Laurenson, “Authenticity, Change and Loss”.

24 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.

25 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. 79 Ibid., and Venturini and Santi, “The History and Technological Characteristics”, 206.

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.

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.

28 film artifact is that both conservator and laboratory technician have an understanding of the context in which the film came to existence, as well as the intention of an artist.92

In the “Film as Art” framework, “the material film artifact and its related medium specificity arguments acquire more or less importance depending on the artist’s intentions, or on the film archive’s interpretation of the artist’s intentions.”93 In the context of avant-garde cinema, filmmakers are considered singular artists, “responsible for a film or a cinematographic oeuvre.”94 Individual films produced by the same auteur can therefore be recognized not only as isolated works, but as elements in the larger body of work of the filmmaker. Having detailed knowledge about other works of the same artist may result in familiarity with an auteur’s intentions, style and aesthetic. For Gartenberg, such an approach in preservation is essential and “decisions must be tailored in harmony with the artist's creative process and intent, not just with the product.”95 Here, it is possible to observe the similarity in conservation approach between works of contemporary art and experimental films. In both cases, the conservator pursues artistic intentions which determine the concept of the work which might not be entirely associated to its material constitution. However, it is important to note that following the significance of the medium in relation to its concept and the artist’s intent, material specificity remains one of the main aspects upon which decisions for experimental film preservation are made.

2.3.3 AUTHENTICITY

As Fossati and other scholars and preservationists from the wider field of film archival institutions have discussed, it is difficult to address the question of ‘what is the original version of a film’ due to the reproducible nature of its medium.96 Instead, Fossati suggests that the concept of authenticity might be more relevant than the one of originality for the recognition of the film as a unique artifact.97 Fossati says that in her view, “addressing the authenticity of the film artifact is [...] the first step in defining the “film as original” framework.”98

92 Ibid. 93 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 125. 94 Ibid. 95 Gartenberg, "The Fragile Emulsion", 144. 96 For discussions on the originality of film, see Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 117, and Read and Meyer, Restoration of Motion Picture Film, 71. 97 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 117. 98 Ibid.

As I have discussed above (see 2.2), the history of cinema would not exist without the reproduction of film, which proves that multiplicity is one of the defining features of film, or as Julia Wallmüller put it, “[b]eing reproduced is part of a moving image’s authenticity.”99 This tenet implies that film’s authenticity is inscribed into the migration of content onto new carriers. Therefore, the achievement of every duplication, as well as of a restoration process, is determined according to how authentic the production of the new copy is considered. For Wallmüller, 'authentic restoration' entails the preservation of “the characteristic look of a moving image work [...] and its presumed original characteristics.”100 The decision about how many of these characteristics will be maintained depends largely on where the conservator's attention is oriented. Fossati points to the relevance of human participation in a film's restoration, while she says that “[r]estoring a film implies making a copy of an authentic film artifact: the authenticity of the new restored copy depends completely on how this copy is made, and the way the copy is made depends, in turn, on how the restorer instructs the process, whatever the process.”101

In order to examine the notion of authenticity within the scope of film restoration, it is necessary to iterate that the aspiration of film restoration is twofold. In the first place, restoration functions as “the reestablishment of aesthetic unity” and as “the preservation of historical evidence as embodied in the film artifact.”102 Therefore, for an 'authentic restoration', the performance of the balanced symbiosis between the historical and aesthetic value plays a central role and it is particularly the definition of this relationship in each restoration process that “can mark the link between the film-born artifact and its [...] copy.”103

Secondly, the purpose of film restoration relates to the two significances of the film artifact: to its material features which determine its preservation and presentation practices, and to its consideration in accordance to a specific cultural history. Fossati argues that this duality of the film artifact is associated with its meaning, existing on a line between the material and conceptual artifact, where “[t]he material artifact is typically the film preserved by the archivist, whereas the conceptual film artifact refers to its abstraction as an historical and aesthetic object.”104 The two meanings are closely interlinked within archival practices, yet Fossati identifies that it is particularly in relation to avant-garde cinema that “the material

99 Julia Wallmüller, “Criteria for the Use of Digital Technology in Moving Image Restoration,” The Moving Image 7, no. 1 (2007): 80. 100 Ibid. 101 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 120. 102 Busche, “Just Another Form of Ideology?", 20. 103 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 120. 104 Ibid., 105.

30 artifact can [...] be closely related to the auteur.”105 It is true that the preservation of experimental films requires high level of knowledge about their individual cultural histories. Yet at the same time – based on what Fossati writes – experimental film in the first place demands attention as a unique material-based artifact, created by the hand of an artist who experimented with the film’s medium specificity.

It is essential to refer to the experimental film artifact according to the artist’s oeuvre and to the larger contexts with which it is associated. However, it is important to remember that conservation is a process which is carried out upon the specific work which has been created by an artist. Therefore, when approaching an experimental film artifact as a conservation object, it is clear that its significance can be foremost found in the meaning of medium specificity for an artist. Following this, the degree to which authenticity will be recognized in relation to new copy will depend on how the restorer will evaluate the importance of medium specificity for an artist and their perspective on ageing. Once the correct balance between the historical and aesthetic value within the restored work will be achieved, it then becomes more possible to claim a particular restoration as being authentic.

3 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF DEGRADED MATERIALS IN FINE ART RESTORATION

Speaking from a historical perspective, changes in material conditions are of fundamental concern within the field of conservation and restoration, “a prerequisite for conservation itself to even exist.”106 From this point of departure, in his text Definitions of damage, Jonathan Ashley-Smith sketches a distinction between different appearances of change, which he says that might occur in three forms - as patina, restoration and deterioration.107 His categorization is based upon the criteria of an object’s value that the change might either increase or decrease, and of intentions for the change, being either deliberate or accidental. Building on this logic, Muñoz Viñas argues that values cannot be generally determined, as different changes can affect present day audiences in various ways, thus the meaning of material alterations appears as “the result of subjective perceptions.”108

105 Ibid., 126. 106 Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 101. 107 Jonathan Ashley-Smith, “Definitions of Damage,” Conservation OnLine, last modified 23 November, 2008, last accessed 17 June, 2017, http://cool.conservation-us.org/byauth/ashley-smith/damage.html. 108 Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 104.

With this in mind, in this chapter I will outline the notions of patina and lacunae and their treatment. Patina and lacunae have throughout the historical conservation and restoration discourse gained recognition as two specific categories of material change. As the significance of these two notions varies according to the nature of artifacts concerned, and according to the people for whom those artifacts have meaning, it cannot be merely a matter of objective judgement. In that light, this chapter does not aim to suggest a specific view on the occurrence of material alterations and their treatment. Instead it intends to bring attention to the relevance of subjectivity which dominates the perception of degradation and the restoration procedure, including both the decision-making process and the treatment itself. In order to so, in this chapter I will focus on outlining the conceptual aspects of the notions of patina and lacunae and approaches to their restoration in line with varying historical perspectives.

Paul Philippot, an art historian and a co-founder of ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property), attempts to define patina in its broadest sense, interpreting it as “the ‘normal’ effect that time has on material.”109 Such a phrase does not precisely specify the occurrence of patina and clearly reveals the difficulty of common agreement on its definition throughout historical debates. For now, it is sufficient to say that in a technical sense, patina “describes all signs and traces left on an art object by its passage through time – a consequence of the life of an artwork from the moment of its creation to the present day.”110

Taking its nature into account, patina has historically been seen as both an asset (contributing to an object's antique appearance)111 and a problem (covering the text beneath the degraded layers on the surface) and today, this ambiguity is still very much present in professional debates. In order to point to these significances, I will address various values of artworks that are closely associated to patina. First, I will discuss how the notion of patina has been bound to the historical value and authenticity of an artwork. Later, I will examine the values of artworks which may determine the motivation behind cleaning. In his classic

109 Paul Philippot, “The idea of patina and the cleaning of paintings,” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, eds. Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), 373. 110 Hilkka Hiiop, “The Possibility of Patina in Contemporary Art or, Does the "New Art" Have a Right to Get Old?,” in Koht ja paik/ Place and Location: Studies in Environmental Aesthetics and Semiotics VI, eds. Eva Näripea, Virve Sarapik, Jaak Tomberg (Tallinn: Estonian Literary Museum, Estonian Academy of Arts, 2008), 155. 111 For the phenomenon of increased value of silver due to patina, see Helen Clifford, “The Problem of Patina: Thoughts on Changing Attitudes to Old and New Things,” in Conservation. Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, eds. Alison Richmond and Alison Bracker (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 2009), 125-128.

32 essay The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Origin (1903), art historian Alois Riegl formulated the concept of values that artworks to-be-preserved are given. Among them, the “age value” and the “newness value” will be of particular interest for my review of responses to patina in relation to both traditional and contemporary artworks.

Being considered as either a sign of ageing original material, matter accumulated on the surface or a consequence of human intervention (of restorers or artists themselves), patina is within a restoration intervention treated through the process of cleaning, which is never a neutral act. A good example of the “cleaning controversy”112 is the removal of a thick brown layer of varnish from the surface of a painting, in order to unveil the image underneath. After the varnish as an undesirable substance has been cleaned, the painting will no longer seem that mellow, dark and foggy. However, having the covering layer removed, the preceding visual appearance of the painting cannot be ever revitalized again, because materials on the surface are no longer there. In this perspective, the conceptual understanding of patina might be discussed - materials (both original ones and those accumulated because of ageing) that constitute a work of art are not only chemical components themselves, but they become a part of the object’s structure, considerably modifying the visual effect of the surface and influencing its optical reflection, chromaticity and darkness. Thus, regardless of whether it results in a perceived change for the better or worse, cleaning of the surface influences the visual effects of the cleaned area, making it impossible to revert the process.113

Another issue concerning the change of material conditions that has historically contributed to the development of conservation and restoration ethics, is damage which takes the form of the loss of information within an artwork. Lacuna, an area with absent information, has been defined by Philippot as “an interruption of the continuity of the object’s artistic form and its rhythm.”114 While this interpretation is relevant for all traditional forms of art (painting, sculpture and architecture), any further discussion faces difficulties in developing consistent methodology for the reintegration of lacunae on different types of artworks. While lacunae on a painting occur as an interruption of figurative harmony, the loss of elements on a sculpture or an architectural monument results in the destruction of structural balance as well.115 Based on this difference in spatial character, the development of methodologies and techniques for

112 For historical discussions on cleaning controversies, see Randolph Starn, “Three Ages of “Patina” in Painting,” Representations 78, no. 1 (2002), 86–115. 113 Barbara Appelbaum, “Criteria for Treatment: Reversibility,” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 26, no. 2: 1987, 65-73. 114 Paul Philippot, “Historic preservation: Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines, II,” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, eds. Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), 358. 115 Pescetelli, “The Art of Not Forgetting”, 207.

33 the reintegration of lacunae has historically been approached from different perspectives, yet each time also confronts the question of how to reestablish the unity of the object’s form.

In the following section (2.1), I will examine the phenomenon of patina and the consequences of its cleaning treatment. First, the notion of patina will be discussed from the conceptual perspective in relation to the historical value and authenticity of an artwork (2.1.1). Then, in order to illustrate the variety of standpoints from which the cleaning of paintings has been approached in the past, in the second part of the section I will outline the most far-reaching historical shifts in tendencies for the cleaning of patina (2.1.2). I will conclude both subsections by delineating current trends in consideration of the notion of patina and its treatment. In the second section of this chapter (2.2), the notion of lacunae and their reintegration will be discussed by the same analogy: first, conceptual perspective on lacunae will be outlined (2.2.1), while in the second part I will examine the historical thinking about its treatment, which will lead to the sketch of the contemporary trends for their reintegration (2.2.2).

3.1 PATINA AND CLEANING

3.1.1 THE CONCEPT OF PATINA

In traditional arts (painting, sculpture, architecture), patina is considered to be the totality of changes that various layers of the material undergo over the course of time. Most commonly, patina occurs as color fading, paint craquelure, darkening and yellowing of varnish, oxidation of metal, and so forth. These alterations are natural consequence of ageing and are thus recognized as an intrinsic element of the material due to degradation processes.116 Yet, it is important to note that patina does not appear as the consequence of natural decay exclusively. It has been proven throughout history that the aesthetic character of patina has been intentionally explored by artists themselves. By covering the surface of a work with a layer of coating, artists intended to “tone down the brightness”117 of the work.118

116 Neil Maclaren and Anthony Werner, “Some Factual Observations about Varnishes and Glazes,” The Burlington Magazine 92, no. 568 (1950): 189. 117 Cesare Brandi, “The Cleaning of Pictures in Relation to Patina, Varnish and Glazes,” The Burlington Magazine 91, no. 556 (1949): 183. 118 The artistic method of making look objects look older that they actually do is called patination. For more information on that see Phoebe Dent Weil, “A review of the history and practice of patination,” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, eds. Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. And Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), 394-414.

Taking the reason for its occurrence into account, patina can obtain both an aesthetic (artificially practiced) and a historic (naturally developed) significance. However the line between these two distinctions is not rigorous. For instance, a layer of varnish that yellowed over the course of time, is not recognized merely as historical evidence of degradation, but can contribute to the aesthetic appearance of a painting as an aged object. On the other hand, artificially applied patina is linked to the particular moment of creation, which exists as a part of the painting’s history and thus constitutes its historical significance. Thus, the aesthetic and historical aspects of an artwork’s identity are closely linked.

The age of an artwork is demonstrated by physical and chemical traces of time which comprise and represent the object’s historical identity. However, argumentation that an artwork is a physical carrier of historical information has been criticized as the appraisal of work’s historical dimension while disregarding its aesthetic aspect.119 Philippot offers a very clear response to such criticism while he argues that the concept of patina is a critical one.120 For him, patina constitutes the current identity of an object and its preservation is therefore essentially relevant for the recognition of both artistic and historical importance of an object.121 Thus, patina is not just an echo of the past, manifested in a chemical and physical transformation of material, but is closely related to two values of works of art: the value of historicity and the value of authenticity.122

If authenticity is an inherent value of every single work of art, the appreciation of historicity is identified as an additional value,123 however being most directly indicated by the phenomenon of patina. Patina derives from the moment when the work is created and thus embodies the existence of an artwork over a course of time. In this sense, patina is a connection between the original and current state of an object. It functions as a necessity for the recognition of historicity, or in words of Philippot, “[a] comparison between the present state and the living representation of the original image is therefore not only possible, it is the definition of the experience of the work of art as such, to the extent that it has appeared before us across the span of time that separates us from its creation.”124 Following this, patina as a symbol of the natural aging process reflects the history manifested in the modifications of the physical structure of an artwork, not necessarily depriving it of aesthetic function.

119 Brandi, Theory of Restoration, 74. 120 Philippot, “The idea of patina”, 373. 121 Ibid. 122 Hiiop, “The Possibility of Patina”, 158. 123 Ibid., 159. 124 Philippot, “The idea of patina”, 374.

In traditional art, authenticity points to the uniqueness of a work of art. As a work of art came into existence in a particular moment in time, the material structure of the work constitutes a link to that exceptional moment of creation.125 In his The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin notes that authenticity does not respect the moment of creation exclusively, but it encompasses the duration of an object’s existence.126 It is in this context that patina makes us appreciate an object’s uniqueness – the material substance accumulated on the surface conveys the message that the object has remained untouched on its journey from the hands of a creator to this very moment of observation.

Muñoz Viñas criticizes the pursuit for the removal of patina with an aim to unveil the authentic appearance of the work while he postulates that “[t]he present condition is necessarily authentic, and furthermore, its present condition is the only actually authentic condition.”127 From the perspective of contemporary conservation theory the concept of authenticity as linked to an artwork where all signs of it having passed through time have been consciously and continuously removed is outdated. According to general trends of our times we are acknowledging patina “which we have learned to see,”128 which means that in general, present day audiences are willing to accept the signs of ageing. To some degree, it could be argued that even though in contemporary restoration trends aesthetic value generally prevails, the historical significance of physical alterations does not go altogether ignored.

3.1.2 CLEANING

For Riegl, an acknowledgement of the “age value” is a logical response to the processes of ageing and the degradation of natural organic components. This is where the aesthetic admiration of decay originates from, or in his words, “[t]he modern viewer of old monuments receives aesthetic satisfaction not from the stasis of preservation but from the continuous and unceasing cycle of change in nature.”129 His claim is at this point relevant for two

125 Ibid., 160. 126 Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Modern Art and Modernism: A Critical Anthology, eds. Francis Frascina, Charles Harrison, Deirdre Paul (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 218. 127 Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 94. 128 Stephen Gritt, “The Removal of Patina,” New Insights into the Cleaning of Paintings: Proceedings from the Cleaning 2010 International Conference Universidad Politécnica de Valencia and Museum Conservation Institute, no. 3 (2013): 4. 129 Alois Riegl, “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Origin,” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, eds. Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), 73.

36 reasons. While Riegl says that an ongoing modification of original material - thus patina – makes a viewer appreciate its actual age, he also questions the function of restoration by emphasizing that an intense intervention might interrupt the 'unceasing cycle' of an artwork's life and its appreciation. Although his idea is not so radical as to claim that restoration is unnecessary, it suggests a further elaboration on the nature of cleaning and its effects upon the historical and aesthetic significance of artworks.

There are few doubts about the demand for cleaning artworks and revealing the text beneath the degraded layers of coatings: the function of cleaning is to make an object legible again in a more complete form.130 Nonetheless, as discussed above, the process of cleaning is not as harmless as it may seem to be. On the one hand, since cleaning is an irreversible process, the removal of patina decisively destroys historical evidence, denying the existence of the past on the account of everlasting existence of an object’s true image.131 On the other hand, considering the fact that the dark and foggy appearance of the painting might be the original artistic idea of an author, the cleaning of such surface and uncovering the paint beneath would lead to the misinterpretation of author’s intentions, exposing a painting to the danger of never looking as it was intended.132

In light of these issues, the irreversible nature of cleaning has historically triggered an array of cleaning controversies,133 with an appropriate aesthetic of works being the centre of discussions. Since the results of treatments were mainly dependent on cleaning techniques that have been available at different periods of history, the limitations of those were the main motivation for the skepticism about the legitimacy of restoration throughout the 18th century.134

Moreover, tendencies in the restoration discipline historically varied according to preferences towards the representation of history. After having lasted for centuries, the confrontation of various trends in the 19th century resulted in the division of the restoration discipline into two main movements: an “in the style of the original” movement and an Anti-restoration one.135 Advocates of the former (pioneer was Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc) were fond of imitating the earlier states of buildings, ignoring the modifications that aging has caused.

130 Philippot, “The idea of patina”, 375. 131 Salvador Muñoz Viñas, "Pride and Prejudice and Patina" (lecture, Judith Praska Lecture, New York, 9 February 2015), last accessed 18 June 2017, https://vimeo.com/119253627. 132 Brandi, “The Cleaning of Pictures", 183-188. 133 See reference 112. 134 Gritt, “The Removal of Patina”, 2. 135 Caple, Conservation Skills, 124-125.

Their aim was to retrieve a state “which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time.”136 Such treatments are - from the critical perspective of contemporary restoration thinking - not considered restorations, but recreations in the aesthetic manner of a certain period. While the former had little respect for the historical value of objects, the latter movement (John Ruskin and William Morris) defended the significance of edifices as historical evidence in their entirety. They even went so far as to say that restoration is a necessary evil, advocating destruction as a natural process and considering restoration an artificial act which goes against the natural law of degradation.137

As the importance of the notion of cultural heritage in the 19th century was growing, it was followed by the recognition of restoration as a discipline (see 1.2). This contributed to the rise of controversies regarding the issues of cleaning, however in line with the opposing standpoints and lack of professional codification. The on-going academic conflict was productive in one way – it resulted in detailed and prolonged theoretical discourses on issues related to restoration dilemmas, the treatment of patina amongst them. After having lasted for a century, academic frictions eventually decreased owing to the development of natural sciences, which, by searching for scientific truth, introduced objectivity as a guideline in restoration.138 Scientific research increased knowledge about art technology and materials, resulting in the acceptance of their degradation as a natural process of ageing.139

Being based on the concept of truth - delivered by the results of scientific research - discussions about the acceptable degree of cleaning in the second half of the 20th century evolved around two branches of skepticism. One one hand, there were conservators who advocated the removal of patina for the sake of revealing the authentic state of an artwork, while their critics were on the other hand striving for its preservation upon respecting an object's history. These contradictory aims in a cleaning dilemma prevailed as “the heart of the problem of restoration,”140 with science being considered a connection to the straight truth. It was only at the end of the 20th century that doubts about the objectivity which scientific research advocates reached a critical point with the development of contemporary restoration thinking, which shifted from the search for artwork's true state to the relevance of an object's meanings, values and functions (see 1.2).

136 Ibid., 124. 137 Ibid., 125. 138 Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 6. 139 Gritt, “The Removal of Patina”, 3. 140 Paul Philippot, “Restoration from the perspective of the humanities,” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, eds. Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), 225.

In terms of the notion of patina in relation to traditional art, Stephen Gritt notes that it has in the 21th century become 'noncritical' due to the development of restoration techniques which may secure the cleaning of artworks to be carried out in a more regulated and controlled manner.141 He argues that, as a consequence, “[t]he trend is for paintings to be cleaner today than previously.”142 However, he also notes that “as our ability to safely clean paintings increases, aesthetic mediation during cleaning appears to diminish.”143 Thus, as the subjective consideration of artwork's aesthetic and historical identity might lose its pertinence, the danger of cleaning becoming an “entirely technical procedure”144 can be seen one of the concerns for contemporary restorers. I believe this problem is relevant in a broader restoration context as well, in the field of film restoration in particular because, as I will discuss in the fourth chapter, film cleaning procedures are almost entirely automated.

