The Making of an Educational Film As a Means of Communicating Our

University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014

1-1-1972 The akm ing of an educational film as a means of communicating our contemporary fine ra t culture. Terry Krumm University of Massachusetts Amherst

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1

Recommended Citation Krumm, Terry, "The akm ing of an educational film as a means of communicating our contemporary fine ra t culture." (1972). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2605. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2605

This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected].

THE MAKIHG OF AN EDUCATIONAL FILM

AS A MEANS OF

COMMUNICATING OUR CONTEMPORARY FINE ART CULTURE

A dissertation presented

Terry Krumm

Submitted to the Graduate School of the University

of Massachusetts

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of

Doctor of Education

April 1972

Major Subject! Educational Media and Technology THE MAKING OF AN EDUCATIONAL FILM

AS A MEANS OF

COMMUNICATING OUR CONTEMPORARY FINE ART CULTURE

A Dissertation

Terry KruF^m

The film is available in original form and appears under separate cover as an addendum to the dissertation.

Approved as to style and content byi

'DwighV W. Allen, Dean

0/^ > OksT

Dr. Daniel Member

Dr. David G. Coffin^, yvlembe^/ In memory of B C A CK N C WLEDGEIV'JIM TS

I would like to acknowledge the advice and guidance

of David Coffing in production of the pilot and dissertation films. I v/ant to thank Bob Hawkins of WCTV-TV for his help in producing a 2-inch commercial videotape from the pilot film. The help of Carl Serbell, ^':ike Tillet,

Ed Budelman, and Susan and Mark Obenhaus was indispensable in production of the dissertation film. I wish to express sincere gratitude to the members of my committee for interest, co-operation and support, Art Eve, Dan Jordan and Robert Mallary. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ^ CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION ^

II PROPOSAL 4

Background of the Project A Statement of the Frohlem 10 Definition of Terms 12 Assumptions in the Project l4 Limitations of the Project l4 Design of the Project 15 Orientation for the Proposed Dissertation 16

III NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCTION 18

Orientation 18 Television Feasibility 20 The Pilot Film 21 The Charlotte Experience 26 Evaluating the Concept 28 The Dissertation Film 31 The Filming Process 35 Filming Marca-Relli 38 Filming James Brooks 38 Filming Bernard Rosenthal 39 Filming Ossorio 4l Filming Vicente 42 The Sound Track 43 Experience with Labs 45 Looking Back 46

IV ANALYSIS OF THE FILiaNG PROCESS 48

Selection of the Artists 48 The Film Medium 52 Changes in Education 5^ Pilot Film as an Instrum.ent 5^ Visual Involvement 57 Major Elements 57 The Visual Experience ^3 Obtaining of Releases 8?

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS. II/.PLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 69 APPENDIX Page A Letter to and Answer from Dunathan and Rottman Concerning Dissertations Reported in Nonprint Media

APPENDIX B Response from Schools: A Survey of the Acceptability of Film as a Dissertation

APPENDIX E Projected Production Costs 126

APPENDIX F Personnel Cost; Union and Probable Non-Union 129 APPENDIX G Dissertation Film Production Costs I 3 I APPENDIX H Equipment Description and Costs I 33

Studio Editing Equipment I 34 Camera and Studio I 35 Mobile and Studio I 36

APPENDIX I Comparable Sony i" Videotape Equipment I 38

Plan I 1 B 9 Plan II 140 Plan III 141

APPENDIX J List of Co-operating Galleries for the Pilot Film 142

APPENDIX K List of Firms Contacted for Funding 144

APPENDIX L List of Artists Filmed for Dissertation 146

BIBLIOGRAPHY 148 1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

"The greatest happiness of man is to explore that which is explorable and to revere that which is unexplor- able." Goethe

Too often our contemporary fine art culture is revered because of its mystery, eliminating an individual's willingness to explore that which is explorable. To explore whether film can be used to communicate our contemporary fine art culture is what this dissertation is about. The dissertation is composed of two parts i print and non-print.

The print portion is constructed to supplem.ent the non-print portion of the dissertation. The object of the supplement is not to describe the film itself but to discuss the process and the experiences involved in creating it.

The print supplement includes the following eight sections* table of contents, introduction, the proposal, the narrative description of the process, the analysis, the conclusion, the appendices, and the bibliography. The organization of the supplement is divided into two parts*

(l) the dissertation proposal, which states the initial conceptual framework of the project and poses some questions that are to be answered, and (2) the remainder of the dissertation supplement which is designed as a response to 2 the proposal. The organization of this second part of the dissertation supplement is therefore heavily influenced by the dissertation proposal.

The Narrative section is a time-ordered description of the significant events of the film.making process that were set in motion by the proposal. It contrasts what actually happened with the events that were anticipated. It therefore is a case of actual experiences m.odifying initial conception and consequently it shows how development and learning took place on a step-by-step basis. The narrative form, one of the four forms of discourse of classical rhet- oric, is necessary because the actual subject of this dissertation supplement is an experience, not a catagory of formal study. The elements to be studied were not contents of books, but contents of days. Thus, the Narrative section was necessary in order to give the reader a sense of what the meaning of making a film is.

Once a description of the filmmaking process has been accomplished, certain key elem.ents can be abstracted and

dealt with expositionally . This is accomplished in the

Analysis Section, which responds to specific questions raised in the proposal - responses which are discursive but not necessarily conclusive. The conclusions are again related to the generating proposal, but deal with those issues for which the actual experience of making the film gave the conclusions. There was a great deal of information that was not specifically mentioned in the proposal but developed in the course of the project. That inf oriTiation would be very useful to anyone who might want to do similar educa tional kinds of media work. Therefore it has been carefully packaged in detail and appears in the Appendix k

CHAPTER II PROPOSAL

Background of the Project

The written material for this dissertation is a supplement to the body of the dissertation, which has been executed in non-print media. The portion of the dissertation devoted to non-print media is a film which is used as a means to communicate our contemporary fine art culture in the field of painting and sculpture. The flexibility of film in reporting visual information has obvious advantages over written material. The written part of the dissertation will be designed as a primary communicating vehicle for documenting the process of making a film. This documentation should prove to be of value to those interested in attempting to make a film for this kind of educational purpose.

Film, has become an im.portant adjunct to many college curricula. According to the most recent data compiled by the American Film Institute,

A total of 1,233 filin courses are being offered during the I96P-9 academic year. And this figure does not include summer courses, tutorials, or special projects. Comparing: only those schools represented in both this survey and the one conducted by Donald Staples in 1964, the total number of film production courses has |;rown from I5S during the 1963-4 academic year to 279 in I968. Moreover, the History/Aesthetics category has almost doubled within the past 3 years, from 86 in 1963 to 17O in I968, 5

Finally, the total number of film courses in these colleges and universities has increased 84?^ since 1964.1

A research paper entitled A Survey of the Accerta- bility to ^^elected Graduate 8)chools of i'heses and Dissertations Reported in Nonrrint r>'’edia revealed a 56^ positive response to the inquiries made by Drs, Dunathan and Fottman. In a reply to a letter concerning my project, Dr. Dunathan reassuringly stated that "...the acceptability of nonprint report of research by Graduate

Schools is generally high...."^ In addition, I conducted my own survey v/ith eleven schools, each of which has a film program in their curricula, in order to ascertain the acceptability of a film as fulfillment of a dissertation.

All eleven replied, and as indicated in the Dunathan-

^The American Film Institute, Guide to Colleg-e Film

Courses . 1969-70, p. 44.

^Arni T. Dunathan and Betty Cook Rottman, "A Survey of the Acceptability to Selected Graduate Schools of Theses and Dissertations Reported in Nonprint lYedia Research Abstracts for 19?0 DAVI National Convention,

Abs. No. 32 *

^Dr. Arni T. Dunathan, letter to the writer, July

10th, 1970 . 6

Rottman report, the majority of the responses were positive.^ Theodore Clevenger, from Florida State

University, best expressed the negative point of view, which is worth stating at this point.

The problem of course lies in the inherent problems that arise when one does anything out of the ordinary, ^'v'^ith good reason, scholars are suspicious of unfamiliar procedures (as opposed to unfamiliar questions or topics, which they welcome with enthusiasm); too often in the past radical departure from proved procedures has resulted in mediocrity. This, I am afraid, has made many graduate faculty members over-cautious, to the detriment of ideas like the one you propose vdiich, in my judgement, ought to be given a try.

r"y reasons for choosing one aspect of our contemporary fine art culture as the subject for my film stem from a combination of events related to the two fields of my professional preparation: education and art. I have earned a B.F.A. from the University of Denver in art education, and an M.A. in art from Hunter College. Additional graduate studies include courses taken at the University of

^Positive responses: Indiana University, Ohio Uni- versity, Ohio State University, The University of Texas, The University of Wisconsin, and The Clarem.ont School of Theology. Negative responses: Florida State University, Uni- versity of Iowa, Northwestern University, Pennsylvania, and the University of Southern California. o 'Theodore Clevenger, Chairman, Department of Commun- ications, The Florida State University, letter to the writer, October 1, 1970. .

California at Los Angeles, University of the Americas and

New York University. I have "been teaching for fourteen years on both high school and university levels. During this time, however, I have maintained an active role in the art profession by having numerous one-man shows, and gallery and museum exhibitions. Resulting from this background is m.y desire to generate a concern for the methods by which students might gain an awareness of their contemporary fine art culture.

If art in education is to contribute effectively to the development of personal expression, qualitative aesthetic judgements, cultural understanding, and visual discrimination, then professional imperatives need to be continuously redeveloped as society changes

Unfortunately, in a society subject to accelerating change, art education has not kept pace with general cultural changes, specifically the increasing nuances in the arts. Rather than accepting and actually encouraging our fine art culture, education seems to passively resist the change; a fruitless position, as change in the arts is irresistable. This attitude is realistically summed up by

Kenneth Lansing in his book. Art. Artist and Art Education .

^National Art Education Association, Position State- ment by the Association, The Essentials 9 ^ ^ 2. School Art Program (Washington, D.C., 19^9 ) i P« 8

The average educator usually offers a type of resistance. Like most laymen, he is probatly the victim of a passive cultural attitude about art that has developed through the curricula of the colleges and the public schools.^

Similarly, further documenting the apathy of education toward cultural involvement, the National Education

Association Catalog of Publications and Audiovisual I^'late - ris-ls offers some 1,449 listings of media. From this list,

in the art area, there are 26 listings concerned with written material and only 4 in a visual format.^ None of these listings, however, deal with our contemporary fine art culture. Yet, paradoxically, one of the nine areas considered essential by the National Art Education Asso- ciation was "seeing the artist produce works of art in his studio, in the classroom, or on film. "3

In this McLuhan era, the electronic age, it seems that film is one significant alternative to the written word.

As Archimedes once said, "Give me a place to stand and I will move the world." Today we would have

^Kenneth Lansing, Art, Artist and Art Education (Italy), pp. 8-9, ^ National Education Association Catalog. Publications and Audiovisual Iviaterials, 1970-1971 (August 1970) i PP« 10, 20, 27, 42, 49.

^The Essentials of A Quality School Art Program, op. cit . , p. 4. 3 .

pointed to our electric media and said, ”I will stand on your eyes, your ears, your nerves, and your brain, and the world will move in any tempo or pattern I choose.”!

Nevertheless, there have been less than twenty films pro-

duced to date whose subject matter approxim.ates the

reportage of the artist in our contemporary fine art culture.

Even while educators like McLuhan tell us that this

is an era for electro-media, little is being done by the

film industry or by the education profession. It is, how-

ever, a not altogether unrecognized area. Big business,

such as the Kodak Company, have set to work to bring cul-

ture to the attention of the public. John L. Debes coined the phrase "Visual literacy,"

which refers to a group of vision competencies a human being can develop by seeing and at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences. The development of these competencies is fundamental to normal human learning. V/hen developed, they enable a visually literate person to discriminate and interpret the vis- ible actions, objects, and symbols, natural or man-made, that he encounters in his environm.ent Through the creative use of these competencies, he is able to comprehend and enjoy the m.asterv/ork of visual communication.

^Farshall McLuhan, Understanding Media (New Yorki WcGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), p.?3» 2 National Information Center for Education, IV^edia Index to l6mm Education Films, 2nd ed. (New York and London: McGraw-Hill, 1969), pp.""67-^'5.

^John L. Debes, "The Loom of Visual Literacy: an (October overview," Audiovisual Instruction , Vol.l4, no. 8 - 1969 ), pp. 25 27 . 1 i

Whether or not the Kodak Company, the NEA or the MAEA can make any inroads concerning the problem of heightening student awareness of and involvem.ent in contemporary fine art culture is yet to be proven. Thus far media has not done the job. It is at this juncture that the writer de-

cided to produce an educational film featuring artists who are a part of our contemporary fine art culture. I agree with the visionary outlook of Buckminster Fuller

Only the free-wheeling artist-explorer, non- academic, scientist philosopher, mechanic, economist, poet v/ho has never waited for patron-accrediting of his coordinate capabilities holds the prime initiative today.

Statement of the Problem

The major objective of the project v;ill be to use

film, to create an effective means for communicating a visual experience. The film, in turn, would be constructed to provide information about our contemporary fine art culture. There will be an attem.pt to communicate answers to questions concerning (l) the identification of the major

factors and persons who have influenced our contemporary

fine art culture; (2) the identification and delineation of the procedures used in the initial development of a concept

^Buckminster Fuller, "Change as the Fundamental Norm, Clas s, II (1969), P- 104. 11 for the film; ( 3 ) a determination of the degree to which technical skills are needed to produce a film; ( 4 ) a determination as to what kind of special effects are to be used in filming; ( a 5 ) determination of the type of production concept and format to be used; ( 6 ) a determination of the cost and man hours involved in a project of this scale; and (7) a determination of whether a project of this type is suitable for an individual undertaking.

The purpose of the project will bei

1. To develop a film v/ith the primary objective of pro-

viding information about our contemporary fine art

culture a

a. By examining and choosing a representative body of artists in our culture.

b. By interviewing with film and tape the artists chosen.

2. To develop soft-v/are for the use in Art and Humanities

departments of higher education.

a. That this soft-ware be in the form of l 6mm film.

b. That the film have an audio track which involves

statements about the artists and their culture as

well as their thoughts on education.

3* To organize the material accumulated during filming and

taping sessions so that it can be evaluated in order to

decide on an editing style. .

a. Edit the film footage in order to achieve a visual style.

b. Edit tape in order to achieve a voice track style. c. Develop a distinctive sound track to compliment the visual and voice tracks.

4, To combine the edited material into a basic film concept that concerns our contemporary fine art culture, ae To place the footage on the artists into a visual

sequence best suited for cinemagraphic purposes,

b* To mix sound and voice tracks in a manner best

suited to maintaining an attentive and informed audience

5. To document and analyze the procedures, methods, and a

theory of communication underlying the film production

in a written form.at.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were defined operationally as used in this project.

Art world —generally refers to the New York City

"scene", a complex environment of one-man shows,

museum exhibitions, and social events that usu-

ally determine the status and comprise the milieu

of an artist. 13

Communicate— to pass information, visual, audio and verbal, a sense-filled experience to viewers of film.

Conterr.porary fine art culture— ref ers to the activity generated by the art world, the artist and his

work which determines the changes in society's appreciation of art. Film refers to l6mm color film v/ith an optical sound

track, the standard film size used by most educational institutions.

Prominent Artists — are those who have successfully

withstood the test of time, by having a series of

one-man and museum shows that were recognized by

magazines, journals, critics and historians.

The Mix — a process whereby the sound, voice, and film

tracks are mixed by a highly skilled technician

in a studio especially designed to acheive the

proper synchronous effect desired by the di-

rector.

Tracks J Sound, Voice, and Film — are three separate

components of the final stages of a film, each

one an entity in itself, edited to perfection,

before they are mixed into a final product.

Visual experience--a sometime non-verbal event that

may appear uniquely different to individuals 14

depending on their orientation. If the expe-

^i€“nce IS abstract then it does not carry a verbal stigma. ^

Voice over— is a technique that avoids the process

of synchronizing lip movements with a person's

voice. This is less expensive end allows the

voice to be recorded without the camera, elimi-

nating the complicated process of editing lip

synchronized film.

Assumptions in the Project

1. That the artists contacted will allow themselves to be

filmed and taped.

2. Respondents will reect candidly and honestly to ques-

tions concerning their work and the general values of

education for those interested in art.

3. That sufficient film and studio equipment can be ob-

tained for a period long enough to complete the project.

4. That various innovative concepts in filming, editing

and sound be incorporated successfully in the film.

Limitations of the Project

1. The artists filmed will be those judged by the writer

to have achieved prominence. Filming must be done 15

in East Hampton, long Island, where the artists' suminer studios are located. 2. The voice recording done will be a voice-over technique which becomes necessary because of time, equipment, and financial limitations. 3. "ihat there will be no extensive attempt to assess or evaluate the response of viewers to this film. 't. Due to the length of time required in the completion of the nonprint, film section of the dissertation, and the value of communicating the process of filmm.aking to other potential filmmakers, the written part of the dissertation will concern itself with an analysis and a documentation of the process.

Design of the Project

The project will be exploratory in nature, in that it is an initial attempt to determine the feasibility of uti-

lizing film as a means of communicating our fine art

culture. ihe project will determine whether artists are

agreeable to being filmed and whether film is a suitable

medium for communicating a visual experience.

A study will be conducted to determine which artists

are acceptable and v/hether they are suitable for film.

This will be acheived by exploring the art galleries in

Mew York City, and researching art periodicals and recently published books. 16

V.hen the artists are chosen they must be convinced to si^n a release form before being filmed. When the releases are secured, a film crew will travel to the location of the artist's studio and film him in his working environment. Following a day or more of filming, the artist will be interviewed on audio tape. During the interview the ertist will be encouraged to talk about the relation of his art to our contemporary fine srt culture as well as encouraged to express some thoughts on education. The interviews will, be edited to the prescribed six minutes from an hour or more

of tape. This also applies to the film footage.

It is necessary to screen the rough cut footage along

with the edited voice track to achieve co-ordination as

well as to begin to think about what type of sound track

will be used. At this point the artist will be chosen from

the group filmed and a sequence will be determined.

When the final version of the film is edited, the voice, sound and film tracks are mixed to produce an answer print. The answer print version of the film must be viewed and corrected before the final release print is made.

Orientation for the Proposed Dissertation

Chapter H of the dissertation includes a description of the problem, the background statement, definition of terms and the general design of the project along with the assumptions and limitations. Chapter III will concern .

itself with the production elements of making the film. Chapter IV will present an analysis of the five artists presented in the final stage of the film. In Chapter V will be found the summary, conclusions and recommendations. The Appendix will present information concerning materials,

labs , and costs 18

CHAPTER III

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCTION

Between the Summer of 1967 and the Spring of 1970 I niade an educational film dealing with five .contemporary American Artists. The following is a narrative of that complex undertaking.

In the Spring of 1967 f I determined to integrate m.y

vocational double-life as an art teacher in Richmond,

Virginia and practicing artist who exhibited in New York City.

One mighc think these roles would be neatly comple- mentary, but they were not. In my role of art educator I was limited by my teaching materials 1 museums, films,

slides and books. Although there were enough of these to

convey an intelligent sense of past periods of art, there

was little available to teach a class of students w'hat was being done now in our own time.

What students were learning was correct and valuable - absorbing developments from the Egyptians through the E'arly Abstract Expressionists. But a great deal had been accomplished since then! What was particularly troublesome to me was that our contemporary culture was the period I knew best, had participated in personally and was best qualified to explain, ^"y problem was one of being .

continuP_lly confronted with a gap between Art and Art Education, a gap between what was being taught in the schools and what was being produced by artists in their studios, a problem of information lag attributable to a lack of illustrative materials. Since I knew where the information was - in the artists’ studios and in the galleries - the trick would be in getting it to the students. The problem came down to one of media. Therefore I decided to investigate the possibilities of getting into the business of packaging information about our contem-

porary fine art culture into media suitable for the classroom.

The field of translating the work of the contemporary

artist into educational formats has little formal struc-

ture, There v/ere no educational or commercial institutions

centered specifically around this endeavor. 'Without such

support the task has usually fallen to individuals in the

Academic community. At least that has been the tradition.

