This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH Pop Cinema: Aesthetic Conversations between Art and the Moving-Image By Tom Day Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Design Edinburgh College of Art University of Edinburgh December 2019 I Declaration I declare that this thesis has been composed solely by myself and that it has not been submitted, in whole or in part, in any previous application for a degree. Except where stated otherwise by reference or acknowledgment, russthe work presented is entirely my own. Thomas Day December 2019 II Contents Title Page I Declaration II Contents III Abstract IV Acknowledgements VII List of Figures IX Introduction: Cinema and its Art Movements 15 Chapter One: Pop Cinema: A History of a Concept 29 Chapter Two: Broadway by Light (1958): William Klein’s Pop Between Stillness and Movement 87 Chapter Three: Beyond Found Footage: Pop Collage Film and the Art of Jeff Keen 163 Chapter Four: Pop’s Raw Material: Repetition, Advertising and Television in Peter Roehr’s Film Montages (I-III) (1965) 251 Conclusion: Post-Pop Cinema? 317 Appendix I: Significant Pop Art Film Programmes, Exhibitions and Screening Sidebar Presentations 337 Appendix II: Films Relevant to Understanding Pop Cinema 347 Works Cited 353 III Abstract This dissertation seeks to recover a seemingly lost story in the history of experimental cinema: its relationship to Pop Art. Although both Pop Art and non-narrative filmmaking have received significant scholarly attention, there has not been a sustained attempt to probe theoretically the link between these two areas of cultural production. This work is the first study to attempt to understand historically and theoretically the relationship between the fine art practice of Pop and the production of non-narrative experimental cinema. It posits that works of experimental cinema exist that not only bear resemblances to central examples of fine art Pop but may be labelled works of Pop Art in their own right. To make the case for such works, this dissertation is split into four main chapters. The first offers an overview of the history of the phrase ‘Pop Cinema’ and traces its usage in a variety of discourses in critical, journalistic and academic discussions of mainstream and experimental film practice throughout the second half of the 20th century. In the subsequent chapters, case study films are presented as works of Pop Cinema, observed in relation to discourses on Pop Art found in art historical scholarship. Each work is shown to be a Pop Film not only because of its engagement with a subject of mass and consumer culture, but also the way in which such material is rendered on screen through medium-specific manipulation of film language and the foregrounding of cinematic technologies and techniques. In Chapter Two, I uncover the Pop aesthetic beginning in the 1950s with William Klein’s ‘city symphony’ film Broadway by Light (1958), arguing that the film is the urtext of Pop Cinema, fusing an intermedial exploration of stillness and movement with an ambivalence towards its subject: the advertising light signs of Manhattan’s Times Square. Following this, I discuss artworks and films created by the British artist IV Jeff Keen. Here the notion of collage as both an artistic methodology and formative medium for the dissemination of Pop Art are examined in relation to Keen’s 1966 film Flik Flak. Through in-depth analysis of Keen’s work, I draw attention to his distinct mode of collage filmmaking, arguing that it seeks to intervene and comment on the media-saturated environment of the 1960s in both humourous and poltical ways. Finally, I look towards Pop Art’s interaction with Minimalism using the work of German artist Peter Roehr. Taking Roher’s Film Montages (I-III) (1965) as my central object of focus I explore how Roehr developed strategies of seriality and repetition that can be seen in concert with Pop artists like Andy Warhol. Ultimately, through these examples and through my wide contextualising discussion, I illuminate ways of seeing a variety of filmmaking from the 1950s onward as Pop Art and I offer new dimensions of intermedial understanding to the practice of non-narrative cinema in relation to Art History. V VI Acknowledgements I would firstly like to thank my Supervisory team, Dr Glyn Davis and Dr Patricia Allmer for