However it is important to note that apart from different contemporary conservation rationales which advocated a respect for an object's values instead of its material constitution exclusively, the second half of the 20th century also saw shifts in art production, where the attention moved from materiality of an object towards conceptual ideas behind it (see 2.1). Both aspects influenced the traditional-art-based conceptual framework for conservation, which was followed by shifts in the acceptance of patina. To simplify, I identify three factors which cause ageing of contemporary art to be controversial in an eye of a beholder: its temporal, material and conceptual aspects.

The first distinction lies in the appreciation of an artwork in relation to time. Ernst van de Wetering writes that “much late nineteenth- and twentieth- century art [...] attempts to have the quality of a statement, which [...] determines the present with as much force as possible. It is ‘here and now-ness’ that counts!”145 Therefore, contemporary artworks are much more prone to the 'newness value,' which opposes the 'age value,' attributed to traditional artworks.146 Due to the lack of historical distance, contemporary artworks - as opposed to the works of traditional arts - tend to look new and complete and signs of ageing are not easily acceptable.147

141 Gritt, “The Removal of Patina”, 1. 142 Ibid., 4. 143 Ibid. 144 Ibid. 145 Ernst van de Wetering, “Conservation-Restoration Ethics and the problem of Modern Art,” 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), 247. 146 Riegl, “The Modern Cult of Monuments”, 80. 147 Hiiop, “The Possibility of Patina”, 159.

The second criteria in thinking about the acceptance of patina on contemporary artworks is related to the low sustainability and monochromatic character of the used materials. Contemporary artists often tend to use various non-traditional materials that degrade much faster than traditional ones. Thus, contemporary artworks have introduced new technical challenges related to the preservation of unstable materials of the 20th century, so that their cleaning has become among the most of their critical operations.148 In addition, “the perfect uniformity of manufactured [plastic] materials,” widely used in contemporary artistic production, makes any small alteration of a surface much more noticeable and disturbing than on traditional artworks, “surrounded by [...] complex imagery.”149

The third aspect refers to the changed notion of authenticity and the shift from the material of a unique artifact to the conceptual ideas behind it (see 2.3.1). The notion of authenticity in contemporary art is no longer embodied in the provenance and durability of original materials, but is driven by an artist’s conceptual ideas instead. Owing to these shifts in the notion of authenticity, traditional values attributed to the notion of patina and needs for its preservation meet difficulties in their application to the context of contemporary art restoration.150 In conservation practices, the significance of patina in relation to concept- based-art is in the first place evaluated according to an assessment of whether the change distorts or enhances the artist’s intent.151

The three factors discussed above illustrate that the significance of patina in relation to contemporary art is determined every time anew, depending on how the change of material conforms to the significance of an artwork. Following the decision-making model developed in the course of the Conservation of Modern Art project (2009), the decisions about the preservation of patina are tailored according to the following question: “Does the meaning of the work change as a result of the ageing, damage or decay it has sustained such that

148 Lydia Beerkens, “A Contemporary Cleaning Controversy,” 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), 127-131. 149 Stefan Michalski, “Conservation Lessons from Other Types of Museums and a Universal database for Collection Preservation,” 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), 291. 150 Hiiop, “The Possibility of Patina”, 161. 151 Luber and Sommermeyer, “Remaking Artworks”, 239.

40 intervention must be considered?”152 The factors taken in consideration are artist's opinion, historicity, authenticity, aesthetic and artistic factors and functionality.153

3.2 LACUNAE AND REINTEGRATION

As opposed to the notion patina which can also be identified as an asset, lacunae will be considered only as a problem, resulting in an ‘interrupted continuity of the form’. As already indicated, the notion of lacunae prompts different issues when considered as the loss of figurative elements, compared to the loss of structural harmony. Thus, I will approach the problem of lacunae and certain methodologies for its reintegration according to the nature of an object that has suffered such kind of degradation.

3.2.1 THE CONCEPT OF LACUNAE

The theoretician who contributed to the formulation of the notion of lacunae and its reintegration most considerably was Brandi. As the point of departure in his elaboration, Brandi takes the principles of human visual perception - more specifically the recognition of wholeness according to the principles of Gestalt psychology - based on the perception of an image as a pattern on the background. In the case of a damaged artwork, the viewer perceives an image reversed - lacunae take the role of a figure as they stand out from the ‘continuity’ and ‘rhythm’ of the original image, making the latter appear as the background.154 The two “levels of disturbance caused by losses in a painting” - difficulties in perceiving an image correctly and “an interruption of the continuity of the form”155 – as defined by Brandi – were the starting point for further approaches to their treatment by various conservators.

In the case of paintings, lacunae signify the missing part in a figurative sense and are recognized as a sign of disruption within an image. Whereas on paintings loss of information affects the optical perception of an image on its flat background, on sculptural and architectural monuments it reflects in the disturbance of a works structural quality. When a three-dimensional object is fragmented each structural part forms its own unity and stands as

152 FCMA, "The Decision-Making Model for the Conservation and Restoration of Modern and Contemporary Art,” 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), 168. 153 Ibid. 154 Brandi, Theory of Restoration, 58-59. 155 Paolo Mora, Laura Mora, Paul Philippot, “Problems of Presentation,” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, eds. Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), 343.

41 a separate object.156 The level of disturbance indeed depends on the degree of damage (a missing part of the wall and a demolished building are perceived differently), however in either case the reintegration of missing areas concerns the structural requirements of remnants. The structural relationship between separate fragments and the idea of wholeness which they were belonging to could be a fruitful starting point for thinking about the reintegration of lacunae in architectural objects.

The theoretical ground for addressing the issue of this relationship has been common for both figurative and structural lacunae. Based on Brandi’s theory, lacunae have not been considered lacunae themselves, but remnants of a damaged artwork in their relation to the interrupted unity of form. Remnants are recognized as a reference to the idea of wholeness and therefore they present the possibility of complete image.157 As this possibility is based on what the fragments express, the reestablishment of unity should seek for a visual balance between a works preserved and missing parts.158 Therefore, what constitutes the image of a damaged object are not the existing fragments in the first place, but the link between them and the areas with an absent text, lacunae.

3.2.2 REINTEGRATION

Regarding the restoration of paintings, the general trend in the treatment of lacunae prior to the mid-nineteenth century was to reintegrate the missing areas in the style of an author without making interventions recognizable from the original.159 It was only in the middle of the 20th century when Brandi established a new theoretical ground for approaching the treatment of lacunae that clearly opposed the previously favoured mimetic restoration. Brandi asserts that for treatment of lacunae it is important to understand its nature and consider it not as the missing space that stands on its own, but as part of the 'unity' of form.160

If the unity of original form can no longer be retrieved, the aim of reintegration is to harmonize this disruption. The reestablishment of a ruined wholeness is dependent on the way in which the space between remnants is filled, how the retouching or inpainting is implemented, or in the words of Brandi, “the most serious aspect of a lacuna for a work of art is not what is missing but what is inserted inappropriately.”161 Paolo and Laura Mora and

156 Philippot, “Historic preservation”, 361. 157 Brandi, Theory of Restoration, 55. 158 Ibid., 57. 159 Pescetelli, “The Art of Not Forgetting”, 202. 160 Mora, Mora and Philippot, “Problems of Presentation”, 345. 161 Brandi, Theory of Restoration, 58.

Paul Philippot articulated the main concern of reintegration methodology as difficulties in “[t]he minimization of this disturbance in order to restore to the image the maximum presence possible, while respecting its authenticity as a creation and as a historical document.”162

In light of respecting both the aesthetic and historical significance of an artwork while opposing an imitative recreation of lost elements, several techniques for non-mimetic reintegration of lacunae were developed by the 1920s. Two different approaches were widely employed, upon which specific techniques developed as variations: neutral toning and texturing.163 With neutral toning, monochromatic layers of paint are applied in order to reduce the chromatic disruption between areas of loss and remnants to the minimum, while pushing the latter to the forefront. However, the idea of a neutral tone proved to be controversial, as any hue of the retouching responds differently to the original image.164 Following this, another technique that was developed as a compromise between neutral toning and mimetic retouching was a specific type of texturing, tratteggio or rigatino. With an application of small vertical color lines or points a restorer can gradually achieve the intended effect of neutralizing the intense chromatic disruption. What is more, with tratteggio a restorer can modulate the figurative pattern and draw near to the potential unity of an image without imitating it, as the vibrant impression of the inpainting could only be noticed on close observation, whereas from a distance it optically blends with the image as a whole. This technique was first introduced by Brandi and later followed by its variations (chromatic abstraction and chromatic selection by Umberto Baldini among them), but they were all based on the same principle of a vibrant character of reintegration.165

As already indicated above, the loss of information in three-dimensional objects causes a different set of requirements for its reintegration when compared to a damaged painting. Historically, lacunae on architectural objects have been approached from various perspectives. The methodology for their reintegration developed as a core issue of architectural restoration practices which has throughout the history seen a great number of ethical shifts. The most polarising debate took place in the 19th century in the conflict between Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin who were taking two radically opposing standpoints regarding the representation of historical monuments (see section 2.1).

162 Mora, Mora and Philippot, “Problems of Presentation”, 343-344. 163 Joyce Hill Stoner and Rebecca Rushfield, The Conservation of Easel Paintings (New York: Routledge, 2012), 580-581. 164 Pescetelli, “The Art of Not Forgetting”, 204. 165 Hill Stoner and Rushfield, The Conservation, 581.

Considering the reintegration of lacunae, the movement in England was critical about any kind of integration, whereas the French trend was advocating for the complete reconstruction of monuments, so that elements would be integrated regardless of any historical and aesthetic significance of their remnants. As an answer to the two extreme positions, a great number of theorists responded by proposing a middle ground, architect Camillo Boito among them. Boito was a defender of the historical significance of objects, while at the same advocating the need for ethically sound restorations, suggesting that reintegrations should be visible additions to the ruined structure.166 Upon his theory, a great number of variations were suggested later, which complied with the formulation of the leading conservation principles and Brandi’s theory established in the middle of the 20th century.

Similarly to the reintegration of loss in paintings, the most critical point in architectural reconstruction were additions, as they need to meet both aesthetic and historical requirements appropriately. As opposed to in a painting, lacunae in the structure of an edifice result in weakened physical support and the vulnerability of rather stable carrier. Therefore, added elements should be strong enough to hold up the structure, however at the same time obtaining aesthetic and substantial compatibility with original remnants.167 Yet, following the principle of reversibility, their installation should not damage the preserved fragments and might allow for their potential removal without damaging the original parts.

Proposed by Brandi and followed by many other theoreticians, the concept of reestablishing the continuous legibility of an artwork which encompasses both historical and aesthetic significance of an object became the greatest concern for restorers at that time. As described above, the most important criteria in seeking for continuity became that neither reintegrated nor original parts of an image stand out and attract attention, yet that a restorer does not produce any forgery or subjectively presumed interpretation. This demand was emphasized continuously and most clearly it could be illustrated by Baldini’s statement that “an act of restoration [is] the result of critical approach, not an assertion of taste.”168 Baldini’s approach is a typical example of “classical aestheticist theories [that] consider truth (aesthetic and historical truth) as a primary goal, which belongs to the expert’s realm.”169

166 Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 5. 167 Pescetelli, “The Art of Not Forgetting”, 207. 168 Umberto Baldini, “Theory of Restoration and Methodological Unity,” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, eds. Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), 357. 169 Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 107.

However logical this may this sound, from the perspective of contemporary conservation thinking which tries to establish coherent links between theory and practice, this assertion is debatable. As opposed to the traditional restoration theory upon which the notion of lacunae has been widely discussed, Muñoz Viñas stresses that “[c]onservation is an activity which is based upon the tastes prevalent at a particular time or in a particular person.”170 Therefore, the integration of lacunae – as well as other restoration interventions – is performed by a restorer herself, an expert who has knowledge of an artwork and the professional ethics and methodology for restoration, but can nevertheless only act according to her own personal judgments and taste. Current methodologies for the reintegration of lacunae therefore are firmly based on Brandi's ethical ground of respecting the aesthetic and historical identity of an artwork while establishing interventions as visible additions to the original elements.

4 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF DEGRADED MATERIALS IN EXPERIMENTAL FILM RESTORATION

As I have already argued in the section 2.2, the analogue film medium is prone to acquiring wear and tear, to rapid degradation and inevitable loss of its chemical and physical properties. Films that are handed down to restorers exist in different conditions and forms, which is due to multiple reasons - it might be a consequence of inadequate storage conditions, careless handling, or just as a result of the natural ageing of celluloid due to its chemical and physical composition. A short life span of plastic materials has been a common issue within the field of fine art conservation. Restorers working with modern and contemporary artworks are - more than any other ones - aware of the fact that some works are simply condemned to complete destruction.171

In the preservation of experimental film, the issue of the rapid and intense degradation of materials is even more recognisable as a result of the diverse nature of filmmaking (see 2.3.1), the low sustainability of particular film stocks used by experimental filmmakers and the circumstances under which these fragile film artifacts have been stored because they usually end up in the personal care of filmmakers themselves. The combination of these factors considerably contributes to the challenges in the long-term preservation of experimental films, in particular to the diagnosis and treatment of the signs of degradation.

170 Ibid., 108. 171 Jean-Christophe Ammann, “On the Ageing of Works of Art," 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), 282-283.

With this in mind, in this chapter I will conceptualise specific current practices of experimental film restoration. In particular, I will demonstrate that the recognition and treatment of degraded experimental film artifacts can be approached from two respective fields: fine art restoration and larger field of film preservation. On the whole, the restoration of experimental film requires a case-to-case approach, where ethical and methodological decisions are made individually. However, I will argue that particular contributions from both fields can be more or less clearly identified. These contributions can be seen as components of the emerging framework for experimental film conservation, which I have began unveiling in the second chapter and which I will further develop on the following pages by reviewing its specific restoration practices.

On the one hand, I will argue that the methodology and practices for the treatment of experimental film have been largely adopted from film restoration. This is also the reason why the main methodological challenges related to the recognition and treatment of the material changes of experimental film artifacts are present in the larger field of film restoration. However, while the practice of experimental film restoration aligns with the larger field of film restoration, the same could not be said for its ethical approach. Within the larger film restoration context, there is lack of appropriate classification towards the specific conditions of degraded film material, which is due to the fact that different types of film heritage require their own conservation frameworks. Until now, only one categorization of different changes of film material has been widely accepted, an approach that groups modifications of image materials according to their origin. The classification, developed by Michele Canosa, Gian Luca Farinelli and Nicola Mazzanti, has been used in Italy since the 90s and is recently becoming recognized in the wider professional field as well.172 However, the weakness of this categorization is that various kinds of film heritage are subjected to different criteria of diagnosis and treatment, with the result being that it cannot be adopted on a larger film conservation scale.

On the other hand, ethical principles for reviewing the specific conditions of degraded material in experimental film conservation are closely associated to those in fine art conservation, where the authenticity of an object can be established according to its material structure and its ageing. It is particularly in the shift between traditional and contemporary art where the acceptance of change in relation to experimental film resides. In relation to

172 Lorenzo Della Rovere, Claudio Santancini, Mirco Santi, et al., “Behind an Experimental Film Heritage: Preservation and Restoration Protocols and Issues,” Journal of Film Preservation 89, no. 11 (2013): 119.

46 contemporary art, the conservation reasoning is no longer bound to materiality itself, but depends on the artist’s perspective on the medium and the signs of its ageing. Similarly, in experimental film restoration the recognition of intentions depends largely on how the artist has treated the medium. In contrast to the larger field of film restoration, where material aspects of the film artifact are relevant to preservation practices to a lesser extent, in experimental film restoration the approach for the recognition and treatment of different forms of degradation is more oriented towards medium specific arguments.

Conservation challenges related to both the diagnosis and treatment of the specific conditions of degraded material have been most explicitly defined in the theoretical field of fine art restoration, where the notions of patina and lacunae have been central to the discussion (see 3). Following my own observation that ethics from fine art restoration are to a great extent relevant in the conservation of experimental films, I will use this ground for looking into specific practical issues in the field. In doing so, I will identify which specific conditions of degraded film material could be recognized as patina and lacunae within the framework of experimental film restoration, and which ethical considerations prevail when deciding on their treatment.

Motivated by the lack of discussion about the acceptance of change in relation to experimental film material, in this chapter I will discuss the most common types of degradation that concern their conservation practice, and their treatment according to both analogue and digital technologies for restoration. In the first section (4.1), I will illustrate the problem of the only existing classification system for degraded film materials, which will justify my decision to approach this issue from another field. In the second section (4.2), the notion of patina and its treatment will be discussed. First, I will outline the most common types of change that appear as signs of ageing and can be defined as patina and introduce four categories: chromatic, manipulation, handling patina and patina as a concept (4.2.1). Further on (4.2.2), I will review the techniques for their treatment by pointing out the most obvious ethical challenges they cause. In the third section (4.3), the occurrence of lacunae and their treatment will be discussed by the same analogy: first, I will outline various types of loss of information which will be grouped to the following categories: figurative lacunae as suggested by Pescetelli, and my own two categories of flow lacunae and lacunae of image detail (4.3.1). To conclude, in the second subsection (4.3.2) I will introduce the techniques and ethical concerns regarding their treatment.

4.1 PROBLEM OF CLASSIFICATION

Julia Wallmüller proposes a classification system for the physical state of film material by drawing upon texts written by Michele Canosa, Gian Luca Farinelli and Nicola Mazzanti. This division serves as a diagnostic tool for filmic decay for both preservation and restoration purposes, allowing restorers to classify alterations and treat them accordingly. Wallmüller states that signs of decay are divided into three categories: damage, errors, and defects. Damage is defined as any sign of the biological, physical and chemical modification of a material, manifested as “traces of age, decay, and use or misuse of the material, such as scratches, tears, fingerprints, stains, shrinkage, and loss of color,” emerging from film’s passing over time. As a subcategory of damage, Canosa suggests the term change to define “any appearance that results from material decay, often due to inadequate storage conditions.” Errors are interpreted as the image alterations, deriving from the duplication process, such as “visible framelines, flickering, unsteadiness, as well as editing errors such as inverted shots, or cuts made by censors.” While damage, change and errors relate to any subsequent alteration of the moving image, defects are those “perceptible effects which resulted from technical limitations during the time of production,” thus they pertain to the process of film production and are considered as a part of the original image.173

Theoretically, the distinction between various types of modifications can contribute to an understanding of the criteria needed in film restoration treatment. Following Wallmüller’s definition of film restoration, restoration might “reduce or remove damage and errors, while preserving defects inherent in the work at the time of production as part of its individual characteristics.”174 Nevertheless a closer look at restoration practices may reveal at least two issues associated with the image cleaning. On the one hand, the difference between different types of alteration might not be that easily discernible. For example, one of the most frequent doubts remains whether an unstable image on early silent film originates from its production, shrinkage or duplication process.175

On the other hand, the same criteria for the diagnosis of alterations might not be relevant for all kinds of film material. As Della Rovere et al. write about the restoration of experimental film, the distinction between damage, errors and defects depends on the production practices of the films in the first place. “In the cinema of aesthetic experimentation, alterations must be reviewed and considered in light of the strategy, intentions and techniques of the artist, who

173 Wallmüller, “Criteria for the Use”, 79. 174 Ibid. 175 Pescetelli, “The Art of Not Forgetting”, 77.

48 often “plays” and experiments with the correct way of recording, pushing the technological limits and researching damage as a way of expression.”176 From this perspective, effects that at first may seem extraneous to an image, might actually belong to the primary idea of work’s appearance. While it is unlikely that flickering will have been originally intended in a blockbuster film or a classical narrative cinema piece, such technical experimentation – which may result in the rapid succession of frames with different light values – is a common practice in avant-garde cinema. Taking this problem as a vantage point I will approach the conditions of degraded experimental film materials from the field of fine art conservation.

4.2 PATINA AND TREATMENT

4.2.1 THE CONCEPT OF PATINA

Within the larger field of film restoration, the concept of patina, the specific condition of degraded material which occurs as a sign of ageing, has been largely absent from discussions. Until now, only Busche and Pescetelli have tackled the ethical issues of image modifications, as well as their preservation and removal in relation to silent films. Pescetelli observes that the main difference between artworks and films regarding the exposure to degradation and its visibility is related to the nature of both mediums. The most severe degradation of artworks occurs and becomes noticeable on the surface of an object alone. As opposed to works of art, the actual intensity of film degradation becomes visible only when the light passes through the transparent medium.177 His observation reveals that the diagnosis of patina on film is closely associated with the image as seen during its projection.

Pescetelli identifies the issue of patina on silent films in relation to the cause for its change being either deliberate or accidental. All the alterations of film material are within his classification recognized as either unintentional (“dust, hairs, finger prints, particles of carbon black, and stains of oil from projectors”) or intentional (evolved from the treatments when a film was covered with various coatings in order to protect the film stock).178 Unlike in early cinema, when covering a film with was a routine procedure for protection purposes, in avant- garde cinema the treatment of film stock is considered an artistic practice, with variety of unconventional techniques and materials interacting with the film medium itself and causing specific conditions of degradation. Consequently, the categories of both unintentional and

176 Della Rovere, Santancini, Santi, et al., 119. 177 Pescetelli, “The Art of Not Forgetting”, 192-193. 178 Ibid., 195.

49 intentional patina in relation to experimental film might comprise different symptoms of material change when compared to conventional silent cinema. This shows that once again, a deeper and more specific analysis of the challenges pertaining to experimental film restoration is necessary.