At this time I spoke to Dwight Allen at the University of

Massachusetts' School of Education. Dean Allen informed me

that Professor David Coffing was coming to develop an Edu-

cational Media and Technology Department. Dr. Coffing became my advisor. With his guidance I began to develop a

format for a dissertation consistent with my goal of communicating information about our contemporary fine art culture (see introduction and Chapter II). 20

How to achieve this seemed apparent, for television had appeared as the most potent communicator of our time. It had the capacity to reproduce both picture and sound, and its popular reputation of involving students suggested that It would serve well as a medium to capture the artist, his studio and his work. Although the medium of print was the traditional tool of academia, I knew that much of the work of contemporary artists had particularly defied all but the m.ost weakly generalized verbalization. Was the technology of the artist out-stripping our language? The

point had seldom received attention from the writer/

translator. Critics and historians of contemporary art

were hardpressed in a way critics and historians of repre-

sentational art had not been, as there were no literary

underpinnings to suggest verbal connections with the new

world of abstract art. Adding to these difficulties was

the acceleration of art technologies. Descriptive lan-

guage was not keeping pace? perhaps the verbal processing

of this kind of visual information was not feasible. It began to become clear to me that the gap between the contemporary fine art culture and this generation cf students would probably continue to widen unless som.e faster means of processing factual information were utilized, I believed television cculd do the job. (But would a non-print medium of communication be acceptable to academia as dis- )

sertation material? I was to find out later it would be

a problem .

Initially I was very enthusiastic about television,

but practical experience soon taught me that the T.V, medium posed difficulties. One was the resolution of the

T.V. image? it was much less than film. Pricing videotape

equipment, I learned that while black and white systems

were less expensive than film, in color video systems the

price was much higher. But color was an essential element

of the information I was dealing with? so film appeared more attractive. It was pointed out that most schools had film projectors, but not videotape machines. But later

I found that it is much easier to videotape a film than

film a tape. And so it was this initial experience that would see-saw my ideas drastically. And thus a pattern v/as

set for the whole experience.

Preparation for making the film, then tentatively titled "The Artist, His Work and His Studio," began with the making of a pilot film. It was my intention to try out various film techniques to learn as much as I could about technical and production aspects of filmmaking before going

into full-scale production.

The location of the pilot film was a particular group

of New York City galleries. The scene was not unfamiliar to me. I had exhibited in several galleries and museums 22

in New York and I knew many of the gallery owners and directors. Filming in the galleries also had other advantages. It prepared me for related visual problems that would occur in the final film, and it also helped to establish some goodwill, resulting in contacts that I would use later.

Some of the 'artists I wanted to film were virtually inaccessible. In these cases my assurances to the gallery directors were not enough to secure permission for filming. I was instructed to leave a letter, business card, or phone number where I could be reached. The effect of this was to disrupt the filming schedule. As a result of such

communication problems I determined to establish a New York base of operations. And so the next two weeks I

spent organizing a company.

The nature of the enterprise was research in art and media, A friend suggested the letters R.A.M. This I shortened to just RAM. Still later I made this CRAM, standing for Creative Research in Art and Media. Before I could register our business, I needed an address. Another friend volunteered her address and phone. Ultimately this business was incorporated. At last, legal, legitimate, and local, and with appropriate stationary, I began to communicate effectively with galleries, requesting permission to film. Several weeks later, after many letters, arrange- 23

merits were firm enough to begin actual shooting of the pilot film. The galleries that allowed CRAM to film

were I Martha Jackson, Waddell-Grippen, The Stable, Steve Radich, Howard Vy'ise, Allen Frumkin, and the Pace Gallery,

The next step was the organization of a crew. I needed a minimum of fivet a l6mm camera man, a videotape camera man, a light man, a sound man, and a "grip” to help

with the equipment. I was able to find one slightly ex-

perienced person to handle the l6mm film camera (and the

video camera I brought along because it was available, and

for experiment’s sake). The rest of the crew was green.

I decided to film, on three separate weekends. This meant

traveling in two cars from Richmond to New York City. I had to take care of these costs and provide housing and

food for everyone as well, Saturday is the busiest day of the week at the galleries and we had to film on Saturday to

stick to our time-table.

Our equipment included a Bolex Rex IV manual wind l6mm film camera with 100 foot loads, one Photo Flood light, one half-inch Sony videotape Portapack and camera unit, a portable Panasonic sound tape recorder, a tripod, and a light meter and color film, (We used Kodachrome "ER" which has since been replaced by the "EF" series.) It was a crude beginning. 24

All of the equipment was borrowed, either from the University or friends interested in CRAM. Even operating at this minimal level, the costs were considerable. Still, I believed that the experience I gained was necessary to successful completion afterwards of the dissertation film.

The opportunity to play the role of director, producer, voice-recorder, interviewer, and light and camera man provided me with the judgment to successfully plan time- co-ordinated schedules for the later production.

The gallery filming went relatively smoothly. Two major hazards became evident. One was traffic. We sometimes lost half the crew for periods of time. The second problem was technical inexperience. Once I innocently placed the microphone on top of the voice recorder during an important interview. Later, in Richmond, I realized that the mike had recorded the mechanical noises of the tape recorder along with the voices. Fortunately, we also had the voices on videotape. The quality was barely acceptable, but we were able to use a short segment of it in the final version of the pilot film.

We learned other lessons. An important one was the need for longer-running film cartridges. ‘J-'he 100 foot loads seemed to require constant changing, and at times we ran out of film in the middle of interviews and kinetic shots, which spoiled the continuity. At the initial viewing session, I viewed the original negative, carefully avoiding dirt and making sure not to scratch it, and eliminated the unusable portions before development of the prints. This was time consuming, and ogain required learning a minor, specialized skill, but resulted in the saving of hundreds of dollars. The videotape, which was in black and white, did not nearly match the quality of the grainy film we had used.

There was however a ’’live*' and therefore a spontaneous quality to it that was missing in the film. The video work to which we had devoted little planning time had an appeal- ing verite, so once again I was undecided as to v/hich technology/medium to use. I recalled the problem of running out of film, and the relatively av/kward handling of the heavy film camera, its tripod and clumsy mechanical zoom.

The lighter video equipment was considerably easier to use.

If something interesting happened unexpectedly it was easy enough to catch it with a turn of the hand-held video camera - inconceivable with the film equipment. Ultimately, the specific ccnsideration of color and of resolution decided for film in this project. But where visual detail was not the issue, as perhaps in later pro.iects it would not be, video was worth knowing about. Then, too, I had discovered what the qualities of the film medium were by the comparison with video, so that once again a technical 26

consideration seemed to result in general learning. This observation itself was an important acquisition of the experience.

The cliche is that the film is made in the cutting room. I learned that this cliche was true. Editing was a different world. The actual filming was a matter-of-fact recording process, but in the editing room one can re-order the sequence of things seen and thus create effects. Film- ing was vision, but editing was revision, and revision was more controllable and at the same time more demanding and technical.

I realized that I had just begun. A whole, completely new area was ahead of me - editing film and voice tracks, mixing the sound and coming up with a finished product. This realization was quite frightening. I then cam.e up with what I thought at the time to be an ingenious short-cut. I would transfer everything to commercial two-inch videotape, do all my own editing electronically and then transfer it back to film. I was very soon to discover myself immersed in complicated technology in attempting to produce the film in this way, encountering as much as in traditional film- cutting - or more, possibly.

Through personal contacts in North Carolina I was able to obtain the use of the editing facilities of a

Charlotte television station. It v/as available from Satur- 27

day midnight to eight A.M. Sundays. I was convinced that the job could be done in one session, well worth the drive from Richmond. I was overwhelmed with the facilities at the television station. T?ie set-up was perfect and I had

two very capable engineers with v/hom to work. It took

eight hours to familiarize myself with the equipment and

decide just what I would do with it. Three trips and

thirty— two hours xater I had completed a tv»o— inch commer-

cial television tape version of the pilot film, and had overstayed my welcome.

I had learned more in those thirty-two hours about

media and production than all that I had known previously.

I also discovered that the T.V. process was not practical

for my project. The main problem was that I knew that in

all probability I would never have this kind of facility made available again and, secondly, there is a problem of

loss of picture resolution in this kind of image transfer

from medium to medium.

However, as usual, the experience was profitable

from the point of view of learning. The flexibility and

speed of electronic editing of videotape enabled me to achieve many effects I would later approximate in the final

film version through conventional film editing.

Between weekends in Charlotte, I had begun work in

Richmond on the rourh-cut work-print of the pilot film. 28

The camera man in our crew assisted me. I took this version, along with the separate and edited voice-tape, to a local film company, and after negotiations got permission to use their moviola. Eventually they taught me how to use the moviola, but this had to be done in a time frame convenient to them, so that our hours were odd again, approximately nine P.M. to two A.M. After several such sessions, the pilot film v/as complete. It consisted of fragments of the voice recordings made on the Panasonic tape recorder, augmented with a background music track from a media record, and visuals from our l6mm Bolex Rex

IV.

Next we decided to get some audience reaction to our product. The National Art Education Association Convention offered the occasion. I tried to get my pilot film, by then known as ’’New York Galleries,” on the general program., but the schedule had already gone to the printer. I considered the possibility of renting a booth on the exhibition floor anyway. The cost was $600, plus the con- struction expenses. I doubted we would be able to hold an audience for twenty minutes on the exhibition floor, and we would be limited by space to a very sm.all audience. It would not present the kind of atmosphere in which I could dicuss the film with a variety of individuals. 29

Not wanting to pass up the opportunity, I settled on a plan to rent a suite of rooms for three days in the convention hotel. There wore three rooms to the suite. In one I set up a T.V. monitor to play back the tape I had made in Charlotte. In a second room I had a film projector for showing “New York Galleries." The third room v/as used as a lounge area where the film could be discussed.

I realized that I needed some way to communicate to the people in the convention that I was showing the film, in the hotel. Wy fear of being stranded in a suite of rooms with no audience produced an overzealous effort to obtain an audience. I printed a brochure stating my objectives and offering a purchase plan, hoping I could raise financial support to continue my project. Buttons bearing, the

CRAM trademark were to be passed out at the same time.

There were also handouts which invited conventioneers to view the film and enjoy free refreshments (I had purchased

$160 worth of liquor). To dispense these articles, I re- cruited some attractive people. The combination of these techniques proved highly successful.

At the entrance to the suite we posted a guest register. Inside we split the conventioneers into two groups and escorted them to video or film. I remained in the third room with the refreshments where I talked to individuals after each viewing. In tv/o-and-a-half days 30

approximately 600 people had seen either the film or the videotape. Our success at attracting people was further

attested to hy a committee of exhibitors who came to re-

quest that our people desist from distributing materials on the convention floor.

As a result of the success of this adventure, I was

invited to show the film at the International Art Education

Convention as a part of the regular program, and I did.

In addition, in the next two weeks I took the film to the

American Library Association Convention in Atlantic City,

and to the R’useum and Art Educators in New York City. By

the end of the fourth convention more than 2,000 people

had previewed the pilot film, including some of the best

knowTi art educators, such as Howard Conant, Eliot Eisner,

and Irving Kaufm.an. Their criticism and thought were

valuable in the planning of the dissertation film..

At this point I had spent thousands of dollars,

traveled thousands of miles up and dcvm the Atlantic Coast

to sample thousands of peoples* responses. I believe a

pro.iect of this scope had to develop around a broad base

of experiences. The sampling procedure was time consum.ing, but out of it developed a sense of what people were inter-

ested in knowing. The questions my respondents most often

asked with reference to the pilot film reappeared as ques-

tions I asked in my interviews with the artists in the final film. 31

The project had momentum at this point. Encouraged by individuals on my doctoral committee, I decided to continue toward completion of the dissertation film. The pilot film project had cost about $3,000. At this time I felt I needed, and assumed that I could find, outside financing of some kind. CRAi\^ ventured into the business v/orld in search of support. Dividing my time between New York City and Amherst, Massachusetts I continued production plans and a search for backing at the same time.

On Long Island I had made the acquaintance of Senator Jacob Javits, who liked my basic concept and offered the services of his law firm as a means of securing financial support. This threw the project into a new light. I had to begin organizing miy efforts around a set of explicit figures and concepts in proposal form. I began to deal with men concerned with selling the film as a marketable product, who were only secondarily concerned with its educational or aesthetic value. Universal Pictures* documentary division became interested. I talked v/ith people from Xerox,

McGraw-Hill, and publisher Harry Abrams. When I received offers of assistance they were unfortunately tied to agree- ments that v/ould have placed the ultimate control of the form and content of my projected film into other hands. I therefore decided to take on the financial responsibility personally. (Initially I was greatly relieved by this 32

decision, but over the course of the next three years I accuniulated a very hea^;y financial burden.) Freed from the New York City business world, I again began concentrat-

ing on problems of the film per se.

The largest and most important concentration of fine artists in the United States was in the Hamptons on

Long Island. Literally hundreds of world-famous artists spent their summers in this colony. I made the decision to film a group of these artists, their work and studios at their summer homes. I was not sure how to contact these individuals so I hired a student from the college at which I was teaching in Virginia, whom I knew to be interested in art, to research the addresses of several artists and find out what their schedules were. With this information I began a systematic letter and telephone campaign, lining up artists and setting up a shooting schedule.

My original intention was to shoot six minute segments of fifteen artists. I intended to package the footage in several ways, including 8mm cartridges of individual artists, and longer reel-type combinations, possibly in l6mm. I wanted to use these segments as the start of what I hoped would grow to be a resource library of filmed materials about the central creators of our contemporary 33

fine art culture. And finally, I intended to put together a documentary film representative of the most important lines of development taken by our best contemporary fine artists for my dissertation in a non-print medium for the Ed.D, degree.

I was able to make definite arrangements to film two artists on my first trip to East Hampton. The first artist I filmed was John McMann, who was showing his air paintings in V/il!liam DeKooning's garage. He had convinced m.y advance man that he would be a suitable subject. Since this exhibition was an im.portant event, and early in the East

Hampton summer calendar, our presence there served to intro- duce us in the social scene. Later that day the crew and

I filmed the annual artists* picnic. The beach was crowded with celebrities of this milieu. Besides many famous artists, Harold Rosenberg, the New York critic, was there.

After these two particular filming episodes, we were known and accepted in East Hampton and getting artists to let us film them, was not usually difficult.

Crucial to successful film.ing of the East Hampton artists was a congenial and organized crew. In this area

I was most fortunate. I was able to obtain a good camera man and also a good light and sound man, and occasionally the services of a grip. Again, our experience was limited, but the crew took a sincere interest in the project and 34

their attitude was a big asset. Previous experiences some of the artists had had with media people had made them wary. Fortunately our spirit of co-operation and the respect for the artists v/e v/ere filming earned us a good reputation in a short time.

There was a definite upgrade in equipment from the

pilot film. We now used an AirriFlex type (S) camera with

400 foot loads, a better tripod, professional quality

lights and tape recorder (Nagra). The equipment, the crew

and I filled two Econoline vans. A limiting factor was the

availability of this equipment. Since everything we were

using was borrowed and subject to periodic recall, we had

to adjust our schedules around this difficult circumstance.

Once again the co-operation of the crew, their readiness

to adjust and readjust to changes in schedule, permitted

the filming to run smoothly.

The artists were not filmed concurrently. Several

days elapsed between the filmiing of John WcMann and Conrad

Marca-Relli. This allov/ed time for processing of the film, which was checked by myself and the crew. A great deal of

care was taken not to scratch the original, while eliminat-

ing the unusable footage. The good footage was stored until a large enough quantity was ready for the laboratory to workprint. We did not attempt to project the first footage; running it through the viewer, we felt that of the

first 300 feet 60'^ was usable. 35

With the K’cMann footage, we had taken few chances. The camera direction was fairly straightforward, with the exception of a few through-the-window-of-the-studio shots.

These shots began outdoors with a set of double reflections

off a window to a f ollov/-f ocus on the paintings inside the studio. Later while editing, we decided not to use them, as they appeared to be too dramatic and •’filmy,” shifting attention away from the paintings themselves. We were not aware that the camera had developed an emulsion build-up on the registration pin, which left a scratch on all but the first 200 feet of film. This had not been detected in the viev/er, and was quite disappointing, after we had workprinted 500 feet of scratched film. The camera repaired, and the live experience under our belts, we again set out for East Hamrton, to film Conrad Karca-Relli. (It might be noted here that the only artists that are discussed here are the five who actually appear in the film.)

The routine developed at Conrad Marca-Relli ' s was the one we chose to follow throughout the film. Early in the morning all of us in the crew would load up the 400 foot magazines and check the equipment in our vans. The magazines had either outdoor film or indoor. Over breakfast, we would carefully discuss the day's shootings, and in a spirit of professional discipline decide in advance exactly what procedures we would follow. I would then call up the 36

artist to say that we were on our way. When we arrived, we would set up the equipment outside the artist's studio and I w'ould conduct a quick reviev/ of the sequence of shots v/ith the camera man.

The first shots were generally middle distance shots

of the artist's studio and grounds. If he had any work,

paintings or sculpture, outside, we would usually film

that last. While the camera man was outside taking the

established shots of the artist's studio, I would go in-

side with the light man, who doubled as the voice recorder.

While I talked with the artist, getting him prepared, the

light man took readings to determine hov/ much additional

light we needed. On most occasions, the artist's studio

had sufficient wiring to power our equipment. On one oc-

casion however - at an old barn - we had to tap a main

line. After talking with the artist for some time, I

would leave and return to the camera man who would be

finishing the outside shots of the studio. From the time

we arrived, to this point, took approximately two hours.

We wanted the artist to react naturally to the

camera, (This segment of the filming was probably the most difficult.) After changing the magazines to indoor

film, the camera was set up on a dollie in a corner of

the studio, so that he was unaware the camera was running.

Without giving him a chance to ask questions about the 37

procedure, I would ask him questions about the studio. In the case of Marca-Relli, he immediately began to show us how he went ^bout his painting. Even though this did not follow the planned approach. I decided not to interfere, as I felt It was more important to preserve the artist’s personality. This would allow the audience to see the artist as he v/as, rather than seeing him as the director might make him appear. The section on the artist was by far the most tedious, although it lasted the least amount of time. The brevity of this segment often brought on a degree of amazement from the artist, at first not quite

realizing that v;e had been filming, and later dis-

satisfied that he had not better portrayed himself.

The third section involved filming the artist's work. This part of the filming day was the longest, absorbing the remainder of daylight hours. In the case of

Alfonso Ossorio and also with Bernard Rosenthal, these parts ran over to one or two extra days. Since we filmed this portion without the presence of the artists, the artist first had to be convinced that we were capable of handling this responsibility. This was not the easiest part of our work. Permission granted, we began the process of filming each piece of work in the artist's studioi in most cases work would be carefully stored in a section of the studio, sometimes crated or wrapped. The piece 38 had to he unwrapped ^nd moved in front of our camera. At this point, using my knowledge of the artist* s work, I would work with the camera man trying different approaches to the filming, I'/iarca-Relli ’ s canvases were assembled pieces of material that he had carefully chosen. The paintings were composed of lesser sym.bols together forming a single distinctive identity. An effort was made to film all of the specifically identifiable internal symbols, as well as the grouping of them together. The size of the studio was an obstacle, however. It was so small that we were only able to film one painting at a time. For this reason most of our visual effects had to be produced later, in the editing room.

The problem in filming ^'arca-Relli ’ s collage technique was in keeping the visual moving in an interesting way over the flat surface of his medium. The voice record- ins were in poor condition because the two-hour interview v/as hindered by a lot of wind noise and rain, Mr. Marca-

Relli*s manner of speech - rapid and sibilated - was a difficult one to handle anyway, and the acoustics in the room were very live. When we left, we had completed approximately forty-five minutes of audio and 800 feet of film.

The next artist in the film was James Brooks, who had a much larger studio than did Marca-Relli . It was sepa- 39 rated from his house by several hundred yards of woods. Because of the space in the studio, we were able to try an effect which w@ later kept. This involved panning over to a large mirror on the wall and catching the studio and Mr. Brooks' reflection in it. Brooks' paintings offered distinctly different types of visual materials from those of Marca~Relli. Brooks had linear patterns that moved the eye over the surface of the paintings. We tried to reproduce this effect with the camera. The audio recording was much easier with Brooks. His house had lower ceilings and there was a great deal of furnishing as well, which helped the sound. The only real problem encountered in the Brooks filming was that the day we filmed was overcast, and there was not a sufficient amount of light to allow us to film the work properly. Later we had to ask the processing laboratory to boost this portion of the film.