their consistent championing of and commitment to this project. Their generous comments, corrections and illuminating discussions have made the pursuit of my doctoral degree a deeply enriching experience. I want especially to thank Glyn Davis for helping to get this project into working order over four years ago and for many hours of detailed conversation that has not only helped me develop immeasurably as a scholar but also led to us collaborating on other exciting endeavours. I know he will be a valued colleague and friend for many years to come. My thanks also to the Edinburgh College of Art for generously funding this PhD project with a three-year ECA PhD Scholarship. This work would not have been able to be completed without the help of this funding and support from other bodies in Edinburgh and beyond, including the Institute for Academic Development, the School of Literatures, Languages and Cultures and the Scottish Graduate School for the Arts and Humanities, all of whom provided me with grants for various projects throughout my time at the University of Edinburgh. The following libraries and research institutes were of great assistance to me in the completion of this thesis: The British Film Institute, The British Film and Video Art Study Collection, LUX, The National Library of Scotland, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, The Archiv Peter Roehr and The Tate Archives. I have also benefited from helpful conversations, comments VII and criticisms from colleagues including Erika Balsom, Neil Cox, Nichola Dobson, Ed Halter, Justin Remes, Lucy Reynolds, Marion Schmid and Dan Yacavone. I would like to extend special thanks to family and friends who have always supported my decision to pursue a PhD and have encouraged me immensely over the years. My fellow PhD students, especially Colin Brady, have helped me both academically and through their friendship over the years. Finally, I would like to thank MaryKate Cleary for being the biggest inspiration to me, for being the best reader of my work and for being there to help me complete this thesis. VIII List of Figures Chapter Two Fig. 2.1: Double page spread from William Klein, Life is Good and Good For You in New York: Trans Witness Revels, Paris: Seuil, 1956. P. 90. Fig. 2.2: William Klein, 3 Men in Metro, 1949. Oil on canvas, 75 x 105cm, image courtesy of Howard Greenberg Gallery, New York. P. 96. Fig. 2.3: William Klein, Untitled (Red, Black, White), 1949-50. Oil on canvas, 94.5 x 117.4cm, image courtesy of Howard Greenberg Gallery, New York. P. 96. Fig. 2.4: William Klein, Moving Diamonds, Mural Project, Paris, early 1950s. Gelatin silver prints, printed later. Mounted to aluminium, 158.4 x 252 cm (edition of 15), HackellBury Fine Art, London. P. 98. Fig. 2.5: Richard Hamilton, My Marilyn, 1965. Screen-print on paper, 51.8 × 63.2cm, Tate, London. P. 105 Fig. 2.6: William Klein, Dance in Brooklyn, New York, 1955. Gelatin silver print on baryta, 100 × 150 cm, Art Institute of Chicago. P. 119. Fig. 2.7: Double page spread from William Klein, Life is Good and Good For You in New York: Trans Witness Revels, Paris: Seuil, 1956. P. 120. Fig. 2.8: Double page spread from Alexey Brodovitch, Ballet, New York, NY: Self-published, 1945. P. 123. Fig. 2.9: Arthur “Weegee” Felig, Weegee’s New York, 1948. 16mm, colour, sound, 21 minutes, Grove press Films. P. 141. IX Fig. 2.10: William Klein, Broadway by Light, 1958. 35mm, colour, sound, 12 minutes, Argos Films. P. 141. Fig. 2.11: Arthur “Weegee” Felig, Weegee’s New York, 1948. 16mm, colour, sound, 21 minutes, Grove press Films. P. 142. Fig. 2.12: William Klein, Broadway by Light, 1958. 35mm, colour, sound, 12 minutes, Argos Films. P. 142. Fig. 2.13: Ian Hugo, Jazz of Lights, 1954. 16mm, colour, sound, 16 minutes, Light Cone, Paris. P. 145. Fig. 2.14: Ian Hugo, Jazz of Lights, 1954. 16mm, colour, sound, 16 minutes, Light Cone, Paris. P. 145. Fig. 2.15- 2.18: William Klein, Broadway by Light, 1958. 35mm, colour, sound, 12 minutes, Argos Films. P. 148, 151. Chapter Three Fig. 3.1: Jeff Keen, Gazpocalypse - Return to the Golden Age, 2012, simultaneous projection of 8mm, super 8mm,16mm films and slides transferred to video, colour and b&w, sound and silent, The Tanks, Tate Modern London, Installation view. P. 167. Fig. 3.2: Stan VanDerBeek, Cine Dreams: Future Cinema of The Mind, 1972/2014.