With this in mind and with reference to the conducted interviews, I have identified four categories of patina in relation to experimental film: chromatic patina (dye fading), manipulation patina (signs of degradation which come from human mediation as part of the filmmaking technique which accelerates the process of decay), handling patina (scratches, dirt, hairs, stains which are printed-in or physically present on the film artifact itself), and patina as a concept (signs of ageing used as an artistic practice). It is important to note that these various forms of patina might not have affected the original camera film only, but could be printed-in as a part of the image in a reproduced copy. This means that patina might have become an intrinsic part of the print and characterized its look, even though the print itself has not suffered from degradation.

Monizza, Toscano and Klacsmann identify the issue of color fading or chromatic patina as the most prevailing type of degradation in relation to experimental film.179 Dye fading is caused by the use of particular reversal film stocks that were favored among experimental filmmakers: namely specific Agfa, Gevaert and Kodak (7389, 7390) color reversal print stocks.180 The Ektachrome Commercial (ECO) 7252 film stock illustrates the most common manifestation of color fading within the restoration of avant-garde cinema. In 1970, Eastman Kodak introduced the 16mm reversal color Ektachrome Commercial (ECO) 7252 film stock with favorable visual characteristics, such as low-contrast and sharpness. As ECO 7252 was very functional for duplication to high contrast reversal print stocks via optical printing, it was widely employed by experimental filmmakers during the 1970s and early 1980s.181 Fascinated by the effects achieved by the use of the ECO 7252 stock, filmmakers employed it on a large scale whilst unaware of the possible issues related to the long-term preservation of their works. After having been the most extensively used reversal film stock of that time for ten years, ECO now represents one of the most urgent film preservation issues at present. ECO 7252 proved to be very unstable, resulting in rapid dye fading into purple and in loss of its significant chromatic characteristics.182

179 Klacsmann, Monizza and Toscano in discussion with the author. 180 Toscano in discussion with the author. 181 Toscano in discussion with the author. 182 Windhausen, “Discussing the Films”, 109.

A second type of patina related to the use of materials are signs of degradation which come from human mediation as part of the filmmaking process or, as I named it, manipulation patina. Those conditions are caused by the use of specific techniques which accelerate the process of degradation, but might not be easily recognized as intentional. The working techniques that might have caused decay at a higher rate are the practices employed at the process of creation (use of chemicals, use of outdated film stocks, adding appliqués), developing (hand processing), duplication or editing (non-professional splicing). The latter has been identified by Toscano and Monizza as one of the most common forms of change pertaining to experimental films. Frequently, filmmakers themselves were editing original camera films by using either tape- or cement- splices to edit films in an unconventional way. As these splices age, the adhesive leaks out on the emulsion and apart from causing stickiness, it remains visible on an image itself.183

Traces of use or handling patina are one of the most perceptible signs of degradation that occur as a scratched image or dust accumulated on the surface of the film. Either due to the limited financial resources for film production or as a consequence of experimental filmmaking workflows determined by the artists themselves, original reversal stocks were often used as projection prints.184 This means they suffered a lot of wear and tear, which became a part of the image as it was projected. These damages became even more pronounced when prints were made from those worn originals and signs of handling became a flaw which was printed more permanently onto the image.

Patina in relation to experimental film most often occurs as a result of the low sustainability of the material medium, the use of working techniques, or misuse of the film. However, apart from the signs of natural ageing which may have not been predicted, patina in experimental cinema can also be seen as part of an artistic practice.185 Some artists have taken an opportunity to use the aesthetics of degradation in order to explore the ephemerality of material in their work, resulting in gradual changes of their work over time. Toscano evaluates that it is not a very common practice,186 however it is important to consider this aspect of filmmaking as well, since the identification of patina as a concept will most definitely need to be considered in the recognition of a work’s intentions and the decision about its treatment.

183 Monizza and Toscano in discussion with the author. 184 Monizza in discussion with the author. 185 Klacsmann and Toscano in discussion with the author. 186 Toscano in discussion with the author.

The significance of patina on experimental films is closely embedded within a conceptual framework for its conservation, where the authenticity of each separate restoration project can be evaluated according to how the author’s intentions have been recognized in relation to the medium specificity of the particular film. Regardless of reasons for its occurrence and the generation to which the particular alteration pertains, it is clear that every change affects the material constitution of the film. Taking into account that the materiality of the film medium has been central to the experimental filmmaking process, it is therefore more likely that its change will be accepted much more easily than material alterations in relation to conventional cinema. While in the larger field of film preservation the medium specific arguments and the concept of patina are less commonly taken into consideration, in experimental film restoration they receive more attention.

Most forms of patina come from the deliberate use of unconventional techniques or materials in experimentation with the medium itself, yet that does not mean that the material change has been intentionally predicted by an artist.187 Even though experimental film exists as a cinematic form where the examination of aesthetic and material characteristics of the medium is central to the creation process, it has to be noted that the change itself does not mean that it complies with the intentions of the filmmaker. Within an experimental film conservation framework, the medium is in the first place considered as the material substance that has been used with a purpose to achieve a specific visual effect, yet the conservation practice has shown that it is the technique of experimentation that can be understood as the concept of the work. Therefore, artistic intent might not be embedded in the medium itself, but in the significance of medium specificity for an artist. Following this, any decision about the treatment of patina is determined by how the change of material conforms to the concept of the work, particularly to the significance of medium specificity for an artist.

4.2.2 TREATMENT

The nature of experimental filmmaking – in particular the variety of techniques and practices that artists embraced in the creation of their work (see 2.3.1) – makes it impossible to use the same criteria for the diagnosis of degradation that a conservator would use in the restoration of conventional films. Those image elements or characteristics which might at first sight resemble accidents, flaws, or mistakes might actually be the qualities of the film.188 The most

187 Toscano in discussion with the author. 188 Klacsmann, Monizza, Santancini, Santi and Toscano in discussion with the author.

52 explicit example of this discrepancy is the occurrence of a scratch which would in the larger field of film restoration usually be recognized as an imperfection, yet in the context of experimental film it might have been created intentionally and might therefore be a part of an image from the beginning. The awareness of those possibilities and critical thinking in the course of the diagnosis of imperfections form the main two principles in the recognition of patina. For all the interviewees, this knowledge was greatly informed by the earlier acquired experience in either film handling and repairing or laboratory work, which, as Monizza puts it, “teaches you how to understand the inherent materialistic and aesthetic characteristics of the film medium and how they translate to digital.”189

The importance of preserving the visual characteristics of the photochemical medium during a digital restoration workflow is a common concern in the larger field of film restoration. There has been a lot of scepticism about the use of digital technology for restoration which results from the degree of manipulation that it enables.190 Comparative questions related to the ontological divide of material and digital film processes lay outside of the scope of this paper. Instead, I aim to discuss both analogue and digital techniques for the treatment of specific conditions of degradation presenting them both as tools which are used in and useful for current restoration practices.

Film restoration practices which are currently used for all types of film heritage, are part of analogue, digital or hybrid workflows. Various techniques are suitable for different operations; here, I will outline the most relevant issues related to the use of both analogue and digital technologies embraced in the process of image cleaning (for the removal of handling and manipulation patina) and color grading (for the correction of chromatic patina); I exclude patina as a concept since it is not supposed to be treated.

The cleaning of patina in fine art restoration is a highly controversial operation because of its irreversibility (see 3.2). Yet at the same time, in film restoration, each treatment results in the creation of a new version of the film, while the physical artifact can be preserved in its own state.191 However, it is still important to address issues related to the cleaning of the artifact itself, since it might alter the look of patina on the restored version. Cleaning happens in three stages: mechanical cleaning is carried out as a preparation for scanning, automatic cleaning takes place during wet-gate scanning, while digital cleaning comes about with the

189 Monizza in discussion with the author. 190 David Walsh, “There Is no Such Thing as Digital Restoration,” in Work|s in Progress: Digital Film Restoration Within Archives, eds. Kerstin Parth, Oliver Hanley, Thomas Ballhausen (Vienna: Synema, 2013), 30-42. 191 Wallmüller, “Criteria for the Use”, 81.

53 use of digital restoration tools. Thus, the degree of dust removal can vary according to whether or not these three cleaning actions are used in combination. The selection of a cleaning process depends on multiple criteria and the state of the material usually prevails as a defining guideline.

Before a film is to be scanned, mechanical cleaning is usually carried out either manually or with the use of ultrasonic or re-washing machines.192 Although both techniques are used regularly in order to remove dust, these processes of cleaning in experimental film restoration require special attention because of the diverse practices of filmmaking. If not carried out appropriately, mechanical cleaning might be too invasive and remove physical appliqués or paint on the surface.193

While mechanical cleaning is useful for removing dust and other dirt that has accumulated on the surface of a film strip, it cannot eliminate scratches and other damage that has become embedded into the structure of a film. This sort of patina can be reduced during a scanning, however only to some degree. For that purpose, a scanner equipped with a wet gate can be used. During the digitisation process, a strip of film passes through a solvent with similar index of refraction. As a result, physical scratches are hidden and do not appear on the new version of the film.194 Despite its effectiveness, this technique can be considered incautious in experimental film restoration for two reasons. Firstly, it might remove scratches that have been applied intentionally as part of an artistic practice. The second aspect is related to the technology used during the creation of the work. Toscano expresses this concern by explaining that printers before the 1980s or 90s were not equipped with a wet gate, which means that the prints were not as clean as they might be nowadays, when treated with contemporary technology. This aspect is particularly important in the context of the style of an artist, which might be aligned with the scratched look of the image, although not being intentional, or as Toscano put it, “where [...] textures were maybe not crucial to a film, but comprised part of its personalty as an artwork.”195 This demonstrates the required necessity to be aware of the close independency between the practices and technology used in the creation and the style of an artist. While this might not be relevant in relation to conventional cinema, it is of great significance in fine art restoration.

192 Klacsmann and Toscano in discussion with the author. 193 Toscano in discussion with the author. 194 Read and Meyer, Restoration of Motion Picture Film, 88. 195 Toscano in discussion with the author.

Cleaning of the film before the process of digitization makes the further, otherwise rather time-consuming operation of cleaning in digital domain much easier. However, alterations cannot be completely reduced by means of mechanical and automatic cleaning methods only, as these can can only remove dust and physical scratches.196 For example, those scratches or dust that originate from any previous generations and are printed into the film can only be tackled digitally. In the digital domain, a restorer operates with a combination of automatic and manual filters for dust removal, which are based on the algorithmic principle of replacing elements that are recognized as damage. Damages are marked manually or detected automatically with pixels of values, calculated according to the same area on the previous and the following frame, or the area around the marked element.197

The nature of image cleaning in both analogue and digital restoration illustrates the general concern related to the cleaning of patina indicated in the second chapter. The process of cleaning is semi-automatized, so that the restorer can control the operations described above to a certain extent within a procedure that is carried out by the means of technical operations. This suggests the risk of cleaning becoming a technical operation with little care given to the evaluation of different image alterations themselves. As I have shown above, in experimental film restoration this danger is even more obvious. The lack of knowledge about the particular filmmaking practices that are considered unconventional in relation to the larger film restoration field, might lead to the loss of the inherent qualities of an image.

Both analogue and digital technologies for restoration are also used in the treatment of chromatic patina. As I have discussed above, faded reversal stocks are one of the most common problems in experimental film restoration. For restorers, finding the most appropriate elements presents a greater issue than finding the original ones, as evidenced by substantial color loss of ECO 7252 which might make original camera elements unsuitable for restoration.198 Instead of insisting on faded reversal film, restorers might consider other elements derived from those originals - such as internegative or prints – as a more suitable source. Yet, those elements might also bring forward other issues: they might be re-edited, misused, or incomplete, there might be the generational loss of grain and so forth, and the decision about the selection of an appropriate element varies from case to case. However complex the other issues might be, dye fading remains the most difficult problem to correct in the course of restoration. It is difficult to approach it with photochemical

196 Read and Meyer, Restoration of Motion Picture Film, 224. 197 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 84-85. 198 Windhausen, “Discussing the Films”, 109.

55 color grading, as this process demands good training of laboratory procedures.199 An alternative is color grading in the digital realm, which is easier for a restorer to control.200

Decisions about the degree of intervention are, however, rarely a matter of a singular human judgement. Experimental films were mostly created with the use of unconventional techniques, which might not be obvious for a conservator from the start. The analogy between the practices of contemporary art and experimental film restoration can be observed at this point. Because experimental films exist as works which embody the conceptual idea of a single artist, it is a common practice to include the filmmaker into the restoration of their works. Most often, filmmakers participate at the very beginning of the restoration project and at its end.201 Their involvement at the outset is the most decisive segment of a collaboration, as certain objectives and a workflow are to be determined at that stage. Filmmakers can communicate the concept of the work, assist with the assessment of the context in which the work was produced and provide information about the techniques and materials used for the film production. They are also present at the final part of the process, when they are asked to approve the work or notify if the operation did not respect their intentions so that it can be corrected before delivering the final version of a restored film.202

The involvement of filmmakers in the restoration process has generally been recognized as both a beneficial and complex contribution to a preservation framework. The most common disagreements are those regarding the degree of an intervention, as artists might use the restoration as an opportunity to change and improve those aspects of the work they could not achieve at the time of the filmmaking.203 This issue is a well known concern for restorers of conventional films as well. In such cases, it is the responsibility of a restorer to communicate the issue with an artist in order to navigate the process of restoration in which, as Santi emphasizes, “the material remains the reference of a restoration.”204 Yet, Toscano observes that in experimental film restoration, where a film is the result of an individual creative vision, the “control and authorship [of filmmakers] over that work is significant, and should not be dismissed.”205 This reveals that communication remains a fundamental aspect of restoration, where the result at the end needs to sit between both the objectives of the restoration and the vision of an artist.

199 Klacsmann and Toscano in disussion with he author. 200 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 46. 201 Klacsmann, Monizza and Toscano in discussion with the author. 202 Klacsmann, Monizza and Toscano in discussion with the author. 203 Klacsmann, Monizza, Santi, Santancini and Toscano in discussion with the author. 204 Santi in discussion with the author. 205 Toscano in discussion with the author.

In cases where the filmmaker may either be no longer present or disinterested in the conservation process, the responsibilities of a restorer to provide an assessment of the work’s significance is even greater. It is usually helpful to consult with the people who knew the artist and their work process or the laboratory where the film was developed.206 In the absence of an artist, the recognition of patina and decisions about its treatment remain one of the main challenges. It can be approached by a comparison of the different elements of the same film, if they exist and can be found, so that any kind of alteration can be traced. This is done in order to discover at which stage of the film duplication patina was introduced and whether it is possibly that it is an artistic practice used intentionally. However, the recognition of patina in itself does not ultimately determine the decisions about its treatment. At the end, the degree of intervention is decided according to the appearance of the film as assessed by the restorer, based on their knowledge of an artist’s intentions and his/her relation to the change, their oeuvre and the context in which the film was created.

4.3 LACUNAE AND TREATMENT

4.3.1 THE CONCEPT OF LACUNAE

If the notion of patina has not yet found an established methodological ground within the larger field of film restoration, approaches to the issue of lacunae have been elaborated frequently in both theoretical terms and practical implementation, most thoroughly by Pescetelli and Busche. In The Art of Not Forgetting: Towards a Practical Hermeneutics of Film Restoration (2010), Pescetelli defines different types of image loss, dividing them into two categories: figurative and narrative lacunae. In continuation of Immagine e materia: questioni di restauro cinematografico (1992) written by Canosa, Pescetelli describes figurative lacunae as the loss of figurative elements within an individual frame, depending on their proportion - it could appear on a part of a single frame (punctual), expand over a scene (local) or affect the entire reel (extended).207

Narrative lacunae, on the other hand, appears as an absence of either a singular or several frames.208 However, the absence of information might not have the same origin considering different types of films. For example, missing parts of a silent film might be the result of

206 Monizza in discussion with the author. 207 Pescetelli, “The Art of Not Forgetting”, 232. 208 Ibid., 233.

57 censorship, while in experimental film it often occurs as a consequence of re-editing by filmmakers themselves.209 Thus, lacunae in experimental film might occur as a result of an artist’s intentions to create a new version of the film. In addition, in conventional cinema the absence of a particular sequence might interrupt a work’s narrative, while in experimental cinema it may tend more towards altering the visual composition of the film. Consequently, although the techniques for treatment might be the same in both cases, the issues themselves will be approached from different perspectives, since in experimental film the vision of an artist will prevail. Following this, it is necessary to address the concept of lacunae in relation to experimental film. Apart from figurative lacunae, I will also introduce an issue related to the generational loss of grain, which I named lacunae in image grain, and the issue of an absent frame or a sequence, which – instead of narrative – I term as flow lacunae.

Figurative lacunae usually occur as damage or change, determining the appearance of scratches, tears, and chemical or chemical and physical material decay.210 This absence of information disrupts the figurative harmony of an image and influences its perception in compliance with the principles of Gestalt psychology, making an image seem as background and areas with missing information as pattern on it.211 Yet, the visual perception of lacunae in film is not determined by the appearance of a single frame. Considering that film is a medium of moving images, experienced in their successive manifestation on a screen, “the perception of the “whole,” the movement, differs from the perception of each component, the still image.”212 Therefore, the disruption of figurative harmony in a film is perceived in motion and depending on the size and location within an image, figurative lacunae may appear as unsynchronized flickering of various patterns on a ground (tears, stains) or as another layer between an image and a viewer (think of a severely scratched surface of a film),213 perceived in its continuation.

The appearance of figurative lacunae within a film is similar to the concept of lacunae in paintings, where an area of missing information occurs as disturbance of the figurative unity of an image.214 In contrast, lacunae in sculptural art and architecture affect its structural quality, making individual structural fragments stand as separate objects. Structural lacunae affects three-dimensional objects in a manner comparable to the way that flow lacuna conforms to the structural rupture in a film, resulting from a single or several frames missing.

209 Klacsmann, Monizza and Toscano in discussion with the author. 210 Pescetelli, “The Art of Not Forgetting”, 239. 211 Busche, “Just Another Form of Ideology? ", 21. 212 Ibid., 19. 213 Ibid., 24. 214 Ibid., 23.

In experimental film restoration, missing frames or sequences are often difficult to be recognized because of the specific type of filmmaking and lack of traditional narration in which the absence of the matter is more obvious.215 Although flow lacuna is generally not easily detectable, it might be problematic in the cases when rapid editing has been used as a filmmaking concept. When the succession of different frames or sequences is ruptured by the absence of a single or several frames, the rhythm is disturbed and might distort the creative concept of the film.216

The absence of elements might occur as a result of damage, yet a very common cause for flow lacunae in experimental films stems from the creative process. Among the working techniques that filmmakers were using, a common one was the process of re-editing.217 Artists might have been cutting the original camera film and re-using it for incorporation into other works due to aesthetic or practical reasons. Similarly as in the case of damaged three- dimensional objects, each remnant forms its own unity and stands as a separate element.

Apart from establishing the structural and figurative unity of an image, there is another aspect of the film image that is of great concern for film restorers: the granular structure of the film and its loss, which I named lacunae in image grain. As Busche puts it, “[t]he grain structure represents an intrinsic characteristic of the filmic image, with the grain as the smallest unit of visual information.”218 Thus, grain exists as one of the defining material properties of the film artifact, being “pure information: the sum and size of the grains define the resolution of the image, while the distribution of the grain controls the gray scale, i.e., the variation in density.”219 Toscano observes that the grain structures of an original camera film “can express themselves differently depending on how they’ve been printed over the years.”220 The grain structure of a print will therefore depend on the inherent structure of the film stock it has been printed on, and the structure of the reversal camera stock with a specific sharpness, depending on the film stock.221 As a result, the overall image grain might be variable, depending on the printing techniques and film stocks used.

215 Santi in discussion with the author. 216 Toscano in discussion with the author. 217 Klacsmann and Toscano in discussion with the author. 218 Busche, “Just Another Form of Ideology? ", 18. 219 Ibid. 220 Toscano in discussion with the author. 221 Monizza, Santancini and Toscano in discussion with the author.

4.3.2 TREATMENT

Figurative lacunae can most effectively be treated within a digital restoration workflow, where the tool for interpolation is used.222 This tool works upon the principle of reconstructing the damaged area with information gathered from the surrounding frames.223 Although the technique is commonly used, it raises ethical questions because it automatically creates content that might have never existed.224 In addition, the use of interpolation requires special attention, as it might create digital artifacts which disrupt the original look of the image.225

Apart from certain technical issues, there is also an ethical dimension to the treatment of lacunae in experimental film restoration. Toscano points to lacunae that occurred in the process of filmmaking and have been further reprinted. As they have become an intrinsic element of an image; therefore, for Toscano, it would be incorrect to treat them, as long as it corresponds to the style of an artist, who might have “embrace[d] flaws like this as being in dialogue with his creative process.”226 On the other hand, Toscano says that there is a “crucial difference in aesthetic intentionality” in relation to image flaws, which he considers important to be evaluated. Toscano makes a clear distinction between those cases, where artists might have accepted “a bit of damage as having possible aesthetic value” and those where flaws are “natural aspects of the physicality of the medium that [an artist] accepted as they happened.”227 This aspect demonstrates the importance of approaching any kind of damage from the perspective of an artist and their relation to aesthetic experimentation with medium.