Bernard Rosenthal's segment presented the most difficult problem encountered thus far. This was mainly because of the weather: on the day V7e filmed there was a heavy rainstorm. Too much was at stake in terms of sched- uling equipment and artist to cancel outright, so we decided to try to complete the filming that day. V^e used every available light we had, lighting each sculpture separately as we went. This doubled the amount of time it took to finish the necessary footage. It was also dif- 40

ficult to film RoBSBthal's studio because of the massive size of the equipment he used. However some of his sculpture moved, and all gave off attractive reflections which permitted aimpler static camera shots to achieve moving visual effects. The artist asked us to incorporate two large pieces he had in Manhattan. This entailed an additional trip to New York City, to one in St. Marks Plaza and another on 58th Street.

The film of the piece in St. M.arks Plaza presented a unique problem; it was being used as a gathering place for young residents of the area. We had a difficult time vacating them from the square in order to film the sculpture. One of the crew demonstrated how the huge block- cube sculpture could be moved around on its axis in the filmed sequence. The eight-foot wide brass circle located on 58th Street was an extremely enjoyable piece to film for the weather was perfect, and reflections of the sur- rounding architecture on the surface gave off some beautiful visual effects. We discovered that the crowd of people on the street was more interested in the camera than the sculpture; only one individual vfas really curious enough to stop and look at what we were filming. We captured this person's inquisitive manner and later made this into a freeze-frame section for this portion of the film. 4l

The impact of Alfonso Ossorio’s work 1 b almost overwhelmed by the enviroiiment in which he lives. He has a fine collection of art, both sculpture and painting, as well as other highly decorative objects in his home. Upon entering the grounds I was immediately struck by the care- rul design of the environment. I could have spent several weeks just filming the visual material I found there. The interior of the house, as well as the studio, offered

equivalent visual excitement - enough for a long film, I thought. Our major problem was to keep in accord with filming our regular format, A great deal of visual discrimination had to be exercised.

Ossorio's studio \7as poorly lit and this again re-

quired boosting of the film by the processing laboratory. An attempt was made to relate the objects found in the studio to the objects in the artist's work, thereby suggesting the relationship between studio environment and the work, which seemed more closely entifined than with the other artists we had filmed. The continuity of Alfonso

Ossorio's lifestyle and his work was a striking singularity of this artist. The other homes and studios seemed un- related to the artists' lives, as if the work they did existed independent of the way they lived. Occasionally the other artists used their paintings and sculpture as decor. Ossorlo's -fork Beemed to blend Into the Interior of his home making a complete environment. Estabaa Vicente worked in a small studio behind his house. At the time we filmed him, he had ^ust finished preparing for a show he was to have in the fall. The delicate quality of the material he used and his emphasis on fine visual design demanded a great deal of close-up camera work. As v/ith the other artists I tried to pick the most visually important aspects of his work. V/ith

Vicente, I was interested in the edges. The edges of the collages determined the linear structure which held the form-space relationship together in his work. Later on in the editing process an attempt was made to visually remind the viewer - by intermitting long and close shots of the paintings (flash cuts) - how the edges delineated the forms of the whole composition. The voice recording was not difficult. I-!r. Vicente’s unusual pattern of speech seemed to lend color to the conversation, is with the rest of the film the strategy of the editing of the voice recording was to enhance the visual. The visual experience was primary, sound playing a supportive role. Because of the manner in v/hich Mr. Vicente worked, the studio itself did not offer much visual material. Most of our film time V7S.2 concentrated on the collages themselves. 43

Through an acquaintance, I had met a composer who worked with abstract sounds, composing different pieces for commercials la New York City. I discussed the film with him, and he expressed an interest in doing the music track. The process of creating a music track was almost as involved as the taking of the film footage. Once the bubIc track vjas composed, musicians and a conductor had to be found, a sound stage had to be rented, and the music recorded. Some controversy arose between myself and the composer over the quality of the music. I had a particular kind of music in mind. I did not want a recognizable

theme. I was determined to minimize the possibility of the audience attaching any symbolism from the music. The abstract quality of the music was to act as a foil for the visual - even to be discordant rather than harmonious. It was my goal that the audience should be involved with the visual and that the audio part of the film would act to support a strong response to the visual element but without stigmatising it or suggesting cliche reactions. The association of audio and event is one that seemed particularly strong at this time in our culture. The question

"Try to remember where you were when you first heard this song?" is particularly habitual in the generation that I thought would be involved in watching the film, and I particularly wanted to avoid that type of association. 44

After a great deal of discussion with the composer, we arrived at a suitable ausic track. However, I made the mistake of having the composer at the sound mix. The sound mix is a complicated operation in a sound studio ia New York City. The studio is set up with a great deal of liighly sophisticated electronic equipment. The equipment records the various tracks, such as the sound, the music and the voice tracks, and places them onto one single track which is then transferred to the optical track. The studio itself is an auditorium plus an enormous electronic panel - the editing hoard. Here the mixer sat along ;d.th the producer and the director. Right below a screen was the frame counter, which clicks off the number of frames con- tained in the visual, so that erne can go back to any part of the film and rework the music - bringing it up, down, putting in the voice, or taking it out, etc. Having had no experience at this aspect of film-making, I allowed the

technician who was doing the mixing to take most of his cues from the composer. Therefore in the first mix the music dominated the visual and this was the antithesis of my objective. Another mix had to be scheduled and the music remixed. The cost of mixing is approximately one hundred and ten dollars an hour. This exerts a great deal of pressure on the independent filmmaker. For this reason 45

the composer should pot be admitted to the mixing session. Boring a second mix I followed this procedure and altered the music track to my standards.

With the sound track completed, the optical print was made. The optical track, along with the visual, was sent to a laboratory for an answer print. An answer print is one of the series of prints which comes back for final corrections. An answer print is usually a little more expensive than the final release print. It is extremely difficult to find a laboratory that will deal vrith a small production and still give the satisfaction that is desired. I had decided on a New York laboratory. Laboratories in New York work on a cash-and-carry basis. If a print comes back that does not meet the standards set by the director, there is no recourse -vrith the laboratory.

% first experience with the laboratories in New York City was a disaster. The answer print came back dirty. Vfe checked the original and that was also dirty. Somehow the lab technicians had not cleaned the original print, and in the processing got it even dirtier. There seemed to be a possibility that they had also scratched the original badly enough so that it might be unusable. This would have meant that all of our efforts had been in vain. I then took the lab work to a smaller local laboratory in Massa- 46

ohusotts. They, la turn, cleaaed the orl£lnal, roffiovlDg cost of the dirt. Two answer prints later, I oaoe up with satisfactory print, the one which I am now using as ny fiBal version.

In the smaller laboratory I worked ifith the laboratory technicians to correct the different light levels in the answer prints. This is a slow process and one where good communication must be established betweea the person who is doing the timing, and the person v7ho knows what the color should be and how it should look. Most laboratory technicians have a fixed attitude about how color should appear. In working with art and art objects, it is essential that the director or someone in the original crew, who is sensitive to the colors in the paintings and the sculpture, come in and work with the laboratory technician, in order to correct the various light levels and the quality of color in the film.

Looking back on the completed production process,

I realized several things. Reading or classroom experience

alone could never have completely prepared me for the vaga-

ries of film production. I thought at the time that a written description of my experience might provide some of that background to others interested in similar pro-

jects. Still the exact nature of the multitude of probLaas

Involved in producing a film cannot be perfectly predicted 47 in advance. Therefore the j individual must remain flexible enough to ad;}ust to the various situations and solve each new problem as it arises. The producing of a film was the most creatively taxing experience that I had ever encountered, while at the same time being a completely exhilarating experience. 48

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE FILMING FROChSS

'Ihis section is devoted to discussion of various aspects of specific questions raised in the proposal. The discussion is based on the experience of making the film.

There had to be a means of determining which artists would be used in both the pilot and the dissertation films. The initial method of selection was based on exhibition success and reputation. The latter is measured in part by art periodicals, newspaper articles and books.

Art periodicals such as "Arts," "Art News," "Art in

America," "Art International" and "Art Forum" offer only spotty coverage of the contemporary fine art culture.

"The New York Times" as well as other large newspapers generally run articles on artists* exhibitions in their

Sunday editions. Publishers such as Abrans Press will publish a book on an artist, for example the recent one on Alfonso Ossorio. These sources were used as a determining factor in choosing subjects for the films. However these publications in no way give a comprehensive picture of the art world. A one-Bian show in some of the New York galleries has become a certifying factor authenticating the individual as an artist. It is important to understand the gallery system of New York where more art galleries are located than in all the rest of the United States or in a combination of any of the large cities of Europe. Although they number in the hundreds, only a portion of the New York galleries deal with contemporary American artists. Of these galleries an oven smaller number are reputable, a fact of which the artists themselves are more avrare than Is the viewing public. A non-reputable gallery in most

Instances is labeled a vanity gallery, that is, one which is actually paid to show an artist's work. This payment is not usually an "out front" contract but is disguised in required monies for brochures, mailing, gallery rent, framing, etc. The vanity galleries are seldom reviewed in the newspapers or the art magazines. Those who appear in these galleries are usually art teachers from outside the New York area, doctors’ wives or wealthy individuals seeking prominence or promotion. This is not to say that

"reputable" galleries are not influenced by wealthy artists and their influential friends. Even art magazines, critics and newspaper personalities have been known to 50

form cliques to push their Art-Artist, findiug co- operative museums to hack their whims, thus authorisiug a movement.

An outsider - one >rho does not maintain New York gallery-oocial contacts - no matter how familiar he may be with the literature, could not possibly form a theory about the art of our contemporary culture. Art world literature most normally has a bias. The critic can tell the artists what to do by identifying the artists whose work is approximately an expression of the critic's own concept and by this means will attempt to influence their directions. If co-operation Is established he then becomes the literary spokesman of the group of artists. The result of this is an Illustrated article, a corporate interplay which is projected into the public consciousness where hopefully it will arouse an archetypal response that will eventually result in sales. So survival for the artist and critic, these days, has evolved into a corporate relationship In which fame is the amplification of a personality by means of media.

History is being written on a day-to-day basis. SoEe historical figures are alive today. For this reason, to respond to one's culture necessitates a thorough background to differentiate between vanity artists and those chosen for the film who have achieved real success in terms of their profession. 51

The exploration of the art galleries in New York and the research of art periodicals and recently published books narrowed the field of choice. A further discrimination of artists suitable for the film depended on two main factors: availability and location. It was common knowledge to those in the art world that the Hamptons in Long Island were a haven for a ma;3ority of New York artists. Historically, many European artists temporarily lived in that area during the war years, under the auspices of Lucia i'^ilcox. Jackson Pollack was an early settler, as was William LeKooning, who still resides in Namaganset, Long Island, These artists attracted others until there were more prominent artists in this area than anywhere else in the world. Because some of the artists live in the Hamptons year-round, and some only in the summer, W’hile others have both a home there and a studio and apartment in New York City, summer was the most appropriate time to film.

Of all the artists asked to be in the film, only

one, Adolf Gotlieb, refused; Due to financial limitations,

my choices for the final film included only five artists.

The reason for choosing these five was finally centered on the visual relationships of the various art works within the footage shot. A variety of style and kinds of v;ork, as well as audio considerations, played a role la determin- 52

ing who would finally appear. Some of the footage shot was overly didactic and a "how to" film was not intended. Other footage could not be cut into a six minute format or could not fit sequentially with previous segments. The final decision of which artists to use was difficult but hope remained that funding would appear to allow a series of such films to be made.

The complexities of our contemporary life are

matched by the social nuances in the arts which history

usually does not reveal. The "fame after death" era has

passed with the encroachment of media. An Orwellian type

of art history sponsored by media has replaced the authen-

tication by history books. Today, no matter how valuable

.the aesthetics of the artist may be by historical standards,

they will have little effect if any on the art world unless

their impact on the public consciousness is affected by

media. Art without media is nonexistant, thus the role of

the media makers is of enormous importance. They are the

popularizers of our fine art culture and ultimately the

new wave of art educators.

The application of media technology can be a means

of improving art education. Filming can become a tool in

art education by collecting, preserving and dissem.inating

aspects of our Modern Art culture inasmuch as documenting

it "as-it-happens" is the kind of reporting that avoids 53 some kinds of errors peculiar to later reconstructions of data. Data that decreases error must Improve awareness of art. "Film is a hot medium." says McLuhan. "the state of being well filled with data." Print alone is incapable of translating art data, as art is primarily visual. Consider- ing that a picture is worth a thousand words and that l6mm film gives 2h pictures a second, the enormous amount of visual data conveyed by film cannot be matched by print media. This in turn eliminates the problems of vocabulary, as translation from picture to word is eliminated. Where artists have dehumanized their work, in the sense that familiar literary references and allusions are missing, there is no need for literary explication. The vjritten word has not kept pace with the artists’ technology. Sociologists have recognized that "the movies, of course, are boundary-anniliilatory form, easily transmissible past linguistic and cultural barriers, as well as barriers of literacy," Abstract Expressionism is an example of a movement involved in ridding art of its literary connec-

^David Riesman, "The Oral Tradition, The Written Word, and The Screen Image," The Oral Tradition . The Wri tten W ord . and The Screen Image (Yellow Springs, Ohioi The Antioch Press, 1955) t p. 30, 54 tioDS and moving it to a non-verbal plateau. The dissertation film is composed of artists who are essentially Abstract Expressionists. Other advantages of film versus linguistic reporting lie in the documenting process of film wherein the complete context of the artist, his studio and his work may be examined by the viewer. It puts the artist and his work in a space-time relationship which will not occur again, as the artist's vrork changes with his chronology. Film tends to fix this chronology, allo'.d.ng the viewer to make connections with the artist's words at the time his work is completed. In the dissertation film a definite attempt was made to direct the viewer towards a visually educated experience. This was accomplished by limiting the dialogue and introducing abstract sounds in 'its place.

Furthermore, a filmmaker sensitive to the artist can, through his direction and editing, act as an educated eye by focusing the viewer's attention and thereby drawing a definite visual map. The camera can act as an extension of his educated eye by being trained upon the art object so as to Indicate how it may profitably be examined.

In the proposal it is stated that "rather than accepting and actually encouraging our fine art culture, education seems to passively resist change," but now as a result of the experiences of making the film, the 55

educational community appears more receptive to change. There is a desire on the part of educators to accept our contemporary fine art culture and communicate aspects of this culture to students. The available resources make this process difficult, and in this lies a hidden opportunity for film. Ten years ago there were 126,000 l6mm projectors in American secondary schools. ^ Today there are less than a dozen films on contemporary American artists. The proportion of hardware to software - projectors to film - is descriptive of the need for resource material. With the resultant experiences of the pilot film, it is assured that change could be effected if a marketable set of resource materials could be pro-

duced. To produce software suitable for resource

material, it is essential to carefully consider the

format and concepts of the film production. The pilot

film acted as the tool in manufacturing the format for the

dissertation film. Experience with the technical aspects

of production and the manipulation of the various pieces

^Feter H. Rossi and Bruce J. Biddle, The New Media and Ediicationi Their Imcact on Society (New Yorki A Doubleday Anchor Book, 19^7 ) , pT 206. 2 National Information Center for Education, op.cit. 56

of equipment laid the foundation for the physical aspects of the production. The method used in making the dissertation film was the result of a research process analogous to the one mentioned previously in connection with determining which artists were suitable for the film. Familiarity with the literature in the field of art education did not reveal the complexities and scope of the problems at a practical level. The approach involved the use of the pilot film as an instrument to measure public opinion by taking it to conventions as well as showing it to various college and high school groups.

Thus an opportunity was afforded to confront large numbers of people on a face-to-face basis. Each time the film was shown an exchange of ideas took place and the feed- back v/as noted. After several thousand individuals had seen the film and hundreds had responded, the concepts for the dissertation film emerged. The clarity of the concepts behind the film did not mean that they could be easily communicated in the film. It was determined that the film be innovative in technique and content; that the artists* work be handled with respect, carefully consider- ing color and giving time to each piece; that the rrtist should be seen and heard making statements on his lifestyle, his work and his thoughts on education; that the film be both entertaining and informative; that the art- 57

ist*s work be shown in the context of his studio; that the artist's materials be shown; and finally, that the film impart a truthful impression of contem.porary art. A certain amount of filmmaking is not adaptable to specific story-boarding and a film approached from a documentary point-of-view cannot be totally pre-planned, yet these concepts play a major role in every aspect of the dissertation film.

It was important to create and maintain visual involvement throughout the film. This was accomplished by the careful consideration of the type of work the artist did and of his placement in the film. Because of the complexity of the film, and in keeping with the endeavor to maintain visual involvement, its format and concepts had to be thoroughly understood by the crew. Certain kinds of shots were tried in order to create special effects. In some cases these were a product of editing and in others a combination of both camera work and editing. In the former there were less variables and therefore more control. The time available to the editing process was not restricted as it was in the shooting of the film and more than equaled the time spent on location.

It is important to analyse the major elements and special effects of the film managed both with the 58

camera and through the editing process. These effects are not entirely unique should filmmaking be considered in a broad historical-technical sense. In the case of this

particular kind of film., which was documentary in style,

concerning artists in our fine art culture, such effects have not appeared before. The attitude behind the use of

these effects was similar to one expressed by Parker Tyler

in The Film Sense and the Painting Sense . ^ that being "con-

trolled spectatorship. *' It is, of course, perfectly possible to be present without "seeing" a v/ork of art, without imaginatively comprehending it. To the extent that my camera is an eye, it represents the responsibility

of an artist to reveal imaginative content. The analogical

•term in writing is the author's "point-of-view. " The purpose is to organize the information into an aesthetic experience, neutrality of the eye, like objectivity in science, being merely a fiction. Eisenstein treated his films as though they were paintings, "Analysis of these com- positions shows the lasting effects on Eisenstein of his early experience as designer of abstract-geometric stage

^Parker Tyler, "The Film Sense and the Painting

» Sense," Persrectives USA (April 1955 ) i P* 97 59

sets. Actual motifs of Kandinsky’s imagery are discovered in Ivan."l (The film Ivan the Terr ihlp) The special effects are used in the film as a device to hold the attention of the viewer. Before they are analysed it should he made clear that the entire film is composed of visual effects; therefore only the most distinctive will explained.

In the first segment of the film, that concerning

Conrad Marca-Relli, a technique called “step framing" was used. This is an editing technique best used with footage of diagonal pans. Single frames are repeated by the laboratory and. pieced together (freeze framing), visually staggering the movement in the direction of the camera pan. The number of frames used determines the length of time each image appears in the film and thereby controls the cadence of the effect.

Another effect used in the Karca-Relli segment, as well as throughout the film, was the freeze fram.e, which is simply a stop-action shot. The length of time the frame appears on the screen depends upon the number of single frames repeated. The most important aspect of the freeze frame is its length and relative time placement in

^Ibid. 60

the film. A subtle balance must be maintained between the freeze frame and the rest of the footage, as too many freeze- frame segments tend to lessen their effectiveness. In the Brooks section a series of flash cuts (short flashbacks) were used. Ihis is an editing technique that uses either freeze frames or a long segment of footage suitable for cutting into smaller sequences. The flash-cut can be used effectively in several different irays: in the Brooks section it acted as a visual referent. When using a slow close-up pan over the detail in a painting, the

flash-cuts maintained a visual record of the entire paint-

ing. They were used in a similar manner in the Vicente

section. Here the flash cut was not only used as a

referent but also as a visual device to break up a banal

piece of footage. The flash cut takes footage out of

sequence to give a ’’movie sense” to v?hat is normally thought of as still-sub;]ect matter, ifhen filming still-sub;3ect matter it can be economical to shoot more film than necessary in anticipation of using some out of sequence. Should there be a shortage of footage, the freeze-frame method can be used, but it is an expensive substitute.

One notev7orthy sequence of footage was particularly difficult to shoot, despite the freedom of movement offered to the camera by the size and layout of Brooks' studio.

This sequence involved catching the action of Mr. Brooks 61

through a mirror. The shot was Intended to break away from the scale-ambiguous spatial of the studio, hoping thereby to bring more dimension to the subject. The shot was planned so that the camera would zoom out from the mirror. The reverse happened, yet the footage was in-

corporated in the film. To a degree the camera was rehearsed, even though the majority of the footage was

shot in documentary style. Maintaining good camera position vTas difficult while 'vraitlng for Mr. Brooks to enter the area where the mirror could catch his reflection.

Because there was no voice recording while the camera was

shooting, it was possible to give direction and guide the artist around his studio through a series of questions.

This was the technique most generally used in addition to keeping the camera as inconspicuous as possible.

The Rosenthal footage was composed of additional camera-oriented effects concentrating on the reflective

surface of his sculpture. The camera and lights vrere positioned to obtain the effects of the reflected light.

The larger New York City sculpture required a camera tilt to catch its reflective quality. In this case several opportunities were available leaving a choice as to the kind of reflection to appear on film. The building reflection, which was similar to reflections of light in his studio, was chosen to maintain continuity. The large 62

square sculpture In St. Marks Plaza which opened and closed the film was tied to the studio footage hy the editing process. The shot of a photograph on Rosenthal's studio wall

of the St. Marks sculpture helped to make the transition between locations. Again, freeze framing V7as used in the

Rosenthal segment, this time to emphasize the accuracy exhibited by the artist at work.

Ossorlo’s studio and sculpture offered an overwhelmii^

variety of camera effects. Consequently more than the

normal amount of footage was shot there, not to mention

that shot in his gallery. The editing was difficult be-

cause of the variety of visual choices. Again, because

the style of the film was documentary, few of the camera

shots were set up. This made the follow-focus shot of

the hand in Ossorio's studio more interesting. It meant

co-ordinating the movements of assistance to the camera man, following the focus on camera while using a tilting

shot from one “hand" to the other. The assistant camera

man had to know where the focus on the second object was

according to the markings on the lens. The tilt was timed to produce a sharp focus at the moment the shot ended.

Ossorlo footage was the last taken and the crew's effi-

ciency was at its peak, yet had the natural light of the

studio needed supplementing there would not have been time to set up this shot. It was constantly necessary 63 to evaluate not only the kind of footage being shot, but also whether these shots would be in keeping with the artist's work and previous cai^era work. Because of the three- dimensional quality of Ossorio's work, a hand-held camera was used. The camera could then move in and around the appendages of the sculptures, not only adding movement but also accentuating the space captured by the free- standing sculpture. Visual sequences were repeated by both editing and the camera because of the complexity of visual objects in Ossorio's work.

In the Vicente segm.ent there were variations in the flash cuts and freeze frames, but the most important special effect was in the audio and not visual editing. Rather than playing it down, Vicente's manner of speaking was used to advantage and was most interesting. Hour or longer tapes of each artist were edited to several minutes, with the first section of voice repeated to recall attention to what the artist was saying. Another attention getting device was to speed up a section, garble the words and keep the pace moving at a rate approximating the visual. The emphasis of a single word often used in the conversation

ended the verbal sequence i "rightl”

A visual experience contains other important aspects besides the special effects previously discussed and is similar to a revelation in that it requires some prior ^

conditioning. Looking at a work of art could be a meaning- less event without a proper foundation based on experiences both intellectual and visual. A major factor in perception is the motivation of the viewer. . . «As a man is, so he see,” said William Blake.

This phenomenon has been called the "Honi” effect, because it was first observed by an especially devoted couple, one of whom vms nicely named "Honi.” It illustrates that perception and perceptual com- promise are strongly affected by motivational variables. The very simple com.ment that "we see what we want to see" and do not see what we do not want to see has a finer basis in experience and laboratory experimentation. The Honi effect demonstrates ex- perimentally the phenomenon that is implied by the familiar statement "love is blind.” In this context, of course, it would be more correct to say that love affects perception, but the end result and meaning are the same in both cases.

How motivation can be produced is in itself a question

that extends beyond the limits of this project. Color

fii.m with sound is considered a hot medium, that contains

inherent motivating factors. The use of film as an

^Herschel W. Leibowitz, Visual Perception . (The

• Macmillan Company, New York, 19^5) » P* 65

intellectual stimulus in producing a series of visual experiences for the student poses itself as a good rationale for education.

The documentary style of filming affects both the visual and the audio portions of the film. In the dis-

sertation film a technique called ”voice-over’' v/as used

in the audio track. This technique illuminates the synchronization of the visual with the work of the artist.

The reason behind the use of this process was to emphasize the visual experience, reserving the audio as a compliment.

The voice-over technique was exceedingly more convenient because of equipment, and aesthetic reasons. Lip synchronization in film requires equipment which would have complicated the production, lengthened the shooting time, required m.ore film, required more laboratory processing and involved additional editing time. These factors would in themselves appear sufficient for deciding to seek out a more expeditious way of using audio with visual, but in this particular film they v/ere not the deciding factors.

Few artists consider the factors of time and money when concentrating of the aesthetics of a project, and the dissertation film was not an exception. The voice-over technique appeared mainly as an aesthetic process producing the necessary balance of visual and audio. The verbal flow, as experienced by most viewers of lip- 66

syncnronizGd filin, in soni© C3.s8s pr'Bjudicss a visual 6X—

perience. Therefore the voice track v/as deliberately

edited and mixed to act as intercedent for the visual ex-

perience .

The sound track portion of the audio was one of

the most difficult aspects of the film. Even after a

lengthy search, appropriate sound could not be found.

The preproduced sound for media, used in the pilot film,

was not suitable because of its familiarity. For similar

reasons, other examples of contemporary music would carry

recognizable connotations. Therefore it v/as decided to

have the sound-music track composed. The type of composer

and the style of music were determined from ideas rein-

. forced by many conversations with viewers of the pilot

film. The consensus of opinion was that the paintings

should speak for themselves, that neither a voice record-

ing nor a music track should compete with the visual

experience. The type of music to be composed was abstract,

free of habitual associations and purified of conventional

standards. The visual elements of the already edited

footage stimulated the composing of the sound-music track,

but no logical attempt was made to coordinate sound with

visual activity. At the "mix," the level of the sound-

m.usic track was adjusted to the visual. Previous 6 ?

experience with the pilot film showed that little if any music should accompany the voice track. In the final analysis the music-sound track played a dual role. In some instances it acted as a complement to the visual (e.g., the Rosenthal sequence), and in others as a jolting con-

trast to the evenness of the visual (e.g., the Brooks sequence).

The last aspect dealt with in this section of analy-

sis is the obtaining of releases. Thanks to a story by

Dr. David Coffing, the importance of obtaining releases was realized. The release form should be a legal document, in the sense that a lawyer should be consulted as to its preparation. Too lengthy a release will have a tendency to frighten the talent. The best time for the artist to sign was found to be immediately after completion of the interview, as the verbal rapport established therein made it less difficult to get a signature. The occasional mistake of forgetting to get a release signed cost many inconvenient hours. Sending a release through the mail was found to be definitely a mistake. The form should be printed on a letter-head of the producer. The members of the crew should be the first persons to sign the release.

V/hen the artists were filmed, some needed a great deal of skillful encouragement before they would sign. A dated, signed and witnessed release, with one copy for the art- 1st, was a pre-requisite for having the footage processed The importance of this small but significant fact is the reason for leaving it to the end, hoping that it would be more easily remembered by anyone attempting a project of this kind. 69

CHAPTER V

SUKIViARY, CONCLUSIONS, IF<;FL1 CATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There were questions in the dissertation proposal

that did yield conclusive answers. The foremost question

was whether or not film could be a feasible means of com-

municating our contemporary fine art culture. Film can

be a feasible means of communicating our contemporary fine

art culture under certain conditions. Aside from the as-

sumption that an individual has the drive and ability,

there are two important determining factors » money and

time. The cost of producing a film can vary greatly and

will diminish with experience. Also, the kind of pro-

duction will vary the cost, i.e. lip synchronization versus

voice over. The dissertation film cost $13f906.54; the

pilot film $ 2 , 858 . 80 . The per minute cost of the dis-

sertation film was $421.41; the pilot film $143.00 per minute. The difference in production can be distinguished

by the per minute costs. The pilot film was by far in-

ferior in terms of sound and materials. The sound was free

and the film was outdated, two factors that were impossible

to repeat in the dissertation film. The accessibility of

the artists* work in the galleries and the lighting there made shooting the pilot film easier and cheaper. The other

reason why the dissertation film was more expensive was the 70

filming of sixteen artists using 15,000 feet of film, out of which only five artists and approximately 1,200 feet of film were finally used. Fortunately, other aspects of the

dissertation film compensated for this: the low cost

involved in maintaining a crew and the loan of equipment.

The costs were lower, however, than projected figures for

an average production, approximately .1^22.19 lower per

minute. Based on my experience, $500 per minute should be budgeted to start from scratch.

I strongly doubt that I would have begun the project

had I figured my costs in the beginning. Even though I

was aware of various basic figures, I was confident through

about the first six months that I would spend as little as

$200 per minute. Unrealistic as this figure may now seem,

it took com.pletion of the actual experience to convince me

it could not be done any less expensively. Obviously,

therefore, outside funding should be obtained.

In hindsight my procedures v/ould have changed. The

drive to create would have been dampened considerably by

the knowledge of my expenditures. The making of the pilot

film and its exposure to the various convention groups

would remain as initial exploratory moves. The pilot film

acted as an invaluable learning experience both in the

technology of filmmaking and in determining the philosophy behind the dissertation film. 71

The point where the pilot film was completed and audience previewed would have been the ideal Juncture to have stopped the project. With the project stopped, I could have waited until funding was found before beginning the dissertation film. As it was, I only allowed three months for this, yet I would argue that it was not a mistake from a creative point of view. The creative process, once begun, seems to generate an enormous amount of drive, and short term goals appear exceedingly more important than future ones. If the process is Interrupted for any length of time, it is almost Impossible to re- generate enthusiasm for these same goals. The time-space factors can alter an individual drastically enough so that he V7ill scrap an old project for a new direction. The artist ax^are of this pitfall usually persists in his direction, fearing that if he does not he may never leave the starting gate.

A more sober approach would have been a more determined search for funding. Even though I did speak to a great many individuals in the business world, as well as spend $1,000 on a legal firm for this same reason, I was unable to push the project over the fine line of finding funding and having funding. The area of finding backing 72

and marketing a product was approached \rlth the same in- tensity as was the production of the film, i will simply list the firms approached in Appendix K. The time factor in producing a film is second in importance. The pilot film took 586 man hours, not including preparation and time spent evaluating concepts for the dissertation film during various conventions. The dissertation film took 2,848 man hours, which does not include preparation time or time spent attempting to secure funding. The man hour figures are misleading if one is attempting to calculate the time needed for this type of

project. It vrould be more correct to look at the dis-

sertation film in terms of an eleven month involvement.

Travel time, time spent in laboratories, preparing for

production and delays in production all contribute to the

eleven month period. The man hour break down could be

used in a work estimate, while any additional time can

be attributed to the involvement most creative endeavors

demand •

The conclusions as to whether or not film is suit-

able for communicating a visual experience lie in the

viewers’ responses to both the pilot film and the dis-

sertation film. As a result of making the pilot film,

there were many questions that were inexplicably a part of a dialogue established between the viewers and myself. 73

During this dialogue it became apparent that film vras a suitable medium for communicating a visual experience. Furthermore, there was a definite need for film in the area I had chosen. Certain skills in the area of filmmaking would have to be acquired before undertaking a pro;]ect of this type. Many of the skills would have to have a foundation outside an institution, because the time a person spends in an institution is not adequate for him to acquire a3,l the skills necessary. If the project vrere to be done within an educational format

institution, that institution vrould have to be more than amenable, it would have to be supportive.

It is obvious that there would have to be a purpose behind a project of this kind. That purpose, however, would have to be more than one suggested by some research in the field. It would have to be based on phllo- sophlcal concepts nourished by professional experience.

Given money, time, a supportive institution and purpose, it could be concluded that Individuals could affectively document their contemporary fine art culture. It is inevitable that at some time in the future, with the ever increasing growth of technology, society will realize that its contemporary fine art culture can be communicated as part of the educational experience. 74

APPENDIX A

Letter to and Answer from Dunathan and Rottman concerning dissertations reported in non-print media .

Heath. Hass. 01546 July 8, 1070 Hr. Arni 4. Dunathan li.'iss Betty Cook Aottman University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri

Dear Mro Dunathan and Miss Rottman:

Would you please send to me a copy of A Survey of the Acce ptabi lity to Selected Graduate Schools of These^and Dissertations Reported In Konurin t eoia V

I am. a doctoral student in The School of Education at the University o^ Massachusetts. I have made a 53 minute 16 mm color with sound film which I intend to use as my dissertation. Because I am the first student to submit nonprint media for a dissertation I anticipate som.e difficulty. I v;ould therefore appreciate any help you. can give. Specifically, I would be very interested in examining the types of justifications submitted by students who completed their dissertatio.ns in the form of film. For that reason I could use with profit a bibliography of dissertations based on films.

Our survey did not request any information v;hich allows us to assemble the kind of bibliography you desire.

Unfortunately, neither Mrs. Rottman nor I have had time to transcribe our research notes into anything other than the abstract which is on microfilm with ERIC. VJe will probably not produce a full report until our schedules ease this fall.

In the meantime , I think you can say with confidence that the acceptability of nonprint reports of research by Graduate Schools is generally high PROVIDED THAT adequate documentation accompanies such a report. All dissertations of which we are presently aware have been accompanied by a printed list of sources and other data. Nonprint has been used to report the conduct of the researcli study and to illustrate its findings

Dr. Arni T. Dunathan / Assistant Professor of Education 76

appendix b

Response from Schools: a survey of the acceptability of film as a dissertation 77

Heath, lO.ass. 013h6 Sept. 1st, 1970

University of Ohio Coller^e of Fine Arts Pilrn Fror"ram Athens, Ohio 4^701

Hear Sir:

I am anxiorsly awaitino; a rerly to a letter written to you July 8 th inquiring under what conditions a film would be acceptable as a sole or partial fulfillment for a dissertation.

A thesis film is the requirement for work ending in an H.F.A. in film; ^ ocesis is optional. The Ph, D, in Comoarative Arts, of "hi ch film can be a part, reouires ^ schol-rly work, ilote that admission to the Ph. D, program generallm requires periormance/u-ork in one or more media—this coiild be a thesis film or an3'" creative uork in film. It is possible that a film might b-^: accepted as partial f-„afj.llment of dissertation requirements althoudn the workable arrangement here that studio woric in any art focuses on the M. F.i A. level; scholarly performance is the center of Ph. D, work, I \ /ip*

0. L. Anderson, Director Film Program 78

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SCHOOL OF CO^^ MUiNICATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712

Department of Radio/Television/Film P. O. Box 7158 July 24, 1970 (512) 471-1511

Mr . T erry K rumm Heath, Massachusetts 0I34A

Dear Mr . Krumm;

I have just returned from overseas and found your letter asking under what conditions would it be possible to present a film as a sole or partial fulfillment for dissertation. In the meantime, I think some information has been sent to you regarding our graduate program. Let me add, however, that under the newly revised program it is quite possibje to present a film as a sole or partial fulfillment for dissertation. But,, is very difficult to outline what specific conditions are necessary. In general, of course, the student would have had to show a considerable degree of skill in filmmakingjyou would have to have a film of exceptional quality and imagination and also, of course, financing. More than likely the student would also be required to write some sort of report or analysis of the film which would indicate what goals were achieved and what things were learned from the film project.

Let me add, however, that this is not an easy route. While we have instituted a program which makes such a film dissertation possible we have yet to present such a proposal to the Graduate School for their

approval . This should be forthcoming.

S incerely yours/

Ted Perry, Acting Chairman Department of Radio/Television/Film

TP/pjc 79 the OHIO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS . ATHENS, OHIO . 45701 Office of the Director of the Film Program

January 9, 1971

Terry Krumm Heath, Mass, 01346

Dear Mr. Krumm:

Enclosed is information concerning graduate work in film at Ohio University. Other information will be sent to you under separate cover.

You may pursue doctoral level studies through the Comparative Arts program here, and, dependent upon the particular studies you undertake, you may be able to use film as a substantial part of your thesis. On the MFA level you would be able to complete such a studio project.

If I can give you more assistance, please write.

Cordially yours, A /lUlUli'

George S. Semsel Professor of Film , r

80 SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AT CLAREEVIONT, CALIFORNIA FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AT COLLEGE AVENUE / (714) 626-3521 91711 September 23, 1970

Mr. Terry Krumm Heath, Massachusetts 01346

Dear Mr. Krumm:

Your letter of September 1 has come to my attention. I assume that your earlier letter had been forwarded to Professor Jack Coogan who is presently on sabbatical leave in Europe.

The faculty of the School of Theology has accepted films in partial fulfillment of a Master's thesis and is prepared to do so in connection with a professional doctoral dissertation. The matter is presently under discussion and a formal statement is being prepared. In short, the direction of the thinking of the faculty in this matter is that the film would necessarily be accompanied by a written statement in which the technical, theo- logical, and critical problems related to the production itself would be thoroughly discussed and defended.

I will be happy to pursue this matter with you at greater length if you will indicate just how I might be helpful.

Cordially

F. Thomas Trotter Dean

FTT:jg

cc: Dr. Howard Smith THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Madison 53706 lARTMENT OF SPEECH 81

August 11, 1970

Mr. Terry Krumm Heath Massachusetts 01346

Dear Mr. Krumm:

Thank you for your letter of July 8, I have been out of town vaca- tioning consequently, this delay. It is possible that a film could be used for part of the work of the dissertation toward a Ph.D. degree, but we need more specific information on what you want to do. If you could sketch in your plans for graduate study and dissertation work, we could then be more responsive. I am enclosing a copy of our information that we send to prospective Ph.D. and M.A. candidates.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely

Richard G. Lawson Professor j Associate e Chairman, Radio-TV-Film 964 Van Hise Hall

RGL : mm Enclosures THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY department of photography and cinema HASKETT HALL 82 156 WEST 19TH AVENUE COLUMBUS, OHIO 43210

July 22, 1970

Terry Krumm Heath, Massachusetts 01346

Dear Mr. Krumm:

At the Ohio State University, a film can serve as partial fulfillment of the Ph.D. dissertation. The department and^he Graduate school would require a written statement on the purposes, ba^kgrouiid and general outcomes of the film, the length and depth of which would depend upon the specific film itself.

The film, like other dissertation topics, would have to be advisor and your committee and would need to be such Illuminates some aspect of the medium, ^ attempts to open new questions about it, or approaches to film, or experiments with it in relation to other media or to specific audiences

Sincerely,

Robert W. Wagner, Professor Chairman

RlVlV/clw NOR' r H I: w S T n R • 1' N LI I 1 N V R s 1 Y nVAN'STOX, II.I.INOIS WOol 83

THi; SCHOOL oi- si>li;c;h

September 10, 1970

Mr. Terry Krum Fleath Massachusetts 01346

Dear l-Ir. Krum:

We have no record of receiving your letter of July 8.

1 night reply, however, that it is possible to submit a fil?a in lieu of a master’s thesis, although the iilin would have to be made under the supervision of a faculty member. It is not possible to submit a film in place of the dissertation on the doctorate level, however.

I hope this answers your inquiry.

Sincerely yours.

'' Charles F. Hunte^ Chairinan' ^ CFH:mg Department of Radio, Television, and Film r

iA Oh UNIVERSITY T|j,_ OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Performing Arts Division of Cinema, University Park, Los Angeles, Calif.

( 213 ) 746-2235

September 8 , 1970

Mr. Terry Krumm Heath, Mass. 01346

Dear Mr. Krumm:

In response to your letter of September 1, 1970, a film is not acceptable as sole or partial fulfillment roiT 0. QissGirtation undGr ^ny conditions. Sorry.

Sincerely

Bernard R. Kantor Chairman

BRK/jo ”esth, I'ass. 01346

July 8 , 1970

University of lennsylvania Annenberg Uchool of Cor^munications

Ihiladelphia , lennsylvania 19104

Dear Sir:

I ain interested in learning under v/hat conditions a film V\^ould be acceptable as a sole or partial fulfillment for a dissertation.

THE ANHFHBERG SChOQL OF CQMMliNICATlOhiS' Uy”’~0';iTY C'" PENNSYLVANIA PHiLAOZLi-’HIA, FLNNSYlVANIA, 19104- ,

THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240

epartment of Speech and Dramatic Art

July 16, 1970

Mr. Terry Krunun Heath, Massachusetts 01346

Dear Mr. Krumm:

In response to your letter o£ 8 July, the answer is none. For a variety of reasons, we do not accept artistic works in lieu of research for the dissertation. Our Ph.D. is a research degree and we believe that the dissertation ought to contribute to the program's purpose for each student.