Respect for artist’s intentions and good communication with the filmmaker are also important in the selection of an element for restoration, as the same film might have been re-edited and existed in various versions. Considering that flow lacunae most often occur as a result of re- editing, the issue of missing frames or sequences can be approached by looking for a print which has not been re-edited and working with that one instead, if it has not suffered fading and wear.228 Another solution is the use of other versions of the same film to find the missing parts and assembling them together.229 However, this can be a rather complicated and

222 Klacsmann, Monizza, Santancini and Toscano in discussion with the author. 223 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 86. 224 Monizza in discussion with the author. 225 Fossati, From Grain to Pixel, 287. 226 Toscano in discussion with the author. 227 Toscano in discussion with the author. 228 Klacsmann and Toscano in discussion with the author. 229 Klacsmann, Monizza, Santancini and Toscano in discussion with the author.

60 delicate task, because elements from various sources might have different visual characteristics which do not necessarily comply with each other.230

One of the factors respected in the selection of elements is the issue of the generational loss of image grain. Generally, this phenomenon makes the version on original camera stocks a preferable element for restoration, if it has not been lost, or faded or decayed.231 The earliest generation has the highest degree of image quality, where scratches and dirt are not printed into an image.232 In experimental film restoration, however, this issue might be complicated in another way. In the filmmaking process, artists are often combining different elements into one film and incorporating stocks which might have been of different generations. In such cases, it is important to reconsider which element might be more appropriate. As Toscano points out, working from the elements of the earliest generation and combining them together would “have involved re-creating [...] [artist’s] process,” where “different results which would be inconsistent with its established look.”233 Therefore, the decision about finding a way to approach the problem of lacunae in relation to experimental film can stem from taking into consideration the film artifact itself, as opposed to the elements from which it has been created. This reveals once again that in current experimental film restoration practices issues are approached from the perspective of the style of an artist and his own conception of experimenting with medium specificity.

230 Klacsmann, Santi and Toscano in discussion with the author. 231 Klacsmann, Monizza and Toscano in discussion with the author. 232 Klacsmann in discussion with the author. 233 Toscano in discussion with the author.

5 CONCLUSION

You have to take experimental approaches to preserve experimental film. 234 John Klacsmann

In the preceding chapters, I have intended to expand upon challenges which are well known to archivists and preservationists of experimental cinema, but that remain absent from the professional discussions in the larger field of film preservation. In order to theorize one of the many practical concerns evident in experimental cinema restoration, I decided to draw attention to controversies regarding the recognition and treatment of specific conditions of degraded material. In doing so, I have aimed at filling the gap in the lack of literature and professional discussions about the preservation of experimental films.

In the attempt to find a way to address the challenges of experimental film restoration, I was motivated by a personal observation that experimental cinema is a type of cultural heritage which, in terms of its current preservation practice, finds its place on the intersection between fine art and the field of film heritage in general. I attempted to find a way to approach the problem of experimental film degradation in the most ethically sound manner for today's specialized experimental film restorers. However, I noticed that in the larger field of film preservation these controversies are considered rarely, or in a non-systematic fashion. Consequently I decided to look into the problem from the perspective of broader conservation disciplines, more specifically, to approach it from the respective field of fine art conservation, as artworks from that field are object upon which the conservation profession has been initially established and developed. In order to confront the problems identified, I selected the particular notions of patina and lacunae that have been historically well elaborated and influential for the development of the fine art conservation discipline. I systematically highlighted and proposed the categorization of the alterations that can be recognized as patina and lacunae in relation to experimental film, and reviewed the current practices of their restoration.

Before looking into the notions of patina and lacunae, I proposed a conceptual framework for experimental film conservation. Within this framework, I considered experimental films as cinematic works made by artists which oppose the protocols of classical film narration and use experimentation with the medium of celluloid as a basic form of expression. Based on that, the authenticity of each restoration can be considered to reside in the manner of

234 Windhausen, “Discussing the Films”, 109.

62 achieving the balance between the historical and aesthetic value of the restored work. The aim of developing my own framework has been to demonstrate that ethical and methodological decisions about the treatment of patina and lacunae are undeniably determined by the medium specificity of the film and more specifically, by its significance for an artist.

I hope, above all, that the different aspects of experimental filmmaking which I have referred to throughout the text have provided the reader with an overall image of the variety of forms in which these conservation objects might exist. With that in mind, I have aimed to illustrate the necessity of having knowledge about the unconventional practices of experimental filmmaking within a framework for conservation. In doing so, I have confronted the criteria for the evaluation of material changes, which are uncritically commonly labeled as flaws in the larger field of film restoration. To refer back to Klacsmann, this reveals the necessity of experimental approaches in experimental film restoration. In other words, these restoration practices require a case-to-case approach where departures from conventional filmmaking practices might not be considered imperfections, but intrinsic qualities of the artifact. In the context of the treatment of patina and lacunae in particular, experimental approaches indicate that it is vital to inquire, every time anew, in what ways specific alterations of material may be aligned with the overall significance of a work.

The topic I have discussed presents only one among many challenges encountered by experimental film preservationists and archivists. I hope that my thesis will contribute to an increased dialogue between experts in the field, which is a necessary prerequisite for the confrontation with the variety of issues that surround experimental films. I believe that the following years will bring about a much needed development of discussions regarding experimental film restoration in professional and institutional domains, where experimental film still remains in the shadow of other types of film heritage.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ammann, Jean-Christophe. “On the Ageing of Works of Art." In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé, 282-283. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999.

Appelbaum, Barbara. “Criteria for Treatment: Reversibility.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 26, no. 2 (1987): 65-73. Last accessed 18 June 2017, http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/articles/jaic26-02-001.html.

Ashley-Smith, Jonathan. “Definitions of Damage.” Conservation OnLine. Last modified 23 November, 2008. Last accessed 17 June, 2017, http://cool.conservation- us.org/byauth/ashley-smith/damage.html.

Baldini, Umberto. “Theory of Restoration and Methodological Unity.” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, 355-357. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996.

Beerkens, Lydia. “A Contemporary Cleaning Controversy.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé, 127-131. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999.

Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In Modern Art and Modernism: A Critical Anthology, edited by Francis Frascina, Charles Harrison, Deirdre Paul, 217-220. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.

Brand, Bill. "Artist as Archivist in the Digital Transition." The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 12, no. 1 (2012): 92-95.

Brandi, Cesare. “The Cleaning of Pictures in Relation to Patina, Varnish and Glazes.” The Burlington Magazine 91, no. 556 (1949): 183-188.

------. Theory of Restoration. Rome: Istituto Centrale del Restauro, 2005.

Busche, Andreas. “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): 1-29.

Cane, Simon. “Why Do We Conserve? Developing Understanding of Conservation as a Cultural Construct.” In Conservation Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, edited by Alison Richmond and Alison Bracker, 163-176. London: Victoria and Albert Museum; Amsterdam [etc.]; Butterworth-Heinemann, 2009.

Caple, Chris. Conservation Skills: Judgement, Method, and Decision Making. London; New York: Routledge, 2000.

Cherchi Usai, Paolo. The Death of Cinema History, Cultural Memory and the Digital Dark Age. London: BFI Publishing, 2001.

Clifford, Helen. “The Problem of Patina: Thoughts on Changing Attitudes to Old and New Things.” In Conservation. Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, edited by Alison Richmond and Alison Bracker, 125-128. London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 2009.

Dent Weil, Phoebe. “A review of the history and practice of patination.” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, 394-414. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996.

Gartenberg, Jon. "The Fragile Emulsion." The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 2, no. 2 (2002): 142-153.

Gritt, Stephen. “The Removal of Patina.” New Insights into the Cleaning of Paintings: Proceedings from the Cleaning 2010 International Conference Universidad Politécnica de Valencia and Museum Conservation Institute, no. 3 (2013): 1-5.

FCMA. "The Decision-Making Model for the Conservation and Restoration of Modern and Contemporary Art.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé, 164-172. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999.

Fossati, Giovanna. From Grain to Pixel. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009. Guest, Haden. "Notes from a Cautious Optimist." The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 12, no. 1 (2012): 91-92.

Hermens, Erma. “Working with artists in order to preserve original intent: Proceedings Group II.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé, 397-399. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999.

Hiiop, Hilkka. “The Possibility of Patina in Contemporary Art or, Does the "New Art" Have a Right to Get Old?.” In Koht ja paik/ Place and Location: Studies in Environmental Aesthetics and Semiotics VI, edited by Eva Näripea, Virve Sarapik, Jaak Tomberg, 153-165. Tallinn: Estonian Literary Museum, Estonian Academy of Arts, 2008.

Hill Stoner, Joyce and Rebecca Rushfield. The Conservation of Easel Paintings. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Hölling, Hanna. “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, edited by Erma Hermens and Frances Robertson, 13-24. London: Archetype Publications, 2016.

Ippolito, Jon. “Accommodating the Unpredictable: The Variable Media Questionnaire.” In Permanence Through Change: The Variable Media Approach, edited by Alain Depocas, Jon Ippolito, and Caitlin Jones, 47-54. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications and The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, 2003.

Jokilehto, Jukka. "Preservation Theory Unfolding.” Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism 3, No. 1 (2006): 4.

Laurenson, Pip. “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.

Lippard, Lucy R. and John Chandler. “The Dematerialization of Art." In Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology, edited by Alberro & Stimson, 46-50. London: MIT Press, 1999.

Lorenzo Della Rovere, Claudio Santancini, Mirco Santi, Gianandrea Sasso, Simone Venturini, Ivan Nedoh, Karpo Godina, Marjan Rozman, Jurij Meden and Matteo Lepore. “Behind an Experimental Film Heritage: Preservation and Restoration Protocols and Issues.” Journal of Film Preservation 89, no. 11 (2013): 115-123.

Luber, Kerstin and Barbara Sommermeyer. “Remaking Artworks: Realized Concept versus Unique Artwork.” In Inside Installations: Theory and Practice in the Care of Complex Artworks, edited by Tatja Scholte and Glenn Wharton, 235-248. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012.

MacDonald, Scott. "Marginalization: Historical/Terminological." The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 12, no. 1 (2012): 87-88.

Maclaren, Neil and Anthony Werner. “Some Factual Observations about Varnishes and Glazes.” The Burlington Magazine 92, no. 568 (1950): 189-192.

Mancusi-Ungaro, Carol. “Original Intent: The Artist's Voice.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé, 392-393. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999.

Michalski, Stefan. “Conservation Lessons from Other Types of Museums and a Universal database for Collection Preservation.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé, 290-295. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999.

Mora, Paolo, Laura Mora, Paul Philippot. “Problems of Presentation.” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, 343-354. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996.

Muñoz Viñas, Salvador. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Amsterdam [etc.]: Elsevier, 2005.

------. "Pride and Prejudice and Patina." Lecture at the Judith Praska Lecture, New York, 9 February 2015. Last accessed 18 June 2017, https://vimeo.com/119253627.

Parsons, Margaret. "Still Separate…but Equal?" The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists 12, no. 1 (2012): 89-91.

Peek, Marja and Agnes W. Brokerhof. “Documentation and registration of artists' materials and techniques: Proceedings.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé, 388-390. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999.

Pescetelli, Marco. “The Art of Not Forgetting: Towards a Practical Hermeneutics of Film Restoration.” PhD diss., University College London, 2010.

Philippot, Paul. “Historic preservation: Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines, II.” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, 358-363. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996.

------. “Restoration from the perspective of the humanities.” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, 216-229. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996.

------. “The idea of patina and the cleaning of paintings.” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, 372–376. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996.

Read, Paul, and Mark-Paul Meyer. eds., Restoration of Motion Picture Film. Oxford ... [et al.]: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.

Riegl, Alois. “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Origin.” In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, Mansfield Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, 69-83. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996.

Schinzel, Hiltrud. “Mixed Media, Mixed Functions, Mixed Positions." In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé, 313-319. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999.

Starn, Randolph. “Three Ages of “Patina” in Painting.” Representations 78, no. 1 (2002): 86– 115.

Reijnders, Tineke. “A Shining Document of Our Time.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé, 149-153. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999.

Sommermeyer, Barbara. “Who’s Right – the Artist or the Conservator?.” In Inside Installations: Theory and Practice in the Care of Complex Artworks, edited by Tatja Scholte and Glenn Wharton, 143-150. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012.

Toscano, Mark. “Archiving Brakhage." Journal of Film Preservation 72, no. 11 (2006): 13 – 25. Wharton, Glenn. "The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art." In Collecting the New: Museums and Contemporary Art, edited by Bruce Altshuler, 163-178. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Venturini, Simone and Mirco Santi. “The History and Technological Characteristics of Cinematographic Production and Reception Devices.” In Preserving and Exhibiting Media Art: Challenges and Perspectives, edited by Julia Noordegraaf, Cosetta Saba, Barbara Le Maître, and Vinzenz Hediger, 203-216. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013.

Wallmüller, Julia. “Criteria for the Use of Digital Technology in Moving Image Restoration.” The Moving Image 7, no. 1 (2007): 78-91.

Walsh, David. “There Is no Such Thing as Digital Restoration.” In Work|s in Progress: Digital Film Restoration Within Archives, edited by Kerstin Parth, Oliver Hanley, Thomas Ballhausen, 30-42. Vienna: Synema, 2013.

Wetering, Ernst van de. “Conservation-Restoration Ethics and the problem of Modern Art.” In Modern Art: Who Cares?, edited by Ijsbrand Hummelen and Dionne Sillé, 247-249. Amsterdam: The Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, 1999.

Windhausen, Federico. “Discussing the Films of Paul Sharits with Bill Brand, Chris Hughes, John Klacsmann, and Andrew Lampert.” The Moving Image 15, no. 1 (2015): 109-113.

APPENDIX

Interview with John Klacsmann, the Anthology Film Archives

N: For how long have you been working in the field of film preservation and restoration? J: My first job at a film archive would have been around 2006, when I was an undergraduate student, so I've been in the field about ten years. I worked at my university’s film archive as an undergraduate when I first got interested in film archiving and film preservation, and after graduating I attended the George Eastman House's L. Jeffrey Selznick School of Film Preservation where I received the one year certificate. By the time I went there I was particularly interested in experimental film. For my final project I worked with a collection films by James Sibley Watson, who was an experimental filmmaker in the 1920s and 1930s. These were experimental films that he funded himself and he was a pioneer of optical printing. The George Eastman House doesn’t have a ton of experimental cinema in their collections, so when I was choosing a project I sought out that collection. Interestingly enough, that collection is mostly nitrate films, which was another appealing thing, just because it’s difficult to work on nitrate films, since not many archives in the United States have nitrate anymore. I was able to gain experience working with two things at once – experimental film and nitrate film.

N: So you actually started working immediately on the restoration of experimental cinema? J: Well, that collection was more of an archiving project, I didn’t do the restoration on any of those films, it was more cataloguing and identification. They had basically preserved all his work already, but it was a great opportunity to work with experimental film. After graduating from the Eastman House program, I worked for them on a project based around some Technicolor lab equipment It was more of an archiving project, wasn’t even really with film, but with dye-transfer machines which weren’t working anymore. It was equipment that the Technicolor company donated to the museum's technology collection. After that, I got a job at Colorlab a film lab in Maryland where I worked for about two years. I got a lot of experience doing restoration work on the lab side of things. So I wasn’t really working in an archive, but for archives, as they would send their work to the lab to be

71 preserved. Colorlab started specializing in film preservation at some point in the late 1990s but they were always really strong at 16mm – even today - and for that reason they got a lot of experimental films, whether it was from archives or from contemporary filmmakers. When I was at Colorlab I got to work on experimental film restoration projects for MoMA, Anthology Film Archives, for the Academy, for the Pacific Film Archives, and for Harvard Film Archive, so lots of the different institutions that are preserving experimental film. That’s where I learned a lot of what I do today at Anthology. Of course the Selznick School also gave me a nice foundation for working in film preservation, but by working in a lab for two years I literally worked on hundreds of film preservation projects, so that’s where I really honed the skills that I use today. I left the job there to become Archivist at Anthology and I’ve been here since January 2012.

N: Which technology for film restoration do you work with at the moment, digital or photochemical? J: I work with both, some projects we do photochemically, some projects are hybrids, where we use digital intermediates and go back to film. And sometimes - although rarely - we will do projects just digitally, meaning we won’t make film negatives or film prints, just Digital Cinema Packages at the end. Although here at Anthology that’s the exception, because we always try to make negatives and prints for exhibition and archival reasons. But ultimately the specifics of each project dictates the approach we take.

N: To what extent has the experience with analogue film acquired during the work at the lab, contributed to your current practices in film restoration? J: I think there are lots of benefits to digital, there’s a lot of really great things you can do digitally that you cannot do photochemically, so I think it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. I think just having good understanding of which restoration techniques accomplish what is important. What you can do with analogue techniques versus what you can do digitally. For example, what actually happens when you do liquid-gate printing versus what happens when you do digital scratch removal helps you decide when to use which one. My laboratory experiences definitely inform my thinking because we don’t necessarily use liquid-gate printing on every project, for example. Of course, when I was at the lab, we were beginning to do digital intermediate workflows and of course, now the equipment and scanner have changed but it was something we were starting to think about at the time, especially for small gauge film. Digital intermediates have been around since the 1990s in Hollywood, but only in recent years have we seen these techniques trickle down to the restoration of 16mm, 8mm and S8mm film, which I think is really great.

N: If we now look into your daily practice - working as a restorer, how can you define the most common types of change of image material (that develop naturally as a consequence of ageing)? Also, can you compare between those emerging in relation to narrative as opposed to those in experimental cinema? J: The biggest one that comes up is probably color fading and I think this is a good example of something that may differ from studio restoration work. Experimental filmmakers often used Ektachrome color reversal stock on 16mm and that’s not a stock commonly used in 35mm film production -- most 35mm productions were shot on negative stock on 35mm. So Ektachrome is a stock that would have been used more by experimental filmmakers, or for industrial films, for newsgathering, for other 16mm productions. There are some particular 16mm color reversal film stocks that you see a lot in the 1970s and 1980s which have really bad fading problems. Again, this is a stock that we run into quite frequently with experimental film and we have to make sure that we can get those films duplicated before they are severely faded. Alternatively, we have to find a way to restore the color if they have already faded. And again, these reversal film workflows are not something that were used commonly in studio features. For experimental film, reversal film is probably the most common, meaning filmmakers were shooting not on negative, but on black-and-white reversal stocks, or Kodachrome or Ektachrome or whatever similar reversal stocks were offered by other manufacturers. So, my point is, it's not a common workflow for studio productions. In my work I’m often making internegatives whereas for narrative features studios are probably more often making interpositives and dupe-negatives from original negatives. It’s a little bit of a different restoration workflow and we’re running into different restoration issues because of these differing workflows and stocks that experimental filmmakers often used.

N: Can you talk a little bit about how you are facing the issue of dye fading within a restoration process by using different techniques? J: If we run into a film that has color fading, there’s really only two things you can do with the original camera film. One would be to find a print that does not have this fading problem, because often times filmmakers would be shooting on Ektachrome, Ektachrome Commercial in particular is problematic, but they would make their prints on a different kind of reversal stock, Ektachrome or Agfa printing stock, and often times the prints are not faded. So if you can find a really good color reversal print where the colors are still there, then you can preserve the film by using a print. Of course, there’s a lot of problems with preserving from prints - obviously, there’s a generational difference, so you might not get the same sharpness and quality that you would get of an original and if there’s any dirt or scratches that were printed in from the original camera film then you’re kind of stuck with them -- of course this is all assuming you’re preserving photochemically. The other thing you can do is to take the

73 original camera stock that is faded and do digital restoration and that’s where I think digital restoration is really great. Because depending on how bad the fading is you can scan that original camera film and reintroduce the original color digitally. And then once you have it looking as it should, you can output back to film. So the difference is, you’re a little bit limited photochemically with what you can do with faded film whereas digital tools offer a lot more latitude for reintroducing color to faded film materials. So those are really the two options - either you’re going to preserve photochemically, having to resort to using a non-faded print most likely or you're going to reintroduce the color digitally using a scan of the (faded) camera original through a Digital Intermediate process. And there may be different reasons why you choose one or the other. Like I said, if you’re working photochemically off a print then you’re stuck with a lot of flaws that might be in that print, flaws that if you were working from the original, you could remove thorough cleaning or with liquid gate printing.

N: How important do you think digital technology is for the restoration of experimental cinema in that particular case? J: I think it’s really important. Being able to reintroduce the color in a scan of the original camera film is really powerful. Because you can get the generational quality from working off of the original camera film and you can fix the color, so it is the best situation. I think it’s not always appropriate, but when necessary, it’s great, and something that maybe 10 years ago wouldn’t really be possible either because there was no good equipment for working with small gauge film or the cost was just way too high. And this is what I mean when I say that these tools have now trickled down to the small gauges. These tools being introduced, originally, for 35mm film, which most of the time is not experimental film.

N: When you say that some tools are appropriate and some others are not, where are the limits for their use, considering your workflow? J: Well, I think every project is different, so it’s hard to come up with a good answer, without talking about specific projects.

N: Can you think of an example which might illustrate the dilemma related to that? J: Right now, for example, we’re preserving Michael Snow’s Back and Forth, which is a canonical experimental film. The problem is that the original camera film has some very slight fading in some sections, nothing major, but it’s there. There are also tears in some sections, which must have been accidentally introduced at some point during printing, meaning Michael did not intentionally tear the film. When we were originally trying to preserve and restore the film, we thought that the fading was a little bit too much to fix photochemically and the sections that had tears were bothersome. You can't fix the tears photochemically, of

74 course. So we found a Kodachrome print that Michael made, which didn’t have the tears printed in and the color was even overall. The idea was that we were going to blow up to 35mm from the 16mm Kodachrome print. But when we did a test we found out that Kodachrome print had a lot of grain. The film was already grainy and then that extra generation had added a bit more and then optical printing added even more to that. That along with the weird color that we found in the Kodachrome print, which wasn’t faded, but just happened to be a very »cool« print, kind with a bluish cast, made preserving from the print not the best move. All those things combined made it actually not a desirable element to work from for preservation. This wasn't all evident at the outset, so we didn’t really discover what it would have looked like until we did a blow-up test. In the end, we decided to scan the original reversal film at 4K, fix the color and tear digitally and then output to 35mm negative. Sometimes you don’t know what the best workflow will be until you do a test, and it was clear after doing a test that working from the original digitally was the best workflow, because we could fix the color and fix the tear, we could remove any base scratches with liquid-gate scanning and we didn’t have any of the grain build up that we would have had if we had worked from the Kodachrome print.