We do have an M.F.A. program in the theatre division of our department and it is possible that a playwright might do a film for one of his productions. However, more generally, the student interested primarily in developing as a film-maker ought to be in our M.A. program in which we do not require a thesis, but rather encourage him to make a variety of films and to develop his talents to the maxi- mum. It seems a waste of time to me for anyone whose primary goal is to be a film-maker to get a Ph.D.

If you have other questions about our program, let me know. Cordially

Samuel L. Becker Chairman

SLB/bgs THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY 8 ?

TALLAHASSEE 32306

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION

October 1 , 1970

T erry Krumm Heath, Massachusetts 01346

Dear Mr. Krumm:

I regret that your letters arrived during a brief illness, and that it has taken me so long to answer. You do pose an interesting question.

In my judgement the , University would not at this time accept a film as the sole product to fulfill requirements for the doctoral dissertation. I think it might be interesting to experiment with the idea, but the risk to the candidate would be extremely high, and I frankly would not approve the pros- pectus for such a project without evidence of some change of attitude on the part of the College and the Graduate Office.

On the other hand, a research project built around a film might be altogether acceptable. The important point is that the dissertation should be a serious research effort, the doctoral being a research degree. Even here, there would be some risk that the particular project selected by the candidate and his committee would prove unacceptable in the defense stage. The problem of course lies in the inherent problems that arise when one does anything out of the ordinary. With good reason, scholars are suspicious of unfamiliar procedures (as opposed to unfamiliar questions or topics, which they welcome with enthusiasm); too often in the past radical departure from

proved procedures has resulted in mediocrity. This, I am afraid, has made many graduate faculty members over-cautious, to the detriment of ideas like the one you propose which, in my judgement, ought to be given a try. .

Terry Krumm 88

October 1 , 1 970 page 2

In summary, a film alone would not be acceptable for a dissertation here at the present time . A research project built around a film might be acceptable, but to launch such a project would entail more risk than an historical or experimental project. Perhaps this will give you the perspective on our program that you desire.

Sir

I y—V ly^ y-v T t ^ ^ ^ \ I - Theodore Clevenger , 'Ur . , Chairman Department of Communication

TC/jr 89

APPENDIX C

Artists* Biography and Publications 90

Biography - JAMES BROOKS

Sorn in St» Louis, F'/Iissouri, 1906 Raised in Oklahoma, Colorado, primarily ^ in Dallas, tudied with 'i'exas Nicolaides and Rohinson at the Art Students League, and with Wallace Harrison First Award, competition for Hempstead, L.I. Post Office (Section of Fine Arts), not executed Federal Arts Project, 193B-42, mural project Murals at W'oodside, Queens, Public Library, and the Marine Terminal, La Guardia Airport'; U.S, Post Office, Little Falls, N.J.

I A -. 9 2 19/45 U.S. Army, in Middle East, as Art Corresrondent - Headquarters in Cairo, travels in North Africa, Palestine, Egypt. Teaching: Columbia University I9A6-19A8 Pratt Institute I9A7-1958 Yale University Visiting Critic, Advanced Painting: 1955-56 1957-58 1959-60 New College, Sarasota, Florida - Visiting Artist 1965. 66, 67 Queens College, New York City 1966-67 1968-69 Miami Art Center 1966 Artist in Residence, American Academy in Rome 1963 One-Man Shows

Peridot Gallery 1950, 1951. 1952. 1953 Grace Borgenicht Gallery 195^ Stable Gallery 1957, 1959 Kootz Gallery 1961, 1962, 1964 ^'^hitney Museum of American Art, N.Y. Retrosrective Exhibition, travelling throughout the U.S. 1963-64 Poses Institute of Fine Arts, Brandeis University, \7altham. Mass. Baltimore Museum of Art V/alker Art Center, Minneapolis .

One~r«^an Shows (cent,. )

Washington Gallery of Modern Art, Washington,D.C Art Galleries of the Univer- sity of California, Los Angeles Philadelphia Art Alliance 1966 Martha Jackson Gallery ,N .Y . C . 1968 Berenson Gallery, Miami 1969

Award s

Carnegie International 1952 Fifth Prize Art Institute of Chicago 1957 First Painting Prize and Logan Medal Art Institute of Chicago 1961 Norman Wait Harris Silver Medal & Prize Ford Foundation Purchase Award 1962 Other Exhibitions

Whitney Annuals since 1950 American Advance Guard Exhibit, Janis Gallery, N.Y., Galerie de France, Paris, 1952 "Young American Painters," Guggenheim, 1954 "The New’ Decade," Whitney Museum of American Art, 1955 "12 Americans," Museum of Modern Art, New York,1956 Sao Paulo Biennale, 1957 "The New American Fainting," 1958-59* Shown in seven countries and at the Museum of Modern Art, New York

Osaka International , Japan, 1958 "Documenta II," Kassel, Germany, 1959 Arte Nuova, Turin, 1959 Bienal of Bellas Artes, Mexico City, i960

Carnegie International, 1952, 1955i 1958, 1961 , 1964 Abstract Expressionists and Imagists, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 196I Seattle World’s Fair, I962 Cleveland Museum, I963 San Francisco Museum, I963 V/orcester Museum, 1963 Bunn International Exhibition, New Brunswick and I^ondon, 19 6 3 Pennsylvania Academy annuals . . .

200 Years of Water Color Painting in America," Metropol- itan Iviuseum, New York Cit^r, 1966.

“Contemporary Art" 1962-65, Albright-Knox productions Buffalo. Re-

’’Paintings From the Albright-Knox Gallery/' at the National Gallery of Art, V/ashington, D.C., 1968. Color reproduction, p. 48,

"Tv/entieth Century Art From the Nelson Rockerfeller Col- Modern Art, 1969. Reproduction, p« lOo,

"The New American Painting and Sculpture, the First Gener- ation," Museum of Modern Art, 1969. "180 Beacon Collection of Contemporary Art," 1967, Re- production, p. 7.

"Van Gogh and Expressionism," Guggenheim Museum, New York City, 1964.

"The Friends Collect," V/hitney Museum, 1964. Reproduction, p . 48

"New Directions in American Painting," reproduction plate 6 .

"Sculpture and Painting Today," Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1966. Reproduction plates 10 and 11.

"American Art Since 1950," Brandeis University & Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, Reproduction, p. 15.

"Selection of Works From the Collection of the University of Nebraska," reproduction, p. 15« I963.

"Between the Fairs, 1939-64," Whitney Museum. Color plate, p. 71.

"Accessions and Proposals," Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1964. Reproduction plate 6.

"Irish Exhibition of Living Art," I9631 J • V. Sweeney.

"Art of the United States, 167O-I966," Whitney Museum, I966. 93

Museums and Public Colleotionc!

Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo Brandeis Univer-ity, Rose Art Museum, Waltham, Massachusetts Brooklyn Museum Carnegie Institute, Pittsburgh Chase Manhattan Bank Collection, New York Detroit Institute of Arts Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York James A. Michener Foundation, Allentown, Pennsylvania Museum of Modern Art, New York Nebraska University Museum Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia linger Manufacturing Company Collection, New York Tate Gallery, London Union Carbide Corporation, New York V/adsworth Atheneum, Hartford Walker Art Center, Minneapolis Whitney Museum of American Art, Nev/ York Museum of Fine Arts of Houston International Minerals and Chemicals Corp., Skokie, Illinois Art Institute of Chicago Virginia Museum of Art Krannert Museum, University of Illinois, Urbana University of Michigan Munson-Proctor Institute New York State Administration Center, Albany, New York Owens-Corning Fiberglass Building, Toledo, Ohio .

Bibliography - JAMiiS BROOKS

Abstract, Fp inting and Sculrture in ATnerica . by Andrew C. Richie, Museum of Modern Art, 1951, reproduction,’ p. 13o»

tract AF>s Painting , by Thomas B. Hess, Kev/ York Viking Press, 1951, pp. 137-142, reproduction pp. l40-l4l.

.Modern A ^'1 rtist in America . Motherwell, Reinhardt, V/hittenborn-Schultz, New- York, 1951, reproduction p. 64, sym.posium pp, 8-22. Twelve Americans , by Dorothy Miller, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1956, reproduction p. 14, 16-20.

American Painting Today , by Nathanial Fousette-Dart Hastings House, New York, 1957. Color reproduction p. 63. Statement p. 114.

The Story of Modern Art , by Sheldon Cheney, Viking Press, New York, 1956, pp. 645-646. Reproduction p. 645.

Three Hundred Years of American Faintin g . by Alexander Eliot. Time, Inc., New York, 1957, pp. 272-73. Re- production in color.

Modern Art, A Pictori al Anthology , by Charles McCurdy, Macmillan Company, New York, 1956. Reproduction p. 177.

II Docum.enta * 59 (Malerei) by Verlag M. Dumont Schauberg, 1959. Reproductions pp. 112, II3.

A Handbook to the Gug~genheim Museum Collection , Solomon R.

( Guggenheim oundation , New York, 1 959 7 ) . Repro- duction p. 29.

Art Since 1945 chapter on American Art by Samuel Hunter. Harry N. Abram.s, Inc., New York, 1959, PP* 324-326. Color reproduction p. 135* Reproduction p. 166. Also published by Abrams in paperback.

Art, New York, The New American Painting- , Museum of Modern 1959. Biography pp. 88-89. Statements p. 24. Re- productions pp. 25, 26. Color reproduction p. 26. Samuel Hunter. Modern American Faint 5 nr and Sculpture , by Dell, Laural edition. New York, 1959. Reproduction p. 45. 95

^bibliography - JAKES BROCKS (Continued)

K odern Pai ntij2£j ge_p ent Trends . by Nello Ponente. Skira ’ i960. Color reproduction p. 155. N_ornhologie__Autre , by Michael Tapie. i960.

r oimd_t pub. h.eJlorj^ , by Harry Abrair.s, Hew York, 1966. Reproduction. James Brooks , by Samuel Hunter, '^hitney Museum and Frederick Fraeger, New York, I963.

American oi.ir Art of Century , by Goodrich & Baur, Frederick Fraeger, 196I’. Color reproduction p. 21, The World of Abstract Art , by American Abstract Artists. George Vvittenborn, New York, 1957. Color reproduction p. 122.

The Unknov/n Shore , by Dore Ashton, Little Brown & Co., 19^2 . Reproduction p. 83,

History of Modern Art , by H. H. Amason, Harry Abrams, 1969 i Two reproductions.

James Brooks and the Abstract Inscape . by Irving Sandler, Art News, February 19^>3*^ i color reproduction - A black & white.

As Paint Leaves the Brush . Time Magazine, February 8, I963, 2 color reproductions, portrait.

James Brooks , by H. H. Arnason, Art International, March 1963. ^ black & white, 2 color reproductions.

Who*s Who In America

International V/ho's Who

International Dictionary of Biography .

Bibliography - JAMbS BROOKS (Continued)

1. Baigell, M. "American Abstract Expressionism and Hardedges Some Comparisons." Studio . Jan. 1966. P « i 3 •

2. Chaet, Bernard. Artists At Work . Cambridge, Mass.i Webb Brooks Inc., I960.

3. Chaet, Bernard. "Concept of Space and Expression: An Interview. Arts . Jan. 1959. p. 6?.

4. Cummings, Paul. Dictionary of ^ontemnorary Am-eric an Artists . W. Y.l St. Martin's Press, 1966. p. ?0-71.

5» "Deepening Stream: Exhibition at the Borgenicht Gal- lery. Art Digest . Feb. 15, 1954. p. 15+.

6. Eland, U. N. "Trends and Traditions: Recent Acquisi-

tions." A lbripht-Knox Art Gallery Notes . Spring 1964. p. 14-15.

7. "Exhibition at Jackson Gallery." Art News . Feb. I968. p. 10.

8, "Exhibitions at Jackson Gallery." Arts . March 1968. p. 62

9. "Exhibition at Kootz Gallery." Art News . Dec. 1964. p. 17.

10 . "P^xhibition at Stable." Art News. Feb. 1959* P» 13*

11 . "Exhibition at Stable Gallery." Arts . Feb. 1959* P*56

12 . "Exhibition at the Perdot Gallery." Art Diyest . Feb. 1953. P. 14.

13. "Exhibition of Abstractions, Peridot Gallery." Art

News . Feb. 1952. p. 39* l4. "Exhibition of Musical Abstractions at Peridot Gallery'.'

Art Digest . April 15t 195D* P* 20.

15. "Exhibition of Paintings at the Stable Gallery." Arts and Architecture . April 1959« P* 10*

16. "Exhibition of Paintings at Stable Gallery." Art News . April 1957* P* 10* Bibliography - JAMES BROOKS (Continued)

17 . "Exhibition of Paintings at Stable Gallery."-^-i-Lery. Ar^.Arts April 1957 . p. 63.

18. "Exhibition, Peridot Gallery," Art Digest . Feb. 1951. p. 18. 1,

19. "Exhibition, Peridot Gallery." Art Digest . March 1, 1951. p. 17.

20. "Exhibition, Peridot Gallery." Art Hews . April I950. p. 56.

21. "Exhibitions, Peridot Gallery. Art News . Feb. I963. p. 30-I+.

22. "Exhibitions, Peridot Gallery. Art News . March 1951. p. A5.

23. Flanagan, George A, Understandi ng and Enioving Modern Art, N. Y.j Thomas Crowell Co., 1962,'

2E. "Flight ^ Around the Rotunda of the Seaplane Terminal Building at La Guardia Airport." Newsv/eek. Sent. 19^2. p. 76.

25. "Flight Murals at La Guardia Airport, By J, Brooks." Art News . Oct. 15, 1942 . p. 7.

26. Goodrich, Floyd, and Baur, John I. H. American Art of our Century . N. Y.» The Whitney Museum of American Art, 1961.

27. Haftman, Werner. Paintings in the Twentieth Century . N, Y.i Frederick A, Fraeger, i960.

28. Hess, Thomas B. Abstract Painting: Background and

American Phase . N. Y.i Viking Press, 1951 .

^ 29. Hunter, Sam. Art Since 19 5 . N. Y.t Harry H. Abrams Inc., 1958.

30. Hunter, Sam. James Brooks . N. Y.i The Whitney Mluseum of American Art, I963.

31. "Jackson Follockt American Artist's Symposium." Art

N ews . April I967. p. 31* • .

Bibliography - JAMES BRCOKS (Continued)

32. "James Brooks." Magazine of Art . Jan. I953. p.24-5+,

33* Kunitz, S. "Among The Gods: Poem," Art in America Oct. 1965, p. 49-50.

34. McCurdy, Charles ed. Mod ern Art ... A Pictorial An- thology . N. Y.j The Macmillan'' Company , 1958';

35. METRO International Directory of Contemnorarv Art. Milan: Metro, 1964,

36. Moritz, Charles ed. Current Biogra-phv 19^9 . N, Y.t The H. W. Wilson Company, 1959 • p» 46-49.

37. Motherwell, Robert, and Reinhardt, Ad. eds. Modern A rtists, in America . N. Y.: Witteborn Schultz Inc., 1951.

38. "Mural at La Guardia Airport Commemorates Man's Con- quest of Air." Art Diaest . Oct. 1, 1942, p, 11.

39» Pierson, William H., and Davidson, Martha eds. Arts

of the United States . Athens: University of Georgia Press, I960.

40. Ponente, Nillo. Modern Painting: Contemrorerv

Trends . Geneva: Skira, i960.

41 . Pousette-Dart , Nathaniel ed. Paintings. Watercolor.

Lithographs . N. Y.: Clayton Spicer Press, 1946

42. Rago, R. E. ed. "My Visit With James Brooks: Inter-

view." School Arts . Sept. 1962. p. 31-2.

43. "Recent Show at the Stable Gallery." Arts and Archi-

tecture . May 1957» P» 11

44. Ritchie, Andrew Carnduff. Abstract Painting and

Sculpture in America . N. Y.t The Museum of Modern Art, 1951.

45. Hodman, Selden. The Eve of Man . N. Y.: Devin-Adair, 1955.

46. Hosenberg, H. "Art World; Exhibition at Martha Jackson." New Yorker. March 6, 1971* P* 75-8. .

Bibliography - JAMES BROOKS (Continued)

^ 7 . Rosenstein, H. "Beyond Control." Art - News . Feb. 1971. p. 48 9 . ^8. Sandler, 1. H. "James Brooks and the scape." Abstract In ArtJi^. Feb. 1963. p. 30.-^! ^9. York Letter." Quadrum . 1963.

50. "Show of Abstractions at Borgenicht." Art News. Feb, 1954. p. 45. — —

51. Kootz Gallery." ^^1964' ^p Arts . Dec

52. Wholden, R* G. "Paint and Fable in Los Angeles."^ Arts. March 1964 . p. 4 l, 100

Biography » CONRAD MRCA-RELLI

Born in Boston, Mass, I913

Studied in New York City W.P,A. Art Project, 1930 *s One of the artists who founded the "Eighth Street Club", 19^ and 9 ? was active in the organization of the first Annual Show" on Ninth , , . . Street, New York Visiting critic at Yale University, I959

S^alected

Niveau Gallery, New York, 194 ?, I949 Galleria II Cortile, Rome, I949 New Gallery, New York, 1951 Stable Gallery, New York, 1953 , 1956 , I958 Frank Peris Gallery, Hollywood, I956 Galleria La Tartaruga, Rome, I957 Galleria del Naviglio, Milan, 195? Kootz Gallery, Nev/ York, 1959 through 1964 Playhouse Gallery, Sharon, Connecticut, i960 Bolles Gallery, San Francisco, I961 Joan Peterson Gallery, Boston, I96I Institute d*Arte Contemporaneo, Lima, Peru, I96I Galeria Schmela, Dusseldorf (with Robert Motherwell), 1961 Galorie do France, Paris, I962 Galerie Charles Lienhard, Zurich, I963 Tokyo Gallery, Japan, I963 Galleria Bonino, Buenos Aires, I965 James David Gallery, Coral Gables, Florida, I967 Makler Gallery, Philadelphia, I967 Whitney Museum of American Art, New York (Retro- spective Exhibition), 1967 Rose Art Museum, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass., 1967-1968 University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, I968 Alpha Gallery, Boston, I968 Albright “ICnox Members Gallery, Buffalo, New York, 1968 Reed College, Portland, Oregon, I969 Seattle Art Museum, Washington, I969 Marlborough Gallery, New York, 1970 University of Maryland, (with Adolph Gottlieb) 1970 101

Albright“Knox Gallery, Buffalo, New York Art Institute of Chicago, Illinois Massachusetts Bundy Art Gallery, »Vaitsfield, Carnepe Vermont Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Cleveland Museum of Art, Ohio Colby College Art Museum, V/aterville, Maine Detroit Institute of Arts, Michigan University. Cambridge, Mass. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York Herron Museum of Art, Indianapolis, Indiana High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Georgia Houston Museum of Fine Art, Texas Los Angeles County Museum, California Memorial Art Gallery, Rochester, New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York James A, Michener Foundation, Allentov/n, Penna, Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Minnesota Munson~Williams”Proctor Institute, Utica, New York Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelnhia St. Paul Gallery of Art, Minnesota San Francisco Museum of Art, California Seattle Art Museum, Washington Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri V/hitney Museum of American Art, New York University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa University of Nebraska Art Galleries, Lincoln Yale University, Nev/ Haven, Connecticut a

102

Bibliography - CORRADO (CONRAD) MRCA-RELLI

1. ''Action From the Gluepot* Exhibition at Manhattan's - Whitney Museum.” Tim . Oct. 20, 196?. p. 76 7 .

2. Arnaso, N. H. Horvard. Marca-Kelli . N.Y.t Harry N. Abrams Inc., 19^2.

Stable Gallery". Art .News . 3 . Ashton, D. "Exhibition at April 1955* P*

4. Ashton, D, "Exhibition of Giant Collages at the Stable Gallery". Jan. 1957. p. 33. Collages". 5 . Butler, J. T. "Marca^Relli March 19^8. p. 202.

6. "Canvas“on-canvas Collages at Stable Gallery".

Digest . March 15 » 1955. p. 26. 10. Artists at_Jiorji. Cambridge, Mass.* Webb 7 . Chaet, Bernard. Brooks Inc., i960 . Transformed* Interview". 8 . Chaet, Bernard. "Collage

Arts . June 1959* Paintings with Biographical Note", iiousa 9 . "City Square? 162. and^^ar^na.. Dec. 19^7. p. 132,

Coates, T.M. "Art Galleries* Exhibition at the Kootz". Yorker . Nov. 25> 1961. p. 217.

i. 11 "Collages at the Stable Gallery". Art? . ArdTi'i'tvQ 64-5. June 1959 . P.

12. "Conrad Marca-Relli at Marlborough-Gerson" . AidlS. Feb. 1970 . P. 64. Marca-Relli". 1954 no. 30. 13 . "Corrado di p. 19 « Aa?x 14. Cummings. Paul. P-»n t?r.P prOT l^ Press. 19o6. p. 197- Ar+.ints . N. Y.I St. Martin's

Feb. 1959. P* I'*-* 15. "Exhibition at Kootz". Art Ke.i:'a. Kootz". Alia. Feb. 1959. P- 6 l. 16 . "Exhibition at .

103

Bibliography - CORRADO (CONRAD) MARCA-RELLI (Continued)

17. ‘'Exhibition at Kootz Gallery”. Art_J^ews . Dec. I959 .

18. Koota Gallery”. AsiLiiililS. Dec. 196 I.

19. “Exhibition at Kootz Gallery”. . Art-Hev/s Dec. I962 . P . -*>»

20 . “Exhibition at Kootz Gallery”. July 1964. p • •

21 . “Exhibition at Kootz Gallery” May i960 . p. 12 .

22 . . Exhibition at Kootz Gallery”. Art News . Nov. 1964. p. 12 ,

23. “Exhibition at Kootz Gallery”. Arts . May 196o.p. 60 . 24. “Exhibition at Kootz Gallery”. Ax-ts . Sept. 1959 . p. 1. 25. H Exhibition at the Stable Gallery". ArtB . Nov. I956 . p. 58.

26 . "Exhibition at Stable Gallery”. Ax-t Newc; . April 1955. p. 44.

27 . “Exhibition at Stable Gallery*'. Art New?; . Feb. 1958. p. 11. 28. “Exhibition at the Marlborough-Gerson Gallery”. ^Art Mm. Feb. 1970 . p. 18.

29 . "Exhibition, New Gallery”. Jan. 15, 1951. p. 18.

. “Exhibition, 30 New Gallery”. Art_Hews . Jan. 1951. p.46.

31 . "Exhibition, Niveau”. Art News . April 1947. p. 43 .

32 . "Exhibition, Niveau Gallery”. Art .Digest . April 15, 1947 . p. 32 .

33. "Exhibition, Niveau Gallery”. Dec, 1949 , p. 59 . 0

104

Bibliography - CORRADO (CONRAD) MARCA-RELLI (Continued)

3 ^. ’’Exhibition, Stable Gallery”, Ant_N_ey/s , March 1953, p • •

35* ”Fifty~Six Painters and Sculotors”, Art in Ane^rira Aug, 1964, p. 33,

36, Goodrich, Floyd and Baur, John I. H. A^ericpn Art nf ihlXJImiilirx- N.Y.j The Whitney Museum oi American Art, 1961 ,

37« Hamilton, G, H, ’’Painting in Contemporary America”, lllQ--Eiu::lijig:Lcui_J Ja . May i960, p, 197,

38. Henning, B. Edward ]^h2^^1_Ahsi:.r.^ ct Art , Clevelandi The Cleveland Museum of Art, I90O,

39. Janis, Harriet and Blesh, Rudi, C olla,^e. P er sonali- gp t- hn Phil, & N.Y.j Chilton Co,, 1962,

40. Judd, D, ’’Exhibition at Kootz Gallery”, Arts . Jan. 1962, p. 64.

41. Mandelbaum, E, "Figure in the Center”. Art Mewp; . Sept. 1967. p. 58-9.

42. Mastai. M. L. D. "Cloutagei A New Art Form”. April 1963. p. 278.

43. Mastai, M. L. D. "Cloutaget A New Art Form. Connoisseur . July I963. p. 218 - 219.

44 . METRO International Directory of Contemnorarv Art .

Milan* Metro, 1964 .

45. Moritz, Charles ed. Current Biography 1970* N.Y.i The H. V/. Wilson Company, 1970» P* 276-9.

46. "New Canvas Collages at the Kootz Gallery”. Arts and Architecture, April 1959. p. 10.

47. ’’Now Painting at the Stable”. Arts and Architecture. April 1953. p. 34.

40. Nordness, Lu ed. Art* USA? Now , Lucerne* C. J. Bucher, 1962. ' »

105

Bibliography - CORRADO (CONRAD) MARCA-RELLI (Continued)

49. Page, A. F. "Contemporary American Collate". Detroit. . Bull it an - - 1958 59 . p. 91 3 . 50. "Paintings at Stable Gallery". ArtJDiiLest. Marcha j.:,.m 1953 c p. 19.

51. Preston, S, "Latest Work at The Kootz Gallery". i'lep'a May i960, p. 229. 54. 52. "Recent Collages at The Kootz Gallery". !Lh.o_,B.urling- l£>nJ;?.5:aainv^ April 1959 .

53 "Recent Paintings at Stable Gallery". Art s. Feb. 1958. p. 55.

Rodman, Selden. The Insiders . Baton Rouges Louisiana State University Press, i960.

55. "Segunda Bienal Internamericana de Mexico". Arts de 1961. p. 16.

56. Seitz, William C. The Art of Assemblage. N. Y. The Museum of Modern Art, I961,

57. "Stately Collages! Exhibition at Stable Gallery". Nov. 1956. p. 36+.

58. "Surrealist Paintings at Niveau Gallery". Art

Digest . Nov. 15 » 1949 * p. 21 .

59. "Three Collagesi Vestibule; Seated Figure; Inquisitor;

Illustrations". Art in America. Feb. 1956 . p. 26-7.

60. Tyler, Parker. Marca-.Relli . Paris* The Picket Museum, Editions George Fall, i960.

61. Tillim, S. "Exhibition at Kootz Gallery". Arts . Jan. 1962. p. 38.

62. Tillim, S. "Exhibition at Kootz Gallery". Arts . Jan. 1964. p. 30-1.

63. "University of Maryland Art: Gallery* Exhibit" Art

Journal . Fall 1970 . p. 66.

64 . Vinklers, B. "Exhibition at The Marlborough-Gerson Gallery". Art International. April 1970 . p. 64 , 106

Biography » ALFONSO OSSORIO

Born in Manila, Philippine Islaruis, August 2, I916 , Went to school in England in 1924. Came to America in 1929 Graduated from Harvard University in 1938 Studied for nine months in Rhode Island School of Design, 1938/1939

First One-man exhibition in New York at V/alefield Gallery (Betty Parsons) ending December 7, 1941 Was in the U. S. Army from 1943 to 1946 Returned to Philippines, 1949/1950, to naint the sanc- tuary of the Church in Victorias, Negros First One-man show in Paris at Studio Facchetti (Michel Tapie), in the winter of 1951 Returned to the United States and settled in East Hamp- ton, Long Island, in the Spring of 1952

Qiis.rr4c?.n. Exhibitions

V/akefield Gallery, New York, 1941, 1943 Mortimer Brandt, New York, 1945 Betty Parsons, New York, 1951» 1953. 1956, 1959, I961 Studio Facchetti, Paris, 1951

Stadler Gallery, Paris, i960 , I961 & Ekstrora, Cordier Inc., 1962, I963 , I 965 , I967 , 1968 WjorJi^jiJliiseims^nnd Private Collections

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Museum of Modern Art, New York Yale University Baltimore Museum of Art Whitney Museum of American Art Philadelphia Museum of Art Finch College, New York New York University, New York Wadsworth Atheneura, Hartford, Connecticut 10 ?

Bibliography ~ ALFONSO OSSORIO

"Portraits at the Wakefield Galleries"axieries . March 1. 19A3, p. 20.

ACil^. N. X.t bt. Martin's Press7l966Tn^22^ De 3. Bethune, A, "Philippine Adventure. Saint Joseph Murals for s Church, for Victoria's Milling Aug. P?'“ll0-i3f®''° I9fi,

4. Du Plessiic, F. "Ossorio the Magnificiont". Art ^r, iloniailQjl. March I967. p, 56“^5. 5. "Exhibition at Cordier Ekstrora Gallery". Art Nr^v/R Nov. 1963. p. 16.

6. "Exhibition at Cordier & Ekstrom Gallery" Dec. 1968. p. 16,

7. "Exhibition at Cordier & Ekstrom Gallery". Art May 1967. p. 16,

8. "Exhibition at Cordier-Ekstrom Gallery". Arts . Jan, i960* J) * *

9. "Exhibition at Cordier and Ekstrom Gallery. Arts, Dec, 1968, p. 60,

10. iJiXhibition at Cordier & Ekstrom Gallery, Arts . Dec. 1969. p. 66.

11. "Exhibition at Cordier & Warren Gallery". Art N^ws . Feb, i960, p. 14,

12. "Exhibition at Parsons". Art_News . Dec. 1958. p. l4.

13. "Exhibition at Parsons". Arts . Dec. 1958. p. 59, 14. "Exhibition at Parsons Gallery", Art News . Jan, 1952. p. 46,

15. "Exhibition at Parsons Gallery". Art Nev;s . April I96I. p. 13.

16. "Exhibition at Parsons Gallery". Art Nev/s . Feb. i960, p. 14. . .

108

Bibliography - ALFOWSO OSSORIO (Continued)

17. "Exhibition at Parsons Gallery." Arts April 1961. p. 56.

18. "Exhibition! Brandt Gallery." Art News~ June 1945. p. 30.

19. "Exhibition of Paintings at Parsons Gallery." Art Jan. 1, 195^. p. I8.

20 . "Exhibition of Paintings at Parsons Gallery." Arts.^ I^'-ay 1956. p. 52.

21 . "Exhibition, Parsons Gallery." Art Dix^est. Nov. 1951. p. 20.

22 . "Exhibition, Wakefield Bookshop." Art News. Deo. 19^1. p. 32.

23. "Exhibition, Wakefield Bookshop." Art News. March 1. 1943. p. 23.

24. Friedman, B. H. "Plastic Resurrection." Art News. Nov. 1969. p. 59-60.

25. Frigerio, S. "Ossorio." Au.i ourd *Hui . May I963. p. 26-7.

26. Glueck, G. "Shov/ at Cordier & Ekstrom." Art in Amer- ica . Dec. 1965* P« 123.

27. Howard, R. "Diabolic Craft of Alfonso Ossorio," Craft Horizons . Jan. 1967* P* 3^~7»

28. "Hour of the Hourloupe." Art Nev/s . May I968. p, 48- 9+

29. Judd, D. "Exhibition at Cordier-Ekstrom Gallery."

Arts . Dec. 1963* P« ^7*

30. Koeloff, M. "Art." Nation . Jan. 27, 1962. p. 87-8.

31. "Les Expositions A Paris." Au.i curd 'Hui « June i960.

p . 46

32. Lynes, R. "Mesh Canvas." Art in America . May 1968. p. ^7. 109

Bibliography - ALFONSO OSSORIO (Continued)

33 * ^'’iellow, J. R. “Paintings and Mixed Media Works at

Cordier & Ekstrom." Art International . Feb. I969. p. 46.

34, Neugass, R. “Kunstausstellungen in USA." Kunstwerk . April 1961. p. 47.

35 • Oeri, G. "Objects of Art." Quadrum; Revue Inter-

nationale d*Art Moderne . 1964. p. 24.

36. “Old Hat No More." Time . Dec. 19» 1969* p. 47-8.

37» "One Man’s Art U. S. A." Art News . Oct. 1958. p.47-8.

38. "Personal Backgrounds." House and Garden . Dec. I965. p. 182-3.

39. Rago, L. E. "We Visit the Artist, Alfonso Ossorio."

School Arts . April i960, p. 25-6.

40. Ratcliff, C. "Exhibition at Cordier & Ekstrom Gallerj^

Art International . Jan. 1970. p. 91*

41. Savgyrer, K. B. "Artist as Collector* Alfonso OssorioV

Studio . March 1965* P» 106-III.

42. "Shov/ of Recent Paintings at Parsons Gallery," Art

News . Jan. 195^* P* 68.

43. Seitz, William C. The Art of Assemblage . N. Y.i The Museum of Modern Art, 1'9'oOi

44. "Surrealist at Mortimer Brandt Galleries." Art Digest. June 1945» P* 9* Gabriel-Geraud 45. Tapie, Michel. Un Art Autre . Paris* Fils, 1952.

46. Tillum, S. "Exhibition at Cordier-Warren Gallery."

Arts . Feb. 1962. p. 47.

jn_Ameri_ca . Dec. 47. "Useful Objects By Artists." Art 1964. p. 60. Dec. 1964. 48. "Who Was Jackson Pollock?" Art in America. p. 60. 110

Bibliography - ALFCNSO OSSORIO (Continued) 49. Willard, C. "Drawing Today." ^ ^ America. Oct. 1964, p. 61, Ill

Biography - BERIIARD ROSENTHAL

Boro in Highland Park, Illinois, 1914 Studied at the Art Institute of Chicago Graduated from the University of Michigan Worked at Cracbrook Academy of Art in 1939, after oomolet- sculpture for the New Pair York World's

Has more than 14 one-man exhibitions, including at the Catherine shows Viviano Gallery and at the Kootz Gallery, and taxces part in most national and inter-J-n^er national exhibitions The University of IJichigan gave him an "Honor Award for Achievement, and commissioned him to create sculpture a large for the campus of the University. Another larp piece will be placed in front of the new National Collection of Pine Arts Building of the Smithsonian Institute in Vfeshington, D.cT

_Sculntures \ia Museums and Public Collections

State of New York, South Mall Project, Albany Baltimore Museum of Art Indiana University Museum of Art, Bloomington Albright-Knox Gallery, Buffalo Krannert Art Museum, Lincoln, Mass. Long Beach Museum of Art Los Angeles County Museum Lytton Savings & Loan Association Collection, Los Angeles University of California at Los Angeles Milwaukee Art Center New York City Department of Parks Columbia Broadcasting System, New York Museum of Modern Art, New York New York University liHiitney Museum cf American Art, New York Newark Museum Santa Barbara Museum of Art Illinois State Museum, Snringfield Arizona State University Museum, Temp© Smithsonian Institution, National Collection of Pine Arts, V^ashington, D.O, Bibliography - BEMARD ROSENTHAL

1. Alloway, L. "monumerjtal Art at Cincinnati." Art

3 . Ashton, B. "Modern Symbolism and Strained ‘Pon’ " Studio . I^ay I963. p. 198 .

4. ’-Bernard Rosenthal; Exhibition at Viviano Gallery." Arts and Architecture . Nov. 1957 . p. 17 .

5 . "Bernard Rosenthal: Illustrations of Recent Work." rts and Architecture . - 4 April 1955. p. 12 3 .

6 . "Bronze Abstraction: Note by the Artist." Arts and ^ Architecture . Dec. 1948. p. 25 .

7. "Bronzo, Allumlnio , Ottone, E Plamraa Ossidrica."

Doiaus . March I 960 , p. 36 .

8 . "Concerning the Reconstruction in Milan." Arts and Architecture . Peb. 1953. p. 15-7 +.

9. "Contemporary Art in a Remodeled Theater, Capri Theater, San Diego." Architectural Review.~ Mav 1955 . p. 211 - 13 .

. 10 "Contentious Sculpture." Art News . March 1955. p. 14

11. "Councilmen vs. Rosenthal: Projected l4-Poot Bronze Sculpture for the New Six-Million-Dollar Police Facilities Building in Los Angeles." Art News.

Sept. 1954 . p. 44

12. Cummings, Paul. Dictionary of Con temnorary American

Artists . N. Y. : St. Martin~’’s Press, i 960 , p. 253-4

13. Danes, G, "Rosenthal." Arts and Architecture . Nov.

1953 . P. 13-15.

14. Eagle, J. "Artists as Collectors." Art in America . Nov. 1967. p. 59.

15 . "Exhibition at Knoedler Gallery." Art News . March 1969. p. 24 . . . .

113

Bibliography - BERNARD ROSENTHAL (Continued)

16 . Exhibition at Knoedler Gallery.” Arts . March 1968 .

17. Kootz Gallery." Art News . Peb. 1962.

18 . Exhibition at Kootz Gallery." Art News . Jan. 1966 . p. 15.

19. Kootz Gallery." Art News. March 1963. p. 49. '

20 . Exhibition at ICootz Gallery." Art News. Summer 1965. p. 16 .

21 . "Exhibition at Kootz Gallery." Arts . March 1966 . p. 60 .

22 . "Exhibition at the Catherine Viviano Gallery." Arts Architecture . Jan. 1954. p. 3 4.. 23. Exhibition at Viviano." Art Dii^est . Nov. 15, 1953. p . 21

24. "Exhibition at Viviano." Arts . Peb. 1953. p. 55 . 25. "Exhibition at Viviano Gallery." Art News. Peb. i 960 , p. 16 .

26 . "Exhibition at Viviano Gallery." Arts. Peb. I 960 , p. 58.

27. "Exhibition of Bronze Sculpture at Viviano." Art News. Dec. 1953. p. 6l

28. "Exhibition, Santa Barbara Museum." Art Nev^s.~ June 1952 . p. 88 .

29 . Geretts, W. "Bernard Rosenthal, Recent Sculpture."

Arts and Architecture . March 1963 . p. 20 -i

30 . "Harby vs. Modern Art; Los Angeles Councilman Criti- cizes Rosenthal's Sculpture for Police Department's New Building." Newsweek. Aug. 9, 1954. p. 54.

31 . Heinrich, T. A. "Bernard Rosenthal, Sculptor." Arts

and Architecture . Peb. 1953. p. 15-7 +* .

114

Bibliography - BERNARD ROSElimL (Continued)

32. "Henry Moore: an Interview.” Artn 4. May -Jll Arcniteoture 1947 . p. 33 +. 35. L.A.'s Police Statue.” New York 5 Magazine . I'larch 27, 1955 . p. 78.

34. "instaUation of a Monumental Work Entitled the Gold Chloaso."

35. Gallery.” Peb. ‘^"'l 962 !’p?47 l^^'^^''“ 36 Langsner, J. "Art News from Los Angeles: Abstract Bronse Sculpture at the New Police Facilities Building. Art News . April 1955, p. 15.

37. Langsner, J. "New Sculpture of Bernard Rosenthal. II Arts and A rchltecture . Peb. i 960 , 8-9 41. p. l +. 38. Marshall, J. "Something is Rotten in L.A." Arts Bi^e^t. April 1 , 1955. p. 5.

39. "Metal Sculpture at Viviano Gallery." Art News. Peb. 1958. p. 12. 40. "New Sculpture by Bernard Rosenthal.” Arts and Architecture . March 1962 . p. 14-5,

"New Work at Viviano ’s.” Progressive Architecture. 46. April i 960 , p. 282.

42. "New York: Exposition Be Sculptures Bans Central Bark. Architecture d * Au,iourd *hui . Bee. 1967 . p. iv.

43 . Normile, J. "Bernard Rosenthal." Arts and Archi- tecture . June 1947. p. 24-5 +.

44. Raynor, V. "Exhibition at Kootz Gallery." Arts. - March 1963 . p. 68 9 .

45 , "Recent Bronze Sculptures." Arts and Architecture.

April 1950 . p. 20-1.

Roberts, 0. "Lettre de New York." Au .1ourd ' hul . Jan.

1965 . p. 54 . .

Bibliography - BERITARD ROSENTHAL (Continued)

47* Rodman, Selden. Eye of Man. K. Y.: Bevin-Adair 1955.

48. Rose, E. "Blowup—The Problem of Scale in Sculpture."

Art in America . July 1965 . p. 86 +,

. 49 "Rosenthal at Knoedler." Arts . March 1968. p. 18 .

50 . "Sculptor Ifho Works in V/elded Bronze." Art Dir^est.

Nov. 1, 1953 . p. 12.

51 . ‘’Sculpture in Bronze: Exhibition at the A.A.A. Gallery, Art Bia:est . Dec. 1, 1950. p. 18 .

52 . "Sculpture in Cinema: Rosenthal's Ballet Dancers in the New Motion Picture Behave Yourself." Arts and Architecture . Sept. 1951. p. 35.

53* "Sculpture in Public Buildings: Work at the Elementary

Laboratory School on the Campus at UCLA." Art News .

Jani 1950 . p. 53 .

54 . Seilis, H. J. "Los Angeles: the Rosenthal Affair." Arts Pi zest . Peb. 15» 1955. p. 15.

55 . "Show at the Catherine Viviano Gallery." Arts and

Architecture . March 1958. p. 33.