N: Considering damage on the film material, to what extent do you intervene into material while cleaning an image? J: I think it depends on the work. Some experimental films are dirty or scratched on purpose, which I think is a quite interesting thing to consider, as it’s something that you don't need to consider in more traditional film preservation. You're taught to remove flaws, scratches, and dirt. And that might be the normal thing to do when preserving Hollywood or studio or narrative films but when you start to work with experimental cinema you realise that sometimes those things are part of the film and they’re intentional. And so you have to start thinking about the opposite of what you’re taught. It's not always appropriate to clean film or use a liquid-gate in experimental film preservation and restoration. It depends on the project, of course. You have to be sensitive to whether scratching or dirt may be intentional or not, that’s a first thing you have to think about. When you make the judgement that it is not intentional, then of course you can use techniques to clean and remove scratches. Among those techniques, when working photochemically are ultrasonic cleaning, where you stick the film in a machine where a solvent is introduced and the film is scrubbed and dried. For scratch removal you’d choose liquid-gate printing. Those things are not necessarily going to remove every scratch or every piece of dirt, it depends on how bad they are and in the case of scratches, if those are base scratches or emulsion scratches. Another technique that you can use is called re-washing and that’s really good for removing emulsion scratches, while liquid-gate printing is really for removing base scratches. So once you’re able to judge if the

75 scratching or dirt is intentional or not, you can decide to use those techniques to remove these flaws. If I’m doing a photochemical project, then I’m going to choose a mixture of those techniques. But like I said, cleaning a film will not remove every piece of dirt and you have to make a judgement on how much you want to clean. Generally speaking, I’m not concerned with removing every single piece of dirt.

N: When you say that you have to judge whether damage is intentional or not, how do you evaluate that? J: I think generally it’s pretty obvious, for example there are several films by Paul Sharits where he intentionally scratched the emulsion, the most famous example being a film called S:TREAM:S:S:SECTION:S:SECTION:SS:ECTIONED, which is a film that is all about scratching the emulsion off. So when I’m working on that film, I’d never consider cleaning it or liquid-gate printing it or re-washing it, because doing so would ruin the film. Anyone who watches that film knows that the scratches are intentional. It’s the same thing, although to a lesser degree, with another film he made called Episodic Generation, which has an emulsion scratch right down the center of the image. He then rephotographed that piece of film is multiple times. So again, by watching the film it’s obvious that it’s part of the film.

N: Do you ever consider natural degradation being predicted by an author? J: Sure, I can think of an example, a film by George Landow called Film in Which There Appear Edge Lettering, Sprocket Holes, Dirt Particles, Etc. Even by its title you realize that the dirt, the scratches and the flaws are part of the film. And I did actually preserve that film; I basically sent the original to the lab and said “Don’t do anything, just make a negative! Don’t clean it, don’t liquid-gate print it, don’t re-wash it, just make a negative, because however this film appears now is the way it’s supposed to be.” So naturally in this case, one realises that what you’re taught are normal flaws of film, are actually the film.

N: And how do you consider the imperfections introduced during the printing process? Would you consider those to be part of the work itself or would you remove them? J: Do you mean the printing process when the filmmaker originally made prints? N: Yes. J: It depends on what the film is and it also depends on what material you’re working from during the restoration. If you look at a vintage print of an experimental film, sometimes what you see is that that print was likely made with »one light« or a »best light«, meaning when the filmmaker originally sent it to the lab, the lab didn’t do full scene-to-scene, shot-by-shot color correction. When you go back now to make a new print, do you do a similar technique

76 and give the entire film the same light or do you go back and finally do scene-by-scene color correction if it needs it? Often times filmmakers would have originally made a one light print for cost reasons, because a fully corrected print costs more than a print that is not fully corrected. So that’s not necessarily a flaw, it’s just more about the economics of the laboratory work for an experimental filmmaker. You really have to really consider how much color correction should we do now in preservation: doing too much might result in prints that look way better than original prints. But, they might be truer to what the original camera film looks like too, so that’s a difficult thing to think about or deal with. I don’t think there’s a great answer, probably you’d do something in between, but it would of course depend. Some filmmakers made one light prints for good reasons that maybe are not economic, maybe the film just looks better using one light. For example, a lot of Sharits’ flicker films are one light prints because there’s no natural break in the reel where you could even add a color correction, because literally every frame is different in color. In this case you’re not dealing with scenes in a traditional sense, you can’t really introduce scene-by-scene color correction. If you were, you would literally be doing frame-by-frame color correction. In that example, Sharits made one light prints originally and we’re still going to make one light prints today when we do preservation or restoration. But there are other filmmakers whose films are more traditional in the sense that they have scenes and different shots, maybe with different scenes shot on different stocks, and you really could go through it now and color correct every scene. In some cases, the filmmaker might have made a one light print and may really prefer that it stays that way. For example, the films of Jonas Mekas – his films are often diary films, so there are lots of different »scenes« throughout them from different days that he shot film, often times on different stocks. He’s very ardent that the film prints be one lights, where one scene might appear a little green, one scene might be a bit blue and one scene might look very natural. And that’s going to happen when you’re dealing with one light film prints, and of course you respect that and understand that’s a part of the look of those films. If you didn’t take it into consideration and you went through every scene, you might be tempted to balance it so that the entire film looks consistent. That's what you would be taught to do but that would be incorrect in this case.

N: Could you say that while considering those dilemmas, is there a line between experimental and mainstream cinema in terms of cautiousness about different issues? J: I don’t think it’s about being cautious, I just think these are issues that often don’t come up in mainstream cinema restoration. I think when doing restoration on narrative features, they’re cautious about different things, but they don’t really have to deal with the same kinds of issues. For example, I don’t think the issue of whether to fully correct a film or not really comes up for them. I think their approach dictates that every scene needs to be fully

77 corrected. It’s not that the filmmakers don’t have a specific look they are after, but everyone is taught to do full color correction scene-by-scene. I don’t think that’s always the reality when you’re dealing with experimental film for whatever reason: it might be economics, like I said, that the filmmaker couldn’t afford to do full color correction on their film when they originally made prints, or it might be a choice, like with Jonas Mekas’ film where he’s aware of the look. I can’t say whether he likes the look or it’s for economical reasons, but he’s aware of the look and it is part of the way his films look.

N: Would you say that workflows of mainstream film restoration is more automatised than those of experimental cinema? J: I wouldn’t say it’s automatic, but I think that there are less variables. Films are shot on negative. What do you do? You make an interpositive, you make a dupe neg, and then prints, there’s little variation in that and often times, the workflow is as simple as that.

N: How involved are filmmakers into restoration processes? To what extent do you allow them to be a part of the decision-making process and the restoration process itself? J: Well, not every filmmaker is alive, and when they’re not alive, they’re not involved obviously. But experimental film, at least in America, is largely a post world war II genre, not completely of course, but lots of the classic american experimental films are post world war II, often from the 1960s and 1970s, so often times the filmmakers are alive, which is a quite different experience from someone who, for example, restores silent cinema. It’s obvious, but it’s an important thing to distinguish. So in the case when the filmmaker is alive they are involved in the restoration, if they want to be. Sometimes, they don’t want to be and they might say “I don’t really care, you can do it, I trust you.” And that’s fine, but I always want the filmmaker to be involved if they want to be involved. I would say a majority of the time they are. The filmmaker often is not going to be involved in every little decision, more often what is going to happen is that we’re going to have a conversation at the beginning, I'm going to do the preparation work and send materials to the lab, give them instructions, the lab will produce a print and I’ll have a look at that first print. If I’m happy with the print, I’ll show it to the filmmaker and get their feedback. If I’m not happy with it, I’m going to have the lab make another print until I get to the point when I’m happy with it. Then I'll show it to the filmmaker. I’m generally not watching the first print for the first time with the filmmaker. I want to get it to the point when I think it’s good enough to show it to the filmmaker. So then the filmmaker is either going to approve it or they’re going to bring up some issues that they might have and we’re going to work to resolve those issues and I'll bring them back again when we have a corrected print to watch. For me, it’s really important to have the filmmaker approve of the

78 restoration. Sometimes, they might have some insights that you as a restorationist are not going to have so it’s really important for them to see it. Sometimes, of course, you don’t really agree with the filmmaker because they may want to change the look or edit of the work. They might say “Now that we’re restoring the film, I want to remove 200 feet of film, because I don’t like that part anymore” And then you have to have a conversation about not going back and changing the work this many years later, because it is about preserving the work as it was.

N: Do you ever let them do what they prefer to during the restoration? J: Well, it’s always a conversation. When we’re watching the print, I want to get the feedback from them and hear their thoughts, what they like, what they might not like. Once we have that conversation, I’m going to be the one who sends it back to the lab to ask for corrections. But I would say most of the time, besides the filmmaker asking to change their work in a significant way there’s not a lot of disagreement. I respect them as authors of the work. Sometimes we have the conversation that re-editing would significantly change the work and that is not the point of the restoration process. I think generally people get that, but I think that there is a temptation, sometimes, to use this second chance to change the work. We may be working on one of their early works and they might have been making films for 30 years since then. Their style and filmmaking experience has developed and going back and watching an early work might be a bit shocking for them. They might say “I would have done things differently now.” This might be true, but that’s not a goal of the restoration process.

N: Do you think there is less interest to intervene during the restoration process of experimental films, compared to mainstream cinema? J: I don’t know, because I haven’t restored that much mainstream cinema, so I can’t really compare. We have some famous examples in narrative cinema where authors have done that, but I couldn’t really say more about that in comparison to experimental cinema. I suspect that filmmakers are more involved in the restoration of experimental cinema than they are in the restoration of feature length narrative cinema, because there the films are often owned by commercial entities, not the filmmakers themselves. They might be involved, or the director of photography might be involved, but ultimately a studio owns the film. That is really different than the experimental film where the film is considered a piece of art and the filmmaker is the artist. So if you look to it through that lens, of course having the artist to approve the work is very important. But that’s all just a guess, I don’t really preserve mainstream studio films, so I don't know.

N: Do you find ethics of fine arts restoration process useful for your own practice?

J: I don’t know much about art conservation since I didn’t study it. I’m not super familiar with it, so it doesn’t really inform my day-to-day work as a film restorationist. Although I suspect, as you brought up, there are lot of similar issues that come up. I think the field of film restoration and the field of art conservation have different histories and maybe now they’re intersecting, but I think it's a relatively new intersection. Maybe this has to do with film being more and more adopted by the art world, museums and galleries, but that has not really been the history up until this point.

N: Would you as a restorer say that more grounding terminology in film restoration might help you to act any differently? J: I’m not sure whether that would come into play, really. I think common terminology is always useful, as far as communication goes, whether that be with other film restorationists or the lab or with future researchers in the form of documentation, but I’m not sure if that would make much of a difference for the actual act of restoration because that is really between the restorationist and lab technicians and in some cases, also between a restorationist and a filmmaker. So I’m not sure if it would change the act of restoration, but maybe just the communication or documentation around the restoration.

N: Do you think that you might communicate better with filmmakers in the restoration process if you had terminology which you could build your arguments upon? J: I think for our communication it would help, for sure. But I don’t think there really is much of a discussion around restoration until the job is over. Once the project is complete and it’s screening, then there might be a conversation about the restoration, but we’re not really in discussion about it before it happens with others for the most part. There’s a discussion with the film lab, with the artist maybe, but it’s a process that is not really discussed in depth before it’s actually done, for better or worse.I think documentation and communication are really important and they are aspects of restoration that are not often discussed as crucial parts of the process. Hopefully when you’re doing the restoration, you’re not making huge changes to the original which are permanent or which can't be reversed. This is an important idea that would be shared with arts conservation and restoration, I imagine. Hopefully you’re not cutting out portions of the original and throwing them away or putting the original through a process that is permanent, like a coating process that would alter the camera original.

N: Could you say anything about the occurrence of missing parts of a film (part of a frame or a number of frames or a sequence)? Can you think of an example that might illustrate the specific approach to that problem in the restoration of experimental cinema?

J: The most obvious example would be a tear, that we have already touched upon and which is not going to be repairable photochemically, but digitally it is, which is great. But as far as missing frames or sequences, that seems to be something that comes up a lot more often in something like silent era film than in experimental film. Sometimes you run into a problem in experimental film where there are different versions of a film and the original may no longer match what prints were like because the filmmaker might have gone back and re-edited the work or removed parts from the original to use in another work later. I think that more often happens than instances where parts are completely missing or are lost. So in cases where the original has been re-edited the approach often has been to preserve the work from a print. Because piecing together the original camera film might be impossible or extremely difficult. So you have to go back to a print or some other duplicate that was made before the original was changed by the filmmaker. Of course, now with digital technology it’s more possible to go back and restore something through scanning. You can scan the camera original and if the filmmaker used parts of it in another work you can scan that work and essentially re-piece it together from multiple sources on the digital side much more easily than you would be able to do photochemically. The best example where this has come up is a restoration that is still in progress, so it’s not a finished restoration yet. It’s Maya Deren’s Haiti project, which is an unfinished work of hers. She shot during several trips to Haiti footage for a film she never completed. She abandoned the project and died before completing it. The goal of the restoration has been to restore it to its chronological order. So one could view all of the footage that she shot when she went to Haiti in order that she shot it, unedited. That’s a difficult thing to do, because a lot of the original camera film was incorporated into a later work from the 1980s that Maya Deren’s last husband and his wife at the time made into a film called The Divine Horsemen. It is often credited as Maya Deren’s film, but it’s actually just her footage that was edited years later by others. So we run into a problem where we’re not only trying to reorder footage, but also trying to reconstruct the pieces that were removed from the original footage rolls. That’s a really difficult thing to do. Luckily, in this case all of the Haiti footage was duplicated to a negative before it was cut up for The Divine Horsemen. The decision to be made was what do we do? Do we go back to all of the original footage and scan the original camera film rolls, and scan the original of Divine Horsemen and try to piece them all together? Or do we go to that negative that was made before the parts were removed? Unfortunately, that footage is not in chronological order, but at least it is largely intact. In this case, we decided we’re going to go back to the negative instead of the original camera film because the Haiti film is 5 hours long and the task of putting it back in order is just too big of a job to do in our opinion, for a variety of reasons. It is more complicated than taking the The Divine Horsemen pieces and putting it back where it belongs in the original footage. There is some footage that’s missing,

81 there are original pieces -- outtakes and trims from The Divine Horsemen -- that are missing, and I think the Divine Horsemen likely incorporated some other footage that is not Deren's camera original, so it is not straightforward. For these reasons, we decided to go to the duplicate negative, which is more intact, so to speak, and put it back in chronological order.

N: When an author is still present, do you work with those versions that the author wants to, or do you have any preferences in the selection of material that will be used? J: It depends on what the goal is. I can think of an example in Ken Jacobs’ The Sky Socialist, shot on 8mm. We scanned it from the original 8mm film, which had a specific edit to it. In the case of that work, there are several different versions. It turned out that in the 80’ he did a blow-up of the 8mm film to 16mm, and made a different edit than the original 8mm version. Because when he blew it up, he then added some found footage and changed a few things. So they don’t match, it wasn’t just a straight blow up, he took an opportunity to edit it and change it. I think that it is fine, he wanted to change it a bit later, but I needed a strong understanding of which version is which. So our goal was to restore the 8mm version, not to scan the 8mm and then match it to the 16mm version from the 80’. Luckily, with digital, Ken can have both, which I think is great. The goal of our project was to restore the original 8mm from the 60’, but it’s digital now and as it’s his footage, he can take it and do with it whatever he wants, as long as we differentiate between 2016 restoration of 8mm film from 1965 as opposed to a digital recreation of the 80’ 16mm version as opposed to a 2016 new edit of that footage, which I’m sure he'll do as well, making a third version. It’s a great thing about digital, that multiple versions can exist, and that's fine as long as you’re specific about what you’re presenting to an audience. If Ken wants to make a new version with his film, he should, but it’s not a really a »restoration« and it shouldn’t be presented in that way.

N: If we return back to the grain loss that you were mentioning before, could you talk about whether in restoration processes you seek for elements with the highest quality of an image or is it not that relevant for you? J: I think you always want to work from the original camera film, whenever it’s possible. It’s hard to say “every time”, because there’s always exceptions and every project is different, but generally speaking, you want to work from the lowest generation copy as possible. Sometimes, you might not be able to, because it might be lost or you might be facing a color fading issue or it might be decayed so much that you might not be able to use it anymore. It’s not always possible, but when it is the image quality will be better. And you’ll be facing less issues with so-called-printed in flaws that you might get if you worked from a print, printed-in scratches or dirt for example. These are flaws that are not really on the original material, but have been printed in during print production. But, again, it depends on the project. I’m trying

82 to think of an example where we decided not to work from the camera original for a more specific reason other than the ones I previously mentioned. I can think of only one example, but I haven’t restored the film yet, so I’m not sure what I would do yet. The filmmaker shot on really nice black and white reversal stock and later the filmmaker’s partner completed the film. Essentially just by adding titles and credits to it. The opening credits aren’t just added at the beginning but are actually superimposed over the image. She also added a freeze frame at the end. So in this case, you have to consider what is the »original« element. Is it the original black and white camera reversal or is the original negative that was made from the reversal and had these titles and opticals in it. In one sense you could argue that the original is the negative with the opticals because that’s the work as we know it, all prints were made from it. So one might just preserve that negative. But you could also go back to the original camera reversal, scan it, and in digital take the titles from the negative, make the freeze frame again digitally, essentially re-making the negative. I’m not sure what the right answer is and I have to think about it some more, but I think it’s an interesting example where the so called »original« might actually not be the camera film and I think there are good arguments for preserving it either way I mentioned.

Interview with Simona Monizza, the EYE Filmmuseum

N: For how long have you been working in the field of film preservation and restoration?

S: I've been working in this field since 20 years, starting with the Selznick School of Film Preservation at the George Eastman House, followed by one year at the BFI and then since 2000 at the Nederlands Filmmuseum, now EYE. I started as a film restorer and then I became first restoration project leader, then a collection specialist and since a few years curator of experimental film.

N: And for how long with the restoration of experimental cinema specifically?

Since the beginning of my work at the EYE I was involved with the restoration of experimental films. One of the biggest projects was the restoration of the films made by Frans Zwartjes, who will be 90 this May! His films are quite amazing for the use of high contrast reversal stock and the use of colour.

N: Do you have experience in analogue film preservation? If so, how long have you been working with it?

S: I worked from the beginning on always on analogue conservation.

N: To what extent has experience with analogue film contributed to your practice in digital restoration? Can you evaluate how much has work with analogue film shaped your digital restoration practice (for example, in terms of the recognition of different types of change)?

S: Working with analogue film definitely teaches you to understand and appreciate the inherent materialistic and aesthetic characteristics of the film medium and how they translate to digital. I spent a lot of my time during the restoration process comparing the preservation elements with the originals and by doing this practise often enough you do learn how to recognize the generation loss, which occurs at every copying/printing process. This analogue

84 process is essential when dealing with digital restoration. You need to know what gets lost in the transition and why and if there is anything that can be done to reduce this loss. Also the original intentions of the artists are important aspects to consider when going digital. While in the analogue world the amount of manipulation can be controlled and reduced, in the digital world is much easier to go further and take other decisions. I think that having a clear understanding of the consequences of all decisions you take is at the starting point of any restoration process.

N: Could you define (and possibly categorize) the most common types of change of image material that you are dealing with?

S: If you mean change of material due to time, then definitely the lime coming off the several old splices is one of the major problems we deal with when working with experimental cinema. Most of the filmmakers did not have the money to print their originals using the A/B checkerboard method and therefore they heavily spliced their originals not in a very professional way and this reflects in the stickiness often found in the prints from 30 or 40 years ago. Of course colour degradation or discoloration is also a major issue. Vinegar is another. Vinegar syndrome can deform the film and make it shrunken or warped. Perforation damage is also another issue I come across often. And then the scratches/dirt on the original reversals which are used also as projection prints due to lack of money to make prints.

S: I think the splices is a characteristic more evident in experimental films rather than narrative cinema as they were made often on the original reversal and not on the negative as in narrative cinema. The use of different colour, development and printing techniques also can result is specific material changes that need a special care.

N: What is your guidance when deciding on removing the changes of image material?

S: I try to start always from understanding how the film was made, possibly with the help of the artist if she/he is alive. If this is not the case I try to compare more material from the same director in order to understand the working method better or talk to people that knew them. Sometimes the lab people can also identify specific techniques due to the stock or printing

85 methods used. Once I have a picture of how the film was made I start making a plan for the restoration. The decisions will always be different according to the film or the purpose of the restoration. When going digital I tend to take more liberties in the amount of manipulation considering access as a guiding principle, of course without changing the nature of the film. I want the film to be as accessible as possible but without losing the film look. It is not so much the amount of cleanness that I'm worried about but for instance I consider stabilisation and colour grading essential. In the digital cleaning process I tend to eliminate only major image damages and certain type of scratches that are more evident the result of time and not intended. Only in some cases I decide to take the splices away, not always, only when I consider them disturbing to the appreciation of the film. But the master files of the scan will always have the original film including the splices and we preserve the original scan as well as the renditions.