56 "Wish Granted." Newsweek . Jan. 20, 1964. p. 82. )

116

Biography - ESTEBAN VICENTE

Born in Segovia, Spain I906

Studied sculpture at School of Fine Arts of San Fernando (Madrid Changed to painting. Studio in Paris, 1927 - 1932 Came to United States in I936

Taught painting Puerto Rico, University of California in Los Angeles and Berkeley, Queens College in New York, Black Mountain College, North Carolina, New York University and Yale University Was director of the High Field School in Falmouth, Massa- chusetts

Artist in residence at Princeton University, I969 to 1970 New York Studio School of Painting, Drawing and Sculpture since 1964 Artist in residence at Honolulu Academy of Arts, Winter 1969 Artist in residence - Des Moines Art Center, Summer 1967 Awards

Ford Foundation 196I , 1962 Tamarind Lithography V/orkshop, Los Angeles, Fellow- ship 1962

One-Man Shoves

Andre Emmerich Gallery, i960, I962, 1964, 1965f 1969 Honolulu Academy of Arts, 1969 Cranbrook Academ*y, 1968 Des Moines Art Center, I967 Princeton University Museum, I965 Saint John's College, Annapolis, I963 The New Arts, Houston, I962 Primus-Stuart Gallery, Los Angeles, 196I Holland-Goldowsky Gallery, Chicago, i960 University of Minnesota Gallery, 1959 Leo Castelli Gallery, 195® Rose Fried Gallery, 1957f 1958 Egan Gallery, 1955 Frumkin Gallery, Chicago, 1953 Peridot Gallery, 1950, 1951 Kleeman Gallery, 1937 Dayton Art Institute, 1963 B. C. Holland Gallery, Chicago, 1963 117

Group Exhibitions

Tho Fils'! Gonors-'t i j '* on Tho Musourn of Modorn Arfu, 1969 "Contemporary Painting and Sculpture from New York Galleries," The Wilmington Society of the Fine Arts, 1969 "Tamarind: Homage to Lithography," The Museum of Modern Art, I969 "One Hundred Contemporary American Drawings," The University of Michigan Museum of Art "American Painting in the Nineteen-Fifties," The Uni- versity of Georgia, 1968 "Annual Exhibition," Whitney Museum of American Art, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1966 "Permanent Collection," Washington Gallery of Modern Art, 1966 "Society of Contemporary American Art Show," Chicago

Art Institute, 1959 » 1966 "Black Mountain College," Reece Museum, 1966 "Art Across America," Knoedler & Co., New York, 1965 "The Drawing Society National Exhibition," The Amer- ican Federation of Arts, I965 Pavilion of Fine Arts, Nev/ York World’s Fair, 1964 "Contemporary American Fainting and Sculpture," Uni- versity of Illinois, 1963 "Abstract Drawings and Watercolors: U.S.A.," Museum of Modern Art Circulating Exhibition, I963 Sao Paulo Biennale, graphic section, I963

"Art Since 1950 » U.S.A.," Seattle World’s Fair and Brandeis University, 1962 "Abstract Expressionists and Imagists," Guggenheim Museum, I961 "American Vanguard," Austria and Yugoslavia, USIA, 1961-2 "The Art of Assemblage," The Museum of Modern Art, 1961 "Continuity and Change," Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford 1962 "6th International Exhibition," Mainichi Newspapers, Tokyo, 1961 Carnegie International, Pittsburgh, 1958, 1959. 196I "64th American Exhibition," The Art Institute of Chicago, i960 "100 Works on Paper," Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, 1959. I960 "60 American Painters," Walker Art Center, i960 "Contemporary American Painting, Columbus Gallery of Fine Arts, i960 Corcoran Biennial 118

Group Exhibitions (Continued)

•'Museum Director’s Choice," Baltimore Museum of Art, 1959 "New York and Paris Fainting in the Fifties," The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, I959 "Aspects of American Painting," Galerie de France, Paris, and Sidney Janis Gallery, 1952 " 9 th Street Show," 1950 "New Talent Shov/," Kootz Gallery, 1950 "Collages By American Artists," Art Gallery, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, October, I971 "Four New Jersey Artists," The Newark Museum, October

29 to December l 4 , 1969 " ..

119

Bibliography - ESTEBAN VICENTE

Vicente." Arts and Architectnrp ^^Feb^'1960

2. Ashton, D. "Perspective de la Peinture Americaine , Cahiers d*Art . i960, p. 216.

3. Ashton, D. "Recent Collages." Arts and Arch i tpo+nr*^ April 1958. p. 32.

4 . Ashton, D. "Recent Paintings at the Andre Emmerich Gallery." Studio . June 1962. p. 21?.

5. Brumer, Miriam. "In the Galleries t Esteban Vicente." Arts Magazine . Sept. /Oct. I969. p. 59.

6. Campbell, Lawrence. "Esteban Vicente." Art News.

Oct. 1969. pp. 12 , 72.

7 « Canaday, John. "Artt Results of a Foreign Study Pro- gram." The New York Times . Sept. 27, 1969. p. 27.

8. Cummings, Paul. Dictionary of Contemoorarv American Artists . N. Y.8 St. Martin's Press, I966. pTT93.

9. DeKocning, E, "Vicente Paints a Collage." Art News . “ Sept. 1953 * P* 33 41 +.

10 . Edgar, N. "Im.portance of Being Casual." Art News . - Dec. 1985* p. 44 5 .

11 . "Exhibition at Allan Frumkin's Gallery, Chicago." Art

Digest . June 1953 * P« 14 .

12 . "Exhibition at Castelli." Arts . Dec, 1958 . p. 57 *

13 • "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery." Arts and Architec- +. ture . Feb. 1959 * P* 10

14 . "Exhibition at Egan Gallery." Art News . Feb. 1955 * p. 58.

15 » "Exhibition at Emmerich Gallery." Art News . Jan.

1964. p. 11 .

16. "Exhibition at Emmerich Gallery." Arts . March i960. p. 57. 120

Bibliog-raphy - ESTEBAN VICENTE (Continued)

17. "Exhibition at Fried Gallery." Arts . April 1957. P • 57 •

18. . "Exhibition, Bonestell ’ s " Art News . April 15, 1941. p • t

19* "Exhbition of Abstractions at Peridot Gallerv."^ Ar*t Eews . Nov. 1951, p. 47.

20 . "Exhibition of Paintings at Egan Gallery." Art Di- E « Feb, I5, 1955. p. 26.

21. "Exhibition of Paintings at Fried Gallery." Art News. E'arch 1957. p. 8.

22 . "Exhibition, Peridot Gallery." Art Direst. Nnv. 1 1950. p. 20.

23. "Exhibition, Peridot Gallery." Art News . Nov. I950. P. 50.

2 E. "Five Shows Out of the Ordinary; New Collages at the Rose Fried Gallery." Arts . Feb. I958. p. 49. 25. "Four Artists in Newark Museum." Record . East Or- ange, New Jersey. Oct. 30, I969.

26. "Four Contemporaries on Show." The Home News. Oct. 26, 1969.

27. Garcia-Herraiz , E. "Cronica de Nueva York." Goya . Nov. 1969. p. 179.

28 . "Gris: Reality Curbed." Art News . May I958. p. 30- 33.

29. "Group of Seven at Fried Gallery." Art News . June 1956. p. 53.

30. Gruen, John. "Esteban Vicente." New York Magazine. Sept. 8, 1969. p. 57.

31 . Hess, Thomas B. Abstract Pa i nting: Backg^round and

American Phase . N. Y.i Viking Press, 1951 .

32. Hess, Thomas B. "Esteban Vicente; Exhibition at the

Emmerich." Art News . March I962. p. 43+. • ,

121

Bibliography - ESTEBAN VICENTE (Continued)

* Hunter Sain. 33 f ^Action Paintingi La Generazione Eroica." L*Arte Roderna . XIIl/ilO. p. 55. Re- production in color, number 3. I958.

3 ^. Hunter, Sam. iviodern American Painting and Sculpture . N. Y.« Dell Publishing Co. , 1959 .

35 » "Is Today’s Artist With or Against the Past?” Art . News June 1958 . p. 45+.

36. Janis, H. and Blesh, R. "Collage." Craft Horizons. Sept. 1962. p. 33.

37. Janis, H. and Blesh, R. Collage. Personalities-Con- cepts-Techniques . Phil. & N. Y.« ChiTtonCo,, 1962,

38. "Jersey Artists Set in Newark Exhibit." Newark Rec- ord . Nov. 26, 1969.

39 * Judd, D. "Exhibition at Emmerich Gallery." Arts . Feb. 1964. p, 31.

40 . Langsner, J. "Is There an American Print Revival? -

Tamarind Workshop." Art News . Jan. 1962 . p, 35.

4 1 . Lens on, Michael. "New Show at f/luseum.” Newark Sun-

day News . Nov. 9 i 1989 *

42 . "Ronth in Review; Exhibition of Collages at the Rose

Fried Gallery." Arts . Feb. 1958 * P* 49 .

43. "New Jersey Artists." The Norning Call . Paterson, New Jersey. Nov. 6, 1909

44 . "New Jersey Artists Featured in Upcoming Show at Mu-

seum." Herald . Irvington, New Jersey. Oct. 30 » 1969.

45. "New Museum Opens Art Show." News . Bernardsville New Jersey. Oct. JO, 19 ^ 9 .

. Nov. 46 . "Nev/ Paintings at Peridot Gallery." Art Digest 15, 1951. p. 22.

47. "9 Shows for Spring; Esteban Vicente at Emmerich." Art News. March i960, p. 38. 122

Bibliography - ESTEBAN VICENTE (Continued)

48 . "Nothing to Unlearn." Newsweek. Fph. io i oAo p. 95 .

49. Oeri, G. "Object of Art." Quadrumt Revue Interna- tionale d*Art Moderne . 196Fi p. 16.

50. Pincus-Witten, Robert. "New York." Art Forum. Nov. 1969. pp. 80-81.

51. "Portrait." Art . News Jan. 1951 . p. 43.

52. "Portrait." Art News Annual . 1959 . p. 122 .

53 * Rago, L. E. ed. "Evening v/ith Esteban Vicente."

School Arts . Oct. 1966. p. 2 ?- 8 .

V, 54. Raynor, "Exhibition at Emmerich Gallery." Arts . April 1962. p. 58.

55 . Salny, Nacie. "Lively Art Show Blends Works of 4 Jerseyans.” Daily Record . Nov, 6, I969,

56. Sandler, Irving. "In the Art Galleries." New York

Post . ^iarch 11 , 1962, p. 12,

57 . Schjeldahl, Peter. "Exhibition at Emmerich Gallery."

Art International . Nov. 19 ^ 9 . p. 72 .

58. Schjeldahl, Peter. "New York." Art International . XIII/9. Nov. 1969.

59. Schulze, F. "One-Man Show at Holland-Goldowsky , Chi- ‘*'» cago." Art News . Summer i960, p, 53

60. Seitz, William C. The Art of Assemblage . N. Y.i The

Museum of Modern Art”, I961 .

61. "Show at the Rose Fried Gallery." Arts and Architec-

ture . March 1957 . P* 8.

62. "Shows Drawings at Castelli." Art News . Dec. 1958 .

p. 48 .

63. "6 Star Shows for Spring." Art News . March I962. p. 43+. . .

123

Bibliography > ESTEBAN VICENTE (Continued)

64 . "Spanish Painter of the Soil; Exhibit ion, Klee Mann Galleries." Art Nev/s. Mav 1937. p. 1 I • 65. "This Year's Whitney Annual." Arts Dec 1958 . p. 48 .

66 "The Village Scene." Art. Feb. 27, 1962 APPENDIX D

Pilot Film Production Costs 125

Pilot Film Production Costs

A break down of time and expenses*

6 ^ds.ys shooting time New York City inc, l6mrn and videotape

7 days editing film Richmond Va.

7 days sound tracks Richmond Va.

3 days editing and sound track i” videotape Charlotte N.C.

TOTAL - 23 days'*'

120 hrs. travel time

6.000 miles ^ 10 ?^ per mile inc. gas, oil, tolls $ 625.00

3.000 ft of film inc. processing, opticals, workpr5nt and 3 answer prints 1140.00

IViaterials * editing, titles, tapes 334.00

Location expenses* 9 days^^' 675.00

Equipment rental 34.00

Legal 50.00

TOTAL ^ 2858.00

* Averaged on the basis of an 8 hr. day X 6 men inc. video crew, for filming in N.Y.C. 268 man hours X 2 men for editing in Richmond 113 man hours X 2 men for sound in Richmond 113 man hours X 3 men video crew in Charlotte 72 man hours

586 total man hours

*-'*'Loca tion for 6 (l 6mm crew and video) for 6 days N.Y.C. 1 man 3 days Charlotte N.C. APPENDIX E

Projected Production Costs ) .

127

These are approxiinately the expenses one might encounter for a 33TTiin. film 1,200 fi et Production Expenses* Color Film Costs/Msterials Stock Raw Footage, Processed, 1 to 10 shoot- Workprinted 1200 Feet (€2?^; ing ratios: Per Foot) $ 330.00 X 10 = $ 3300.00

Opticals (© $2,00 Per Fade, $4.00 Per Dissolve) Include Special Effects 150.00 Mix ($110.00 Per Hour) 330.00 Mag Track & i*' Tape (Mag 3 ^ Foot; Opticals $10 Per 100 Feet) 144.00 Titles 150.00 Answer Prints (2) (Opticals excluded 384.00 Release Print 168.00

Film-I-ab expenses $ 1656.00 $ 4626". 00

Sound figured at i film expense $ 800.00 $ 2313.00 Editing Costs/Moviola - Rental (2 v/eeks) 175.00 1000.00 •t^diting -c-quipm.ent Rental (Moviescope, etc.) 150.00 (Splicing Tape, Gloves, Black leader, etc.) 75.00 Salaries (Scratch Crew) per week X 3 wks = 3000.00 Salaries (Editor's Crew )(2 per week 500.00 X 3 wks = 1500.00 Insurance 300.00 Movie i^quipment Rentals per V/eek 400.00

$ 3400.00 $ 7900.00

Location Costs/Lodging, Board, Transportation, (Scratch Crew per week) $ 1000.00 X 3 wks =$ 3000.00

Total $21,139.00^ .

128

* Represent total projected costs for 3 weeks of filming comparable to the dissertation film.

Above figures are based on published price listings: Filmtech Inc., l8l Notre Dame Street, Westfield, ^';ass Movielab, 619 West 54th Street, New York, New York 69/70 appendix f

Personnel Cost:

Union and Probable Non-Uni . 5

130

IViobile Un its I.A.T.S.E. Probable Non- Documentary Union Scale Scale #1 Scratch Crew

Director $ 300/wk /day Cameraman $ 350 250/wk 250-300/day Asst. Camera & Lighting 200/wk 120/day Soundman 2 SO/wk 80/day ^1000/wk #2 Full Crew

Director $ 300/wk $ 350/day Cameraman 250/wk 250-300/day Lighting Director 200/wk 120/day Asst. Camera & Asst. Light. 1 80/wk 120/day Soundman 250/wk 80/day Asst. Sound 1 80/wk 6 /d ay ^1360/wk

#3 Major Production Crev/

Director $ 300/wk $350 /day Cameraman #1 250/wk 250-300/day Cameraman #2 250/wk 120/day Cameraman (Asst.) ( 2 ) 360/wk 120/day/per ($180 each) Lighting Director 200/wk 120/day Asst. Lighting 1 80/wk 65-80/day Soundman 250/wk 60/day Asst. Sound 1 80/wk 80/day

Grips ( 2 ) 300/wk 65-80/wk ($150 each) f22'?07wk

Studio

1 Full Time Editor $ 250/wk $400/wk 1 Cameraman - Asst. Editor 200/wk 200/wk 2 Asst. Cameramen - Editors 360/wk 200/wk ($180 each) i 810/wk

N.B, Asst. Cameramen - Editors may overlap with audio assistants APPENDIX G

Dissertation Film Production Costs i

132

Dissertation Film Production Costs

A break down of time and expenses 20 days shooting time Hamptons 3 days shooting time Mew York City 30 days editinp time N *Y tC ./Greenfield Mass. days sound ^ tracks N .Y . C ./Greenfield Mass. 90 days Total

278 hrs.^ travel, time by two Econoline Vans 28,000 miles @ 100 per mile inc. gas, oil, and ' repairs $ 2,800.00 Additional travel Air/personal car 642.20

Lab/12,000 ft. film and processing, wk. prints opticals, answer prints 5,329,26

Sound 1,195.00

Labor (excluding crew) 695. 00

Materials/editing, titles, tape 863.13

Location expenses/23 days’^"^* 1 , 320.00

Equipment rental 52,00

Legal 1,010,00

Total $13', 906. 59

* One day’s filming involved approximately 1,200 feet of film Averaged on a 8 hour day (most often exceeded) x 4 men or 2,848 man hours *«•* 4 men (scratch crew) ^ $60.00 per day

The above figures are determined by receipted checks in a double-entry bookkeeping system. AFFEI^DIX H

Equipment Description and Costs

l6mm equipment

(A), (b) and (C) are close approximations of cost

and kind of equipment needed to produce films comparable to the dissertation film on a regular basis IJk

simifl-EQuiMG EouTPi-iFrii' (A)

COST BESCEimfill EACH IQTAL 2 Moviolas 16 mm Console ^ 3,055 2 Counters for Moviolas $ 6,110.00 Zeiss 155 310.00 3 Movie scope Viev/ers 132 2 396.00 Nev/ made Power Rewind 198 10 Rewinds (W/Shafts, 396.00 Spacers 36 and Clamps) 360.00 3 NFC Tightwinds 35 105.00 3 Precision Unitized Synchronizers 4 - Gang 225 Mag Amps 675.00 85 255.00 Mag Attachment 50 Film Bins 150.00 3 59 Misc. Editing 177.00 Supplies 3,000.00 (Split reels. Reels & Cans, Editing Benches, Chairs, Tape, Cement, Black Leader, etc») 3 Guildtine Splicers 185 555.00 1 Meier Hancock Tot Splicer 299 299.00

$12,788.00 QR

1 Steambek Editing Table $10 , 000.00 135

CMHERk EQUIPMENT STT IPIQ FOnTPT.TT? ^rp | (B) COST EACH IHTAL EAMSBA-^3oniEtSIlI 1 Eclair NPR vVGIBID Motor $ 4,585 $ 4,585.00 1 12.120 Angenieux Lens 86o 860.00 1 5«7 F 1.8 Tegis Lens 600 600.00 1 Sunshade 20 20.00 5 Magazines AOO* 822 3»288.00 1200 * 1,000 1 , 000.00 1 Triijod NCE Model H 621 621.00 1 Burns & Sawyer Dolly 200 200.00 1 Camera Case 85 85.00 3 Magazine Cases 45 135.00 1 Lighting Package 600 600.00 Seiconic Studio Meter 45 45.00 Misc. Filters, etc. 1,000 1 , 000.00 Battery Pack 305 305.00 Spot Meter 130 130.00 Gossen Color Temp Meter 6o 60.00 A/C Sync. FM Ellair 666

TQT/^X_C AIgM._EQU IPMENT $14,200.00

1 Arrifley BL 4,840 4.840.00 2 400* Magazines 360 720.00 1 1200® Magazine 640 640.00 Lighting Package 1,600 1.600.00 Misc. Fuses, etc. Lamps Gaffers Tape 1,000 lAopiLLLa

$ 8,800.00

TOTAL C AliEH A_ AND_ STUDIO $23,000,00 ^

136

!JJi IIS_XIiE,0IllICTTo^| /\jTn Tn) ( c

COST 2 Nagra 111 PHO MQi 1,200 2 ATN Pov/er Supply $2,400.00 1 PA Accunmlators 47.25 94.50 1 PAR Charger 6? 67.00 2 EM Microphone Mixer 35 35.00 2 CB Cable 141.75 283.50 8.40 1 AI^3 Condenser Mic 16.80 Psr. Supply 99.20 2 EB 48 Beyer Headphone 99.20 1 SLO 80 160.00 Synchi'onizer 456 1 CL Cable 456.00 8.40 1 SV Speed 8.40 Adjuster 45.60 1 CS Insulated Screen Cable 45.60 1 CN Cable 9.50 9.50 12,40 1 CM 12.40 Multiple Plug 8.40 2 HTF Case 8.40 34 2 4® 68.00 Case 14 4 25* 28.00 Case 18 2 50® 72.00. Case 22.50 1 45.00 Ainego M-2 l6mra Port Recorder 1,995 1 Ampex Ag*»440 Tape 1.995.00 Recorder 2,350 2.350.00 1 Ampex Ag-500 - 2 Tape Recorder 1,524 1.524.00 1 Hi«2 Bulk Eraser 75 6 Sennheiser 75.00 Lavaliere Misc. 110 660.00 1 Sennheiser Condenser Misc. 24o 240.00 1 Sennheiser MKH 804 Misc. 342 342.00 2 Battery Adaptor 19.50 39.00 2 Nagro Cable to Condenser Misc. 31 62.00 1 Sennheiser Oraidirectional 115 115.00 1 Atlas Porto Boom 465 465.00 1 Ortofor Tone Arm 60 60.00 1 Thorens Turntable 149 149.00 1 Model Spu/t Cartridge 45 45.00 1 Atec FM Turner Arnp 399 399.00 2 Altec Loud Speakers 199 398.00 1 Altec Monitor Speaker 327 327.00 1 Altec Compressor 187 4.000.187.00 I Altec Power Amp 240 240.00 1 Altec Mixer Amp 297 297.00 1 Atec Graphic Equalizer 585 585.00 1 Pultic Sound Eff. Filter 296 296.00 1 Fairchild Auto-Ten 135 135.00 1 Monitor Panel 51 51.00 1 Switch Panel 49 49.00 1 Cassette Dubber 4.000 00

1 Triple Magasync Dubber 6.000 6 . 000 00 137

nTi

MSSBimM COST 1 Hite Vor, Filter ^ mu XQ^AL $ 900 $ 900,00 1 Health Kit Harmonic Distortion 70 Meter 70.00 1 Sienens Double l6mm 2»195 2,195.00 1 25inin Lens 40 40.00 1 50mm Lens 78 78.00 Wise. Wire, Jacks, Switches, Lights, Tools and Replacement parts. Test Equipment, Inter- com, etc. 1,500 1,500.00

$29,777.30 APPENDIX I

Coniparable Sony Videotape Equipment

Plans I, II and III are suitable for producing material similar to the dissertation film in a

black and white video format 139

FLAN I

s'" Black & Vthite Video Format

SONY Videorecorder II Model AV 3400/AVC 3 AOO

a completely portable, battery-operated VTR ^ system $ 1,495.00

CUM- 92 OV Portable Monitor/TV Receiver 195,00

10 V- 30H 30 inin. Tapes @ $21.95 219 . 50

Spare BF -20 Battery Pack 35.00 AC -3400 Battery Charger/AC Adapter 65 . 00

DCC-2400 Car Battery Cord 19.50 RFU-54W RF Adapter Playback through regular TV 49.50

F -98 Dynamic Mic 13.50

CMC-1 Video Monitor Cable 6 . 50

Basic Package - Total Cost $ 2,098.00

(Best suited for portable use in the field. Flexible but not suited for production work.) 140

FLAN II

2” Black & White Video Format

(Includes all of Plan I with the exception of CU^: 92OV Portable Monitor $ 195.00 CMC-1 Video Monitor Cable 6.50 ) PLUS:

TAV -3610 Video Tape Recorder with Built-in Monitor $ 950.00

2 Additional Mies F ~98 Lynamic Mic ^ $13 *50 27.00

MX-300 Mic Wiper 55.00

LC- 3^00 Carrying Case for Video Rover II 65.00

Hercules'"*’ - 5312 3/^ Hercules Tripod with Elevator 215.00

PLAN I Total Cost $2,098.00

Minus! CUM 920V $195.00 CMC -1 6. 50 $1,896.50

PLAN II Additional Cost 1 x112^^0

PLAN II - Total Cost $3,206.00

(Best suited for expanded concept within Plan I. Better playback facility and use in recording larger groups.)

* Can double for l6mm film tripod I4l

FLAN III

I-" Black & White Video Format

(Includes all of Flan II with the exception of« TAV 3^10 ^ideo Tape Recorder with i^uilt-in Monitor $ 950.00 Add 2 items deleted from Flan II: CUM 920V 195«00 CMC-l 6.50)

CUM 220 VA Monitor/TV Receiver 295.00

AV3650 Videorecorder 995.00

SEG-1 Special Effects Generator 595.00

VCL-8 Wide Angle Lens 8 , 5’^Tn FI. 5 70.00

Hercules 5^02 Dolly 115.00

FLAN II Cost $ 3,206,00

Less 950.00 $ 2,256.00

Plus 2.271.50

PLAN III - Total Cost $ 4.517.50

PLAN III, including CUM 920V and CMC -1 for greater flexibility, is a more production oriented package with an ability to produce quality tapes. AFPEMDIX J

List of Co-operating Galleries

for Pilot Filin 143

Co-operating Galleries

involved in Pilot Film *

Bonino 7 west 57th street New York City

Dav,Ti 29 west 57 th street New York City

Allan Frumkin 41 east 57th street New York City

Martha Jackson 32 east 69th street New York City

Pace 32 east 57th street New York City Stephen Radich 818 Madison ;avenue New York City

Stable 33 east 74 th street New York City

Waddell 6 west 57 th street New York City

H oward Wise 50 west 57th street New York City

^ Names and addresses of galleries when pilot film was made (February I969). apflkdix k

List of Firms Contacted for Funding 145

Firms Contacted

The American Film Institute, Washington, D, C.

Evergreen Press, Nev/ York City

Fairchild Corporation, New York City

Grumbacker Artist Materials, New York City

Harry Abrams Publishing Company, New York City

Javits, Trubin, Sillcocks & Edelman, New York City

Macmillan Publishing Company, Nev/ York City

Motion Picture Corporation, New York City

Praeger Films (David Bell), New York City

Saturn Pictures Corporation (William P. Wilson), New York City

Tabals, Kurnit & Ruden, attys.. New York City

Technicolor Corporation, Nev/ York City and Los Angeles

Universal Film Inc. (Educational Division), New York City

Zerox Corporation, Connecticut 146

AFPiiNDIX L

List of Artists Filmed for Dissertation 14 ?

16 Artists Filmed

Norman Bluhm

James Brooks

Herman Cherry-

Jimmy Ernst

V/illiam King

Lee Krasner

Ihrarn Lassaw

John KacWann

Conrad Marca-Relli

John Opper

Alfonso Ossorio

Ray Parker

Bernard Rosenthal

Syd Solomon

Estaban Vicente

Lucia Wilcox .

148

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Filin Aesthetics

Agee, James. Agee on Film . Fev York: Joan Obolensky, Inc., 1954.

Arnhein, Rudolf. "Art Today and the Film." Film Culture. Fall, 1966, pp. 43-46.

Arnhein, Rudolf. Film As Art . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957.

Chapman, Uilliam Mck., ed . Films on Art . American Federation of Arts, 1952.

Cocteau, Jean. Cocteau on the Film . Lover: Lover Film Series, 1971.

Eisenctein, Sergie M. The Film Sense . Few York: Harcourt Brace, 1949.

Fuller, Buckminster. "Change as the Fundamental Norm."

Class , 1969, pp. 9, 10, 104.

Kail, Stuart, and Channel, Paddy. The Ponular Arts . Few

York: Random House, Inc., 1 9 64

Kostelanetz, Richard. The Few American Arts . Few York: Horizon Press, Inc., 1965.

Leibowitz, Herschel '7. Visual Percention . Few York: Macmillan, 19^5.

Lindgren, Ernest. Art of the Film . Macmillan, 1963.

Lindsay, Vachel. The Art of the Moving Picture . Few York: Crowell-Collier and Macmillan, Inc., 1915.

1946. Manvell, Roger. Film . Baltimore: Penguin Books,

Mizener, Arthur. "The Elizabethan Art of Our Movies." Kenyan Review, 4, Spring 1942, p. 108.

Nil son, Vladrnir. The Cinema as a Granhic Art . Hill and Jang, 1959.

II Read, Herbert. "Toward a Film Aesthetic. Cinema Quarterly Autumn 1932, pp. 7-10, 11. . •

149

Reisman, David. ^hernv. « Screeno Press, 1955,

New Yorkj Holt,

Stephenson, Ralph, and Debrix, Jean R. The Cinema as A-rt.. BaltimoreBaltimore** Penguin Books, I967, Sternberg, Josep' B'iacmillan

Tyler, Parker. *’The Film Sense and Perspectives USA . April 1955.

Film Anatomy

Production and Technique

Alton, John, paint ing with Light . New York: Macmillan Company, 19 49.

Baddeley, W. Hugh. The Technique of Documentarv Film Pro- New York* Hastings House Publishers Inc., 19o9» ,

Balaza, Bela. Theory of the Film . New rev. ed. Trans- lated by hdith Bone. British Book Center, I953. Bau, Richard L, The Film Director* A Practical Guide to Motion Picture and Television Technique . New York* Macmillan Company, 1971.

Barnet Sylvan • A Dictionary of Litera.ry. Dramatic and , ^ Cinematic Terms . Boston* Little, Brown, 1971.

Bayer, William S. Breaking Through, Selling Out, Dronring Dead; from the Academy Awards to the Zoo . New York* Macmillan Company, 1971

Brodbeck, Em.il E. Handb ook of Bas ic Motion Picture Tech- n iqu es. New York* Amphoto, 1965*

Brown, William 0. Low Budget Features . 1st ed. Holly- wood, California* W. 0, B);own, 1971*

Burder, J. The Technique of Editing l6mm Films . New York*

Hastings Hcmse , 1968 . — »:

150

Carrick. Edward. ^^L-aniJDeslim in the British Uii™ “ " ' liOndonj Dennis Dobson, 1948. —

Carrick, Edv/ard. Designing f or Motion Picturps * London Studio, 1947. Curran , Charles ^_e__Handbook of _ TV and Fi1.ni Technin . ues ^ A. Non-technica l Production Gu i de for hxecutivPP.^ New Yorki Pelligrini and Cudahy, 1953. Dav^% Charles, ed. Footnotes to the Film . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937.

Eastman Kodak Company. Basic Setting and Cinemat-i on To>' Motion Pictures . Rochester, New York: Eastman^ '•'crpv Company, 1970.

Eisenstein, Sergei M. Film Forum . New York: Karcourt Brace, 1949,

Fielding, Raymond. The Technique of Srecial Effects Cinematography" New York: Hastings House Publisher's. Inc., 1909^

Geduld, Harry M. Film Makers on Film Yaking . Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, I967,

Gessener, Robert. The Moving Im.age . New York: E. P.

Dutton & Company, Inc. , 1968.

Gibson, James Jerome. Motion Picture Testing and Research . Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1947.

Heyer, Robert, and. Meyer, Anthony. Discovery in Film . Paramus, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 19^9

Hogg, Beth. Behind the Scenes in a Film Studio (by)

El i z ab e th~Gray . London : Phenix House , 1907.

Holland, Norman. "Puzzling Movies: Three Analyses and a

Guess at Their Appeal," Journal of Social Issues . 20. January 1964, pp. 71 -96.

Huss, Roy Gerard, and Silverstein, Norman. The Film Exper - ience: Elements of Motion Picture Art . 1st. ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1968,

Jacobs, Lewis. Introduction to the Art of the Movies . New York: The Noonday Press, i960. .

151

Jordan, Thursten Ce Gloasarv of I'.iotion Fi rtiirp Menlo Park. Californiit-pSSiTirc^gr^^

imie:

Lewis, Jerry. The Total Film Maker . New York. Random House, 1971*

KacCann, Richard Dyer. Film, A Montage of TheoriPR. Npw Y orkJ E. Pe Dutton & Company, Inc., 1966.

Maneogian, Haig P. The Filmmakers* Art , hew York* Basic Books, 1966.

Mascelli, ^ Joseph W. Fjye The c*s of Cinematograrhy . Motion. Picture Filming? Technioues Simplified . Holly- wood* Cine Graphic Publications, I965.

Mascelli, Joseph V/,, ed. American Cinematogr?tr>hpr Manuel. Hollywood* American Society of Cinematographers, I969.

Mercer, John. An Introduction to Cinematogra-phy , Champaign, Illinois* Stipes Publishing Company, 1967.

Offenhauser, V/illian H, l6mm Sound. Motion Pictures* A

Manuel for the Professional and the Amateur . N ew York* Interscience Publishers, 19A9.

Pincas, Edward. Guide to Filmmaking . Box 120, Reyenfield, New Jersey.

Reisz, Karel, and Millar, Gavin. The Technique of Film

EditinjC:* Basic Principles for TV . New Yorks Hastings House, 1968

Reynertson, A, J, The Work of the Film director . Nev/ York: Focal, 1971*

Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema. Directions and Direc-

tors . New York* Dutton, 1968.

Soute, H. Marie Raimondo. The Technique of the Motion

Picture Camera . New York* Hastings House Publishers,

Inc. , 1969V

Spottiswoode, Raymond. Film and Its Techniques . Berkeley* University of California, 195i*

Taylor, Theodore. People Who Make Movies . 1st. ed. Garden City, New Jersey* Double dayV I967T .

152

University Film Producers Association. “Terms Used in Pro- duction of l6mm Nontheatrical Ivlotion Pictures." Journal of the University Film Producers Associat I on Vol. VII, No. 4, Summer 1955*

Wheeler, Leslie J. Principles of Cinematography . New Yorkt Macmillan Company, 1959,

Wollenberg, H. H. . Anatomy of the Film. London t Marshland. 194?.

Film Implications

Barnouw, Eric. Mass Communications , New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston, Inc., 1956.

Casty, Alan. Mass Media and Mass Man , New Yorkt Holt,

Reinhart & Winston^ Inc . , 19 ^8 .

Elken, Frederick. "The Value Implications of Popular

Films." Soc iolofCY and Social Research . XXXVIII (May, 195^’PP» 320-322. Emery, Edwin; Ault, Phillip; and Agee, Warren. Introduction

to Mass Comm.unications . New Yorkt Dodd, Mead Sc

Company, IncT^ i 960 .

Fearing, Franklin. Motion Picture as a Medium of Instruc-

tion and Com.munication . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1950.

Gundlach, Ralph. “How Republican is the Press?" Journal 26-32. of Social Issues . Ill (Summer 19^7) PP*

Hovland, C. I.; Lumsdaire, A. A.; and Sheffield, F. D. Experiments In Mass Communications . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 19^+9*

Klapper, Joseph T. The Effects of Mass Communications . New York: The Monday Press, 19 d01

Lowenthal, Less. Literature. Popular Culture_and Socigtj^. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, I 96 I.

MacCann. Film and Society. New York: Scribner, 1964.

( . • .

153

McLuhan , I-Iar shall y.^Agrstandinrr Kedia : ThP T^ xtenslons of Man . Yotk: Mclra’N'-Klll Book Co’npany , o4 McLuaaa , ilarshall , and Fioro , Quontin . The Ko cl jura is the An Inventory of Effects. New York: Ban tom Books, 19WT McLuhan. Karshall, and Fiore, Quentin 'far and Peace in the Global Village . Fe*f York: Bantom Books, Inc., 1968.

Marcus, Fred H. Film and Literature Contrasts in Media . Scranton: Chandler Publishers, 1971.

Tamiment Institute. Cultur e for the Millions? Mass Media in Modern Society . Princeton, Few Jersey: Van No strand, 1951.

Narshow, Robert. The Immediate Eycerience . New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1962.

Vferthan, Frederick. Seduction of the Innocent . New York: Kolt, Reinhart & Winston, Inc., 1954.

Nhite, David Manning. Sisht, Sound and Society . Boston: Beacon Press, 1968.

Film Education

The American Film Institute’s Guide to College Film

Course s , 1 969-70 . Washington, D .C . , 1 969

Brunsletter, Max Russell. How to Use the Educational Sound

Film . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937*

Clark, B. R. Edu ca tinp; the Expert Society. San Francisco Chandler Publishing Company, 1962.

Cremin, L. A. The Transformation of the School~ . New York: 9^^”! Alfred Knoph, 1

Cowie, Peter, ed . International Film G-uide . London: Tantivy, 1972.

Dand, C. H. Educational and Cultural Films . Strasburg; Strasburg Press, 1965*

Debes, John L. "The Loom of Visual Literacy: an Overview. no. October 19o9 Aud 3.0 visual Instruction , Vol. 14, 8, .

154

Dent, Ellsworth. The Audio Visual Handbook . Chicao-o:” University of Chica'-^o Press, 1946. Dunathan, Arni T.,^and Kottnian, Betty Cook. ”A Survey of the Acceptability to Selected Graduate Schools of |heses and Dissertations Reported in honprint Media." research Abstracts fo r _1Q7_Q. DAVI Rational Conven- tion, Abstract 32, 1970. o52 Guide 1 936-1 . Hew York; H. W. Wilson, 1962 .

Enser, A. _-^ilir.ed Books and Plavs . London: Deutsch, 1971.

"The Essentials of a Quality School Art Program, Washington D. C., 1969." 4 Position Statement by the Rational Art Education Association.

Evans, L. H., and Arnstein, J. E. , eds. Automation and

the Challenge to Education . Washington: Rational Education Association , 1 962

Fatten, Richolas A. Selected Films for Teacher Education . Bloomington, Indiana: University of Indiana Press, 1950.

Fenoch, Thomas. Films on the Campus . South Brunswick: A. S. Barnes, 1970.

Fern, G. H. Teaching V/ith Fil m. Milwaukee: University

of Wisconsin Press, 1 94oT

Pine, B. Teaching Machines . Rew York: Sterling Publishing Company, 1962.

Porsdale, Louis. 8mm Sound Film Sc Education . Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1962.

Godfrey, E. P. Audiovisual Eouinment and Materia l s in the

US Public School Districts, Sprinm l9o1 . .Washington: Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., 1962.

Ho ban, C. P. Movies that Tea ch. Rew York; Dreyden Press, 1946.

Lansing, Kenneth M. Art, Artist and Art Education, . Italy.

Leyden, R. C., end Balanoff, eds. The Plannin-r of Educa- tion Media for a Rew I.e.-^rning Center . Columbia,

Missouri : Stephens College, 1963* . .

155

May, M. A. I^e arning from Films . New Haven* Yale Univer- sity Press, 1958.

National Education Association Catalo rue. Publications and Audio Visual Materials, 1970-1971 . August 1970.

National Information Center for Education. Media Index to 16mm Educational Films . 2nd ed. New- York and London* McGraw-Hill, I969.

Nebraska Program of Educational Enrichment Throug^h the Use

of Motion Pictures . Lincoln* University of Nebraska Press, 1952.

New York University. "New Ph. D. Program in Cinema."

School and Society , December 1970. p. 46.

Rossi, Peter H,, and Biddle, Bruce J. , eds. The New Media

and Education* Their Im.-pact on Society . Garden City, New York* Doubleday and Company, Inc., 196?.

Schillaci and Culkin, eds. Films Deliver* Teaching

Creativity with Films . New York* Citation Press, 1970.

Schrank, Jeffrey. Media in Value Education* A Critical

Guide . Chicago* Argus Communications, 1970.

Stewart, David C. Film Study in Higher Education . Wash- ington* American Council on Education, 19^6

Whannel, Paddy, and Harcourt, Peter, eds. Studies in the Teaching's of Film within Formal Education . The Education Department of British Film Institute, 1964.

Film History

Fenin, George N., and Everson, William K. The Western*. From Silents to Cinerama . New York* Grossman Publishers, Inc., 19^2

Houston, Penelope. The Contemoorap Cinema . Baltimore,

P^aryland » Penguin Books, 1963*

Jacobs, Lewis. The Rise of the American F_i lm* New York* Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1939* York* Harper Kauffman, Stanley. A World on Film . New and Row, 19^6. e ,

156 Knight, A. "Flood of Film Eoohs." Saturday Decemher Review? . 26, 1970, pp . 13-17. Knight, Arthur. The Liveliest Art; A Panoramic Hietnrv of the Movies , ilew Yorh: haciijillan Company, i 957. Ramse Terry. y, A Killion an d One Kip;hts: A History Kotlon of Pict ure. II el.- York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1964.

Renam, Sheldon. An Introduction to the American Un der- ground Filin . il \j 9~67 York: Dutton"^ r .

Pa. rker. g x c I-i th y of the Mo vies « New York: Holt, Reinhart & 'iinston, Inc., 1957,

yol fen stein , Iiartha, and Leites, llathan . Movies: A Psycholorical Study . New York: The'^Free Pres's 1950.