N: How can you distinguish between the change of image material that has been predicted or intended by an author and the one that has developed naturally as a consequence of ageing?

S: You can get a pretty good idea when you have several elements of the same film to compare. If you have a negative and a positive then it is easier to detect an intended artefact from a one provoked by aging. Most of the time the artists/filmmakers will tell you if some of the characteristics are intended or not, but sometimes they also forget how they made their films and their notion might be distorted. This is even more important when dealing with colour. Colour on certain stocks does change with time and here comes the expertise of the restorer at hand to acknowledge this change which is not per se intended unless a specific process has been used. So experience, common sense and first-hand knowledge from the makers are all necessary tools to proceed in this respect.

N: Do you consider the imperfections produced during the printing process, necessary to be removed?

S: I’m usually not inclined to correct those imperfections. Most of the time are the makers themselves that want to remove mistakes done during the making of the film and depending on the project we decide to do corrections or not. With the first film made by Joost Rekveld for instance, #2, the colour was not reproduced well during the blow-up from Super8 to 16mm and some emulsion scratches also happened during the process. We decided together to remove as much as possible those scratches and to balance the colours in a

86 better way also considering that now with the digital technique we were able to be closer to the original colours than Joost back then could by using the analogue printing techniques. This was decided in accordance to the wishes of the maker himself and to the fact that we wanted to produce new digital version of the films in order to reach wider audiences. So at the end these digital versions are different from the analogue ones but they do not substitute them, they kind of co-exist.

N: Can you think of an example that demonstrates how you are facing the occurrence of a missing frame?

S: I guess you are referring to the digital tool of interpolation which allows parts of the previous or next frames to be merged into the one which is either missing entirely or partially due to degradation. Usually we use this tool only if this is really necessary and we are extremely careful in not adding any artefacts. The digital cleaning tool also uses information of the surrounding frames and when you use it you have to compare the frames to see that no information is added which does not belong there. This tool is very powerful in dealing with extreme degradation but it also can really create images that never existed, so the ethical issues are very important to deal with when making decisions.

N: Do you consider using another version of a film as a reference for replacing the missing parts within an image, missing frames or missing sequences (if another version is available)?

S: When working on a reconstruction of for instance silent films, it is common practise to use several copies of the same film to reconstruct a version to fill the gaps (like the first release version or the director’s cut). These copies might vary of course to some degree, up to the point where they are in fact different versions (shot by different cameras for instance). In this cases and again, depending on the restoration project, decision might be taken to use missing hosts from another version. This is usually done not within the sequence. Documenting this process is of course essential.

S: One of the main differences for me lies in the fact that most of the independent and experimental filmmakers focus their energies in the exploration of the formalistic qualities of the medium of film and less so on the content of the image. This formal approach to the medium of film is reflected in the type and state of the material that eventually comes to the archive and will determine the restoration process. With experimental films the filmmakers are more involved in the making and production of the films themselves and rarely use the traditional lab workflow which is more normal for narrative films. This means that they often print and develop the films themselves or manipulate them by adding colour, scratches, collage material etc. All these interventions transform the originals into very fragile and unique materials that can at times hardly be duplicated without risking to be further damaged. The use of outdated stocks, non-standard chemicals or development practises and the access to DIY labs also has an impact on the look of the film and on its deterioration. Furthermore, most of the makers have worked on reversal stock, without having the financial means to create negatives or several prints, leaving the original reversal to function as projection copy as well. In experimental films the working process of the makers is really embedded in the material state of the film and this has to be taken in consideration when preserving the films.

N: Within the decision-making process, how much do you interact with the authors? Do you also involve them into the practical part of restoration?

S: When working on restoring the films I usually start with an interview of the makers. We try to view the films together and so gather the information that can help me make my decision on the restoration process. Normally I prefer to work on the restoration without the presence of the filmmaker at the laboratory to avoid influencing my opinion, but with Joost Rekveld we worked on the process together from the very beginning because we discussed the issues and set the goals from beforehand.

N: When working with the authors, which are the most common issues that place your and her/his point of view in opposition?

S: One of the most common issue deals with colour grading for instance of the desire to change the film from the original look to “improve” it.

N: Do you have any experience in the conservation and restoration of other types of cultural heritage (for example works of fine arts or archaeological objects)?

No I don’t.

N: Do you find the ethics and methodology of fine arts restoration useful for your practice?

S: No, not in my case.

Interview with Claudio Santancini, the Austrian Film Museum

N: For how long have you been working in the field of film preservation and restoration? And for how long with the restoration of experimental cinema specifically? C: I started with an internship of a few months at the film archive of the Cineteca di Bologna. After that I worked two years at La Camera Ottica Film and Video Restoration Lab in Gorizia (Università degli Studi di Udine) and eventually - 4 years ago - I moved to Vienna, where I'm working in the digital restoration lab of the Österreichisches Filmmuseum. All in all, that makes a bit more than 6 years.

N: Do you have experience in analogue film preservation? If so, for how long have you been working with it? To what extent has experience with analogue film contributed to your practice in digital restoration? Can you evaluate how much has work with analogue film shaped your digital restoration practice (for example, in terms of the recognition of different types of change)? C: I haven't had a proper training in analogue film restoration. In particular, apart from a short workshop at ANIM/Cinemateca Portuguesa (Lisbon) I have never really worked with film printing and/or developing. Even so, I do have experience with analogue materials. Film handling and repairing in particular are important stages of a preservation project (digital as well). The work on the inspection table gives us the most complete set of information we need for evaluating the status of the film(s), the strategies for digitization and the possible digital restoration workflows.

N: Could you define (and possibly categorize) the most common types of change of image material that you are dealing with? C: At the Austrian Film Museum our focus is often on experimental film heritage, with an eye always on amateur film as well. Both these "genres" or "categories" are quite far from industrial cinema in terms of production techniques and distribution/circulation habits. What is more common here is a certain kind of approach to film material, shifting its meaning toward a system in which a film is closer to a unique object or artifact. It is not a rule but quite often we deal with films that have "material changes" recognisable on their "bodies", e.g. films that are scratched or dirty, cut and spliced (sometimes together with different film stocks), burned, etc; most of the times by the authors themselves.

N: Can you think of a specific material feature or a type of change that requires more attention in the restoration of experimental cinema (as opposed to the restoration of traditional narrative films)? C: No, I wouldn't say that there is a specific change or group of changes. What requires caution in our job (again, working with experimental/amateur film) is the border between what was somehow meant to be there and what has been introduced or occurred later. A film could have been scratched on purpose, for example, and it is not an easy task to distinguish between those "artist scratches" and the ones that occurred while the film was running through the projector. With experimental cinema pretty much everything we understand as a change at first sight might have always been there, which makes it something to be preserved.

N: What is your guidance when deciding on removing the changes of image material? C: Complicated question... I always have (or at least I try to have) three names in mind: Michele Canosa, with his film restoration theory and his triple classification of image changes (damage, defect and error); Camillo Boito and the Italian tradition of "restauro filologico"; Alois Riegl and his theory of values. Off course, their precious help has to be combined with some experience.

N: How can you distinguish between the change of image material that has been predicted or intended by an author and the one that has developed naturally as a consequence of ageing? C: Investigating the image and the materials and studying the author's artistic production and the context in which the film has been produced.

N: Do you consider the imperfections produced during the printing process, necessary to be removed? C: Not necessarily. It depends on what these imperfections have to tell us about the film. When they are just an error like for example instability introduced by a faulty printer they can be removed (or they have to be). But if that same printer was the only one available when the film has first been produced, then the film should remain unstable.

N: Can you think of an example that illustrates the dilemma about the degree of intervention in the image cleaning process? C: I don't have in mind one particular example or case study. When we start a new restoration we always try to understand what the film should look like, in harmony with its history. Once that look has been decided, it becomes our goal and we try to remove the

91 differences between this and the film as it arrived to us. This means evaluating every time what to clean and how (much): deciding "which type of change should be removed and which one preserved" is half of our job.

N: Can you think of an example that demonstrates how you are facing the occurrence of a missing frame? C: Not really. In my experience I never replaced or inserted missing frames from different sources. As I said, our main interest is on experimental films which are often closer to the idea of unique artifact. When a frame is missing we usually leave it as it is. This is of course evaluated for every single project.

N: From your experience, which are the most commonly used tools for replacing a missing part of an image within a frame and a missing frame? Can you think of any problem related to the use of those tools? C: Upon having tested it, interpolation is usually a good tool for reconstructing missing parts of an image. This technique needs the surrounding frames to be clear and complete in order to achieve acceptable results. If we don't have enough "healthy" information for replacing the corrupted images the digital tools risk to create visible artifacts, which should always be avoided in restoration.

N: Do you consider using another version of a film as a reference for replacing the missing parts within an image, missing frames or missing sequences (if another version is available)? C: It is often a difficult task but yes. If the aim of the project is to produce a complete (or more complete) copy of the work and if the image quality and characterics of the different elements used match, then I don't see why not.

N: Which are the main divergences in the restoration of traditional narrative and experimental cinema (from the perspective of a restorer)? What are the main differences in the decision-making process? How does the workflow differ? C: I think that the biggest difference is that usually narrative cinema - even considering its incredibly rich history - follows rules and standards, whereas experimental cinema has almost always tried to break those rules. While restoring a "traditional" film one can lean on a clear set of knowledge (even if vast and with its own problems and exceptions). When facing an experimental film we should always doubt the standards and investigate the nature of that particular object in front of us as if it was the first of its kind.

N: Within the decision-making process, how much do you interact with the authors? Do you also involve them into the practical part of restoration? C: Whenever possible and as much as possible when it comes to understanding the film, its history and shaping workflows and aims of the restoration. Authors are an unrivaled source of information. As for the practical stage, they are welcome to collaborate and judge the results or offer their advice or point of view.

N: When working with the authors, which are the most common issues that place your and her/his point of view in opposition? C: I have generally been quite lucky actually but it happened to me a couple of times that the filmmakers took the restoration as a new occasion for working on their films, producing something new and unfaithful to the original works.

N: Do you have any experience in the conservation and restoration of other types of cultural heritage (for example works of fine arts or archaeological objects)? If so, which are the most distinct differences in approaching the treated object (for example cleaning or repairing damage), compared to film? C: I do. Before moving to film restoration I have worked for 2 years as a fine art restorer, dealing with different objects like frescoes and mosaics for example. The biggest difference with film is that with fine arts (at least until the first half of the XX century) restorers work directly on the artifacts. Also film restorers work with objects but they will leave them unchanged (or as little as possible!) and the results of the restoration will be new and different objects.

N: Do you find the ethics and methodology of fine arts restoration useful for your practice? C: Yes. It helps me to keep a flexible approach to my job and to start every new project looking for the best workflow the new object deserves.

Interview with Mirco Santi, the association Home Movies, l'Archivio Nazionale del Film di Famiglia

N: For how long have you been working in the field of film preservation and restoration? And how long with the restoration of experimental cinema specifically?

M: I graduated in Film Studies at the University of Bologna with a thesis about French experimental cinema of the 70s. In the meantime I started shooting on Super8 in the late 90s and to collect materials related to substandard film projection and orphan films. After a period of training in film archiving and restoration (with the European project ARCHIMEDIA), since 2002 I'm in charge of the preservation of the materials collected by "Home Movies – Archivio Nazionale del Film di Famiglia in Bologna" (Home Movies National Archive). During my PhD and the cooperation with the film preservation lab La Camera Ottica (Gorizia) I also started to work on several restoration projects (i.e. P. Clementi, K. Godina, M. Davorin).

N: Do you have experience in analogue film preservation? M: I have followed the film preparation and the duplication (with wet printers) of the films I was working on, but I have never done this kind of job myself. I develop since many years my Super8 reels, both color and b/w.

M: Knowing the basics of photochemistry (from my experience as a photographer and with film developing) has clearly been of great help as well as knowing how the films were produced and projected, the technology that has generated the contents carried by the films. This experience definitely shaped the way I take decisions during a restoration.

N: Could you define (and possibly categorize) the most common types of change of image material that you are dealing with?

M: In the archive practice the first step is the reparation of the mechanical properties of the film which allows to watch it again: ideally the film should be projectable again but the

94 projection is usually avoided during restoration. Most of the times a digitisation is preferred and this generates the first big changement. This shift of the support towards immateriality is meant to guarantee safe access.

Thanks to an amateur film recording system (from file directly to positive) we can produce 16mm prints, reestablishing the film materiality and so the performative dimension of the artifact.

M: In amateur film and – even more so – in experimental cinema the form, all the aspects related to the support, the material specificities of the emulsion and the direct alteration of the films (often reversal) determine the necessity of restoring the experience of the projection. The material aspect itself needs to be re-discovered and experienced.

N: What is your guidance when deciding on removing the changes of image material?

M: I don't believe that it's necessary to remove the history from a film. Reversal film is a unicum which preserves the traces of its "life". Some techniques can reduce the impact of scratches, remove the grain, change contrasts and so on but I think it's not correct to make the image better at any cost (this is becoming more and more common also for amateur films).

N: How can you distinguish between the change of image material that has been predicted or intended by an author and the one that has developed naturally as a consequence of ageing?

M: It is of primary importance to study closely the material, evaluate its characteristics and learn from the signs visible on both emulsion and base. This is clearly the most complicated part of the job, especially regarding the evaluation of color fading.

N: Do you consider the imperfections produced during the printing process, necessary to be removed?

M: It depends. The practice of amateur film printing is rare but some amateurs during the 20s and 30s produced contact prints from 9.5mm negatives (sometimes developing by themselves). The prints were often highly contrasted and had a low resolution. When the

95 negative is still available the different elements can be compared and if – needed – the restoration can start from the best one. If the negative is lost I think that the alterations must be preserved.

N: Can you think of an example that illustrates the dilemma about the degree of intervention in the image cleaning process? (note: it would be great if you shared a case study that represents the all-present dilemma of »how much an image should be cleaned« and »which type of change should be removed and which one preserved«)

M: In the specific case of a color Super8 of Marc Davorin – a restoration made for the Slovenska Kinoteka – we choose to preserve all the characteristics of the projected film, without any kind of cleaning. The restored version was meant to represent a crystallization of the transformations and of the life of the film. On one hand, knowing the fragility and the "danger" of each new projection, the project aimed at the conservation of the original through a hybrid workflow: digitization of sound and image (in 2.3K, 16bit) and production of digital preservation and access copies (on LTO and DCP) but also film recording and creation of a new 35mm negative. On the other hand, allowing the film to be projectable again in its new form, on a sound 35mm print.

The client‘s request to preserve dirt, damage and other traces visible on the Super8 was perfectly in line with the punk spirit of the author. Only some traces of chemicals – visible on a 10mt section of the "AGFA moviechrome" emulsion – have been removed under the specific request of the author who recognized them as an accidental element occurred over time and very disturbing. On that section some white-yellowish crystals appeared on the brightest parts of the image, creating a strange texture. These crystals, covering the image along the whole section, are to be considered foreign to the original projection. It was in fact a problem related to the developing process. Our choice then was to remove and wash separately the portion of film affected by this problem. This delicate intervention on the original reversal has been done manually: simply some distilled water and a soft piece of fabric allowed us to remove this signs, not included in the original creative project of the author.

Regarding the digital post production stage I must add that it became necessary to include a targeted color correction process in order to emulate in the DCP the "warmth" of the Super-8 projector light (with halogen lamps). We achieved this comparing the files on a calibrated reference monitor with the film projected on a small screen. Regarding the 35mm remediation, again we took advantage of the possibility to screen different test prints and to

96 choose eventually the one that could better emulate that warm light, also taking into account the lamps used for contemporary analogue screenings (Xenon).

N: Can you think of an example that demonstrates how you are facing the occurrence of a missing sequence?

M: A missing frame or sequence on an amateur film is hard to find and prove, if possible at all: it could have been a voluntary decision or a mechanical "accident". Of course, if the film arrives at the archive with different kinds of splices and the author can recognize it as a lacuna we can change our approach and try to face the problem in a different way, but I think that such an occurrence is hardly imaginable.

M: The closest and most concrete experience I can think about is the work made with the negative and positive nitrates, almost destroyed by the decay, of the Vincenzo Neri collection (produced around 1906-1911). The short sequences have been digitized with a flatbed scanner, sometimes frame by frame. In some cases, some broken frames have been put together on Photoshop trying to render the original image but still making visible the gaps and lacunae. The sequences have been then reconstructed, stabilised using DaVinci Revival and eventually "reanimated" in 16fps.This tools allowed us to rebuild what was impossible to recreate mechanically; no interpolation, morphing or other kind of digital reconstruction has been made because of to the peculiarity of the project, simply aimed at reanimating those unstable fragments and at printing them again onto 35mm.

N: Do you consider using another version of a film as a reference for replacing the missing parts within an image, missing frames or missing sequences (if another version is available)?

M: It depends on the context and on the kind of restoration. The possibility of a reconstruction, especially for fiction films, can be fascinating but also full of risks and can easily lead to ambiguity. I think it is safer to restore one single version instead of stitching everything together, especially when the materials are very different (quite common when something has been trashed for some reason).

M: Generally, the difference is in the materiality of the film. Most of the experimental cinema of the second half of the XX century were produced on substandard gauges and with reversal film. The printing process wasn't common for independent filmmakers because of economic and stylistic reasons. The editorial status of these films as well as amateur and home movies "Non ha una tradizione, quindi non ha matrici intermedie, capostipiti, archetipi (nessuna tradizione dei testi attraverso la pratica della copia). Non ha un avantesto, una diffusione vera e propria, un “consumo” paragonabile a quello di un film d’edizione.” * This artifacts exist in single copies. For this reason they are now object of a process of "dematerialization" that we usually call migration. The aim of digitization is the possibility of a new access but also the promotion of its contents.

An important aspect of this last stage is the possibility of a re-materialization, some sort of analogue hybrid aim at the production of an analogon, which will only carry part of the original characteristics.

Home Movies, starting from the high resolution scans, since a few year works at the creation of 16-mm film copies which can guarantee the transfer of the original content (also from different formats like Normal-8, Super-8, etc.). To screen films on film, emulating also the performative aspect in the theater, the noise of the projector (peculiar element of many experimental works without soundtrack) allows the films to be experienced following their performative tradition typical of the underground contexts in which they were screened.

N: Within the decision-making process, how much do you interact with the authors? Do you also involve them into the practical part of restoration? M: I think that the help of the author can be at the same time very useful and very dangerous. I think it is important to try to get from him or her as much information as possible about the context and the technology used to produce the film, about how it was screened and about what kind of technical limitations determined the final form of the work. While restoring the film we have to avoid variations from that original form. When a variation occurs (even if it make the film "better", compensating the original limitations) one must talk about "new edition" of the film, and not restoration.

N: When working with the authors, which are the most common issues that place your

98 and her/his point of view in opposition? M: A common problem, especially with small gauges, is the type and quality of the sound that every author would have improved or changed since the recording equipment (on a thin magnetic tape glued on the film) didn't grant a very good quality.

N: Do you have any experience in the conservation and restoration of other types of cultural heritage (for example works of fine arts or archeological objects)?

M: No, I don't have this kind of experience.

N: Do you find the ethics and methodology of fine arts restoration useful for your practice? M: Yes. The material remains the reference of a restoration. Working mostly with films preserved on unique prints I think that the object as an artifact must remain the central point for each decision.

The possibility of printing the film onto film again starting from its digital form and screen it doesn't have to be interpreted as a contradiction but instead as a form of continuity, in line with the aim of offering the possibility to experience the film as object, with a material form susceptible to the analogue perspective of decay and transformation.

* "It doesn't have a tradition, so it doesn't have intermediate elements nor achetypes (no tradition of the text through production of copies). It doesn't have a real diffusion/distribution, a "consumption"comparable to that of commercial cinema", Giulio Bursi, "Tra i resti e il circo: note sul fondo della famiglia Togni tra storia, riuso, e fenomenologia del film di famiglia," Cinergie, n. 14, Le Mani, Recco, 2007 [translation: Claudio Santancini].

Interview with Mark Toscano, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

N: How long have you been working in the field of film preservation and restoration? And how long with the restoration of experimental cinema specifically? M: I studied film archiving at the George Eastman House (now the George Eastman Museum) between 1999 and 2000. In July of 2000, I started working at Canyon Cinema, a long-time experimental film distributor in San Francisco. Between 2000 and 2003, I was the de facto assistant director at Canyon, and was deeply and quickly immersed in the culture, history, and materiality of experimental film, past and present, which augmented my learning and experience from Eastman House with fairly involved and hands-on experience inspecting, repairing, organizing, and maintaining Canyon's collection of approximately 3500 prints (8mm, Super 8, 16mm, and 35mm, but mostly 16mm).

With this combination of broad archival instruction at Eastman House and extensive practical experience at Canyon Cinema, I became fairly knowledgeable in the history and aesthetic and technical aspects/tropes/etc. of experimental film, extremely comfortable with elaborate film handling, and also got to know the films, filmmakers, curators, and other entities connected to this world, which gave me a very firm grounding in my developing curatorial practice.

In June of 2003, I accepted a job as film preservationist at the Academy Film Archive in Los Angeles. Although the job title did not indicate a specific area of specialization, it was indicated that the archive director and preservation officer (my direct supervisor) were very interested in my potential to develop more projects to collect, conserve, and preserve experimental films at the Academy. So although I did (and still do) work on projects that fall outside of the avant-garde, it quickly became my primary area of activity, as I started to bring in artists' collections to the archive, as well as initiate preservation projects on individual films. Alongside these projects, I've also worked on several other varieties of independent cinema, including documentary, animation, cult feature films, live action shorts, home movies, and a few films directed by Satyajit Ray. Although it hasn't been intentional necessarily, I'm amazed to realize that after nearly 14 years in this job, I've never once worked on preserving a major studio film!

100

A year and a half prior to starting at the Academy (late 2001), while I was still working at Canyon Cinema, a friend of mine from the Eastman House program, Martha Hunt, was actually working there in the Academy film preservationist job that I would later take over when she left to work elsewhere. She and I had started talking about a possible formal or informal collaboration between the Academy and Canyon, in which some experimental films could be channeled through the Academy's preservation program guided by my curatorship and stewarding and her role as archivist/preservationist. I reached out to the filmmaker Robert Nelson in late 2001; he seemed an ideal candidate to start such a project with, as he was a legendary filmmaker who had removed his films from distribution (even though he was the key founder of Canyon), and whose work definitely needed preservation. The fact of his absence from Canyon's distribution catalog also meant we could start with a more “neutral” filmmaker, which is to say someone about whom there could be no claim of favoritism of one Canyon filmmaker over another.

Nelson agreed to give it a try, and this actually started a more than ten-year friendship and collaboration (until his death in 2012) with Nelson for me, who quickly became – and remains – a primary influence and figure in my life and career. Martha and I arranged for Nelson to ship the elements for two of his films to the Academy, and she oversaw the first two preservation projects on his work. Two more were sent, but then Martha accepted a job elsewhere, and about a month later, I found myself getting hired for her position! I'm convinced that they hired me at least partly because they appreciated this collaborative project and saw the potential for me to develop more experimental/independent preservation projects at the Academy, which is why I mention it – it's really the beginning of my preservation career.

Arriving at the Academy, I initially worked on a film by Satyajit Ray (Nayak), a documentary by Robert Drew (Adventures on the New Frontier), and some early animated shorts by Ray Harryhausen, alongside some of Nelson's films. I also began to reach out to a few experimental filmmakers or their estates about filmmaker collections, and brought in the collections of filmmakers Will Hindle, Richard Myers, Pat O'Neill, and others. (By “collections”, I mean the corpus of elements comprising the film originals/masters/etc., such as original negatives or reversal elements, soundtrack masters, optical track negatives, sometimes prints, and so forth. Generally speaking, these are the elements most important to conserve, and with which one would work to preserve a film.) It was also in late 2003 that I first spoke to Marilyn Brakhage about the films of her husband Stan Brakhage, who had died earlier in 2003. This eventually led to the deposit of Brakhage's complete collection at the Academy about a year later, and I've worked consistently on preserving his films ever since.

101

I brought in a number of filmmaker collections between 2003 and 2006, probably a few dozen, and works by these artists then would enter the queue for preservation. Although prior to my hire there, the preservationists hadn't generally inspected and inventoried the collections brought in (and only did so when specific projects were chosen), I decided quite early on that I should also inventory and inspect all the elements for the experimental films I'd solicited, because it would be the only efficient and informed way to create priorities for preservation, so that films in need were prioritized rather than by going by which films were seen as most important. In other words, the previous tendency was that another staff member, an inventory archivist, would do the initial inventory/identification/evaluation of a collection that came in. Theoretically, preservationists would then work from that information (and other things) to determine priorities for preservation. This seemed not a good workflow to me, especially with the experimental work which I felt required a familiarity and specialized knowledge to properly evaluate.

In 2006, following a revelatory experience I had at a screening of Los Angeles experimental films curated by scholar David James, I decided to develop of specific focus on Los Angeles artists' work. This was not exclusive, i.e. not at the expense of the work of artists from other cities/regions – it was just an additional focus of emphasis, because the Los Angeles avant- garde was so minimally researched, documented, and understood. This led to a quite extensive solicitation to numerous Los Angeles filmmakers primarily from the 1960s-1980s to deposit their films at the Academy, and I began to work on a lot of Los Angeles artists' films alongside other projects.

As film labs started to close, as filmmakers were aging and concerned about their bodies of work, the filmmakers I reached out to about their films grew in frequency and number. It became clear to me in the mid-2000s that the basic deposit of a filmmaker's material, and its subsequent inspection, identification, and inventory, was an massively important first step toward archiving as well as toward a larger historical and curatorial grasp on the legacy and culture of experimental work. In other words, it was most important to at the very least get the films identified, evaluated, and stored archivally, because then you at least know where everything is, what state it's in, and what it needs in terms of preservation. I felt like this was of crucial importance to do even if the funding or time or labor wasn't always available to preserve everything as a large-scale, rapid process. If you don't know where a film is, or what shape it's in, where do you even begin? By getting a filmmaker's work in, I could inspect, evaluate, and document its condition and archival status, and from that information make very informed decisions about preservation and prioritizing. For example, I brought in Bay

102

Area filmmaker Dean Snider's films a few years ago, and have since then only preserved one film completely, because the largest problem with his films was that a lot of his original magnetic soundtracks were deteriorating badly. So I decided to prioritize sound-only restoration and preservation for quite a few of them first, rather than do complete restoration projects on a small selection of films.

One other thing I'll mention here is that also quite early (starting around mid-2004), it occurred to me that access/curating/exhibition concerns were of great importance to preservation as well. Even the most well-known experimental films, if preserved, need a bit of active effort to be seen, so what chance does a more obscure filmmaker's work have of being seen if I wasn't making efforts to show it? Additionally, I think there's a great value in curating programs of experimental films around the instance of their preservation, as it affirms a value for the film, but also for the preservation effort, and I've found over the past dozen years that there's a great eagerness and interest in seeing these preserved films, as they and their curating can continue to add quite richly to the ongoing dialogue of experimental film. So I curated my first program of experimental film restorations in Chicago in Fall 2004, and have done numerous others since, and it's something I continue to enjoy immensely, and feel is a crucial part of the preservation process. Ideally I’d even like to create a better mechanism for these films to be accessed by scholars and other curators, so they can be written about, shown, etc. Digitization can definitely help with this, but as always, there are financial and logistical limitations.

N: Do you have experience in analogue film preservation? If so, how long have you been working with it? To what extent has experience with analogue film contributed to your practice in digital restoration? Can you evaluate how much has work with analogue film shaped your digital restoration practice (for example, in terms of the recognition of different types of change)? M: My preservation practice is almost completely analog, at least in terms of picture (sound restoration work is basically exclusively digital). The reason for this emphasis on analog is not out of a fear or distaste for digital, although I feel strongly they are distinct media from each other, not interchangeable, however many similarities they sometimes seem to have. So although digital image restoration technologies are sometimes crucial tools which can help restore a film radically more successfully than analog techniques (especially with damage or color fading), I see digital as just that – a tool. And I feel a tool should be used when that tool is needed. If it's not needed, then I don't use it. These films were made in a photochemical, analog format, and I feel strongly they should remain in that realm as

103 artworks. Furthermore, by preserving on film now, I can ensure that any variety of digitization can be done later if needed or desired.

As for the relationship of analog to digital restoration, I do think there’s an important correspondence. For example, I think it’s important to approach digital restoration with some knowledge of the properties of both analog restoration and just analog film media in general. How analog film works in an analog domain is important to understand when then working with analog film in the digital domain. For example, fade ins/outs and dissolves in picture have a different quality in digital than in analog film. A standard digital dissolve generally involves the outgoing image and incoming image dissolving one to the other in a fairly even, equal way. By this I mean that the lighter and darker parts of the images behave with the same visual power/presence. By contrast, a photochemical/analog film dissolve is not perfectly even like this. The lighter parts of an outgoing image will linger longer in the process of the dissolve than the darker parts. And the lighter parts of the incoming image will appear earlier and more noticeably in the dissolve than the darker parts. I hope this makes sense. It literally has to do with exposure and how much light is being let in onto the printing stock. In digital, this isn’t an intrinsic quality of how images work against each other. But a digital dissolve can be calibrated to behave more like a film dissolve. So for instance, I restored a film digitally called The Divine Miracle (1973, Daina Krumins). We scanned the original reversal A/B rolls in 4K and conformed them into a single timeline so we could restore color, etc. There were a couple of dissolves/fades, and I worked with the lab to make sure those dissolves behaved like film dissolves. So the fade out at the end of the film is of a brilliant and strange sky, with a bright sun, radiating rays, and drifting clouds. The sun is the brightest part of the shot, so in a film fade it would linger the longest as the image faded out, whereas the darker parts of the image (like the dark gray clouds) would disappear more quickly. There are different digital dissolves/fades that can be employed, and I was really happy with the result, which looked consistent with the film’s original fades and dissolves when it had been printed on film. Not that long ago, I saw a digital restoration of a Hollywood films from the 1960s, the original negative of which had been cut as an A/B rolls color negative, to allow it to have dissolves without losing two generations of picture quality (films used to have the fades and dissolves but duping the negative on a printer, and then the duped dissolve would be cut into the film’s negative, so it would be two generations later than the camera original negative). The studio who owns this film restored it very nicely in many ways, but all of the dissolves (and there are lots of them) look like digital dissolves now, where the outgoing and incoming images fade over each other with all aspects of the frame fading in/out equally. I was kind of horrified, and it struck me that the people who supervised this project probably didn’t even think about

104 the possible problem with this. Admittedly, it’s a minor problem in the grand scheme of things, but it spoke of a lack of familiarity and engagement with the nature and history of the medium, and I felt it was a partly irresponsible restoration, ultimately.

That’s just one example, but having a good familiarity with the medium can really positively and helpfully inform a preservationist to then make ethically and aesthetically informed decisions about a project. I think this concept applies to all areas of preservation/restoration, not just analog-to-digital.

N: Could you define (and possibly categorize) the most common types of change of image material that you are dealing with? M: By far, the most incredibly common type of change I have to deal with in film restoration is color fading. There are also structural changes like acetate deterioration, shrinkage, warping, etc. But color fading is one of the largest and most extensive problems I end up dealing with.

N: Can you think of a specific material feature or a type of change that requires more attention in the restoration of experimental cinema (as opposed to the restoration of traditional narrative films)? M: A very large majority of experimental cinema made between the 1940s and 1980s was produced on 16mm reversal film stocks. Some of those color stocks have turned out to be susceptible to color fading more than others. Of course, this problem exists in 35mm too, particularly with color negative stocks of a certain age, and Kodak’s very popular color reversal intermediate stock used extensively in the ‘60s to early ‘80s (which allowed you to make a color negative from a negative, e.g. to make a distribution negative), which have suffered color fading as well. But in experimental film, there have been several color reversal stocks, some of which were quite popular, which have proven to be archivally unstable. This is in many ways a huge problem, because the money to restore these films digitally may not be available, and in some cases the nature of experimental film practice may mean that the film originals could be too complex in their structure to be effectively restored digitally. For example, Stan Brakhage’s Scenes From Under Childhood films - parts 2-4 of this series have tons of faded color shots in the originals, but they are incredibly complexly edited, with sometimes quadruple superimpositions and very elaborate dissolves and fades. This makes a digital restoration of the films from the originals way too complicated and expensive, and likely to produce results that are too different, too unfaithful to the analog original.

105

Besides the very common and unstable color print stocks that also affected 35mm films, some stocks which have proven to be problematic for color fading are certain eras of Gevachrome (Gevaert color reversal stock), certain Agfa color reversal stocks, certain Kodak color reversal print stocks (like 7389 and 7390), and worst of all in my opinion, Ektachrome Commercial (ECO) 7252, which was manufactured between 1970 and the mid-’80s. Its predecessor, 7255, is not nearly as bad for color fading. But because ECO was a desirable stock for many, being low contrast, fine grain, and versatile when printed, a lot of people used it, including Pat O’Neill, Chick Strand, Paul Sharits, John Whitney, and many many others. It was especially common for people shooting 16mm animation or doing optical printing, because of the control and sharpness it offered as a slow, low contrast camera stock.

Besides color fading, perhaps experimental films can be a little more susceptible to physical damage, though I don’t know how certain that is, or if I can really quantify it. I would just imagine that films made in an often more hands-on way, and with more limited funding, may end up experiencing more physical distress in one way or another. And certainly films made in unconventional ways, such as hand-processing, or featuring painting or other physical appliqués, can be susceptible to change and deterioration over time.

Other forms of change may also just derive from the simple method of how a film was put together at the beginning - for instance, if a film was edited with tape splices by the filmmaker, then sometimes the adhesive from the tape may have oozed out a little and gotten on the emulsion throughout the roll. Or it could be that a lab later on taped over some weak splices in a film, and the same thing happened - I’ve encountered both situations a lot of times.

N: What is your guidance when deciding on removing the changes of image material? M: This is a tough question in a way, because it almost would have to be answered on a project-by-project basis! But the most basic answer I can perhaps give is that many pieces of analysis and evidence are considered to determine how a film “should” look, and then a restoration workflow is chosen to most closely reach that result. In an easier example, a film original is in good condition and can be determined to not have faded color, and there is also a reference print which has unfaded color and which the filmmaker has identified as how the film should look. The preservation process is then fairly straightforward, as there are reliable visual references for how a film should look when duplicated. A more complicated example would involve a film which has faded, or a lack of reference prints, or only a faded or bad

106 reference print, a deceased filmmaker, or even a filmmaker who wants to make aesthetic or structural changes in the course of the restoration.

In the case I mentioned before, The Divine Miracle, this is a film that was made by Daina Krumins over the course of about 2 years as a film graduate student, using some very creative and labor-intensive optical printing and very elaborate and ambitious compositing and other homemade visual effects. The result of this is that her originals have some very noticeable dirt and scratches - but they’re not physically on the original A/B rolls, rather they’re photographed into the optical printing work, because there were several steps of rephotography involved in making the film, and her extensive handling of the material, plus running it through an optical printer numerous times, made it get a little dirty. Since I was digitally restoring the film (because of its faded color), technically it would be possible to clean up a lot of that dirt in the image too. But I decided this would not be correct, as it had always been there and was not an introduced flaw or the result of change over time. Daina agreed, as she kind of liked how all the dirt and scratches reminded people how handmade the film was. At the essence of this example for me is the idea that a “flaw” is only a “flaw” if we decide it is. Sometimes of course we know something is unambiguously a flaw, a problem, but particularly in experimental film, these qualities can’t be assumed so easily to be flaws all the time.

Getting back to color fading, it can be difficult to work on color correction of a film if the original has some fading, and even moreso if there is not a good reference print. And if the original is a negative, it can be even harder, because at least with reversal you’re seeing the film image as a positive, as it also looks onscreen. But negative is more abstract, and much harder to judge by just looking at it. The originals for Brakhage’s photographic films - with only two exceptions - are all positive/reversal. This is partly because he edited his originals directly - he didn’t make a workprint. And he liked to see what he was going to get. So he also usually wanted his lab to make prints that basically looked exactly like the originals. So in many ways this helps me in the restoration of his films, because as long as the originals aren’t faded, I have a very good guide to go by, because the new prints should look as much like the original as possible in most cases.

But when the originals are somewhat faded, corrections have to be made in photochemical color grading. I have a pretty good eye for deciding if a film is too faded to correct in analog, just based on many past experiences. Usually I can look at an original and know if it’s too faded to fix analog. Even though there’s a fair amount of interpretation at work, knowledge about the tendencies of specific stocks, as well as the characteristic approaches and

107 practices of each filmmaker can help me understand how a film should look even if it’s faded. If the filmmaker is living, I try to get them involved if possible, to help evaluate the new prints. If they’re not alive, or don’t want to help, then I use all available research and information, including my knowledge about the tendencies of these stocks, to make best decisions about how to correct things.

In a way, at the heart of all of this is that fact that film is an organic, variable medium, and a certain amount of latitude is not only to be expected, but should perhaps be embraced to some degree.

N: How can you distinguish between the change of image material that has been predicted or intended by an author and the one that has developed naturally as a consequence of ageing? M: I think it’s fair to say that change over time that has been deliberately planned out by the filmmaker is a fairly exceptional case. Of course artists have worked in film and video with this concept, the deliberate creation of a work destined to change over time, but it’s definitely not super common. Much more common are intrinsic qualities of a work that have been present since the beginning, and which could be misunderstood as accidents, mistakes, flaws, problems, but were actually intentional. But this isn’t quite what you’re asking, I realize.

There is a film by James Otis called Drilled Letter Color Cone that I’ll preserve eventually. It’s a film made in the mid-late 1970s or so, maybe as late as 1980. (I’ve encountered conflicting years for it.) It’s a film which was made in an almost performative way. James Otis prepared a roll of clear leader with lots of patterns and letters and other things glued to it. In a completely dark room, he then rolled it in bi-pack with some unexposed color reversal film stock, so they were sandwiched loosely together around one core. He drilled some holes through the roll with an electric drill. He then pushed the roll into a cone shape, by holding the outer edge and pushing upward on the core with his fingers, if that makes sense. He put it on a table and also draped some different color gels over it. Then, he very briefly turned the lights on and off in the room, to expose the entire roll at once. The end result is a quite interesting, beautiful, moody, abstract film which has a lot of texture and unusual rhythmic structure to it. But part of his concept for the film is that it was a singular object which would change over time. So he made a couple of prints of it, but to him they reflected the nature of the film in that moment that the print was made. If another print were then made years later, it would reflect a different moment in the film’s life. Over time, the original

108 would change, and this was something he embraced. So when I spoke to him about preserving the film, he said that would be fine, but I shouldn’t seek to make color corrections of any kind - the film should be copied exactly as it is now, even if the color has changed or damage has been introduced. I really liked this whole philosophy, as ephemerality is something which is not spoken or thought of enough in connection with archiving, because (at least on the surface) archiving is a kind of anti-ephemeral gesture for so many people.

My final summary thought on this is perhaps that because it’s usually somewhat rare or exceptional that a film’s aging and change is part of its intention, that aspect of a film is generally a known dimension of the work. And knowing this is part of the work then informs the preservation approach. In other words, if you know a film’s aging and change is part of its concept, then your preservation choices should work with that concept and respect the intention. I think it’s probably an incredibly rare situation that there’s a film designed to change over time by the author, but we don’t know that detail about the film. The intention of change would normally be one of the most known things about a project like that (like Tony Conrad’s Yellow Paintings).

N: Do you consider the imperfections produced during the printing process, necessary to be removed? M: In terms of artifacts or imperfections introduced at the time of a film’s making, one has to be extremely careful in restoration, of course. Particularly with artists’ films, supposed imperfections can perhaps be crucial aesthetic components of a work, such as grain, flicker, dirt, hair, scratches, weird color grading, etc. Frank and Caroline Mouris’s pixilated animation film Coney (1975) was filmed and initially printed with conventional color grading, but then they decided (at the time, not later) they wanted it to have a particularly pink tone to the colors, and not graded normally. So the film’s color is not supposed to look completely normal, but rather pinkish in tone. When the work was initially done to preserve the film, it was really hard to get the lab to understand this, because they really worried it was too much, and wrong, but eventually I got a reasonably pink print out of them. Frank and Caroline really liked it, and although they said they almost might have even made it more pink, they thought that it was better to have a balance between too pink and not pink enough, so they approved it enthusiastically. So this is a case where something “wrong” was actually a deliberate choice, and one which I had to make sure would be maintained. If they hadn’t been around to discuss this process, I don’t really know if it would have come out correctly, since it’s not a well-documented detail about the film, really.

109

Other imperfections from the time of a film’s making can be unintentional, though. Like Keewatin Dewdney’s The Maltese Cross Movement (1967) has a lot of short black segments throughout the film - sometimes just a frame or two, sometimes a few frames. Instead of accomplishing this by splicing in black leader, Dewdney actually used some kind of black ink or paint, painting over non-black film to make black frames. Then, when he made prints, it was a little messy, so all the original late ‘60s prints have black smudges and stains in various parts, some parts dirtier than others because some parts have more of these instances of black painting. Anyway, the originals for the film are totally lost, so I didn’t have the option to even clean them up if I wanted to. I talked to Dewdney about this dirt/stain issue, and he wasn’t too bothered by it, really. Also, it was an artifact of the process of making the film (like the example of The Divine Miracle), and had always been a part of every single print, so it had only ever been seen that way. I’m not saying that makes it aesthetically important, but it does make it aesthetically less problematic. So I preserved the film using two of the best 16mm Kodachrome prints as new masters, and didn’t worry about the dirt/ink spots. It was actually quite interesting to wind through 3 different prints of the film in synchronization and realize that all the printed-in dirt is identical in each print. So the originals didn’t really get dirtier or worse over time that they were printed, since the prints all had the same dirt printed into them.

A film I’ve been planning to restore, Will Hindle’s film Watersmith (1969), only survives in various prints - no originals. The best surviving Kodachrome print (from 1975) looks great, but you can see some printed-in tears which are not present in an older Kodachrome print of the film (from 1969). But this older print is in worse physical condition, so it doesn’t make a good source. So at some point between 1969 and 1975, the original A/B/C rolls of the film (which are now lost) got damaged in a few places. So for me, this is damage that I would fix digitally, if the film is to be restored digitally (which is likely). Kind of a simple example, but I think a useful one.

And I mentioned it elsewhere, but to reiterate, one of the most common ways that we tend to “improve” on the material cleanliness of a film when we preserve/restore it (analog) these days, is by wet-gate printing. Many films until the ‘80s or even later were usually printed on dry-gate printers, so a little bit more dirt and scratching is potentially visible in vintage prints. Making new prints or preservation masters now, on a wet-gate printer, means that these little imperfections can be cleaned up and eliminated quite a bit. There’s generally not too much question raised by archivists about the philosophical implications of this, and frankly, though I always think about it, I don’t usually consider it a problem. Fidelity to the original image takes many forms and approaches, and inevitably a line has to be drawn somewhere. For my part,

110

I just prefer to draw that line in a unique and thoughtful place for each project, depending on the project’s needs, qualities, and context.

You had also asked about film grain. Film grain is a funny issue, because the inherent grain structures of the film stock on which a film was shot can express themselves differently depending on how they’ve been printed over the years. So a film shot on higher speed reversal stock in the 1970s like Ektachrome EF or b/w 4-X will naturally have more of a visible grain presence than a slower, sharper stock from the same period, like Kodachrome. But then those stocks are printed onto other stocks, which may have varying grain structures, or varying ways of responding to the grain of the source film. And now that it’s the second decade of the 21st century, film stocks have potentially changed numerous times between the making of a film and my preservation or printing of it in 2017. Kodak even modified the basic grain shape of some of their film stocks in the 1990s, which allowed for notably higher resolution and less visible grain structure, which is helpful in some ways, as I’ve found it has the potential to enable a more mirror-like reproduction of a stock’s original qualities. But I know some artists like Nathaniel Dorsky and Jerome Hiler have found that the contemporary internegative stocks have a tendency to “even out” the overall look of a film. But it’s going to be very different for each film, each stock, each artist, of course.

So in a way, you have to accept certain differences due to the organic nature of the medium - by organic I mean that it’s a medium which has continued to change and develop over time. A lot of these issues come up with video preservation, of course. If something shot in the ‘90s on mini-DV at one video framerate needs to be up-res’d to HD or higher, as well as transposed to a different framerate, aspect ratio, etc. … you can imagine to problems that come up, especially with artists’ work!

But back to film grain, it’s always ideal to work from the most original generation of a film which reflects its completed form. Usually this would be an original negative/reversal element, the A/B rolls, etc., that type of thing. But not always. Stan Brakhage’s film Two: Creeley/McClure (1965) was shot on b/w reversal, and edited in two parts (one for the Robert Creeley section, one for the Michael McClure section). The Creeley section was edited in a very complex construction of A/B/C rolls, using b/w reversal, negative, and print material. It has lots of superimpositions and dissolves, and has a particular look. This look has to do with how Brakhage printed it, and what stock choices he made. In making the film, he printed these A/BC rolls to a color reversal master, rather than a b/w one. The color reversal stock imbued some of the b/w material with little subtle color tones, mostly in the shadows/highlights, in the positive/negative superimpositions, and so forth. It’s really slight,

111 but it’s part of the film. This wasn’t added deliberately - these were more like artifacts of the printing process, but Brakhage chose to print on color probably knowing some of this would occur.

The grain plays an aesthetic role in this process too - because Brakhage printed the A/B/C rolls (which were a mix of 1st and 2nd generation material) to color reversal, certain qualities of the grain were maintained or accentuated. So my restoration of the film several years ago involved using the color reversal master as the “original”, NOT the A/B/C rolls, even though they were technically “more original”. Using the original A/B/C rolls would have involved re- creating Brakhage’s process, which could yield quite different results which would be inconsistent with its established look. This goes not just for the slight color artifacts, but even more for the texture and grain. The same is the case with his film Sirius Remembered (1959), which was made in three sections, each one made of Anscochrome A/B rolls. Each of these three sets of A/B rolls were printed to more Anscochrome, and then they were spliced together. So like Two: Creeley/McClure, the Sirius Remembered 2nd generation reversal master is more of a faithful “original” than the edited camera original A/B rolls. And the somewhat grainy Anscochrome stock used in the making of the film is definitely part of its look and texture, and also gives the film its particular color palette.

N: Can you think of an example that illustrates the dilemma about the degree of intervention in the image cleaning process? M: It’s incredibly variable, and can be quite subjective. The prevailing tendency in the restoration of commercial films is to clean the living hell out of everything. Some projects are done more thoughtfully than others, but this is a pretty standard approach. I have generally felt that in more commercial restoration approaches, the restoration or restorer is applying their expectation and sensibility onto the film, rather than letting the film and its sensibility and aesthetic/technical/historical qualities direct (at least in part) what the restorer does. I feel this latter approach is important in experimental film, because it can be so wrong and risky to make generalized assumptions about these films.

Probably in most cases, it can be a reasonable approach to identify damage or change that has happened over time, and which is not intentional, and make a decision to fix or clean it. This could be cleaning dirt or adhesive residue, fixing a tear, etc. This is not often super complicated, ethically speaking.

Much more complicated is the idea of “fixing” issues which have been present since the beginning, even if they were unintentional. The most basic example of this is the quite

112 widespread tendency to print a film on a wet-gate printer, which helps clean and hide a lot of scratches, dirt, and other artifacts which are not intentionally part of the film. However, in most cases before the 1980s/90s, films were not generally printed on a wet-gate printer, so it’s then inevitable that the printing work done now will yield cleaner results than the film ever had in its previous life. Is this a complicated ethical problem? i don’t generally think so, but it’s a small one, and one which should at least be considered. Myself, I always print films wet-gate unless it can’t be done (e.g. due to painting, etc. on the film), because generally speaking, a film element will often get at least a little bit of wear over its life, beyond what it had when it was initially made. And additionally, it’s not a rejection of the qualities that make a film what it is - that dirt and scratching doesn’t have an intentionality behind it that other decisions do. But I’m speaking very generally - there are plenty of films I’ve worked on where these textures were maybe not crucial to a film, but comprised part of its personality as an artwork. For instance, the early-mid 1970s films of a sort of proto-punk filmmaker named Chris Langdon were often hand-processed by her (to save money, not for artistic reasons), and though the resulting texture wasn’t intentional, it carries the DIY handmade personality of the film with it, so I felt it was something important to maintain. She didn’t feel strongly one way or the other, and let me decide.

Sometimes people (usually commercial film restorers/remastering people) will say things like, “well, the filmmaker would’ve wanted it this way if they could’ve done so at the time”, but to me that’s a very problematic Pandora’s Box to open which can lead to all kinds of philosophical complexities and conflicts. But sometimes, in experimental and independent film, this mode of thinking does have to be considered and taken seriously. In experimental film, you’re often dealing with a single author of a film, not a company or crew, but one person. So their control and authorship over that work is significant, and should not be dismissed. Anyone studying or working in film preservation who thinks one should simply be as conservative as possible and not ever modify the original object has probably never worked with an experimental filmmaker! So I’ve had a few situations where a filmmaker wanted to change something, and I had to make a decision about how we would do that. In one case, Curtis Harrington wanted to add sound effects to his 1949 film On the Edge, which otherwise only had a music track. He had always wanted sound effects, but in 1949 didn’t have the money or technical ability to do so. I agreed, but only if we could preserve both versions of the soundtrack, to which he agreed. So this film was preserved with two soundtracks - one historical one and one modified one from 2003. And actually, anytime I’ve shown his short films, I always show the version with the 2003 soundtrack, because I know how much it meant to him and I would feel disingenuous to insist on showing only the historical one.

113

Digital sound tools are quite powerful, and so in one case, with filmmaker Morgan Fisher, he was quite happy to be able to do some more powerful and nuanced sound fixes on the soundtrack for his film Projection Instructions (1976). In its original making, he had little control over the final mixing and mastering of his vocal performance in the film. But digitally in the 2010s, he could oversee the sound restoration work with me, and he desired to remove certain audible mouth sounds, small breaths between sentences, and other very minor and unintentional qualities of the track that bothered him. Is this an intervention? Yes. Is it a problematic one? For me, no, not really. The essential nature of the track remained very unchanged - no content was modified. But is it a perfectly ethically uncomplicated situation? No. But these situations are never 100% ethical straightforward, and that’s the nature of it all - there’s a lot of interpretation going on at all times.

N: Can you think of an example that demonstrates how you are facing the occurence of a missing frame? M: It really depends, of course! There are plenty of older Hollywood films which survive only in versions with occasional frames missing - anytime you see a film from, say, the ‘20s-’30s especially, with one or two black frames appearing in the middle of a shot, this is because one or two frames of the negative are missing and they were substituted with black frames so the soundtrack would remain in sync. In experimental film, sometimes something like this could happen, and it could be as unobtrusive as it might be in a commercial film, or it could be really problematic. I remember at Canyon Cinema, someone had deliberately scratched the one photographic frame of imagery in Robert Huot’s film Red Stockings - it’s a film which is all red leader except one frame in the very middle. So this was a huge problem! I restored an animation film from 1974 called Mirror People, by Kathy Rose. The original for the film is lost, and there was no internegative either. The best surviving copies were a couple of Kodachrome prints which had good color, but had been distribution prints, so they were a little worn. One of them was much better than the other, and was in great shape except for the very ending, where there was a splice right before the last title fades out, and one frame was missing. I basically didn’t have much of an option to fix it, and normally would’ve probably just made the splice as invisible as possible and left it as it was. But the titles in the film are animated in a looping cycle - hopefully I can explain this well so you know what I mean. To make a title more dynamic in animation, it’s a common approach to draw two or three similar versions of the same titlecard, and then just shoot them alternating every other frame. This way, the title seems to have energy and dynamism, rather than be totally

114 static. You can see what I mean looking at the opening title for Your Face by Bill Plympton: https://vimeo.com/122669829. The problem with Mirror People is that by one frame being lost in the end title, it created a rhythmic problem - the alternating rhythm was thrown off. So instead of the title going A/B/A/B/A/B/A/B, the missing frame meant it went A/B/A/B/B/A/B/A/B. Does that make sense? My idea was to actually cut ANOTHER frame out, so the rhythm of the title animation would be corrected. Kathy agreed. It seemed to me in this rare case, that the rhythm of the end title animation was more present and important than saving one frame. I definitely realize that many people would not have approached the problem like this, but given no perfect solution it seemed to me the best decision, especially since the filmmaker agreed.

N: Can you think of an example that demonstrates how you are facing the occurence of a missing sequence? M: This is probably a little less common in experimental film, since for the most part, an experimental film is usually taken as a discrete artwork, if that makes sense. A missing sequence in a commercial film often has to do with censorship or version cuts/changes, or perhaps sometimes due to incomplete survival of elements. Although experimental film has certainly been faced with these things, I feel it’s less common overall, since these films were not generally submitted to censorship boards or commercial distributed. Robert Nelson himself made a cut to a sequence in his film Oh Dem Watermelons (1965), which is an American experimental classic. He shortened a sequence in which a topless woman sort of crazily rubs a watermelon on her body - it’s meant as both comic and erotic at the same time, really more absurd than anything. In later years, he came to feel like it was a little too creepy, so in his prints of the film, he cut the sequence shorter. But the original A/B rolls for the film were not changed, so I preserved the film in its original form, without the cut. Nelson knew this, and was basically OK with it, though he wasn’t 100% confident about it. I had found that he would often be very self-critical in the absence of outside input from other people, and so often his desire to change his films came from being in a critical vacuum where he wasn’t getting feedback. So our conversations about him changing his films or having problems with them himself were often about discussing their validity and meaning, and why I thought a film or a sequence was important or interesting. I often convinced him! So in this case, a sequence wasn’t missing, but it was almost fully removed from the film by the artist himself, and so the question had to be dealt with in the preservation.

In another case, Nelson destroyed the originals for his 1966 film Super Spread, for similar reasons of feeling like it was creepy, because he used some “girlie” striptease footage from

115 the ‘50s that he had found. He saved one print, but cut about 7 or 8 minutes out of it, so all that survives is a 5-minute reduction of one print, and the complete soundtrack (which was an original track by the Grateful Dead, actually, so he saved it for historical reasons). So basically, this film is unrestorable. The complete soundtrack survives, and 5 minutes’ worth of the image, but more than half is missing. So it’s a case where I could certainly preserve what does exist, but it wouldn’t be a substitute for the original film.

There have been other projects for which I’ve printed different parts of two different elements to make a best-possible new internegative. For instance, Adam Beckett’s film Evolution of the Red Star (1973) was restored from two prints, one Ektachrome and one Kodachrome. The Kodachrome print had better color and was in excellent condition, but it had a splice with a little missing footage in the first image. So that sequence was printed from the Ektachrome print, which didn’t have as good color, but was in good shape and was complete in that sequence.

N: From your experience, which are the most commonly used tools for replacing a missing part of an image within a frame and a missing frame? Can you think of any problem related to the use of those tools? M: With another Adam Beckett film, an unfinished piece called Life of the Atom (1975), the film only survived as a somewhat faded and worn workprint. Through an old friend of Adam’s who ran a visual effects company, I was able to do a 4K restoration with 35mm film- out for free. The workprint had some damage and tears, which would have been really hard to fix digitally. As with a lot of traditional animation, the film was shot on twos. This means that two frames (instead of just one) were shot for each drawing. It’s a way of saving time by doing only 12 drawings for each second rather than 24, and has been a standard practice since at least the 1920s. Since there were two frames for each drawing, if one of those frames were badly damaged, instead of trying to fix or clean the damage, we could instead just duplicate the undamaged frame and replace the damaged one entirely. Of course this doesn’t work with normal live action, but in the case of this animated film, it was a great solution.

In digital, there are processes for interpolating missing frames by having the software recreate a missing frame by analyzing the frame before it and the frame after it and creating a fake new synthetic frame in between. Depending on the imagery, this can be fairly successful, though I’ve never done it.

116

As for missing pieces of frames, this is more common in my experience. You can have a bad tear or damage to a filmstrip which results in the loss of a piece of the image. As with everything, I approach this on a case by case basis. I can give two Brakhage restorations as examples.

The obscure Brakhage film The Female Mystique and Spare Leaves is a pair of short poetic films that were originally made in the ‘60s/early ‘70s, but that Brakhage only printed in 1998. The lab made an internegative from the original in 1998, but damaged the film in The Female Mystique in the course of their work. The internegative doesn’t show the damage - somehow the damage happened after the printing of the internegative. The damage involved a complex tear with a chunk of the image missing from the side of the film for a few frames. If I had just taped it together and left it that way, the missing material would have been visible as a clear/white jagged shape at the side of a few frames. However, if I filled in the missing part with some black blooping tape, to hide the missing footage more effectively, then it would be a lot less noticeable. In fact, in the finished result, you really can’t see the missing part, because the scene is dark, and we notice a dark absence a lot less than we would a light absence.

On the other hand, Brakhage’s classic Window Water Baby Moving (1959) has a similar damage in one frame in the last quarter of the movie, in a shot of Stan’s own face. The film had become damaged in a similar way at some point. However, this damage happened at the time of the film’s original making, because I was able to look at a print from 1959, the very first Kodachrome print which Stan gave the doctor who delivered the baby shown in the film, and in fact that damage was already present, even in the first print. So it’s always been there. Because it’s always been there, and because Stan had a very sensitive response to the medium and its qualities, I felt it would be wrong to fix it with black tape, for example, as I had with the other film. Stan would often embrace flaws like this as being in dialogue with his creative process, so he may have even felt this little flash of white had an aesthetic power or quality he liked. So it would be presumptuous and wrong to change or “fix” that.

One other example - I’ve been told by his family that James Whitney wasn’t too bothered if the originals for his films sustained a little damage, because he thought of the medium as having its own intrinsic qualities which included physicality, fragility, ephemerality, etc., and to work in the medium of film meant to embrace those. He also made raku pots and if the glaze cracked over time, he appreciated that. The originals for his film Lapis (1966) have several tears throughout, some older, some more recent. However, unlike Brakhage and Window Water Baby Moving, these aren’t tears which came to have significance for James, but rather

117 flaws to which he had an embracing, uncomplicated relationship. But in restoration, I would fix them. Because unlike Brakhage’s embrace of a bit of damage as having possible aesthetic value, and therefore to be kept as a creative decision, the tears in James Whitney’s films were not seen this way by him - instead they were just natural aspects of the physicality of the medium that he accepted as they happened. To me, this is a crucial difference of aesthetic intentionality that means the Window Water Baby Moving tear should not be fixed, while the Lapis tears should.

N: Which are the main divergences in the restoration of traditional narrative and experimental cinema (from the perspective of a restorer)? What are the main differences in the decision-making process? How does the workflow differ? M: The workflow for a more conventional narrative or documentary film versus an experimental/artists’ film may often be identical in terms of the basic work performed. They can also vary radically from each other, but then again, depending on the project, one conventional feature vs. another conventional feature may have wildly different restoration needs. So the technical process itself may not be the place where a lot of these differences may present themselves. It may be more in the approach.

Of course, there are some general differences (or tendencies to difference) that can occur with some regularity between conventional works and experimental ones. These usually have to do with the simple fact of different stocks, gauges, technology, etc. being employed for one vs. the other. Generally speaking, films made in a certain time period in 16mm will have approached production in a different manner than a film made in the same time period in 35mm. For example, the vast majority of experimental films made in the 1940s-1970s in the U.S. were shot on reversal stocks rather than negative stocks, whereas in the same period, with nearly no exceptions, 35mm films were shot on negative. So this basic technical tendency has dictated a lot about the aesthetics and production needs/approaches of these films, as well as how we then deal with them decades later in an archival context. (It’s for this reason that independent features or documentaries shot on 16mm during this period may have more in common with experimental cinema - Gimme Shelter and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre were both shot on 16mm Ektachrome, for instance.)

But beyond those more fundamental differences, I think it’s easiest to summarize things by saying that it’s always best to be careful about making assumptions - technical, aesthetic, conceptual, etc. - when evaluating experimental/artists’ work for preservation/restoration. I won’t really go into examples too much here, since I’ve basically covered a lot of related examples elsewhere, but having worked on a wide variety of films, I’ve found experimental

118 works to usually require more sensitivity and less presumption about how they should look, sound, and be restored, than more conventionally made cinema. This is because the nature of experimental film is rooted in experimentation, quite simply stated, and the history of the medium is almost a history of people pushing the boundaries and breaking the “rules” of that medium. However, conventionally made films also have unique needs of course, and I’ve found that being conditioned to be sensitive to the needs of experimental work has, I think, made me more sensitive to the needs of more conventional work.

For instance, in working on making a new print from the original negative of My Own Private Idaho (1991), I had the extreme luxury of being assisted in the process by Gus Van Sant (who wrote and directed it) and Eric Edwards (who was DP on it). Though not a typically conventional film, it’s still fair to say it follows more typical conventions than, say, a Brakhage film! The lighting in the film is quite expressive, and contributes richly to the mood and tone of every scene. Sometimes there’s a cool light coming in from a window behind River Phoenix, but then there’s a warm table lamp in the room to his right, creating a really powerful and expressive visual contrast between the two color temperatures, not to mention the limited visibility of his face because of the backlighting. Although technically it could be graded to make his face clearly visible - because the picture information does exist there in the negative - it would not be correct, as the scene is supposed to be much more moody and romantic looking, with River’s face half obscured in shadow. I have to be honest here, the Criterion blu-ray of the film is really problematic, because somebody decided to lift all of the shadows up really light, with the result that the lighting throughout it is really evened out, so there’s no real contrast or richness to the lighting and color in the film. It looks super flat and ugly. Everything is kind of stuck in the midtones, with no dynamism or presence, no richness of color, and the expressivity of the lighting and color scheme is totally lost. The 35mm prints look amazing, and radically different from the blu-ray. So in other words, although My Own Private Idaho is a comparatively much more conventional film than a Brakhage or similar film, a lot can still be gained from approaching it in a similar way, and not making assumptions about its look based on typical or classic aesthetic expectations, or ideas of conventional-looking imagery.

N: Within the decision-making process, how much do you interact with the authors? Do you also involve them into the practical part of restoration? M: Whenever possible, I like to involve the artists in the evaluation process looking at new prints. They generally aren’t involved in all the process up to that point, except when I need to ask them questions about a film. But if I have even the smallest question about a project that’s a little uncertain or hard to answer, I interact with the artists about it when possible,

119 which is something most of them seem to enjoy. Like I recently had to ask Barbara Hammer if some b/w images on color stock in a few of her films were supposed to look b/w or look kind of tinted (she said they should look as b/w as possible). But basically none of them too often want to be very involved in the day-to-day work - they’re usually busy with other things! But some artists are more involved than others. Morgan Fisher, for instance, enjoys attending the audio restoration sessions and participates a lot, and is very interactive about it. Other artists are not at all involved, and not even that picky about the end results (though they appreciate the work I do).

So the summary answer is that I involve the artists as much as makes sense to - it’s based on their interest/willingness, as well as how much they would like to contribute. Frankly, aside from some occasional questions that might come up with a film, or answering any confusing uncertainties I encounter, usually the artist doesn’t really need to be bothered about it until there’s something to actually look at. But it varies from artist to artist.

N: Do you have any experience in the conservation and restoration of other types of cultural heritage (for example works of fine arts or archeological objects)? If so, which are the most distinct differences in approaching the treated object (for example cleaning or repairing damage), compared to film? M: Hmmm…. not really! As a huge music lover with a ton of records, I admit I worry sometimes about the restoration/archival/remastering practices being employed in the music world. Sometimes there are bad reissues of albums which either sound poorly mastered, or have questionable approaches, or make curatorial decisions that seem inappropriate, and I’ll inevitably relate it to my own practice. But I’ve never done archival or restoration work outside of film/video.

N: Do you find the ethics and methodology of fine arts restoration useful for your practice? M: I’ve been meaning to do more reading in this area, actually. I’ve spoken to a few people who do book restoration, painting conservation, etc, but I should do more. I’m sure there’s a lot of overlap. I did consult with a painting restoration person about the ideal storage for the Brakhage painted films, which was helpful. And a few years ago I read a great article (I’ll try to find it) about someone who specializes in the restoration of complicated contemporary art pieces which may even involve food or other perishable materials.

120